Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Water energy and economic analysis of wheat production under raised bed and
conventional irrigation systems: A case study from a semi-arid area of Pakistan
Zahid Hussain a, Mohammad Azam Khan b,*, Muhammad Irfan b
a
Raised Bed Project, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The project’s aim was to reduce Pakistan’s water use and consequently its costs in semi-arid crop
Received 2 November 2009 production system by increasing awareness, benchmarking water use and targeting practical solutions
Received in revised form 25 February 2010 for optimising water use with raised bed irrigation system. The aim of this study was to compare water as
Accepted 28 April 2010
well as energy used in wheat production on raised bed (RB) and conventional farming systems in
Pakistan in terms of energy ratio, energy and water productivity and benefit/cost ratio of the two
Keywords: systems. The values of all energy inputs and output were converted to energy farm. Economic analysis
Raised bed
was performed for each crop. The total energy requirement under RB farming on two understudy sites
Basin
were 3653 kWh ha1 and 4455 kWh ha1, whereas 3910 kWh ha1 and 4752 kWh ha1 were consumed
Water productivity
Energy productivity under conventional farming, i.e. 6% higher energy inputs were used on conventional farming than RB
Pakistan farming system. Average energy ratios of 6.3 and 4.6 were achieved under the RB and conventional
farming systems, respectively.
The main conclusion of the study is that in RB farming system, water, seed and fertilizer energies
applied were properly utilized but in the conventional (basin) system some parts of the applied energies
vanished due to many reasons.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is a well-known fact that nothing is more important to human
beings than sustainable and reliable food production. In this
respect availability of water and energy is and will continue to be
an important foundation in agriculture that can assure sustainable
and reliable food production. However, the conservation and
management of water and energy are the two key issues for
researchers who need proper consideration to reduce the cost of
these two commodities in such a way that the reduction in price
should not result the decrease in agricultural productivity.
Pakistan has experienced a golden era of water resources
development during eighties with well-developed canal irrigation
system. However, time to time droughts lower down the outcome
which could have been achieved in the presence of this marvellous
system; the country hardly could come out from eye opening shock
of drought, which remained almost 3 years (1999–2002). The
drought caused the over use of ground water, which required energy
(the country is deficient in this commodity) (Economic Survey of
Pakistan, 2008-09). Moreover, it has been noted that water
availability to agriculture is expected to fall from 72% in 1995 to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 966 750057.
E-mail address: azam369@yahoo.com.au (M.A. Khan).
62% by 2020, globally, and 87% to 73% in developing countries (Khan
et al., 2006). In agrarian country like Pakistan, agriculture without
water or acute shortage of water will have detrimental effects on
economy, as the agriculture sector directly contributes almost one-
fourth of its GDP and engages more than 40% of the total employed
labour force of the country (Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2008-09).
Traditionally crops, especially wheat, in Pakistan are sown on
flat basins which are flooded for irrigation. Conveyance and deep
percolation losses causing water shortage to crops associated with
overexploitation of groundwater has prompted a search for
alternative methods of water application to the crops, like raised
bed (RB) technology, to meet agricultural water demand.
It is believed that RB technology was first adopted for the wheat
crop to save water in Mexico (Sayre and Hobbs, 2004). In Yaqui Valley
of Mexico almost all farmers adopted furrow-irrigated bed planting
systems for more or less all crops in the last more than 30 years.
In around 1998 the technique of planting various crops,
including wheat, on raised bed with irrigation water confined to
furrows between the beds was imported to Pakistan from Australia
under Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR) program. With this program studies were conducted
under a national project to simulate the adaptation of raised bed in
wheat, maize and cotton crops in the country.
Besides water saving for the crops, this water application
method was also considered as one of the causes of reduced water

0167-1987/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2010.04.007
62 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67

logging and improved seed rate of crops (Hobbs et al., 2000;
OFWM, 2002; Talukder et al., 2002; Sayre and Hobbs, 2004).
Therefore, it is popular in many developed countries including
Australia (Fischer et al., 2005). RB faming system was also
considered as energy saving technology, due to improved methods
of mechanical weeding and fertilizer application (as water along
with fertilizer is delivered more efficiently to the root zone of
plants in RB system than many other forms of irrigation system).
RB technology also reduced lodging and consequently facilitated
harvesting. Singh et al. (2009) understand that the additional
benefit of the technology includes zero or reduced tillage and
consequently reduction in diesel, labour and machinery cost, with
improved soil structure in wheat–rice crops production system.
However, almost all the authors confined their studies to see the
water saving in RB system of irrigation; whereas, energy is equally
an important aspect for study in the system while comparing it
with tradition basin method. Moreover, these authors and many
other restricted their studies to see the merit of RB. There is no
doubt that RB system has been proved better system than basin in
many studies but what the demerits of basin are and what the
benefit we can take with those demerits, is a big question mark.
A study was conducted with the aim to evaluate the
performance of water and energy parameters of raised bed
irrigation system for the production of wheat grown on two sites
(Mardan and Swabi) of the NWFP, Pakistan having some what
different soil conditions. The specific objective of the study was to
examine and compare water and energy consumption in crop
production operations, in raised bed irrigation system and basin
irrigation system, and in result of production process, out put of the
crop (grain and biological yields), and water and energy use
efficiencies for the above-mentioned irrigation methods. The
economic budget provided information in terms of monitory
inputs and outputs on farmer side.
2. Materials and methods
The study was conducted on farmer’s fields pairs, each of which
consists of one raised bed and one conventional irrigation system, i.e.
basin, in the two districts (Sawabi and Mardan) of the North West
Frontier Province (NWFP) with different soil textures. Each farm pair
shared almost a similar biophysical and socioeconomic environment
due to their proximity. Since there were fewer raised bed farms than
conventional farms in the area, raised bed farms were identified first,
followed by selecting comparable nearby conventional counter-
parts. The conventional farms were selected primarily according to
closeness to their respective raised bed counterparts.
Pre-testing of the questionnaire forms prepared was done in
some local areas. Therefore, the application of the survey forms
facilitated providing sufficient information for the aims of the
study. Data were collected for the crop period of 2008–2009 via
repeated semi-structured interviews with producers and corrobo-
rated with farm visits.
Overall climate of the project locations is arid to semi-arid
subtropical continental with mean seasonal rainfall of 200–250 mm
in summer (May–September) and almost 300 mm during winter
(October–April). The soil texture class and other physical and
chemical characteristics of soils of the two sites are given in Table 1.
2.1. Energy analysis
Generally, 50 HP tractors were used for tillage and other
cultural practices on both production systems. Soil cultivation
activities were performed mainly between November and May. On
the farms of Mardan, irrigation source was canal water while on
the farms of Sawabi, the irrigation was done with tube-wells. The
farmers have installed centrifugal pumps for irrigation. The
farmers in these areas usually own electric motors (mostly
7.46 kW) to power irrigation pumps. In some part close to banks
of the nearby canal, farmers have diesel engine to power
centrifugal pumps usually from November to May. The water
table in this area ranged from 3 m to 10 m.
For the calculation of energy inputs from human labour, the
product of man hours and the estimated rated power was used.
Human labour was rated at 0.075 kW (Panesar and Bhatnagar,
1994). To calculate energy inputs from electric motor, the product
of number of motor hours, power rating of a motor and load factor

Table 1
Some physical and chemical properties of soil layers at the two experimental sites.

Location Mardan

Depth (cm) Texture EC (mS/cm) Soil pH

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

0–10 Clay loam 0.45 0.026 7.40 0.000

11–20 Clay loam 0.40 0.020 7.35 0.058
21–30 Loam 0.38 0.025 7.35 0.058

Depth (cm) Texture Organic matter (%) Available phosphorus (ppm) Available potassium (ppm)

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

0–10 Clay loam 0.96 0.087 6.27 3.555 268 12.583

11–20 Clay loam 0.83 0.086 5.81 3.490 253 9.574
21–30 Loam 0.71 0.066 5.40 3.315 240 18.257

Location Sawabi

Depth (cm) Texture EC (mS/cm) Soil pH

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

0–10 Loam 0.39 0.003 7.60 0.028

11–20 Loam 0.32 0.015 7.70 0.038
21–30 Loam 0.18 0.028 7.70 0.038

Depth (cm) Texture Organic matter (%) Available phosphorus (ppm) Available potassium (ppm)

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

0–10 Loam 0.67 0.007 4.88 0.023 90 1.708

11–20 Loam 0.52 0.003 4.20 0.638 70 12.247
21–30 Loam 0.78 0.041 4.15 1.737 50 4.500
 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67
were used (Khan and Singh, 1997). The load factor was equal to
actual electricity consumed (read from energy meter) during
operation over electricity consumed at rated power.
Ec ¼ F c  T c  Load factor
where Ec is the energy output of the electric motor (kWh); Fc the
energy consumption of the motor on energy meter (kWh h1); Tc is
the time consumed in operation (h).
Actual electricity consumed
Load factor ¼
Electricity consumed at rated power
The output of tractor and diesel engine (for water pumping) was
calculated by the product of fuel consumed by tractor, machines or
diesel engine, time consumed in operation, calorific value of the
fuel and load factor (Khan and Singh, 1997). The load factor was
equal to actual fuel consumption over fuel consumed at rated
power.
Ec ¼ F c  T c  C v  Load factor
where Ec is the energy output of the machine (kWh); Fc the fuel
consumption of the machine (l h1); Tc the time consumed in
operation (h); Cv is the caloric value of the fuel (kWh l1).
Actual fuel consumed
Load factor ¼
Fuel consumed at rated power
The materials like seed, fertilizer and agro-chemicals used in
crop production were transformed to energy equivalent by
multiplying the quantity of the material used in the plots with
the energy value of each material available in the literature
(Panesar and Bhatnagar, 1994; Khan and Singh, 1996, 1997;
Demircan et al., 2006). Water was applied either by pumping
ground water or by canal and its energy equivalents were applied
according to the systems of water application.
2.2. Energy efficiency, energy and water productivity
In this study, energy efficiency, specific energy, energy
productivity, water productivity and combined water and energy
productivity for wheat production were calculated using the
following equations as suggested in literature (Canakci et al., 2005;
Mandal et al., 2002; Khan et al., 2004).
Total energy output ðkWhÞ
Energy efficiency ¼
Total energy input ðkWhÞ
Amount of energy applied ðkWhÞ
Specific energy ¼
Grain yield ðkgÞ
Grain yield ðkgÞ
Energy productivity ¼
Total energy input ðkWhÞ
Grain yield ðkgÞ
Water productivity ¼
Amount of water applied ðm3 Þ
Combined water  energy productivity
Grain yield ðkgÞ
¼ (9)
Amount of water ðm3 Þ and energy ðkWhÞ applied
2.3. Crop profitability
Gross return, net return to farmer, energy profitability and
water profitability were calculated to envisage the better option of
farmers. Net economic return was calculated to estimate the
63
economic efficiency of wheat production. The net economic
returns of the crop were calculated as gross returns minus the
cost of all variable inputs, which included the cost of labour hour,
machinery used, irrigation, seed, fertilizer, and chemical; whereas,
(1)
energy and water profitability were calculated by dividing the
amount of the specific commodity over gross return.
2.3.1. Price estimates
Prices highly influence investment calculation. In the analysis,
all stochastic variables such as yield, price, etc. were used by their
(2)
actual values as told by the farmers. The price estimates for various
input and output are as follows.
Regarding charges of human labour, the prevailing market rate
of 8 h work was Pakistani Rupee (Pak Rs.) 250–300 (1US$ = 0.012
Pak Rs.). The hourly rates for the use of electric motor or diesel
engines to power irrigation pumps depend upon the electricity or
fuel (diesel, oil, etc.) consumed. The charges (including taxes) for
the use of electricity to run electric motors to power irrigation
(3) pumps were almost Pak Rs. 10.00 per kWh and the rate of diesel
and oil was also round about Pak Rs. 63.00 per litre. Canal irrigation
charges in the country are based on the crop of a particular plot.
The charges are fixed and there is no bar on the number of times of
irrigation. The charge for wheat was almost Rs.100.00 per hectare.
Cost of tractor operation includes labour cost for the operator,
(4)
which was calculated separately. Operating cost includes fuel,
lubrication, and repairs for power units and implements; and
overhead costs, which include depreciation, interest on investment
in machinery, property taxes, insurance and housing.
A common seed rate of wheat varied from 110 to 140 kg ha1 in
the area. On an average the price of seed was Pak Rs. 40–45 in
Sawabi district and Pak Rs. 45–50 per kg in Mardan District.
Five types of fertilizers and chemicals were applied by the
farmers; cost of particular fertilizer and chemical varied depending
on the type of fertilizer and chemical used, in the area.
Gross value of output was computed using an average market
price (farm gate price) that was almost Pak Rs. 22,000–24,000 per
ton of wheat.
Certain operations were performed on contractual basis. For
these types of operation, the farmers did not apply the energy by
themselves, however, paid for the energy applied by the
contractor, therefore, for these operations energy consumption
was calculated based on data of other farmers of the area and the
charges were counted according to the amount the particular
(5)
farmer paid for that particular operation to the contractor. It was
observed that in some operations the farmers paid more than three
times of the amount for that operation than if they would have
(6) done themselves.
3. Results and discussion
(7)
The research results cover two main components; namely the
energy and water requirements on basin and RB farms for wheat
production along with the energy and water input–output
(8)
relationships and economic results of the production activity.
3.1. Energy and water requirement and input–output relationship of
wheat production
In wheat production system, fertilizers have the biggest
proportional share (53%) of the total energy used on wheat
production in Sawabi, followed by machinery (22% on basin and
24% on RB) and seed (14% on basin and 12% of the total energy on
RB). On Mardan farms the share of fertilizer energy was 63% on
Basin and 67% on RB farming system (Tables 2–5).
Overall share of human energy remained only 0.15% of the total
energy in both types of irrigation systems in Sawabi, whereas in
64 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67

Table 2
Per hectare energy inputs for various operations for the production of wheat on Basin Irrigation System in Sawabi.

Operation Labour (kWh) Machinery (kWh) Pump (kWh) Seed (kWh) Fertilizer (kWh) Chemicals (kWh) Total (kWh)

Seedbed preparation 1.39 407 0 0 0 0 408

Bed formation 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sowing 0.19 0 0 554 0 0 554
Irrigation 1.30 0 456 0 0 0 457
Fertilizer 0.08 0 0 0 2053 0 2053
Chemical 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harvesting 1.48 0 0 0 0 0 1
Threshing 1.48 434 0 0 0 0 436

Total 5.91 841 456 554 2053 0 3910

Table 3
Per hectare energy inputs for various operations for the production of wheat on Raised Bed Irrigation System in Sawabi.

Operation Labour (kWh) Machinery (kWh) Pump (kWh) Seed (kWh) Fertilizer (kWh) Chemicals (kWh) Total (kWh)

Seedbed preparation 1.12 358 0 0 0 0 359

Bed formation 0.28 93 0 0 0 0 94
Sowing 0.09 0 0 455 0 0 455
Irrigation 0.74 0 262 0 0 0 262
Fertilizer 0.09 0 0 0 1919 0 1920
Chemical 0.19 0 0 0 0 124 124
Harvesting 1.49 0 0 0 0 0 1
Threshing 1.49 436 0 0 0 0 437

Total 5.49 887 262 455 1919 124 3653

Mardan it was 0.14% on basin and 0.12% on RB. The energy use of
human labour for land preparation, fertilizer application, harvest-
ing and threshing was significantly higher than that of conven-
tional basin production system. Similarly, significant difference
between the two systems was observed in water application
operation on both sites.
Amount of machinery (tractor) energy per hectare needed to
produce wheat on RB farms was significantly higher than the basin
farms. Use of machinery energy was higher in RB system due to bed
formation and threshing operation. Sowing operation was
performed with tractor driven drill only on RB farming at Mardan.
On the other sites, wheat was sown by broadcast method.
Significant difference in energy consumption was observed in
pumping irrigation water on Sawabi farms and application of canal
water energy on Mardan farms. On Sawabi farms, irrigation energy
on basin farms was 174% higher than RB farms; whereas, on
Mardan farms, quantity of canal water was 60% higher on basin
irrigation system. In basin system, conveyance losses and deep
percolation from the start of basin to end of the basin increased the
required amount of water. In RB system, deep percolation and

Table 4
Per hectare energy inputs for various operations for the production of wheat on Basin Irrigation System in Mardan.

Operation Labour (kWh) Machinery (kWh) Canal water (kWh) Seed (kWh) Fertilizer (kWh) Chemicals (kWh) Total (kWh)

Seedbed preparation 0.56 178 0 0 0 0 179

Bed formation 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sowing 0.19 0 0 605 0 0 605
Irrigation 1.39 0 537 0 0 0 538.30
Fertilizer 0.74 0 0 0 2990 0 2991
Chemical 0.74 0 0 0 0 1.07 1.81
Harvesting 1.48 0 0 0 0 0 1.48
Threshing 1.48 434 0 0 0 0 436

Total 6.58 613 537 605 2990 1.07 4752

Table 5
Per hectare energy inputs for various operations for the production of wheat on Raised Bed Irrigation System in Mardan.

Operation Labour (kWh) Machinery (kWh) Canal water (kWh) Seed (kWh) Fertilizer (kWh) Chemicals (kWh) Total (kWh)

Seedbed preparation 0.56 186 0 0 0 0 187

Bed formation 0.19 62 0 0 0 0 62
Sowing 0.14 47 0 454 0 0 500
Irrigation 0.56 0 215 0 0 0 215.32
Fertilizer 0.76 0 0 0 2989 0 2989
Chemical 0.37 0 0 0 0 1.07 1.44
Harvesting 1.48 0 0 0 0 0 1.48
Threshing 1.48 496 0 0 0 0 498

Total 5.54 791 215 454 2989 1.07 4455

 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67 65

Table 6
Analysis of energy inputs and outputs, energy and water use efficiencies on Basin and PRB for the wheat crop production in Mardan and Sawabi.

Variables Units Mardan Sawabi

Basin RB Basin RB

Labour kWh 6.58a* 5.54b 5.91c 5.49d

Machinery kWh 613a 791b 841c 887d
Water kWh 537a 215b 456c 262d
Seed kWh 605a 454b 554c 455b
Fertilizer kWh 2990a 2989b 2053c 1919d
Chemical kWh 1.07 1.07 0 124
Total energy inputs kWh 4752a 4455b 3910c 3653d
Water used (canal/pumping) m3 2983a 1193b 599c 518d
Yield (grain) kg 2965a 4448b 2716c 3099d
Straw kg 1186 1779 3395 3874
Total energy outputs kWh 16,213a 24,320b 22,862c 26,087d
Energy efficiency kWh kWh1 3.41 5.46 5.85 7.14
Specific energy kWh kg1 1.60 1.00 1.44 1.18
Energy productivity kg kWh1 0.62 1.00 0.69 0.85
Water productivity with irrigation water kg m3 0.99 3.73 4.53 5.99
Energy-water productivity kg m3 kWh1 0.08 0.33 1.45 2.05
Cost of production Pak Rs. 32,364 31,561 42,721 36,700
Gross return Pak Rs. 85,219 12,0415 79,294 69,576
Net return Pak Rs. 52,855 88,855 36,573 32,877
Water profitability Pak Rs. m3 17.65 7.79 132 134
Energy profitability Pak Rs. kWh1 11.08 2.09 20.28 19.05
Benefit–cost ratio 2.63 3.82 1.86 1.90
*
Means followed by the same letters in a row are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance.

consequently conveyance losses reduced due to soil compaction
caused by the movement of tractor wheel in the rows that worked
as water channels. It is evident from many studies that the soil
compaction reduced the water movement (Ahuja et al., 1998;
Martı́nez et al., 2008; Latif et al., 2008). Quoting the farmers’
experience of Yaqui Valley, Mexico, Sayre et al. (2005) stated that
reduced amount of irrigation water was applied for all crops (up to
25% savings as compared to basin/flood irrigation). On the basis of
research in North India, Ram et al. (2005) also observed significant
reduction in irrigation water requirements for crops on beds,
consequently saving costs and energy. Hassan et al. (2005)
compared the raised bed technology and basin for four wheat
crop seasons in Mardan, Pakistan. They observed that in all four
seasons, raised beds used lesser amount of irrigation water (16–
50%) as compared to basins. They opined that less applied water in
raised bed system was due to reduced evaporation, less wetted
area and soil formation in the raised beds, and over-irrigation in
the basins. They found that the average amounts of water per
irrigation for wheat crop were 46 mm for raised beds and 78 mm
for basins.
The two systems used different quantities of fertilizer and
chemical energy. Seed energy was significantly higher on basin
than RB system on both sites. However, no significant difference in
seed energy was observed between the two raised bed farming
systems. Higher quantity of seed on basin than RB system was also
observed in North India (Ram et al., 2005).
Total energy inputs, water used in crop production process,
output of the crop, energy efficiency, specific energy, energy and
water productivity on basin and RB farming systems of the two
sites are illustrated in Table 6. The total energy inputs were 7%
higher on basin irrigation system than RB system on the two
experimental sites. However, significant difference was observed
in the consumption of water used either by canal water on Mardan
site or by pumped water on Sawabi site. Difference is much clear on
Mardan sites. The RB farms were comparatively old therefore
chances of infiltration were comparatively less on theses farms
than basin farms.
In the researched area, the mean yields of wheat grain were
calculated as 2965 and 4448 kg ha1 on Mardan farms and 2716
and 3099 kg ha1, on Sawabi farms on basin and RB system
respectively. It is generally considered that higher quantity of
fertilizer can boost the yield (Stout, 1990). However, in this
study besides applying higher quantity of seed and compara-
tively higher quantity of fertilizer, the yield remained lower on
basin than RB.
In another study performed in the context of soil compaction, it
was observed that the rows of crop which comes under tractor tire
give poor yield than the rows which remain in between the two
tires (Khan, 1986). Khan et al. (1992) observed significant
reduction in fate of wheat with increase of soil bulk density from
1.25 g cm3 and 1.35 to 1.45 g cm3.
Therefore, not only water played a significant role in RB system
but the soil compaction also depressed the yield of the rows which
were under tractor tires in basin; whereas, in case of RB none of the
sowed line of crop was under tractor tire. It seems a myth that in RB
system the gap between the beds seems wastage of resources due
to the unplanted space Fischer et al. (2005). The said authors
opined that depending on tractor wheel widths and bed planter
configurations, the unplanted gap can be between 40 and 60 cm
wide which, cumulatively can appear to occupy half of the land
area. Actually in basin also some area remains low productive but
cannot be seen, that area receives seed and fertilizer but do not give
proper yield. Therefore, the overall yield remains low in basin than
RB.
The total energy output per hectare on Mardan site were 16,213
and 24,320 kWh ha1, whereas it was calculated as 22,862 and
26,087 kWh per hectare for basin and RB production systems on
Sawabi farms. Significantly higher yields were observed on RB
farming system; consequently the energy ratios, energy produc-
tivity and water productivities were higher on RB farming system.
The input–output and other relationships of both the production
systems are presented in Table 6.
Lower values of specific energy indicate that consumption of
energy on per kg product was less on RB system.
As far as the two sites are concerned, the difference in energy
ratios was also quite significant between Mardan and Sawabi site.
The reason behind that may be longer time duration on RB of
Mardan site, this site of Mardan is under permanent raised bed
66 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67

farming system for more than 5 years. Therefore the water Appendix A (Continued )
channels or in other words, means of access of tractor created more Energy sources Units Energy equivalent
soil compaction than Sawabi farms, which was relatively new in Herbicide kg 238.00 MJ 66.11 kWh
raised bed technology. Another difference may be soil texture. The Insecticide kg 199.00 MJ 55.28 kWh
soil texture of Mardan site is clay loam while the soil texture of the Fungicides kg 92.00 MJ 25.56 kWh
Sawabi site is loam. This indicates that the presence of clay creates Electricity kWh 3.60 MJ 1.00 kWh
Irrigation water (m3) kWh 0.63 MJ 0.18 kWh
the difference.
Seed (wheat) kg 14.70 MJ 4.08 kWh
Output (wheat grain) kg 14.70 MJ 4.08 kWh
3.2. Net income and benefit/cost ratio of wheat production systems By-product kg 12.50 MJ 3.47 kWh

The production cost and gross product values of both

production systems are given in Table 6. According to the research Source: Canakci et al. (2005); Panesar and Bhatnagar (1987);
results, the production costs per hectare are nearly the same on Demircan et al. (2006).
both production systems. However, the mean net return is
calculated as 10% higher on conventional (basin) production than References
that of RB production system in Sawabi. In case of Mardan site, the
Ahuja, L.R., Fiedler, F., Dunn, G.H., Benjamin, J.G., Garrison, A., 1998. Changes in soil
net return on RB was 41% higher than Basin. water retention curves due to tillage and natural reconsolidation. Soil Science
In the research, the benefit–cost ratio of the two production Society American Journal 62, 1228–1233.
systems was calculated by dividing the gross product value into Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I., Ozmerzi, A., 2005. Energy use pattern of some
field crops and vegetable production: Case study for Antalya region, Turkey.
the total production cost to determine the economic efficiency. The Energy Conversion & Management 46, 655–666.
benefit–cost ratios are nearly the same on both production systems Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H.M., Akbotat, D., Ekinci, C., 2006. Energy
in Sawabi but significant difference was observed on the farms of and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case
study from Isparta Province. Energy Conversion & Management 47, 1761–
Mardan. 1769.
Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2008-09. Government of Pakistan, Finance Division
4. Conclusion Economic Adviser’s Wing, Islamabad, pp. 21.
Fischer, R., Sayre, K., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., 2005. The effect of raised bed planting on
irrigated wheat yield as influenced by variety and row spacing Evaluation and
In this study, the energy requirements of inputs and output for performance of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Asia, Australia and
RB and conventional basin production systems were examined in Mexico ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.2005.
Hassan, I., Hussain, Z., Akbar, G. Effect of permanent raised beds on water produc-
the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Data for the tivity for irrigated maize–wheat cropping system. Evaluation and performance
production of wheat were collected from two farm pairs on both of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Asia, Australia and Mexico ACIAR
production systems. Proceedings No. 121 pp.59-65.
Hobbs, P.R., Sing, G.S., Duxbury, J.M., 2000. Direct seeding and reduced tillage
The research results revealed that the energy input use on RB
options in the rice–wheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia.In:
production system was 7% lower than that on conventional basin Paper Presented at IRRI Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 25–28.
production system. The energy input of chemical fertilizer (52– Khan, M.A., 1986. Effect of soil compaction on seed/seedling performance of wheat
crop. M.Sc. Thesis University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Pakistan.
67%) on both production systems has the biggest share in the total
Khan, M.A., Chaudhry, A.D., Salokhe, V.M., 1992. Laboratory investigation into the
energy inputs. effect of soil compaction on wheat crop growth. In: Proceedings of International
On basin, the energy input of machinery (21.55%) has the most Conference Agricultural Engineering (92–ICAE), Beijing, 12–14 October.
shares in the total energy inputs in Sawabi; whereas, on Mardan Khan, M.A., Ahmad, S., Hussain, Z., Yasin, M., Aslam, M., Majid, R., 2004. Efficiency of
water and energy use for production of organic wheat. Journal of Science,
this share was 12.51% of the total energy. On average, consumption Technology and Development 24, 25–29.
of machinery energy was higher on RB than basin on the wheat Khan, M.A., Singh, G., 1996. Energy inputs and crop production in Western Pakistan.
production, indicating that both the systems depend mainly on Energy 21, 45–53.
Khan, M.A., Singh, G., 1997. Energy inputs and potential for agricultural production
fossil fuels. Furthermore, it implies that conventional farming in Western Pakistan. Agricultural System 54, 341–356.
system is very sensitive to possible changes in prices and Khan, S., Tariq, R., Yuanlai, C., Blackwell, J., 2006. Can irrigation be sustainable?
availability of fossil fuels. Agricultural Water Management 80, 87–99.
Latif, N., Khan, M.A., Ali, T., 2008. Effects of soil compaction caused by tillage and
Agriculture sector has increased its fossil resources consump- seed covering techniques on soil physical properties and performance of wheat
tion enormously to achieve higher yields. Therefore, any positive crop. Soil & Environment 27, 185–192.
change in energy consumption will bring a positive revolution in Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Ghosh, P.K., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., 2002. Bioe-
nergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production system in
the sector.
central India. Biomass and Bioenergy 23, 337–345.
Martı́nez, E., Fuentes, J., Silva, P., Valle, S., Acevedo, E., 2008. Soil physical properties
Appendix A and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and conventional tillage
systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile. Soil & Tillage Research 99,
232–244.
Energy equivalent of inputs and outputs in wheat production OFWM, 2002. Impact Assessment of Resource Conservation Technologies (Rice–
Wheat) DFID Project 1999–2002. Directorate General Agriculture Water Man-
Energy sources Units Energy equivalent agement, Lahore, Pakistan.
Panesar, B.S., Bhatnagar, A.P., 1994. Energy Norms for Inputs and Outputs of
Human h 1.96 MJ 0.54 kWh Agricultural Sector, Energy Management and Conservation in Agricultural
Machinery Production and Food Processing. USG Publishers and Distributors, Ludhiana,
(a) Electric motor h 64.80 MJ 18.00 kWh pp. 5–16.
(b) Tractor h 68.40 MJ 19.00 kWh Ram, H., Singh, Y., Timsina, J., Humphreys, E., Dhillon, S.S., Kumar, K., Kler, D.S., 2005.
(c) Farm machinery h 62.70 MJ 17.42 kWh Performance of upland crops on raised beds in northwestern India. Evaluation
Diesel (includes cost l 56.31 MJ 15.64 kWh and performance of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Asia, Australia
and Mexico ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.
of lubricants)
Sayre, K.D., Hobbs, P.R., 2004. The raised-bed system of cultivation for irrigated
Chemical fertilizers
production conditions. In: Lal, R., et al, (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture and the
(a) Nitrogen (N) kg 60.60 MJ 16.83 kWh International Rice-Wheat System. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp. 337–
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) kg 11.10 MJ 3.08 kWh 355.
(c) Potash (K2O) kg 6.70 MJ 1.86 kWh Sayre, K., Limon, A., Govaerts, B., 2005. Experiences with permanent bed planting
Farm yard manure kg 0.25 MJ 0.07 kWh systems CIMMYT, Mexico, Evaluation and performance of permanent raised
(FYM) (dry matters) bed cropping systems in Asia, Australia and Mexico ACIAR Proceedings No.
Chemicals kg 120.00 MJ 33.33 kWh 121.
 Z. Hussain et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 109 (2010) 61–67 67

Singh, Y., Humphreys, E., Kukal, S.S., Singh, B., Kaur, A., Thaman, S., Prashar, A.,
Yadav, S., Timsina, J., Dhillon, S.S., Kaur, N., Smith, D.J., Gajri, P.R., 2009. Crop
performance in permanent raised bed rice–wheat cropping system in Punjab,
India. Field Crops Research 110, 1–20.
Stout, B.A., 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture. Elsevier Applied
Science, London, p. 21.
Talukder, A.S.M.H.M., Sufi an, M.A., Meisner, C.A., Duxbury, J.M., Lauren, J.G.,
Hossain, A.B.S., 2002. Enhancing food security in warmer areas through perma-
nent raised-bed in wheat: save water and reduce global warming. Poster paper
at 2nd International Group Meeting on ‘Wheat Technologies for Warmer Areas’,
Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, India, 23–26 September 2002. Available at
www.cimmyt.org/bangladesh/.