International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 8, Issue 6, Dec 2018, 95-104
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ZERO-TILLAGE WHEAT PRODUCTION IN

EASTERN UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

AJAY SRIVASTAVA, O.P. SINGH, RAKESH SINGH & MUKESH KUMAR MAURYA
Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT

Conservation agriculture saves the cost of irrigation, energy and protects the environment while leading to
improved productivity on a sustainable basis. The present study was an attempt to analyze the farm-level impact of
zero-tillage wheat production in Kaushambi district of Uttar Pradesh. Purposive random sampling is used for the selection
of blocks, village and respondents for collecting primary data. Zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters were taken as a
respondent in the cultivation of the wheat crop. Inputs cost and yield differences of zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters
were used to analyze the economic benefits associated with zero-tillage and saving of diesel for land preparation and
sowing of the wheat crop was used as environmental benefits of zero-tillage. A study revealed that per hectare, cost of
cultivation was reduced by Rs. 7228 and yield were increased by 5.9 quintals under zero tillage as compared to

Original Article
conventional method of wheat cultivation. From the adoption of zero-tillage, per hectare diesel was saved by 28.4 liters and
therefore, 73.9 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) and 19.9 kg carbon were reduced. Among some constraints, important first four
ranks were assigned to weed problem on farmers’ field, poor soil quality, upland area and uncertainty of irrigation.
A study suggested that the government should provide subsidy on the zero-tillage machine. It will enhance the availability
of machine in the study area and it will also reduce the cost of hiring the zero-tillage machine. By adoption of zero-tillage
for the wheat sowing be beneficial in terms of yield gain, cost saving, energy saving, and environment protection and
reduction in the import of diesel which ultimate cut down the foreign exchange.

KEYWORDS: Zero-Tillage, Cost of Cultivation, Garrett Raking & RCT

Received: Oct 18, 2018; Accepted: Nov 12, 2018; Published: Dec 19, 2018; Paper Id.: IJASRDEC201814

INTRODUCTION

The term Resource conservation technology (RCT) refers to the agronomic practice that enhances resource
productivity or input-use efficiency such as zero/reduced tillage, laser leveling, bed and furrow configuration for
planting crops, etc. (Kumar et al., 2012). There are a number of available resource-conserving agricultural
technologies that reduce soil erosion and improve resource conservation. They can be defined as a rational use of
land resources, application of erosion control measures, and water conservation technologies, and adoption of
appropriate cropping pattern to improve soil productivity and to prevent land degradation and thereby enhance
livelihoods of the local communities (Grazhdani, 2013). Degradation of the natural resource-based resulting from
inappropriate land and input use is widely documented as one of the root causes of the situation (Ali and Byerlee,
2000; Erenstein et al., 2008), which has compelled many agricultural scientists and policymakers to look toward a
more sustainable path of cereal production, viz. conservation agriculture (CA) and RCTs (Erenstein and Laxmi,
2008; Gupta and Sayre, 2007). While the CA technology ensemble is based on the principles of minimal soil
disturbance, residue retention, rational crop rotation, and controlled traffic, RCTs cover all farming

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
96 Ajay Srivastava, O.P. Singh, Rakesh Singh &
Mukesh Kumar Maurya

practices/ technologies that facilitate the conservation and enhancement of resource use efficiency in farming
(Erenstein, 2009; FAO, 2010; Gupta and Sayre, 2007; Harrington and Erenstein, 2005). These sustainable agriculture
practices, which herald a paradigm shift in tillage and land preparation options, aid farmers in cost-saving and yield
enhancement by shifting from conventional tillage wheat to minimal/zero tillage wheat, moving from puddled transplanted
rice to zero tillage (ZT) direct seeding in rice, and engaging in other resource-saving practices (Hobbs, 2007).
Most prominent among such CA-based RCTs in the cereal system of South Asia is the minimal/zero tillage of wheat
(Erenstein and Laxmi, 2008; Gupta and Sayre, 2007; Laxmi et al., 2007).

Research in India on zero-tillage wheat started in the 1970s but was soon abandoned due to technical constraints
(Ekboir, 2002). However, with the involvement of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Development in
the South Asia region under the Rice-Wheat Consortium (RWC) program of the Indo-Gangetic Plains, zero-tillage
technology gained momentum in the late 1990s in north-west Indian states. Here, after the initial spread, the area under the
technology stabilized at 20–25 per cent (Erenstein, 2009). A tractor-drawn zero-tillage seed drill forms the machinery
component of the technology, which allows the wheat seed to be sown directly into unploughed fields with a single pass of
the tractor, often with simultaneous basal fertilizer application. Despite having a relatively short history of adoption, the
technology is reported to have helped wheat farmers overcome the constraint of late sowing of the crop after harvesting
late-maturing basmati rice and of the widespread incidence of the weed Phalaris minor (Mehla et al., 2000; Erenstein and
Laxmi, 2008).

The diffusion of the technology has accelerated in the early years of the 21st century, particularly in the
North-west Indo-Gangetic Plains of India, where the combined zero- and the reduced-tillage wheat area seems to have
stabilized at between a fourth and a fifth of the wheat area. Several factors make it problematic to reliably measure
zero-tillage adoption and impacts in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Zero-tillage wheat allows for a drastic reduction in tillage
intensity, with significant costs savings as well as potential wheat yield gains through the planting of the wheat crop at a
better time (Erenstein, 2009).

METHODOLOGY
Study Area

The state of Uttar Pradesh has been divided into four parts on the basis of location as, Eastern Uttar Pradesh,
Western Uttar Pradesh, Central Uttar Pradesh, and the southern part is called as Bundelkhand. Eastern Uttar Pradesh is the
most populous part of Uttar Pradesh, where agriculture is the main source of livelihood for the rural community.
Kaushambi district falls under the eastern plain agro-climatic zone of the Uttar Pradesh. A total land area of the district lies
in between the holy rivers Ganga in North and Yamuna in South and comprises of alluvial soil group having sandy and
sandy loam soil. Zero tillage, rotavator, and seed drill are mostly used as resource-conserving technology in the cultivation
of wheat crop in the district. Objectives of the present study was (a) to compare the cost of cultivation for both zero-tillage
adopters and non-adopters; (b) To estimate the economic and environmental benefit of zero-tillage; and (c) to identify the
constraints associated with the adoption of zero-tillage in the study area.

Data Collection

The present study was based on the primary data. Primary data were collected from the zero-tillage adopters and
non-adopters using pre-tested schedule. The data were collected on the quantity and price of different inputs used for crop

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.1964 NAAS Rating: 4.13

An Economic Analysis of Zero-Tillage Wheat Production in 97
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

production and crop outputs for zero-tillage adopter and non-adopters.

Sampling Procedure

Multi-stage purposive random sampling was used to select the district, blocks, villages, and respondents.
Kaushambi district was purposively selected on the basis of highest adoption of zero-tillage in the Eastern plain
agro- climatic zone of Uttar Pradesh. Out of eight blocks, two blocks viz., Newada and Muratganj were selected
purposively on the basis of highest adoption and lowest adoption of zero-tillage, respectively. Karidpur Newada village
from Newada block and Mohnapur village from Muratganj were selected purposively on the basis of availability of
zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters. From each village, 10 zero-tillage adopters and 10 zero-tillage non-adopters were
selected randomly. Thus, altogether, 40 respondents were finally selected from both villages.

Analytical Tools

For the calculation of cost of the cultivation, the cost concept developed by Commission for Agricultural Cost and
Price (CACP) was used:

Cost A1 = All cost of working capital + interest on working capital + Depreciation on implements and farm
buildings

Cost B1 = Cost A1 + interest on value of owned fixed capital assets

Cost C1 = Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour

Cost C2 = Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour + rental value of owned land and rent paid for leased-in land

Cost C3 = Cost C2 + value of management inputs at 10 per cent of Cost C2

The economic benefits of zero-tillage were worked out by estimating the differences between the cost of inputs
and yield differences of zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters.

The environmental benefits realized by the adoption of zero-tillage was quantified and documented. Generally,
these benefits were a reduction in carbon emission. To find out the carbon emission following methodology was adopted:

1 liter Diesel = 2.6 kg of CO2 (Jat et al., 2006)

1 kg CO2 = 0.27 kg of carbon (Paustian et al., 2006)

Garrett raking was used to rank the constraints associated with the zero-tillage adoption. The percentage position
of each rank will be converted to scores by referring to tables given by Garret and Woodworth (1969). The score of all the
factors is arranged in order of their ranks.

Per cent position =

Where, Rij is the rank given for ith item jth individual

Nj is the number of items ranked by jth individuals.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
98 Ajay Srivastava, O.P. Singh, Rakesh Singh &
Mukesh Kumar Maurya

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The results of the present study are discussed under the following heads i.e. per hectare cost of cultivation, net
income and cost of production of wheat crop under zero-tillage and conventional method, agronomic and economic
benefits of zero-tillage, environmental benefits of zero-tillage, constraints associated with adoption of zero-tillage and
condition for adoption of zero-tillage in the study area.

Cost of Cultivation of the Wheat Crop

Inputs used for cultivation of wheat crop for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters are presented in Table 1.
The total cost of cultivation for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters was estimated to be Rs.28956.68 and Rs.36185.08
respectively. It means zero-tillage non-adopters were spending more money (Rs.7228.40) on the different inputs of wheat
production as compared to zero-tillage adopters. Per hectare, input costs were estimated to be Rs.23384.43 and
Rs.29033.51 for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters respectively. None of the sample farmers in the study area were
using farmyard manure. Per hectare cost of irrigation water used by the sample farmers for irrigating wheat crop was found
to be Rs.7006.74 and Rs. 7855.31 for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters respectively in the study area. In the case of
chemical fertilizer, zero-tillage farmers were spending a lower amount as compared to non-adopters. Per hectare cost
incurred by zero-tillage adopters on wheat seed was lower (Rs. 3687.38) than the zero-tillage non-adopter i.e. Rs.4369.34.
It was due to the reduction in the quantity of seed in the study area.

Table 1: Cost of Cultivation of Wheat Crop

S.N. Particulars Zero-Tillage ADOPTER Zero-Tillage Non-Adopter
Physical Amount % to Physical Amount % to
Unit (Rs.) cost C3 Unit (Rs.) cost C3
1. Human labour
a. Family labour 3.61 722.00 2.49 8.56 1711.93 4.73
b. Hired labour 3.96 791.00 2.73 2.49 497.13 1.37
2. Machine labour 2.21 995.63 3.44 9.32 4195.04 11.59
3. Seed 118.38 3687.38 12.73 145.40 4369.34 12.07
4. Manure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Fertilizer (Kg)
a. Urea 275.30 1927.10 6.66 291.38 2039.66 5.64
b. DAP 137.55 3301.20 11.40 149.43 3586.21 9.91
c. MOP 14.55 334.65 1.16 9.91 59.48 0.16
d. Zn 0.67 16.64 0.06 2.56 20.59 0.06
e. Sulphur 1.26 27.09 0.09 0.72 8.80 0.02
Insecticides and
6. 0.00 245.00 0.85 0.00 247.50 0.68
Pesticides
7. Irrigation (Hrs) 56.51 7006.74 24.20 64.13 7855.31 21.71
8. Harvesting and Threshing 4330.00 14.95 4442.53 12.28
Sub-Total 23384.43 80.76 29033.51 80.24
Interest on working
9. 818.46 2.83 1016.17 2.81
capital @7%/Annum
10. Total Working Capital 24202.89 83.58 30049.68 83.04
11. Rental value of own land 1700.75 5.87 2002.22 5.53
Rent paid for leased in
12. 420.62 1.45 843.63 2.33
land
13. Cost of Cultivation over
a. Cost A1 23480.89 81.09 28337.76 78.31
b. Cost B1 23480.89 81.09 28337.76 78.31
c. Cost C1 25602.25 88.42 31183.61 86.18

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.1964 NAAS Rating: 4.13

An Economic Analysis of Zero-Tillage Wheat Production in 99
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

Table 1: Contd.,
d. Cost C2 26324.25 90.91 32895.53 90.91
e. Cost C3 28956.68 100.00 36185.08 100.00

Income and Cost of Production of Wheat Crop

The past researchers reported that after adoption of zero-tillage, the per hectare yield of wheat crop was increased
(Kumar et al., 2005; Laxmi et al., 2007; Pal et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2011; Singh and Meena, 2013; Veettil and Krishna,
2013). After the adoption of zero-tillage, sample farmers in the study area were received a higher yield of wheat grain and
by-products.

Per hectare yield of wheat main-product and by-product under zero-tillage was estimated to be 35.45 and 34.31
respectively, whereas in the case of non-adopters it was 29.50 and 34.20 quintals respectively (Table 2). The incremental
yield benefit received by the zero-tillage adopters was estimated to be 5.95 and 0.11 quintal per hectare for wheat grain and
by-product respectively over the zero-tillage non-adopters.

Table 2: Income and Cost of Production of Wheat Crop

Zero-Tillage Zero-Tillage
Particulars
Adopter Non-Adopter
Crop yield and Market price
Main product (Qt/Ha) 35.45 29.50
By-product (Qt/Ha) 34.31 34.20
Market price of Main product (Rs./Qt) 1320.00 1320.00
Market price of By-product (Rs./Qt) 270.00 270.00
Gross Income (Rs./Ha) 56051.10 48168.97
Net Income Over
Cost A1 32570.21 19831.21
Cost B1 32570.21 19831.21
Cost C1 30448.85 16985.36
Cost C1 29726.85 15273.44
Cost C1 27094.42 11983.88
Cost of Production (Rs./Qt)
Cost A1 662.46 960.70
Cost B1 662.46 960.70
Cost C1 722.31 1057.17
Cost C1 742.68 1115.21
Cost C1 816.95 1226.73
Output-Input Ratio Over
Cost A1 2.39 1.70
Cost B1 2.39 1.70
Cost C1 2.19 1.54
Cost C1 2.13 1.46
Cost C1 1.94 1.33

Due to higher wheat production received by the zero-tillage adopters were received more gross income and net
income over various costs as compared to zero-tillage non-adopters. With respect to cost C3, zero-tillage adopters obtained
an incremental net benefit of Rs.15111.55 as compared to non-adopters. The cost of production of wheat was higher for
zero-tillage non-adopters overall costs and highest in cost C3 (Rs.1226.73). The input-output ratio shows the feasibility of
the enterprise and results showed that wheat production was beneficial for both zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters.
From the result, it could be seen that input-output ratio over cost C3, zero-tillage adopters were got almost double as they
invested. So, wheat production is more desirable for zero-tillage adopters over non-adopters.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
100 Ajay Srivastava, O.P. Singh, Rakesh Singh &
Mukesh Kumar Maurya

Agronomic and Economic Benefits of Zero-Tillage

The past researchers were reported that after the adoption of zero-tillage, a yield of wheat was increased in many
parts of the country (Sinha and Singh, 2005; Laxmi et al., 2007; Pal et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2011 and Veettil and
Krishna, 2013). Per hectare agronomic and economic benefits of zero-tillage for the wheat crop is represented in Table 3.
Per hectare, agronomic benefit due to the adoption of zero-tillage in the study area was estimated to be 5.95 and 0.11 for
wheat grain and wheat by-product respectively. Per hectare, economic benefits of zero-tillage were due to increase in yield
of the wheat crop over the zero-tillage non-adopters and reduction in the use of various inputs used for wheat production in
the study area was estimated to be Rs.15095.37 (Table 3).

Table 3: Agronomic and Economic Benefits of Zero-Tillage

S.N. Particulars Benefits
1. Agronomic Benefits
a. Yield Main-Product Benefit (Qt/Ha) 5.95
b. Yield By-product (Qt/Ha) 0.11
2. Economic Benefits
a. Due to reduction in labour use (Rs./Ha) 696.05
b. Due to reduction in machine labour use (Rs./Ha) 3199.42
c. Due to reduction in seed use (Rs./Ha) 681.96
d. Due to reduction in fertilizer use (Rs./Ha) 108.05
e. Due to reduction in pesticide use (Rs./Ha) 2.50
f. Due to reduction in irrigation use (Rs./Ha) 848.57
g. Due to reduction in harvesting use (Rs./Ha) 112.53
h. Due to yield benefits (Rs./Ha) 7882.13
e. Due to diesel saving (@Rs.55/Lt) 1564.16
3. Total Economic Benefits (Rs./Ha) 15095.37

Environment Benefits of Zero-Tillage

Zero-tillage adoption for wheat cultivation is beneficial in environment point of view also. Many researchers
reported that after the adoption of zero-tillage, the diesel consumption for land preparation and sowing of the wheat crop
was reduced in different regions of the country. Farmers reduced 61 liters per hectare diesel consumption in Indo-Gangetic
Plains using zero tillage (Laxmi et al., 2007). In Haryana, 29.1 liters and in Bihar, 24.3 liters of diesel were saved per
hectare due to adopting of zero-tillage (Pal et al., 2010) as compared to conventional method of wheat cultivation.

In Kaushambi district, per hectare, diesel consumption for land preparation and sowing of the wheat crop was
estimated to be 8.85 and 37.29 liters for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters sample farmers (Table 4). Per hectare, CO2
emission due to the burning of diesel was estimated to be 23.01 and 96.95 kg for zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters
respectively, whereas per hectare carbon emission was found to be 6.21 and 26.18 kg respectively. The carbon emission
was reduced due to the adoption of zero-tillage in the study area was estimated to be 19.97 kg per hectare (Table 4).

Table 4: Environment Benefits of Zero-Tillage

Particulars Zero-Tillage
Adopter Non-Adopter
Diesel consumption (Lt/Ha) 8.85 37.29
CO2 emission (Kg/Ha) 23.01 96.95
Carbon emission (Kg/ Ha) 6.21 26.18
Reduction in carbon emission
19.97
(Kg/Ha)

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.1964 NAAS Rating: 4.13

An Economic Analysis of Zero-Tillage Wheat Production in 101
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

Besides the reduction of carbon emission, zero-tillage also helps in the reduction of irrigation water use. Sample
farmers of the study area were using groundwater to irrigate their wheat crop. Total water used for irrigating wheat crop by
zero-tillage adopters and non-adopters were estimated to be 1747.17 and 1982.75 m3 per hectare respectively. After
adoption of zero-tillage, sample farmers were using less groundwater for irrigating their wheat crop. Reduction in irrigation
water was estimated to be 235.58 m3 per hectare which leads to a positive impact on the groundwater availability for
different uses.

Constraints Associated with RCT Adopters

Garrett score is used to ranking fifteen constraints associated with zero-tillage adoption in the study area and it
was presented in Table 5. Out of several constraints in adoption of zero-tillage in the stud area, most important was non-
availability of the zero-tillage machine on time and non-availability of the zero-tillage machine on hire basis and rank was
first and second respectively. Other constraints associated with adoption of zero-tillage in the study area was weed problem
in the agricultural field, not sure about the profit after the adoption of zero-tillage, farmers were not sure about the
technology, custom hiring of the zero-tillage machine is high, farmers do not own zero-tillage machine, etc. Past
researchers also reported that major technical constraints associated with zero-tillage adoption as reported by Singh et al.
(2007) and Kumar et al. (2005).

Table 5: Constraints Associated with RCT Adopters

S.N. Reasons for Non-adoption of RCTs Garrett Score Rank
1 Non-availability of zero-tillage machine on time 77.25 I
2 Non-availability of zero-tillage machine on hire basis 66.80 II
3 Weed problem in agricultural field 65.70 III
4 Not sure of profit 61.90 IV
5 Not sure about technology 61.70 V
6 Custom hiring of zero-tillage machine is high 59.55 VI
7 Does not own zero-tillage machine 59.25 VII
8 High cost of zero-tillage machine 55.20 VIII
9 Uncertainty of irrigation 48.65 IX
10 Labour issues 38.45 X
11 Poor soil quality 35.90 XI
12 Less yield under zero-tillage 34.15 XII
13 Lack of financial support 29.40 XIII
14 Upland field 29.15 XIV
15 Credit unavailability 26.95 XV

Conditions for Adoption of Zero-Tillage

The conditions for the adoption of zero-tillage in the study area in the future are presented in Table 6. The most
important condition for adoption of zero-tillage by the sample farmers in the study area was a cost of custom hiring of the
machine is low. During the field, survey farmers were told that if the cost of hiring zero-tillage machine will reduce than
they can adopt it. The second rank for a condition for adoption of zero-tillage was irrigation water availability. The third
and fourth important factors for adoption of zero-tillage in the study area was non-availability of the zero-tillage machine
on subsidy and if convinced of yield benefit. The least important condition for adoption of zero-tillage was better repaired
services of zero-tillage machine and availability of skilled labor for operating the zero-tillage machine.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
102 Ajay Srivastava, O.P. Singh, Rakesh Singh &
Mukesh Kumar Maurya

Table 6: Condition for Adoption of Zero-Tillage

S.N. Condition for Adoption of RCTs Garrett Score Rank
1 If custom hiring rate is low 72.05 I
2 Irrigation water availability 66.25 II
3 If ZT is available on subsidy 58.60 III
4 If convinced of yield benefit 55.05 IV
5 More observation on other field 43.70 V
6 If better repair service is available 28.00 VI
7 Non-availability of skilled labour 27.70 VII

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Farm-level impact of zero-tillage in Kaushambi district of Uttar Pradesh clearly indicated the superiority of
Zero-tillage over conventional practices in terms of cost of cultivation, economic and environmental benefits. In order to
enhance the productivity, profitability, and sustainability in wheat production, the tillage technologies known as zero
tillage was developed. Zero-tillage adopters saved more machine hours in ploughing, harrowing and leveling as compare to
non-adopters. Similarly, the cost of cultivation of wheat crop was lower in case of zero-tillage adopters as compared to
non-adopters. By adopting the zero tillage technology farmers were obtained more yield and consequently higher revenue
as compared to non-adopters. Higher agronomic and economic benefits were reported by practicing zero tillage technology
as compared to the conventional method. By using the zero-tillage machine for wheat sowing, diesel consumption was
saved and accordance to that carbon emission was reduced in large scale. Non-availability of zero tillage machines on time
of sowing of wheat was the main constraint faced by farmers in the study area. Therefore, the government should provide
subsidy on the purchase of the zero-tillage machine, which helps to augment in the availability of machine in the study
area. It will also help in reduction in the cost of the zero-tillage machine on hiring basis and also available machine on time
on hire basis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors are thankful to UP Council of Agricultural Research (UPCAR), Lucknow for providing a research grant
to the carryout research project on “Economic and Environmental Benefits of Resource Conservation Technologies in
Different Agro-climatic Zones of Uttar Pradesh, India.,,

REFERENCES

1. Ali, M. and Byerlee, D. (2000) Productivity growth and resource degradation in Pakistan's Punjab: a decomposition analysis,
Policy Research Working Paper No. 2480, World Bank, Washington DC.

2. Ekboir, J. (2002) Developing no-tillage packages for small-scale farmers, in: Ekboir, J. (Ed.), World wheat overview and
outlook, CIMMYT, Mexico, DF, pp. 1-38.

3. Erenstein, O. (2009) Adoption and Impact of Conservation Agriculture –Based Resource Conserving Technologies in South
Asia, 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, India.

4. Erenstein, O., Farooq, U., Malik, R.K. and Sharif, M. (2008) On-farm impacts of zero tillage wheat in South Asia’s rice-wheat
systems. Field Crops Research 105, 240-252.

5. Erenstein, O. and Laxmi, V. (2008) Zero tillage impacts in India's rice-wheat systems: A review, Soil and Tillage Research
100, 1-14.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.1964 NAAS Rating: 4.13

An Economic Analysis of Zero-Tillage Wheat Production in 103
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

6. FAO (2010) Conservation Agriculture. Website: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/.

7. Garett, H. E. and Woodworth, R.S., Statistics in psychology and education. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay.
p.329, 1969.

8. Grazhdani, D. (2013), An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Resource Conserving Agricultural Technologies in
Al-Prespa Park, Natura Montenegrina, Podgorica, 12(2): 431-443.

9. Gupta, R. and Sayre, K. (2007), Conservation agriculture in South Asia, Journal of Agricultural Science, 145 (3): 207-214.

10. Harrington, L. and Erenstein, O. (2005), Conservation Agriculture and Resource Conserving Technologies: A Global
Perspective. In Abrol, I.P., R.K. Gupta and R.K. Malik (ed.) Conservation Agriculture: Status and Prospects Centre for
Advancement of Sustainable Agriculture, National Agricultural Science Center (NASC) Complex, New Delhi: 1-12.

11. Hobbs, P.R. (2007) Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production?
Journal of Agricultural Science 145, 127-137.

12. Jat, M.L., Sharma, S.K. and Singh, K.K. (2006), Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Farming in India. Paper Presented
in Winter School Training at Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, January 21, 2006.

13. Kumar, N., Singh, M.K., Ghosh, P.K., Venkatesh, M.S., Hazra, K.K. and Nadarajan, N. (2012) Resource Conservation
Technology in Pulse Based Cropping Systems, Report Published by Indian institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur: 1-32.

14. Kumar, U., Gautam, U.S., Singh, S.S., Subhash, N., Singh, K. and Kumar, R. (2005) Zero Tillage Technology in Wheat
Cultivation, Proceedings of the Project Workshop on Accelerating The Adoption of Resource Conservation Technologies in
Rice-Wheat Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains, Hisar, India: 239-244.

15. Laxmi, V., Erenstein, O. and Gupta, R.K. (2007) Impact of Zero Tillage in India’s Rice-Wheat Systems, CIMMYT and the Rice-
Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains, New Delhi, India: 1-32.

16. Mehla, R.S., Verma, J.K., Gupta, R.K. and Hobbs, P.R. (2000) Stagnation in the Productivity of Wheat in the Indo-Gangetic
Plains: Zero-till-seed-cum-fertilizer Drill as an Integrated Solution, Rice-Wheat Consortium Paper Series 8, RWC, New Delhi,
India.

17. Pal, S., Sekar, I. and Kar, A. (2010) Environmental impact of resource conservation technology: the case of zero-tillage in the
rice -wheat system of South Asia, Report to the CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, Division of Agricultural
Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi: 1-23.

18. Paustian, K. Antle, M. Sheehan, J. and Eldor, P. (2006) Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Washington, DC:
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

19. Singh, A.K. (2005) Impact Assessment and Farmers' Views Based on Survey, Working paper on Zero Tillage–The Voice of
Farmers, Directorate of Extension Education, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, Haryana: 38-40.

20. Singh, K.M. and Meena, M.S. (2013) Economics of Conservation Agriculture: An Overview, Munich Personal RePEc Archive:
1-18.

21. Begum, M., & Khan, M. H. R. (2014). Physico-Chemical Characteristics Of Saline Soil Under Wheat As Influenced By
Gypsum, Rice-Hull And Different Salinity Levels. International J. Res. Applied Nat. and Social Sci, 298, 121-126.

22. Singh, N.P., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Vashist, A.K., Khan, F. and Varghese, N. (2011) Adoption of Resource Conservation
Technologies in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: Scouting for Profitability and Efficiency, Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 24 (1): 15-24.

www.tjprc.org editor@tjprc.org
104 Ajay Srivastava, O.P. Singh, Rakesh Singh &
Mukesh Kumar Maurya

23. Singh, R., Kumar, A. and Chand, R. (2007) Accelerating Adoption of Zero Tillage Technology, Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 7 (1):
6-10.

24. Veettil, R.C. and Krishna, V.V. (2013) Productivity and Efficiency Impacts of Zero Tillage Wheat in Northwest Indo-Gangetic
Plains, Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi, Working Paper No. 321: 1-29.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.1964 NAAS Rating: 4.13