RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY INPUTS AND CROP PRODUCTION
IN DERA ISMAIL KHAN DISTRICT OF N.W.F.P, PAKISTAN
Dissertation
by
Mohammad Azam Khan
For The Degree of Doctor of Engineering
Asian Institute of Technology
Bangkok, Thailand
December, 1994
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY INPUTS AND CROP PRODUCTION
IN DERA ISMAIL KHAN DISTRICT OF N.W.F.P, PAKISTAN
by
Mohammad Azam Khan
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Doctor of Engineering.
Examination Committee: Prof. Gajendra Singh (Chairman)
Prof. C. P. Gupta
Dr. V.M. Salokhe
Dr. R.M. Shrestha
Mohammad Azam Khan
Nationality : Pakistani
Previous Degree : Master of Engineering (1986), University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan
Scholarship Donor : United States Agency for International Development
Asian Institute of Technology
Bangkok, Thailand
December, 1994
ABSTRACT
The major objective of this study was to investigate the patterns of energy consumption and their relationship with crop production on farms with different levels of mechanization in Dera Ismail Khan District of North West Frontier Province, Pakistan.
A yearlong survey was made of daily inputs of energy for crop production operations on more than 600 crop plots of 26 farms in seven villages. The cultivated areas of D.I. Khan District can be divided in three parts according to the systems of irrigation applied. The west bank of the River Indus is irrigated by Chashma Right Bank Canal. In the south east part of the district, irrigation is done with tubewells. Agriculture on western part of the district depends on rainfall or seasonal hill torrents for its moisture requirements. Selection of the villages was made after consulting authorities in the Departments of Agriculture, Irrigation and Revenue to represent the district. This selection of seven villages was based on available mode of irrigation in that particular village. The selection of farms in the villages was based on the main power source the farmer uses on his farm, i.e., bullock or tractor. The selection of 26 farms was based on the criteria that the selected farms in a category represent characteristics of all the farms present under that category of the area. Bullock and tractor operated farms were subcategorized according to source of water for irrigation as canal, tubewell and rainfed (no irrigation). Average size of both bullock and tractor operated rainfed farms was 8.2 ha whereas bullock operated irrigated farms were below 5 ha and the average size of tractor operated irrigated farms 5 to 10 ha in size. In the district, 51% of the farms are under 5 ha, whereas 24% are 5 to 10 ha and 25 percent are above 10 ha in size.
Sources of energy recorded on biweekly visits of the selected farms were human (family, permanently and casually hired) labor, bullocks, electric motors or diesel engines and tractors. Crop yields, inputs of fertilizers and farm yard manure and values of these items were recorded.
Energy inputs were computed by summing the energy inputs to all crop plots on a weekly and annual basis for total holding and per hectare basis. Energy output/input ratios for wheat and sugarcane for both bullock and tractor operated farms were also calculated.
It was observed that per hectare consumption of energy was higher on tractor operated farms than that on bullock operated farms. Results indicate that the use of tractors does result in a reduction in human labor hours and bullock energy on per hectare basis. It was also observed that permanent laborers on tractor operated farms worked fewer hours during a one year period than that on bullock operated farms.
Due to lack of a permanent source of irrigation the intensity of cropping on rainfed farms was the lowest, therefore the consumption of energy on both bullock and tractor operated farms was very low. Farms with canal irrigation had higher cropping intensities and used more energy than the rainfed farms. However, in Kharif (Monsoon) season the irrigation water from canal was insufficient for the rice crop therefore, 9 out of 31 ha remained fallow. On those farms which did not grow rice during the Kharif season water was sufficient to grow other crops like fodder. On farms with tubewell irrigation 8 out of 17 ha on bullock operated farms could not be cultivated due to water logging problem and on 13 out of 25 ha on tractor operated farms no crops could be grown due to flooding. This caused lower cropping intensity on tubewell farms than canal farms. Per hectare consumption of total energy use was the highest on farms with tubewell irrigation due to the highest consumption of electrical or diesel energy for pumping.
There were two peak periods of energy inputs on all farms, one during the months of April and May for harvesting and threshing of the wheat crop. A severe shortage of labor occurred during this peak period on both tractor and bullock operated farms. The other peak period occurred during the months of October and November for harvesting of Kharif crops and sowing of winter (Rabi) crops. As the farm operations performed with tractors took less time than bullocks so the duration of the second peak on tractor operated farms was shorter than bullock operated farms. Land preparation and sowing operations were performed with tractors on all tractor operated farms except on tractor operated rainfed farms where mostly the sowing operation was performed with the seed tube attached to bullock drawn plow. Due to the sowing operation performed with the help of bullock, the bullock energy was higher on tractor operated rainfed farms than tractor operated irrigated farms. Unlike other farms, in the case of bullock operated farms with canal irrigation, harvesting of wheat was performed mostly with permanent labor and with the help of neighboring farmers on a reciprocity basis. They also called neighbors for help in transplanting of rice during June July. Use of casual labor on tubewell farms was higher than that on canal and rainfed farms since harvesting of sugarcane on tubewell farms was done mostly by casual labor on a contractual basis.
The yields were higher on tractor operated farms than bullock operated farms. Rainfed farms obtained the lowest yields, as their crops were rain dependent. Moreover, floods also damaged the crops on some plots. Tractor operated farms with canal irrigation obtained the highest yields of wheat. Tractor operated farms with tubewell irrigation obtained the highest yields of sugarcane. This was due to timely land preparation with tractors and higher use of fertilizer on tractor operated farms compared to bullock operated farms.
It was found that for each crop, the total energy output is greater than the total energy inputs. Results show that the energy output/input ratio for wheat on a tractor operated farm is lower (3.3 and 2.2) than that of a bullock operated farm (3.7 and 2.9 on canal and tubewell irrigated farms respectively). However, on tractor operated rainfed farms, output/input ratio was 7.2, which is higher than bullock operated rainfed farms, where it was 4.2. In the case of sugarcane ratoon crop, it was 13.84 on tractor operated farms with tubewell irrigation and 13.79 on bullock operated farms with tubewell irrigation. On tractor operated farms with canal irrigation it was 19.6. Similarly for sugarcane planted crop it was it was 4.8 on tractor operated farms with tubewell irrigation and 5.0 on bullock operated farms with tubewell irrigation. On bullock operated farms with canal irrigation, it was 6.4.
As the yields and therefore crop values were higher on tractor operated farms than bullock operated farms, the tractor farms obtained higher gross margins. Cost of production was lowest in rainfed farms but the crop values were also the lowest, so the gross margins remained the lowest. The gross margins on farms with canal irrigation were higher than the farms with tubewell irrigation. This was because the farms with canal irrigation paid only a small amount of water tax whereas the farms with tubewell irrigation spent higher amount of money to purchase irrigation water.
Projections were developed on the basis of upgrading the bullock operated farms performing conventional tillage practices to higher level of mechanization. Secondly, floods are one of the major problems of the area. The projection has also been developed not only to control floods but also to store their water for assured irrigation to the rainfed cultivated area of the district. In the third projection the farms were brought under controlled irrigation system and their main power source was tractor. Results indicate that as steps are taken toward mechanized farming, there will be an increase in production and a reduction in cost of production however, there will be increase in consumption of energy. The implementation of the projections two and three will result saving in electrical energy, higher yields of crops higher cropping intensities of the cultivated area and ultimately increase in gross margin of a farm.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor Prof. Gajendra Singh for his encouragement. A person of myriad skills, he has eased the way through a demanding project during busy time in AIT. He is much appreciated as a mentor.
I wish also to express my appreciation to committee members including Prof. C.P. Gupta, Dr. V.M. Salokhe
I am thankful to Dr. R.M. Shrestha for his suggestions, and keen interest in this study.
Special thanks go to Prof. Hamid Ullah Khan for his significant contributions and interest in the study.
To my other colleagues I have spoken with about my study during stay in Dera Ismail Khan (Pakistan) and numerous to name, but I thank all of them for sharing their ideas with me. In particular, I wish to thank Dr. Mohammad Ayaz, Mr. Imam Bakhsh, Aman Ullah Khan and Sanaullah (Shanoo Khan).
I must say a special thank to Pakistan Participant Training Program (PPTP) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), who made available to me a scholarship to study at AIT.
My gratitude also goes to all cooperating farmers of Dera Ismail Khan District who made this study possible and enjoyable.
I will never forget the cooperation extended by Mr. Tomas Cardona and Mr. K. Chaiyaphol.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
Title Page ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
I INTRODUCTION 1
II LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Human Energy 4
2.2 Animal Energy 6
2.3 Machinery and Fuel Energy 8
2.4 Fertilizer Energy 8
2.5 Pesticide Energy 9
2.6 Seed Energy 10
2.7 Energy Inputs for Crop Production 10
III OBJECTIVES
3.1 Scope of the Study 17
IV METHODOLOGY
4.1 Study Area 19
4.2 Data Collection 22
4.2.1 Hourly and daily rates for power sources 32
4.2.2 Charges of canal water 34
4.2.3 Prices of farm products 34
4.2.4 Prices of manures, fertilizer and
other chemicals 35
4.3 Transfer of Data for Processing 35
4.4 Date Analysis 36
4.5 Cost Analysis 37
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Land Utilization 40
5.1.1. Reasons for Fallowing 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
5.1.2. Cropping pattern 44
5.1.3. Crop failure 44
5.2 Analysis of Energy Inputs on the Farms 48
5.3 Weekly Energy Inputs on Farms 59
5.4 Analysis of Energy Inputs for Various Crops 72
5.4.1 Wheat 72
5.4.2 Sugarcane 82
5.4.3 Millet 91
5.4.4 Rice 93
5.4.5 Fodder, oilseed and chickpea 94
5.5 Yield, Cost of Production and Gross Margin 98
5.5.1 Yield of major crops 98
5.5.2 Production cost, gross margin
and net return for major crops 100
5.6 Present and future energy demands in D.I. Khan
District 113
5.6.1 Energy demand schedule during 1992-93 113
5.6.2 Priorities of mechanization 116
5.6.3 Energy demand schedule using different
projections 119
5.7 Present and future farm equipment demands in D.I. Khan
District 135
VI CONCLUSION 139
VII RECOMMENDATIONS 141
REFERENCES 143
APPENDICES 147
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE No. TITLE PAGE
4.1 Map of irrigation Systems in Dera Ismail Khan District 20
5.1 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Bullock Operated
Rainfed Farms 60
5.2 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Tractor Operated
Rainfed Farms 61
5.3 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Bullock Operated
Farms with Canal Irrigation 62
5.4 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Tractor Operated
Farms with Canal Irrigation 63
5.5 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Bullock Operated
Farms with Tubewell Irrigation 64
5.6 Per Hectare Weekly Energy Inputs for Tractor Operated
Farms with Tubewell Irrigation 65
5.7 Estimated Weekly Use of Various Energy Sources for
Agriculture Operations in D.I. Khan During 1992-93 115
5.8 Energy Demand Forecast from Various Power Sources by
Using Projection One 130
5.9 Energy Demand Forecast from Various Power Sources by
Using Projection Two 131
5.10 Energy Demand Forecast from Various Power Sources by
Using Projection Three 132
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE No. TITLE PAGE
4.1. Agricultural Statistics of Dera Ismail Khan District
(N.W.F.P) for the Year 1992-93 21
4.2. Details About the Number of Farmers, Tractors, and Tubewells
in the Seven Villages and Their Geographic Location 24
4.3 Distribution of Farms Surveyed and Estimated Cultivated
Areas in the Various Categories for Dera Ismail Khan
(N.W.F.P), Pakistan 26
4.4 Distribution of Labor, Draft Animals, Holding Size,
Number of Plots and Their Sizes and for the Farms of
Various Categories 27
5.1 Land Use of Different Categories 41
5.2 Reasons of Fallow Land in Various Categories of Farms 42
5.3 Cropping Patterns by Rainfed and Irrigated Farms 45
5.4 Land Use of Different Farm Categories 47
5.5 Average Annual Energy Inputs per Hectare of Holding
of Farms on Various Categories 49
5.6 Number of Hours Worked by the Permanent Laborers During
a One Year and Cropping Intensities of Various Categories 51
5.7 Comparison of Cropping Intensities of Rainfed Farms after
Flood 53
5.8 The Use of Bullocks During a One Year Period and the Area
Under Fodder Crops for Various Categories 57
5.9 Use of Various Power Sources During Peak Periods 70
5.10 Average Annual Energy Inputs per Hectare of Holding
for Wheat Crop on the Farms of Various Categories 73
5.11 Per hectare Energy inputs for Various Agricultural