Quantitative analysis of energy requirements and efficiency in rice production systems of Yadadri Buvanagiri District, Telangana

Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important staple food crops globally, providing the primary source of calories for more than half of the world's population, particularly in Asia (Anonymous, 2023). India stands as the second-largest rice producer after China, contributing significantly to both global food security and national economic stability. During 2023-24, India produced approximately 136.7 million tonnes of rice from 47 million hectares (Anonymous, 2024). The crop plays a central role in rural livelihoods, food availability, and agricultural GDP, especially in states like Telangana, where rice cultivation is a dominant activity (Reddy et al., 2024) [23] . In modern agriculture, energy use has emerged as a critical determinant of crop productivity, economic viability, and environmental sustainability. Energy is consumed in every stage of rice production from land preparation, sowing/transplanting, and irrigation to fertilizer application, pest management, and harvesting (Sharma et al., 2022) [26] . It comprises both direct energy inputs such as human labor, diesel, and electricity, and indirect energy inputs including fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery manufacturing (Kumar et al., 2021) [12] . Studies have shown that energy consumption patterns in crop production directly influence yield levels, production costs, and environmental footprints (Zhang et al., 2020) [32] . Globally, agriculture consumes about 30% of the world's total energy use, with significant variations between regions (Anonymous, 2022). In India, agriculture accounts for nearly 18.5% of total energy consumption (Vijayakumar et al., 2023) [29] . For rice, nitrogen fertilizer and diesel fuel are often the largest contributors to total energy inputs (Singh et al., 2019) [27] . High reliance on synthetic fertilizers increases the energy intensity of production and is associated with environmental issues such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil degradation, and water pollution (Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2013; Mandal et al., 2020) [20,14] . Energy use efficiency (EUE), defined as the ratio of output energy to input energy, is a widely used performance indicator in agricultural energy analysis (Hatirli et al., 2008) [9] . An EUE value above 1.0 indicates that the system produces more energy than it consumes, which is desirable for both economic and environmental reasons (Mohammadi et al., 2021) [17] . However, many rice-based systems in South Asia report EUE values below 1.0 due to excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers, inefficient machinery, and poor resource management (Venkat et al., 2024) [28] . Technological advancements, particularly in precision agriculture and mechanization, offer opportunities to improve energy efficiency (Ali et al., 2023) [3] . Adoption of site-specific nutrient management, laser land levelling, direct-seeded rice (DSR), renewable energy-powered irrigation systems, and appropriate-scale mechanization can significantly reduce energy consumption while maintaining or increasing yields (Rahman et al., 2022) [22] . Similarly, integrated nutrient management (INM) combining organic manures, green manures, and balanced fertilizer application has been shown to reduce energy intensity and improve soil health (Bhattacharyya et al., 2023) [4] . Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district in Telangana is a major ricegrowing region, with about 194,510 hectares of cultivable land. The area's production systems are characterized by varied irrigation practices, machinery use patterns, and fertilizer application rates. Despite being a key agricultural zone, comprehensive studies evaluating the district's energy input-output relationships are limited. A systematic energy analysis is essential to identify high-consumption components, assess efficiency gaps, and recommend interventions for sustainability (Chaudhary et al., 2021; Kamboj et al., 2023) [5,10] . This study aims to analyze the energy requirements and efficiency of rice production systems in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district, quantify the share of each input, and propose strategies for improving EUE and reducing environmental impacts. By integrating recent scientific evidence and local field data, this research contributes to a broader understanding of how energy optimization can support sustainable intensification of rice farming in Telangana and similar agro-ecological regions.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted during the Kharif season of 2023 (June-September, 2023) in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district, Telangana State, India. This district, which was carved out of the erstwhile Nalgonda district, lies between latitude 17°30′36″N and longitude 78°53′25″E. The region fell under the semi-arid tropical climate, characterized by hot summers, moderate monsoon rains, and mild winters. The soils in the study area were predominantly sandy loam to clay loam, with rice being a major crop cultivated under both canal and borewell irrigation systems.

Sampling Procedure

Data were collected from 60 rice-producing farms across multiple mandals of Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district using a simple random sampling technique. The number of farms was determined using the sample size formula:

Where n = the volume of sample, s = the standard deviation, t = the t value of the 95% confidence interval (1.96), N = the number of farms belonging to the sampling frame and d = desired margin of error or allowable error

Data Collection

Primary data were obtained through face-to-face interviews with farmers using a pre-tested questionnaire. The survey gathered detailed information on input use (human labor, machinery hours, fuel consumption, fertilizer and pesticide use, seed rate, and farmyard manure) and output yield (grain and straw).

Energy Equivalents and Calculations

The energy equivalents for various inputs and outputs were adopted from standard literature sources (Ajay et al., 2025; Gaurang et al., 2022; Ozkan et al., 2004) [1,8,18] and were presented in Table 1 of the original dataset. The following energy indices were computed: energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity, and net energy. These indices were calculated using standard equations as suggested by Hatirli et al. (2008) [9] and Mohammad et al. (2010) [16] .

Agrochemical energy ratio was calculated by applying Equations

The following equation was used in the calculation of fuel consumption per hectare for each field operation. (Moerschner and Gerowitt, 2000) [15]: ED = h × AFU × PEU ×RU where: ED = Specific direct energy use (fuel) for a field operation, MJ ha -1 . h = Specific working hours per run, h ha -1 AFU = Average fuel use per working hour, L h -1 PEU = Specific energy value per litre of fuel, MJ L -1 RU = Runs, number of applications in the considered field operation

Results and Discussion

The study unveiled that the average production cost per hectare of rice crop amounted to Rs. 47,424. Table 2 presented a breakdown of inputs utilized and outputs in rice production systems, along with their energy equivalents and percentages of the total energy input. Results indicated that the total energy input in rice production systems was 18,841.37 MJ/ha, which was in line with a study conducted in Punjab, India (energy input in the range 52,400 ± 13,000 MJ/ha; Singh et al., 2019) [27] . Nitrogen fertilizer employed in rice production systems accounted for the highest share at 37.72% (see Fig. 1). Diesel fuel energy ranked second with a 23.61% contribution to the total energy input. Seed, on the other hand, represented the smallest share of the total energy input at 0.38%. Additionally, the study observed a rice grain yield of 6,916 kg/ha, equating to a total energy equivalent of 13,140.40 MJ/ha. Table 3 presented the energy indicators for rice production systems. Notably, from Table 3, the energy efficiency, represented by the output-input ratio, was 0.70. If energy use efficiency had been above 1, the production system would have generated surplus energy. The lower energy use efficiency observed in rice production systems was attributed to elevated energy inputs, particularly the high consumption of nitrogen fertilizer.

From the study, it was observed that in rice production systems, the energy productivity denoting the grain yield per unit of energy input was 0.37 kg MJ⁻¹, while the specific energy indicating the input energy required per unit of grain yield was 2.72 MJ kg⁻¹. A lower value of specific energy was considered desirable, as it indicated higher energy efficiency in production. In other words, for every MJ of input energy, 0.37 kg of rice grain was produced, or conversely, 2.72 MJ of energy was expended to produce one kilogram of grain. Furthermore, the system's net energy, calculated as the difference between output and input, amounted to -5,700.97 MJ ha⁻¹. The net energy was low due to reduced yields in the study area. A high agrochemical ratio typically implies a large agrochemical footprint and negative environmental effects such as nitrogen leaching, air and water pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2013) [20] . In this study, the agrochemical energy ratio was 0.51% of the input energy, which was considered desirable. Additionally, the energy intensiveness indicating the amount of energy produced per rupee spent was computed at 0.40 MJ Rs⁻¹, signifying that for each rupee invested, 0.40 MJ of energy was generated. The energy consumption of different implements and machinery was shown in Table 4. From the table, it was concluded that the power sprayer consumed the least amount of fuel energy, while the combine harvester consumed the highest.

Conclusion

Energy inputs and output was investigated for rice production system in Yadadri Buvanagiri district. This study reveals significant opportunities for enhancing energy efficiency in agricultural operations. The findings indicate that the current energy use efficiency is 0.70, with a negative net energy of -5700.97 MJ ha⁻¹ and an energy productivity of 0.37 kg MJ⁻¹. There is need to increase energy use efficiency above 1, net energy and energy productivity for making rice production system more efficient. Energy use efficiency above 1.0 with positive net energy and enhance energy productivity is feasible by adopting integrated nutrient management, use appropriatescale machinery, crop diversification to reduce nitrogen fertilizer, and adopting energy-conscious farming practices. Such improvements would not only enhance the energy productivity beyond the current 0.37 level but also contribute to sustainable agricultural intensification while reducing production costs for farmers in the region. In Yadadri Buvanagiri district, effort should be made at increasing the level of rice production through mechanization and move from the use of energy from nonrenewable sources to renewable sources to attain a selfsufficient and sustainable rice production system.

References

1. Ajay Kumar B, Kumar N, Ratan R, Kumar S, Kumar D, Patel KK. Energy assessment of different rice-based cropping systems under irrigated condition of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2025;70:8-12.
2. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. https://agricoop.gov.in/en/statistics. Accessed April 8, 2025.
3. Ali M, Hussain I, Khan MA, Ahmad N. Mechanization impacts on energy use. Agricultural Systems. 2023;205:103533.
4. Bhattacharyya R, Das S, Pathak H, Aggarwal P. Integrated nutrient management effects on energy efficiency. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2023;125:113-128.
5. Chaudhary VP, Singh R, Jat ML, Parihar CM. Energy audit in Indian agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;315:128210.
6. Erdal G, Esengun K, Erdal H, Gunduz O. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy. 2007;32:35-41.
7. Esengun K, Gunduz O, Erdal G. Input-output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management. 2007;48:592-598.
8. Gaurang Meher D, Sinha VSP, Chamola M, Singh P, Mishra A, Dobhal R. Estimation and comparison of energy input-output and efficiency indices for ricewheat agroecosystems of Doon Valley, India. Current Science. 2022;123:881-886.
9. Hatirli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Renewable Energy. 2008;31:427-438.
10. Kamboj BR, Singh G, Yadav AK, Mehla DS. Energy consumption patterns in cereal crops. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2023;74:128-137.
11. Kizilaslan H. Input-output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat Province of Turkey. Applied Energy. 2009;86:1354-1358.
12. Kumar R, Sharma P, Singh A, Verma K. Energy use in agriculture: A review. Energy Reports. 2021;7:205-219.
13. Mandal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2002;23(5):337-345.
14. Mandal KG, Sinha S, Ghosh PK, Hati KM. Energy and www.extensionjournal.com carbon footprint of rice systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020;22:5471-5489.
15. Moerschner J, Gerowitt B. Direct and in-direct energy use in arable farming in Northern Germany. In: Weidema BP, Meeusen MJG, editors. Agricultural Data for Life Cycle Assessments. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI); 2000. p. 195.
16. Mohammad A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Rafiee H. Energy inputs-yield relationship and cost analysis of kiwifruit production in Iran. Renewable Energy. 2010;35:1071-1075.
17. Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Jahan S, Keyhani A. Energy efficiency evaluation. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2021;45:101215.
18. Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy input-output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renewable Energy. 2004;29:39-51.
19. Ozkan B, Fert C, Karadeniz CF. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy. 2007;32:1-4.
20. Pishgar-Komleh SH, Omid M, Heidari MD. On the study of energy use and GHG emissions in greenhouse cucumber production in Yazd Province. Energy. 2013;59:63-71.
21. Rafiee S, Mousavi SH, Mohammadi A. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy. 2010;35(8):3301-3306.
22. Rahman M, Alam MM, Hossain MA, Kabir E. Renewable energy in rice irrigation. Solar Energy. 2022;240:45-55.
23. Reddy BS, Kumar P, Sharma R, Singh A. Rice production trends in Telangana. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2024;69:55-63.
24. Seyed Mohammad Hossein T, Rafiee S, Keyhani A, Heidari MD. Energy use pattern and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs and input costs for pear production in Iran. Renewable Energy. 2013;51:7-12.
25. Sharma P, Kumar R, Singh S, Verma A. Energy budgeting in cereal production. Renewable Energy. 2022;184:768-777.
26. Singh P, Singh G, Sodhi GPS. Energy auditing and optimization approach for improving energy efficiency of rice cultivation in south-western Punjab, India. Energy. 2019;174:269-279.
27. Venkat R, Mohan SS, Rahaman S, Vinayak M, Hari Babu B, Reddy KVSR. Energy assessment of manual transplanting rice and dry direct seeding rice production systems in combined Nalgonda District, Telangana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2024;58:95100.
28. Vijayakumar S, Reddy P, Sharma V, Kumar N. Energy dynamics in Indian agriculture. Energy Policy. 2023;175:113444.
29. Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy. 2005;30(2):145-155.
30. Zhang X, Li Y, Wang J, Chen M. Global agricultural energy use patterns. Applied Energy. 2020;269:114963.