Production and energy efficiency as influenced by different fodder based cropping system

Introduction

The inclusion of suitable food and forage crops or varieties in existing rice-based cropping systems can promote crop intensification under irrigated production conditions. Fodder crops are estimated to provide essential feed ingredients at a cost that is approximately 5-14 times lower than that of other feed sources. Forage-based cropping systems can be equally or even more profitable than the dominant cropping systems practised in a particular region. Forage crops also offer considerable potential for contingency planning because they can be cultivated as short-duration catch crops, intercrops, or alley crops under different resource-use situations. Their inclusion can support farmers' livelihoods by improving livestock productivity. Considering the current growth in the demand for livestock products, agricultural strategies should promote forage-based cropping systems or the incorporation of forage crops as sole crops, mixed crops, or intercrops within existing cropping systems. Such approaches may help reduce the gap between fodder demand and supply while remaining compatible with the agro-economic and environmental conditions of the region (Agrawal et al., 2008; Shrivastava et al., 2014) [1,2] . Food-forage-based production systems are particularly beneficial for small and marginal farmers, as they enable a portion of agricultural land to be allocated specifically to forage production within grain-based crop rotations. Forage crops should therefore be integrated into existing food-based cropping systems through intensification in space, such as intercropping, in time, such as sequential cropping, or through a combination of both approaches. Such diversification and intensification can fulfil household requirements, improve farm income and profitability, and contribute to the maintenance and improvement of soil health.

Methodology

The field experiment was conducted during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 at the Adhartal Research Farm of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The investigation was undertaken under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Forage Crops. The experiment was initiated during the kharif season of 2010-2011 and continued for two consecutive years at the same location without altering the treatments or experimental layout. An already-established hybrid Napier crop was used under treatment T₁ The soil of the experimental field was sandy clay loam in texture and slightly alkaline in reaction, with a pH of 7.60. It contained a low level of organic carbon, at 0.6%, and had a normal electrical conductivity of 0.49 dS/m. The soil was low in available nitrogen at 235.8 kg/ha and medium in available phosphorus and potassium at 16.2 and 395.5 kg/ha, respectively. The experiment comprised 10 cropping-sequence treatments evaluated in a randomized block design with three replications:

• T₁: Hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseemhybrid Napier + ricebean; an established Napier crop was used.

• T₂: Maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (baby corn) + ricebean. • T 3: Maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean. • T 4: Maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean. • T 5: Maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (fodder) + ricebean. • T 6: Maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseem-maize (green cob) + ricebean. • T 7: Maize (green cob) + ricebean-oat-maize (green cob) + ricebean. • T 8: Maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean. • T 9: Maize (green cob) + ricebean-oat-maize (fodder) + ricebean. • T 10: Rice-berseem-moong.

The crop varieties used in the experiment included JM-216 for baby corn, Priya Sweet Corn for green-cob maize, African Tall for fodder maize, JRBJ-05-2 for ricebean, NB-1 for hybrid Napier, JB-1 for berseem, and JO-1 for oat.

Results

Production Efficiency

Production efficiency represents the productivity of a particular cropping sequence per unit area per day. Data related to the production efficiency of the different cropping sequences are presented in Table 1. The duration of a crop is influenced by its phenological characteristics and varietal traits. In addition to the genetic potential of a crop or variety, local agro-climatic conditions and crop-management practices have a substantial influence on crop growth, development, and yield. The hybrid Napier-based sequence recorded the lowest production efficiency of 4.22 q/ha/day because of its longer duration and lower maize green-fodder-equivalent yield. The rice-berseem-moong sequence ranked second lowest, with a production efficiency of 5.54 q/ha/day, because of its longer duration and comparatively lower maize greenfodderequivalent yield. Similar observations have been reported by Verma et al. (2016b) [3] , Verma et al. (2024) [4] , Yadav et al. (2023) [5] , and Yadav et al. (2024) [6] . The sequence involving baby corn intercropped with ricebean during the kharif and summer seasons and berseem during the rabi season recorded the highest production efficiency of 11.35 q/ha/day among all the evaluated sequences. It was followed by maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean, which recorded a production efficiency of 10.95 q/ha/day. The higher production efficiency of these sequences may be attributed to their shorter duration and higher maize green-fodder-equivalent yield. In comparison, cropping sequences involving maize grown for green cobs during the kharif and summer seasons required more time for cob development. Consequently, these sequences had a longer total duration than the corresponding baby-corn-based sequences. These findings are consistent with those reported by Nirala et al. (2022) [7] , Tomar et al. (2023b) [8] , and Tiwari et al. (2011) [9] .

Land use efficiency

The year-round forage production system comprising Napierbajra hybrid (perennial) + ricebean-berseem-ricebean recorded the highest land use efficiency of 88.9%, followed by the riceberseem-moong sequence, which achieved 87.9%. The hybrid Napier crop remained in the field throughout the year, with ricebean grown as an intercrop during the kharif and summer seasons and berseem during the rabi season. Similar findings regarding land-use efficiency were reported by Kumar and Faruqui (2009) and Singh et al. (2002) [10] The maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean sequence recorded the lowest land-use efficiency of 57.9%, mainly because of its shorter crop duration. Baby corn occupied the field for a comparatively short period during both the kharif and summer seasons, while oat also required less time to reach harvest than berseem. These factors may have contributed to the lower land-use efficiency of this system. The remaining cropping sequences recorded land-use efficiency values ranging from 66.9% to 80.8%, depending on the duration for which each sequence occupied the field during the year. Comparable results were reported by Singh et al. (2013a) [11] , Singh et al. (2013b) [12] , Nirala et al. (2022) [7] , Tomar et al.

(2023b) [8] , and Tiwari et al. (2011) [9] .

Energy Input

The highest total energy input requirement of 64.1 × 10 [13] MJ/ha was recorded in the maize (green cob) + ricebean-oatmaize (green cob) + ricebean and maize (green cob) + ricebeanoat-maize (fodder) + ricebean cropping sequences. These systems also recorded the highest energy consumption through fertilizer application.

The hybrid Napier grass-based system required the lowest total energy input, amounting to 36.5 × 10 [13] MJ/ha. However, this sequence consumed the greatest amount of energy through human labour because of its longer duration compared with the other cropping sequences The maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (baby corn) + ricebean sequence required an energy input of 61.5 × 10 [13] MJ/ha, while maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean recorded an input of 61.9×10 ³ MJ/ha. The slight difference between these sequences was primarily associated with variation in fertilizer-related energy consumption. Similar observations were reported by Patel et al.

(2023) [14] , Sahu et al. (2023) [15] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2023) [16,17] , Shri et al. (2015) [18] , Shrivastava et al. (2014) [2] , and Verma et al. (2016a) [19] . The remaining cropping sequences showed energy-input requirements according to their respective inputuse patterns.

Energy Output

The maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean cropping sequence recorded the highest energy output of 652.1×10 ³ MJ/ha. It was followed by maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseem-maize (green cob) + ricebean, which produced 622.3 × 10 [13] MJ/ha. The greater energy output of these sequences was attributed to their higher yield in terms of green cobs and green fodder.

The lowest energy output of 341.4 × 10 [13] MJ/ha was recorded in the hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseemhybrid Napier + ricebean sequence. This may be because the system produced only green fodder without any grain or cob yield.

The rice-berseem-moong sequence recorded an energy output of 442.5 × 10 [13] MJ/ha, which was comparatively higher than the 417.4×10 ³ MJ/ha obtained from maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean.

Energy Balance

The hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseem-hybrid Napier + ricebean cropping sequence recorded the lowest energy balance of 304.9 × 10 [13] MJ/ha. In contrast, the highest energy balance of 588.3 × 10 [13] MJ/ha was obtained from maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean. The lower and higher energy balances of these respective sequences were directly associated with their corresponding energy-output levels.

The rice-berseem-moong cropping sequence recorded an energy balance of 378.9 × 10 [13] MJ/ha, which was higher than the 355.5×10 ³ MJ/ha obtained from maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean. All other cropping sequences recorded energy balances above 400 × 10 [13] MJ/ha, ranging from 420.7 to 507.5 × 10 [13] MJ/ha. Similar findings were reported by Tiwari et al. (2013) [20] , Singh et al. (2013) [11,12] , Bhalse et al. (2023) [13] , Bhayal et al. (2022) [21] , Jha et al. (2022) [22] , Jha et al. (2020) [23] , and Tiwari et al.

Energy use efficiency

The hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseem-hybrid Napier + ricebean cropping sequence recorded the highest energy-use efficiency of 31.33 MJ/ha. This higher efficiency was primarily attributed to the lowest energy-input requirement of the system. It was followed by maize (green cob) + ricebeanberseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean, which recorded an energyuse efficiency of 30.97 MJ/ha because of its maximum energy output.

The lowest energy-use efficiency of 20.31 MJ/ha was observed in maize (baby corn) + ricebean-oat-maize (baby corn) + ricebean. This may be attributed to its comparatively lower energy output than the other cropping sequences. The riceberseem-moong sequence recorded an energy-use efficiency of 21.51 MJ/ha and ranked second lowest because of its higher energy-input requirement and relatively lower energy output (Jha et [25,26,27,28,9,8] .

Energy-Output Efficiency

The highest energy-output efficiency of 2.21 × 10 [13] MJ/ha/day was recorded in the maize (green cob) + ricebean-berseemmaize (fodder) + ricebean sequence because of its high energy output. In contrast, the hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseem-hybrid Napier + ricebean sequence recorded the lowest energy-output efficiency of 1.05 × 10 [13] MJ/ha/day. This was mainly due to its lowest energy output and the longest duration among all the cropping sequences evaluated in the experiment (Jha et [30,31,32,33,34] . The rice-berseem-moong sequence recorded the second-lowest energy-output efficiency of 1.37 × 10 [13] MJ/ha/day. The lower efficiency of this sequence may be attributed to the longer time required by the crops to complete their growth cycles and their comparatively lower energy output. Similar findings for ricebased cropping sequences were reported by Kachroo et al.

(2012). The energy-output efficiency of the remaining cropping sequences ranged from 1.97 to 2.19 × 10 [13] MJ/ha/day, depending on their respective energy outputs and total crop durations (Chand et [35,36,37,38,39,40,19] .

Energy Productivity

Among the different cropping sequences, maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (baby corn) + ricebean recorded the highest energy productivity of 4.61 kg/MJ. It was followed by maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (fodder) + ricebean, which achieved an energy productivity of 4.24 kg/MJ. The higher energy productivity of these systems was mainly associated with their greater maize green-fodder-equivalent yield. The rice-berseem-moong sequence recorded a comparatively low energy productivity of 2.78 kg/MJ because of its lower maize green-fodder-equivalent yield and higher energy-input requirement. However, the hybrid Napier + ricebean-hybrid Napier + berseem-hybrid Napier + ricebean sequence recorded an energy productivity of 3.75 kg/MJ because of its relatively low energy-input requirement (Raghuwanshi et al., 2023b; Dubey et al., 2022b) [16,41] . The remaining cropping sequences recorded energyproductivity values ranging from 3.33 to 4.15 kg/MJ, depending on their maize green-fodder-equivalent yields and total energyinput requirements.

Specific Energy

Specific energy was calculated by dividing the total energy input of a cropping sequence, expressed in MJ/ha, by the maize greenfodder-equivalent yield of the corresponding sequence. The rice-berseem-moong cropping sequence recorded the highest specific energy of 0.357 MJ/kg because of its lower maize green-fodder-equivalent yield and greater total energyinput requirement.

In contrast, maize (baby corn) + ricebean-berseem-maize (baby corn) + ricebean recorded the lowest specific energy of 0.216 MJ/kg. This lower value resulted from the combined effect of its highest maize green-fodder-equivalent yield and comparatively lower total energy-input requirement. Overall, cropping sequences with higher maize green-fodderequivalent yields recorded lower specific-energy values than those producing lower equivalent yields. Similar results were reported by Jha et al. (2024) [42] in different rice-based cropping sequences. In the perennial hybrid Napier-based sequence, both the energy input and maize green-fodder-equivalent yield were lower than those of the other cropping sequences, at 36.5 × 10 [13] MJ/ha and 1371.37 q/ha, respectively. This system recorded a specific energy of 0.266 MJ/kg because of its comparatively low maize green-fodder-equivalent yield ( [20,29,8,36,43,41,44] .

References

1. Agrawal RK, Kumar S, Tripathi SB, Sharma RK, Singh KA. Agro-economic analysis of fodder based cropping system. Indian Journal of fertilizers. 2008;4(4):121-122, 125-131.
2. Shrivastava A, Jha AK, Jha G. Productivity and nutrient uptake influenced by different food -forage based cropping system. Ann. Agric. Res. New Series. 2014;35(3):286-91.
3. Verma D, Gontia AS, Amit J, Anita D. Study on leaf area index and leaf area duration of growth analytical parameters in Wheat, Barley, and Oat. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 2016;9(5):827-831.
4. Verma B, Jha AK, Ramakrishnan RS, Singh N, Dubey R, Patel R, et al. Assessment of foliar-applied stress regulators to sustain the growth and yield of wheat varieties under various irrigation levels. Plant Science Today. 2024.
5. Yadav PS, Kewat ML, Jha AK, Hemalatha K, Verma B. Effect of sowing management and herbicides on the weed dynamics of berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(2):2845-2848.
6. Yadav PS, Jha AK, Kewat ML, Sahu MP, Verma B. Effect of sowing management and herbicides application on weeds and yield of berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2024;69(1):71-77.
7. Tanisha Nirala, Jha AK, Badal Verma, Pushpendra Singh Yadav, Mahendra Anjna, Lakhan Bhalse. Bio efficacy of pinoxaden on weed flora and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biological Forum -An International Journal. 2022;14(4):558-561.
8. Tomar DS, Jha AK, Verma B, Meshram RK, Porwal M, Chouhan M, et al. Comparative Efficacy of Different Herbicidal Combinations on Weed Growth and Yield Attributes of Wheat. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(8):889-898.
9. Tiwari RK, Dwived BS, Deshmukh G, Pandey AK, Jha A. Effect of weed control treatments on growth of little seed cannary grass and productivity of wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2011;43(3 & 4):239-240.
10. Singh S. Optimizing the Spatial Structure of the Agricultural Production Function. Geographical Analysis. 2002;34(3):229244.https://doi.org/10.1353/geo.2002.0017
11. Singh H, Jha G, Rawat A, Babu S, Jha AK. Low seed rate at surface sowing enhance resilience of physiological parameters and economics of wheat. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013;83(8):881-4.
12. Singh H, Jha G, Babu S, Jha AK. Effect of seed rate and sowing depth on growth, yield attributes and yield of irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivaum) in Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2013;58(2):57-59.
13. Bhalse Lakhan, Jha AK, Verma B, Raghuvanshi S, Porwal Muskan, Sahu MP. Efficacy of pyroxasulfone and its combination against weeds in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2023;68(4):443-446.
14. Patel R, Jha AK, Badal V, Rahul K, Richa S. Bioefficacy of pinoxaden as post-emergence herbicide against weeds in wheat crop. Pollution research. 2023;42(1):115-117.
15. Sahu V, Kewat ML, Verma B, Singh R, Jha AK, Sahu MP, et al. Effect of carfentrazone-ethyl on weed flora, growth and productivity in wheat. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(3):3621-3624.
16. Raghuwanshi M, Jha AK, Verma B, Yadav PS, Shrivastava A. Weed dynamics of fodder maize as influenced by different herbicides. Internationa Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(7):245-251.
17. Raghuwanshi M, Jha AK, Verma B, Sahu MP, Dubey A. Assessing the effect of weed management practices on weed flora, growth and yield of fodder maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(11):112-120.
18. Jha AK, Shri S, Shrivstava A. Influence of physiological parameters and yield by different maize based cropping system. The Bioscan. 2015;10(1):203-205.
19. Verma D, Gontia AS, Jha A, Anita D. Study of cutting management on proximate analysis in wheat, oat and barley crops. Internationa Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 2016;9(4):593-597.
20. Tiwari RK, Jha A, Tripathi SK, Khan IM, Rao SK. Rice based cropping system and climate change. JNKVV Res Journal. 2013;47(1):239-247.
21. Bhayal Lalita, Kewat ML, Aakash, Bhayal Divya, Jha AK, Badkul Anamika Jain. Influence of different sowing dates and nutrient management on yield attributes and yield of wheat ( Triticum sestivum L. ). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2022;34(22):362-367.
22. Jha AK, Pandey S, Pandey D, Meshram RK. Effect of fertilizer management with growth regulator on growth and yield of wheat. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(2):2999-3000.
23. Jha AK, Pandey Suneeta, Shukla RS. Effect of Seed Rate and Dibbling on Growth, Yield Attributes and Yield of Different Varieties of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Madhya Pradesh, India. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 2020;9(6):707-711.
24. Tiwari RK, Khan IM, Singh N, Jha A. Chemical weed control in wheat through on form demonstration in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2011;43(3&4):215-216.
25. Jha AK, Sharma RS, Vishwakarma SK. Development of resource conservation techniques for tillage and sowing management in rice-wheat cropping system under irrigated production system of Kymore Plateau and Satpura hill zone of Madhya Pradesh. JNKVV Research Journal. 2007;41(1):26-31.
26. Jha AK, Shrivastava Arti Mehta AK, Billaiya SK, Raghuvanshi NS. Effect of Different Concentration of Seaweed Saps on Quality, Green Fodder and Seed Yields of Berseem (Trifolium alexandrium). International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2016;27(5):10081011.
27. Malviya P, Jha AK, Upadhyay VB. Effect of different proportions of vermicompost and fertilizers on growth and yield of scented rice and soil properties. Annals of Agricultural Research New Series. 2012;33(4):228-234.
28. Kumhar BL, Agrwal KK, Jha AK, Rai HK, Kumar V, Choudhary M, et al. Productivity and economical viability of grass based cropping systems. Range Management and Agroforestry. 2022;43(1):167-171.
29. Tomar DS, Jha AK, Porwal M, Verma B, Tirkey S, Khare Y, et al. Efficacy of Halauxifen-methyl+ Florasulam against Complex Weeds in Wheat under Kymore Plateau and Satpura Hill Zone of Madhya Pradesh, India. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(15):161-171.
30. Jha AK, Kewat ML, Upadhyay VB, Vishwakarma SK. Effect of tillage and sowing management on productivity, economics and energetics of rice-wheat cropping system for Kamore Plataue and Satpura hill zone of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2011;56(1):35-50.
31. Jha AK, Yadav PS, Shrivastava A, Upadhyay AK, Sekhawat LS, Verma B, et al. Effect of nutrient management practices on productivity of perennial grasses under high moisture condition. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 2023;54(3):12283-12288.
32. Kumar B, Shaloo, Bisht H, Meena MC, Dey A, Dass A, Paramesh V, Babu S, Upadhyay PK, Prajapati VK, Chandanshive A, Suna T, Yadav SK, Saini AK, Dwivedi N, Brahmanand PS, Jha AK. Nitrogen management sensor optimization, yield, economics, and nitrogen use efficiency of different wheat cultivars under varying nitrogen levels. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023;7:1228221.https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.12282 21
33. Kumbhare R, Jha AK, Patel R, Jaiswal A, Gupta V, Kumar P, et al. Optimum dose of fertilizer with growth regulators for higher yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(11):1117-1123.
34. Kumbhare R, Jha AK, Anjana G, Patel R, Tekam Y. Combination of Fertilizer and Growth Regulators Impact on Nutrient Balance in Wheat Crop (Triticum aestivum L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(22):823-832.
35. Chand S, Kumar S, Roy AK, Vijay D, Choudhary BB, Indu, Kumar P, Agrawal RK, Yadav VK, Kaushal P, Yadava DK, Kumar RV, Singh AK, Ahmed S, Malaviya DR, Singhal RK, Prasad B, Kapoor R, Jha AK, Panchta R. Analyzing trends and future projections in fodder oats (Avena sativa L.) for quality seed production in India. Frontier . Plant Science. 2025;16:1525422.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.15254 22
36. Bhalse L, Jha AK, Verma B, Dubey A, Surendra. Efficacy of Pyroxasulfone against Weeds and their Impact on Yield and Economic Analysis of Wheat. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2024;11(4):405411.https://doi.org/10.23910/2/2024.5639b
37. Gajbhiye Mrinali, Agrawal KK, Jha AK, Kumar Narendra. Correlation Studies of Growth and Yield Attributes with Grain Yield of Scented Rice as Influenced by Nano Urea in Combination with Inorganic Fertilizer and Organic Manure. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2024;14(3):703-708.
38. Dwivedi BS, Pandey AK, Tiwari RK, Jha AK, Khamparia NK. Performance of Integrated Nutrient Management on Yield and N uptake of Direct Seeded Rice. Progressive Agriculture an International Journal. 2012;12(2):381-385.
39. Gangwar Suchi, Naik KR, Jha Amit, Bajpai A. Soil properties as influenced by organic nutrient management practices under rice based cropping systems. Res. on Crops. 2011;17(1):8-12.
40. Jha AK, Shrivastva A, Raghuvansi NS, Kantwa SR. Effect of weed control practices on fodder and seed productivity of Berseem in Kymore plateau and Satpura hill zone of Madhya Pradesh. Range Management and Agroforestry. 2014;35(1):61-65.
41. Dubey Jitendra Kumar Kushwaha, HS, Jha Amit Kumar. Growth and biomass productivity of maize as influenced by maize cultivars and maize based cropping system. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;SP-11(7):749-751.
42. Jha AK, Yadav PS, Shrivastva A, Dubey A, Jaiswal A. Influence of tillage and nutrient management on fodder productivity and economics of Oat in rice-oat cropping system. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(4):607-614.
43. Chauhan A, Jha G, Chourasiya A, Jha A, Joshi J. Effect of tillage and weed management practices and growth productivity and energy analysis of late sown chickpea. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2017;9(5):3779-3781.
44. Dubey Jitendra Kumar, Kushwaha HS, Jha Amit Kumar. Yield and economics of maize under maize-based cropping system in Kymore Plateau of Madhya Pradesh. Ann. Agric. Res. New Series. 2022;43(4):409-412.
45. Agrawal KK, Bhadauria UPS, Jha A, Jain S. Crop weather relationship studies on chickpea for improving crop adaptation to climate change. Indian J. Trop. Agri. 2010;28:239-242.
46. Jha AK, Shrivastava A, Raghuvanshi NS. Effect of different phosphorus levels on growth, fodder yield and economics of various cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) genotypes. International Journal of Agricultural Science. 2014;10:409-411.
47. Jha AK, Shrivastava A, Nayak S. Integrated Nutrient Management in Forage Based Cropping System (Jowar + Cowpea -Berseem). Int. J. Pure App. Bioscience. 2018;6(5):1206-1211.
48. Jha AK, Shrivastava A, Raghuvanshi NS. Effect of different phosphorus levels on growth, fodder yield and economics of various cowpea genotypes under Kymore plateau and Satpura hills zone of Madhya Pradesh. Inter. J. Agric. Sci. 2014;10:409-411.
49. Kumhar BL, Agrawal KK, Jha AK, Rai HK. Variability of soil infiltration rate in different grass based cropping system in Kymore Plateau Satpura Hills region. Forage Res. 2021;47(3):325-328.
50. Pahade S, Jha AK, Verma B, Meshram RK, Toppo O, Shrivastava A. Efficacy of sulfentrazone 39.6% and pendimethalin as a pre emergence application against weed spectrum of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(12):51-58.
51. Rashid M, Iqbal M. Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) fodder to phosphorus fertilizer on torripsamment soil. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2011;21(2):220-225.
52. Rashid M, Iqbal M. Effect of phosphorus fertilizer on the yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.) fodder on clay loam soil. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. 2012;22(1):199-203.
53. Sairam G, Jha AK, Verma B, Porwal M, Sahu MP, Meshram RK. Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed flora of maize. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(11):68-76.
54. Shekara BG, Sowmyalatha BS, Baratkumar C. Effect of phosphorus levels on forage yield of fodder cowpea. Journal of Horticulture Letters. 2012;2(1):325.
55. Shri Sonam, Jha AK, Shrivastava A. Evaluation of different intercropping system for maximum productivityand economics in maize. Ann. Agric. Res. New Series. 2014;35(2):201-205.
56. Tanwar SPS, Sharma GL, Charar MS. Effect of phosphorus and bio-fertilizers on growth and productivity of black gram. Annals of Agricultural Research New Series. 2002;23(3):491-492.