• Detailed energy use of single treatment
• Individual treatment abstract
• Field operation-wise energy use
• Net energy benefit, energy efficiency
• Energy use will be categorized as source
• Output will be directly exported to excel
13.5 A Case Study Using TNAU Energy Soft 2016
Using the TNAU Energy software, energy efficiency was calculated for the field
experiment on “identifying the best nutrient management for maize” conducted at
Maize Research Station, Vagarai, Palani, Dindigul district of Tamil Nadu
(Tables 13.4 and 13.5). The treatments for this experiment are as follows:
• T1 Treatment—Farmer’s method: 150–50–50 NPK kg/ha
• T2 Treatment—TNAU-RDF: 250–75–75 NPK kg/ha
• T3 Treatment—IPNI-SSNM: 150–47–29 NPK kg/ha
• T4 Treatment—IPNI-nutrient expert: 180–115–160 NPK kg/ha
• T5 Treatment—Control—No fertilizer
Among the five treatments, the TNAU-RDF method had produced higher yield
and used lesser energy followed by IPNI-nutrient expert method. Though the IPNInutrient expert method had recorded a higher BC ratio than TNAU-RDF method, the
energy efficient method was TNAU–-RDF as it had higher energy output, net energy
benefit and energy efficiency ratio. The difference in energy use between TNAURDF and IPNI-nutrient expert (3314 MJ) was much lesser than the difference of net
energy benefit (23825) between the treatments. Hence, the TNAU-RDF is better in
both energy efficient and economic method of fertilizer application than IPNInutrient expert and IPNI-SSNM method. TNAU Energy soft 2016 aids in identifying
the energy efficient agricultural technologies. Further, it helps to determine the best
mix of input sources without repeated and expensive field trials. So by identifying
and promoting energy-efficient technologies, it would be possible to reduce expenditure and hence cost of cultivation. The energy-efficient technologies aid in cutting
down the GHG emissions from agricultural activity.
13.6 Conclusion
Development of technology in every area, including agriculture, is a continuous
process to maintain and increase productivity to feed the large population. The
reliability of these technologies, especially energy efficiency should be ensured for
their input usage, so that the technologies can provide necessary impetus for climate
action. TNAU Energy soft 2016 helps scientists to identify the energy efficient
agricultural technologies as climate change mitigation and adaptation. It assists to
298
G. Dheebakaran et al.
• Individual treatment abstract
• Field operation-wise energy use
• Net energy benefit, energy efficiency
• Energy use will be categorized as source
• Output will be directly exported to excel
13.5 A Case Study Using TNAU Energy Soft 2016
Using the TNAU Energy software, energy efficiency was calculated for the field
experiment on “identifying the best nutrient management for maize” conducted at
Maize Research Station, Vagarai, Palani, Dindigul district of Tamil Nadu
(Tables 13.4 and 13.5). The treatments for this experiment are as follows:
• T1 Treatment—Farmer’s method: 150–50–50 NPK kg/ha
• T2 Treatment—TNAU-RDF: 250–75–75 NPK kg/ha
• T3 Treatment—IPNI-SSNM: 150–47–29 NPK kg/ha
• T4 Treatment—IPNI-nutrient expert: 180–115–160 NPK kg/ha
• T5 Treatment—Control—No fertilizer
Among the five treatments, the TNAU-RDF method had produced higher yield
and used lesser energy followed by IPNI-nutrient expert method. Though the IPNInutrient expert method had recorded a higher BC ratio than TNAU-RDF method, the
energy efficient method was TNAU–-RDF as it had higher energy output, net energy
benefit and energy efficiency ratio. The difference in energy use between TNAURDF and IPNI-nutrient expert (3314 MJ) was much lesser than the difference of net
energy benefit (23825) between the treatments. Hence, the TNAU-RDF is better in
both energy efficient and economic method of fertilizer application than IPNInutrient expert and IPNI-SSNM method. TNAU Energy soft 2016 aids in identifying
the energy efficient agricultural technologies. Further, it helps to determine the best
mix of input sources without repeated and expensive field trials. So by identifying
and promoting energy-efficient technologies, it would be possible to reduce expenditure and hence cost of cultivation. The energy-efficient technologies aid in cutting
down the GHG emissions from agricultural activity.
13.6 Conclusion
Development of technology in every area, including agriculture, is a continuous
process to maintain and increase productivity to feed the large population. The
reliability of these technologies, especially energy efficiency should be ensured for
their input usage, so that the technologies can provide necessary impetus for climate
action. TNAU Energy soft 2016 helps scientists to identify the energy efficient
agricultural technologies as climate change mitigation and adaptation. It assists to
298
G. Dheebakaran et al.