Pulses, often called the “poor man’s meat,” are vital to India’s cropping system and nutritional security. Among them, chickpea is the most important pulse crop, contributing significantly to the nation’s production and income. Rajasthan is one of the leading chickpea-producing states, with Sawai Madhopur district playing a key role in regional output. However, productivity remains limited due to suboptimal management and inefficient resource use.
       
Cluster Front Line Demonstrations (CFLDs) have proven effective in promoting improved technologies through farmers’ participation and field-level learning. Efficient energy use in crop production is also crucial for sustainability and environmental protection. Therefore, the present study evaluated chickpea production under Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and farmers’ traditional practices to assess differences in energy efficiency, productivity, profitability and benefit-cost ratio in Sawai Madhopur district of Rajasthan.

The study was conducted across five blocks-Sawai Madhopur, Chauth Ka Barwara, Gangapur City, Khandar and Baunli-of Sawai Madhopur district under the National Food Security Mission-Pulses from Rabi 2018-19 to Rabi 2022-23 by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sawai Madhopur. Cluster Front Line Demonstrations (CFLDs) were implemented on 295 farmers’ fields covering 120 ha through participatory approaches. Farmers were selected through group meetings and skill training on Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices was provided. Prior to implementation, scientists conducted PRA surveys, baseline data collection and soil sampling to assess fertility status.
       
The demonstrated technologies included improved varieties GNG-1958 (bold-seeded, 22.3 g seed index, 80 kg ha^-1) and GNG-2144 (small-seeded, 14.6 g seed index, 60 kg ha^-1). Seeds were treated with Carboxin 37.5% + Thiram 37.5% DS (1 g kg^-1), chlorpyrifos 20 EC (5 ml) and Rhizobium + PSB culture (5 g kg^-1). Soil treatment with Trichoderma viride (2.5 kg ha^-1) mixed in FYM/Vermicompost (50 kg ha^-1) was applied to manage wilt and soil-borne fungi. Recommended fertilizers (N:P:Zn @ 20:40:5 kg ha^-1) were applied at sowing. One irrigation was given at 45-50 DAS after nipping. Pod borer management included 50 bird perches ha^-1 and Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 200 g ha^-1 at ETL level. Demonstration fields were regularly monitored by KVK scientists to collect data and farmer feedback. Yield and yield parameters were recorded through crop cutting experiments at maturity.
       
Energy budgeting was analyzed as the ratio of output to input energy (Alam et al., 2005) using equivalents as given in (Table 1) for human labour, machinery, fuel, fertilizers, pesticides and seed (MJ ha^-1). Total dry matter (grain + straw) was considered output. Input energy was computed by multiplying each input quantity with its energy equivalent and total energy use was summed. Output energy was calculated from grain and straw yields. Based on these, net energy, energy use efficiency and energy productivity were estimated (Koocheki et al., 2011).
 

Net energy (MJ ha^-1) = Energy output (MJ ha^-1) - Energy input (MJ ha^-1)

 

 
Indirect energy included energy embodied in seeds, chemical fertilizers (NPK), herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and machinery while direct energy covered human labor, diesel, electricity and water use in chickpea production. Non renewable energy includes diesel, electricity, chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers and machinery and renewable energy consist of human labour, seeds and water.
 
Economical analysis
 
The economic inputs under the production of Chickpea contains variable costs. The economic output of chickpea production includes grain and straw yield. All prices of input and out were market price. Gross return, net return, BC ratio were calculated as per the following equations (Bockari-Gevao et al., 2005, Banaeian et al., 2011).
 

Gross return (Rs ha^-1) = Grain and straw yield (Kg ha^-1) × grain and straw price (Rs)

 

Net return (Rs ha^-1) = Gross return (Rs ha^-1) - Total cost of cultivation (Rs ha^-1)

 
All these technologies and experimental protocols which performed in a scientific manner was approved under guideline of Indian council of Agriculture research and package of practices and technology adopted were scientifically recommended by Agriculture University, Kota, Rajasthan, India.

Cost of cultivation and output of chickpea
 
The cost of cultivation and output for Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and farmers’ practice plots are presented in Table 2 and 3 for 2018-2022. The cost of cultivation in ICM plots was ₹27,460, ₹31,562.76, ₹33,329.61, ₹33,329.61 and  31,272.61 ha^-1 during 2018-19 to 2022-23, respectively. Among the cost components, labour and machinery contributed the largest share, followed by input costs (seed, fertilizers and irrigation). Over the years, a gradual increase in total cultivation cost was observed due to higher labour wages and rising input prices. The inclusion of seed treatment and nipping operations slightly raised the cost in ICM plots compared to farmers’ practice. In contrast, the cost of cultivation in farmers’ plots was ₹23,672.5, ₹29,561.05, ₹30,781, ₹30,781 and ₹26,292 ha^-1, i.e., 16.00%, 6.76%, 8.27%, 8.27% and 18.79% lower than ICM plots, respectively. The lower cost in farmers’ practice was mainly due to the absence of systematic seed and soil treatment, reduced fertilizer use and fewer intercultural operations. In fertilizer management, farmers applied only DAP at sowing, in higher quantities, without following recommended doses or using micronutrients. Zinc deficiency was common, yet awareness of micronutrient application was low, causing cost variation. Nipping, which enhances lateral branching and yield (Sanbagavalli et al., 2020), was performed only in ICM plots, increasing labour cost. Gram pod borer infestation at pod formation required Integrated Pest Management (IPM). ICM plots demonstrated pheromone traps and Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 200 g ha^-1, constituting 2.1% of total cost, while farmers used the less effective Dimethoate 30 EC @ 1 L ha^-1.




 
Impact of integrated crop management practices on total energy input, output, net energy, energy use efficiency and employment generation
 
Data presented in Table 4 and 5 revealed that the consistent reduction (7.7-12.7%) in total energy input under Integrated Crop Management (ICM) compared to farmers’ practice (FP) reflects a more resource-efficient production system. This reduction mainly resulted from optimized fertilizer and fuel use, demonstrating that ICM practices align with the principles of sustainable intensification-producing more with fewer external inputs. A balanced contribution of major energy-consuming inputs such as diesel (31.56%), nitrogen (23.22%) and seed (16.90%) under ICM indicates a rational distribution of energy sources, enhancing input-use efficiency and reducing environmental pressure through lower fossil fuel dependency.




       
Higher total and net energy outputs under ICM across all five years (2018-2023) signify greater energy conversion efficiency and ecological sustainability. Total and net energy outputs were markedly higher in ICM plots throughout 2018-19 to 2022-23, confirming greater overall energy gains and sustainability compared to FP. Energy use efficiency values were also superior under ICM (15.72-16.43) than FP (11.20-12.19), indicating better conversion of inputs into productive outputs. Similarly, energy productivity in ICM (0.39-0.41) exceeded FP (0.27-0.31), showing higher energy returns per unit of input. According to Kumbhar et al., (2025) the energy parameters under nutrient management and a sowing spacing of 30 × 10 cm recorded higher energy use efficiency and energy productivity compared to the farmers’ practice of sowing behind the plough. These results are in close agreement with previous findings and confirm that the adoption of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices enhances overall energy indices. From a sustainability perspective, ICM contributes simultaneously to economic, environmental and social goals. Environmentally, lower fossil energy input and improved nutrient balance reduce carbon emissions and enhance soil health. Economically, higher energy output and net returns improve farm profitability.
       
Employment generation was greater in ICM (35 mandays ha^-1) than FP (26 mandays ha^-1) due to additional labour requirements for operations such as nipping and seed treatment. The energy consumption pattern in FP followed the order: diesel > nitrogen > seed > machinery > phosphorus > irrigation water > insecticide > human labour > fungicide > micronutrients. In contrast, ICM achieved better optimization of resources with minimal wastage and higher output energy. The improved energy efficiency, productivity and net energy balance under ICM indicate better resource utilization and sustainability.
       
Overall, the findings demonstrate that ICM practices improved energy efficiency, energy productivity and net energy balance while creating more rural employment opportunities. Similar trends have been reported by Jakhar et al. (2025); Singh et al. (2023); Babu et al. (2023); Gupta et al., (2023); Patel et al., (2023); Mishra et al., (2022); Rai et al. (2022); and Kumar et al. (2021, 2022); Singh et al., (2020); Yadav et al., (2023).
 
Comparison of integrated crop management practices and farmers practices for total energy, net energy, energy use efficiency and energy productivity over five years using paired t-test (α = 5%)
 
A comparative study using SPSS software (Table 6) analyzed energy metrics from 2018 to 2022, revealing significant differences between Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and Farmers’ Practices (FP). Total energy for ICM increased from 82,067.16 MJ ha^-1 (2018) to 85,789.44 MJ ha^-1 (2022), while FP rose from 66,987.12 to 72,915.40 MJ ha^-1, with all years showing significant t-values (2018: 76.903; 2019: 6.117; 2020: 23.990; 2021: 9.924; 2022: 41.895). The difference trend is depicted in Fig 1.




       
Net energy followed a similar pattern, increasing in ICM from 76,847.98 to 80,568.27 MJ ha^-1 and in FP from 61,009.80 to 66,938.40 MJ ha^-1, with significant t-values (2018: 80.770; 2019: 6.475; 2020: 24.685; 2021: 10.275; 2022: 44.354). Fig 2 illustrates this rising trend for ICM plots.


       
Energy use efficiency in ICM was higher (15.72-16.43) than FP (11.21-12.20), showing significant variation (2018: 128.910; 2019: 10.440; 2020: 32.800; 2021: 15.299; 2022: 80.569). Likewise, energy productivity was greater in ICM (0.40-0.42) than FP (0.27-0.31) with significant t-values (2018: 59.383; 2019: 22.337; 2020: 21.173; 2021: 6.124; 2022: 46.944), as shown in Fig 3.


       
Overall, the study confirms the superior efficiency of ICM over conventional methods in optimizing energy use. These findings align with those of Yadav et al., (2024); Singh et al., (2023); Kumar et al. (2022); Pawar et al., (2021); Meena et al. (2022); Bamboriya et al. (2023) and Nath et al. (2020).
 
Practical recommendations
 
The present findings suggest that Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices should be promoted among farmers as an energy-efficient and sustainable production approach. Farmers are advised to adopt balanced nutrient management, precise fertilizer application and optimum crop geometry (30 × 10 cm spacing) to enhance energy productivity and profitability. Extension workers should emphasize capacity-building programs and on-farm demonstrations to improve awareness of input optimization and labour management. Policymakers should incentivize the adoption of ICM through subsidies on energy-efficient equipment, soil health cards and training initiatives, particularly in semi-arid regions. These interventions will help reduce production costs, minimize environmental impact and enhance rural employment opportunities while ensuring long-term agricultural sustainability.

The findings of this study underscore the significant advantages of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices over traditional Farmers’ Practices (FP) in terms of energy metrics from 2018 to 2022. The analysis demonstrated that ICM not only utilizes total energy more efficiently but also results in higher net energy outputs, increased energy use efficiency and enhanced energy productivity. The consistent superiority of ICM practices, highlighted by significant t-values across all measured parameters, indicates their effectiveness in optimizing resource use in agricultural production. As agriculture faces increasing challenges related to sustainability and resource management, the adoption of ICM practices emerges as a viable strategy to enhance productivity while minimizing environmental impacts. These results advocate for the broader implementation of ICM in farming systems to improve overall agricultural performance and contribute to sustainable agricultural practices.
 
Authors’ contributions
 
Nupur Sharma, Conceptualized the study, conducted the literature review and led the data analysis, Designed the methodology, performed the experiments and contributed to the interpretation of results, Writing original draft. Bhanwar Lal Dhaka, Designed the methodology, Formal Analysis, data curation. Bharat Lal Meena, Assisted in data collection. Ankita Ankita, Statistical analysis, graphs and table formations, review draft and data curation. All authors  reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. Each author agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) for financial support and to the ICAR-ATARI, Jodhpur for providing technical guidance and monitoring under the Frontline Demonstration programmes. The authors also acknowledge the valuable support and infrastructure provided by the Agriculture University, Kota and the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sawai Madhopur for successful execution of the work. The cooperation of the participating farmers and the assistance of field staff in data collection and field management are deeply appreciated.
 
Disclaimer
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information presented in this paper. However, they do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses arising from the use or interpretation of the data and results contained herein.
 
Ethical statement
 
This research did not involve any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors. All necessary institutional approvals for conducting field experiments were obtained from the Agriculture University, Kota and the trials were carried out in accordance with standard agronomic and ethical research practices.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article. No external funding or sponsorship influenced the experimental design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.