Abstract
In field experiments in six districts of Haryana, best practice management (including zero tillage and 3-way split application of N-fertiliser) provided small (2%) improvements in grain yield when compared with local farmer practice. This best practice management also gave consistent improvement in chapatti quality as measured by grain hardness (11.4%) and chapatti score (3.2%). Where a ‘shot-gun’ mix of micronutrients and sulphur was included with farmer practice treatment, or with best practice treatment, grain yield was increased by about 3% and there were further improvements in quality. Net returns were calculated for wheat production, the large cost saving associated with not undertaking the 4 cultivations used in local farmer practice, the best practice treatment was always the most profitable (by 9%), and even if no yield improvement was assumed this treatment would still be 6.7% more profitable. Even though it had a 30 to 40% yield penalty, the most profitable practice involved using variety C-306. This is an old wheat variety recognised as the standard for chapatti quality, and C-306 gets at least twice the market value of wheat sold at prices set as a minimum support price. High yields of wheat and its availability is an on-going priority for India, particularly for maintaining food security for the large population. Therefore, any wholesale change in production that moves farmers away from optimizing total grain production is untenable. However, 16 to 20% of farmers and consumers already have some direct marketing/purchasing of the wheat harvest via local markets, and these often involve quality considerations. Key words: Chapatti quality, profitability, wheat marketing.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Best practice management increased wheat grain yield by 2% over local farmer practice.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- best practice management (including zero tillage and 3-way split application of N-fertiliser)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- improvementse0
- Value
- 2%e0
- Comparator
- local farmer practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“best practice management (including zero tillage and 3-way split application of N-fertiliser) provided small (2%) improvements in grain yield when compared with local farmer practice.”
t0“Enhancing farm profitability by growing wheat for chapatti quality markets in Haryana, India”
Claim · model-written summary
Best practice management improved grain hardness by 11.4%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“This best practice management also gave consistent improvement in chapatti quality as measured by grain hardness (11.4%) and chapatti score (3.2%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Best practice management improved chapatti score by 3.2%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“This best practice management also gave consistent improvement in chapatti quality as measured by grain hardness (11.4%) and chapatti score (3.2%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding micronutrients and sulphur increased wheat grain yield by about 3%.
- Treatment
- ‘shot-gun’ mix of micronutrients and sulphure0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- about 3%e0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Where a ‘shot-gun’ mix of micronutrients and sulphur was included with farmer practice treatment, or with best practice treatment, grain yield was increased by about 3% and there were further improvements in quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding micronutrients and sulphur further improved wheat quality.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Where a ‘shot-gun’ mix of micronutrients and sulphur was included with farmer practice treatment, or with best practice treatment, grain yield was increased by about 3% and there were further improvements in quality.”
Claim · model-written summary
Best practice management was 9% more profitable than local practice.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the best practice treatment was always the most profitable (by 9%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Best practice management remained 6.7% more profitable if no yield gain was assumed.
- Treatment
- this treatmente0
- Outcome
- profitablee0
- Direction
- more profitablee0
- Value
- 6.7%e0
- Qualifier
- no yield improvement was assumede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“even if no yield improvement was assumed this treatment would still be 6.7% more profitable.”
Claim · model-written summary
C-306 had a 30 to 40% yield penalty.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Even though it had a 30 to 40% yield penalty, the most profitable practice involved using variety C-306.”
Claim · model-written summary
Using variety C-306 was the most profitable practice.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the most profitable practice involved using variety C-306.”
Claim · model-written summary
C-306 wheat fetched at least twice the minimum support price.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- C-306e0
- Outcome
- market valuee0
- Value
- at least twicee0
- Comparator
- minimum support pricee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“C-306 gets at least twice the market value of wheat sold at prices set as a minimum support price.”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
144 papers more in this group
See all 148 papers →micronutrient · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
2,057 papers more in this group
See all 2,061 papers →micronutrient · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.