48 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 Research on World Agricultural Economy https://ojs.nassg.org/index.php/rwae Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published by NanYang Academy of Sciences Pte. Ltd. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). *Corresponding Author: Mohammad Mobarak Hossain, Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh; Email: dr.mobarakphd@gmail.com DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i2.516 Received: 8 April 2022; Received in revised form: 22 May 2022; Accepted: 27 May 2022; Published: 30 May 2022 Citation: Hossain, M.M., Begum, M., Bell, R.W., 2022. Land Use, Productivity, and Profitability of Traditional Rice– Wheat System Could be Improved by Conservation Agriculture. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 3(2), 516. http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i2.516 RESEARCH ARTICLE Land Use, Productivity, and Profitability of Traditional Rice–Wheat System Could be Improved by Conservation Agriculture Mohammad Mobarak Hossain1* Mahfuza Begum1 Richard W Bell2 1. Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh 2. Centre for Sustainable Farming Systems, Future Food Institute, Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia Abstract: Power tiller-driven plow tillage and crop residue exclusionary Traditional Agriculture practices are expensive, labor demanding, soil damaging, and eco-unfriendly. Over the last several years, pursuits of crop production through sustaining the productive capacity of soils, and environmental quality, have raised concern to adopt Conservation Ag- riculture worldwide. Single tillage combined with herbicides and crop residue retention principles of Conservation Agriculture are being developed. Between 2016–2017 and 2017–2018, a two-year on-farm experiment was done in Bangladesh. We practiced two crop establishment methods; Traditional Agriculture: Plow tillage followed by three manual weeding without residue preservation of previous crop and Conservation Agriculture: Pre-plant herbicide + single tillage + pre-emergence herbicide + post-emergence herbicide; under rice–wheat and rice–wheat–mungbean systems. Data reveal that the Conservation Agriculture was more cost-effective crop establishment technique than Traditional Agriculture in rice, wheat, and mungbean by increasing the ratio of benefit to costs by 24.3%, 35.7% and 48.8%, respectively, with a savings in tillage operations (66.3%, 58.1%, and 57.6%, respectively), weeding expenditures (59.2%, 24.5%, and 42.2%, respectively), and manpower requirements (25.1%, 27.2%, and 31.3%, respectively). This has resulted in an increase of 32% productivity of rice–wheat–mungbean systems with the yield advantage of 16%, 31% and 37% in rice, wheat and mungbean, respectively. When mungbean was added, the rice–wheat system’s productivity rose by 43%. The rice–wheat–mungbean system under Traditional Agriculture had the highest land utilization efficiency (99.45%), followed by Conservation Agriculture (92.05%), which expanded the scope to include additional crops into rice–wheat–mungbean system. Moreover, the Conservation Agriculture had a 59.7% greater production efficiency than Traditional Agriculture, where the rice–wheat–mungbean system having the highest production efficiency (53.00 kg–1 ha–1 day–1), followed by the rice–wheat system (45.57 kg–1 ha–1 day–1). Keywords: Plow tillage; Single tillage; Herbicides; Crop residues; Land utilization efficiency; Production efficiency; Rice equivalent yield 1. Introduction Rice–Wheat (R–W) is the predominant cropping pat- tern in Bangladesh, occupying around 0.8 million hectares of land [1]. In this system, rice is cultivated during the rainy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0640-3209 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2754-4692 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7756-3755 49 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 season (July~October) while wheat is cultivated during the dry season (November~March). In April and May, the land sits fallow for two months. It has been shown that ce- real–cereal sequences such as rice–wheat are more stress- ful on soil resources than cereal–legume sequences [2]. It is also suggested that the R–W system decreases system output owing to decreasing soil organic matter, reduced soil fertility, the development of nutrient imbalances, and ineffective fertilization techniques [3]. The R–W system is reported to extract more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potas- sium than rice–rice (R–R) system. It is possible to plant a crop with a short life cycle of 60~65 days, such as mung- bean, in rice–wheat–mungbean (R–W–M) combination, therefore making a substantial contribution to food and nutrition security [4]. Additionally, by including mungbean (M), the nitrogen economy of the succeeding cereal crop may be enhanced in traditional R–W system. Traditionally in Bangladesh, almost all crops are cul- tivated via intensive plowing after the complete removal of previous crop. Prior to manual transplantation, the rice field is traditionally saturated. On the other hand, non- rice crops e.g., wheat, mungbean etc. are grown on heav- ily pulverized dry soil. The sustainability of agricultural output is called into doubt by these traditional practices. Intensive plowing degrades soil structure, depletes soil organic matter (SOM), and increases agricultural labor and fuel requirements for plowing, as well as the overall production cost. In addition, it delays the establishment of subsequent crops, resulting in decreased yields [5]. Also, there are more worries about a lack of farm workers be- cause of lower salaries and people moving to cities [6]. Be- cause of this, there is a lot of demand for labor and other low-input systems that can produce more for less capital. Without a new and more long-lasting improvement in agricultural productivity, the supply of food would have a hard time keeping up with the fast-growing demand caused by a fast-growing population. Conservation Ag- riculture (CA) could be a way to deal with of these prob- lems [6]. The CA is founded on the core principles of mini- mal soil plowing with herbicides, residue retention from prior crops, and judicious crop rotation [7]. Combining sin- gle tillage with crop residues may enhance the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil, promote timely planting, save labor, fuel, and equipment costs, and preserve profitability [8]. However, global statistics indi- cate that technology may be able to assist Bangladesh’s agriculture in addressing labor and energy problems. In CA, numerous solutions for minimal soil distur- bance exist, including single tillage (ST), which disturbs the soil surface by 15~25% with a plow ridge of 6 cm × 4 cm depth and width [5]. Farmers are interested in using ST to produce crops since it lowers cultivation expenses, prevents soil deterioration, and conserves water without sacrificing production. However, the ST has been rebuked for its ineffective weed management. By contrast, typical heavy tillage efficiently smothers weeds and their seeds deep into the soil [9]. In ST, to eradicate existing weeds and their viable seeds, a non-selective herbicide in a sequence of a pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide must be applied [10]. Farmers are increasingly using herbicides to manage weeds because of their quicker effectual actions with a cheaper cost to overcome the labor shortage caused by high salaries during peak demand seasons [11]. Earlier study proved that herbicide ensured constant and efficient weed control and resulted in a greater yield as compared to manual weeding [12]. However, weed resistance to her- bicides may develop with frequent usage of herbicides with the same chemical that increase weed control’s dif- ficulty [13]. Furthermore, herbicide longevity in the soil and their toxicity on the subsequent crop(s) are major problems. Due to growing pricing and environmental con- cerns, the supply of acceptable herbicide compounds has diminished, and highlight the importance of implement- ing an integrated approach to managing weeds to ensure a sustainable ST. Residues of previous crops and crop in- tensification have already been highlighted as agronomic options for weed control in ST practice integrated with herbicides [14]. Previous research has shown that crop residue preser- vation accelerates system productivity through improving soil health and controlling weeds [13]. Hence, it crucial to preserve resides of previous crops under R–W systems, which are typically removed from the fields. Although multiple studies have been done on the combined impacts of ST and crop residues to enhance the system productiv- ity, no large-scale study has been conducted in Bangla- desh on this technique under the R–W–M system. The potential for R–W–M systems using the advantages of CA principles has generated considerable attention in Bang- ladesh. Thus, the present two-year research used R–W– M systems in conjunction with the low and single tillage and preserving residues to determine a sustainable crop production practice. 2. Methodology 2.1 Location and Tenure The site of this on-farm experiment located at the Bhung- namary village of Gouripur sub-district under Mymensingh district in Bangladesh (24.4514°N, 90.2411°E) (Figure 1). This two-years longer experiment was conducted during 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 successive years. 50 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 Figure 1. Site of the on-farm experimentations 2.2 Soil and Climate The field was a medium-high piece of land that was free of flooding and had a sandy clay loam soil texture (sand: silt: clay@52: 20: 28). The pH of the soil was 6.81 with N, P, K, and S content of 1100 ppm, 16.3 ppm, 0.32 ppm and 14.1 ppm, respectively. The average annual rainfall in the region is 172 mm, with around 95% falling between May and September (Figure 2). Total rain was extreme during June~October and lowest during November~March in both years. The highest temperature in April~May was sometimes over 33 °C, while the low temperature in January was about 12 °C. In both years, the months of October~November and March had the highest number of sunshine hours. 2.3 Experimental Materials, Treatments, and Design Rice, wheat and mungbean were grown during the time of June~October, December~March, November~January and April~May, respectively in two successive years. The following two crop establishment methods under two cropping sequence were imposed in RCBD manner and were replicated four times. (A) Crop establishment methods i. Traditional Agriculture (TA): Plow tillage (PT) fol- lowed by three manual weeding (at 25 days, 45 days, and 65 days after planting) without residue preservation of previous crop; ii. Conservation Agriculture (CA): Pre-plant herbicide (PPH) prior to single tillage (ST), followed by pre-emer- gence (PEH) and post-emergence herbicides (POH) with 50% anchored residue of previous crop (height basis). Here, we used glyphosate (3.7 L) and pendimethalin (2.5 L) as PPH and PEH for all crops, while, ethoxysulfu- ron-ethyl (100 g), carfentrazone-ethyl+isoproturon (1.25 kg), and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (650 mL) as POH for rice, wheat, and mungbean, respectively. The rate of herbicides application was active ingredient per hectare basis. The PPH was applied three days before in ST operation. The PEH and POH were applied three and 25 days after plant- ing. Only ethoxysulfuron-ethyl was sprayed in water log- ging conditions, and the rest were applied at field capacity moisture level. Herbicides were applied using a hand- operated knapsack sprayer. Planting was done without keeping previous crop residues in the TA treatment. Rice, wheat, and mungbean were harvested at 50% height of plant anchored from the ground label in CA. Figure 2. Weather conditions of the experimental site 51 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 (B) Cropping systems i. Traditional Agriculture (TA): Rice–Wheat (R–W) system; ii. Conservation Agriculture (CA): Rice–Wheat–Mung- bean (R–W–M) system. 2.4 Tillage and Planting Practice The PT had finished with four plowings and cross plowings in each 9 m × 5 m plot, done by a two-wheel tractor (2WT). A Versatile Multi-crop Planter (VMP) machine finished the ST. Here, each row of 6 cm × 5 cm width and depth was made at the row spacing of the re- spective crop. Summer rice (BRRI hybrid dhan6) seedlings were transplanted in the dully prepared puddled land in PT. Whereas, in ST, after the VMP operation, the field was flooded with about 5 cm of water for 24 hours to soften the strips enough to transplant single rice seedlings per hill. Line seeding of wheat (BARI Gom 26), and mung- bean (BARI Mung 6) was done using VMP in CA and by manually in TA on the same day. 2.5 Intercultural Operations We applied N, P, K, S and Zn fertilizers in the form of prilled-urea, triple super phosphate, muriate of potash, gypsum and zinc sulphate monohydrate the crop field at the rate presented in the Table 1. Prior to planting in all crops, the whole P, K, and S were broadcast. At 2, 4, and 6 weeks after rice transplantation, N was administered in three splits. In wheat, two-thirds of the nitrogen was ap- plied during final plowing and the remainder during the 3 weeks after seeding (WAS). Mungbean was sown with the full dose of N. Table 1. Fertilizers used in the experimentations Crops Fertilizers (kg ha–1) N P K S Zn Rice 120 22 35 11 3 Wheat 90 26 33 20 2 Mungbean 20 20 15 10 1 Rice did not require additional irrigation due to ad- equate rainfall. Three irrigations at 3 WAS, 8 WAS, 11 WAS were used in wheat. Two irrigations with adequate drainage were performed on the mungbean at 4 WAS. Appropriate plant protection measures were undertaken throughout the crop growing season in accordance with the requirements [15,16]. 2.6 Measurements and Analysis 2.6.1 Yield Attributes and Yield Prescribed data on rice, wheat and mungbean have been transcribed from randomly selected ten plants at 80% maturity. All crops were reaped from a three-by-one meter space in three different locations within each plot. At a moisture level of 14%, the yield (t ha–1) was computed. 2.6.2 Rice Equivalent Yield (REY) The REY was computed to compare system perfor- mance by converting non-rice crop yields to rice equiva- lent yield on a pricing basis using the Equation (1). The REY of all individual crops was summed together to cal- culate system productivity [17]. (1) Here, Yx and Px denote the yield (t ha–1) and price (US$ t–1) of crop ‘x’, respectively, while Pr is the price (US$ t–1) of rice. 2.6.3 Land Utilization Efficiency (LUE) The LUE was calculated as the sum of the growth du- ration days of all crops in the cropping sequence by 365 days [18] as of Equation (2). (2) Here, ∑Dc denotes the sum duration (days) of all crops in the system. 2.6.4 Production Efficiency (PE) The PE was computed by dividing the overall econom- ic yield on a rice equivalent basis by sum of the growth duration days of all crops [18] as of Equation (3). (3) Here, the REY and ∑Dc denote the rice equivalent yield and the sum duration of all crops in the system 2.6.5 Economics The gross return, gross margin, and benefit cost ratios were calculated using the partial budgeting approach [19]. The data on crop measurement parameters for each year were analyzed statistically using the International Rice Research Institute developed STAR (Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research) software [20], and mean compari- sons were done using DMRT at the 5% level [21]. 52 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 3. Results 3.1 Effect of Crop Establishment Methods on the Yield Traits and Yield of Rice Data revealed that CA significantly yielded about 16% more paddy than TA, which might be influenced by the 21% and 37% higher number of tillers m–2 and grains pan- icle–1, respectively in CA although the number of hills m–2, sterile spikelets panicle–1, and 1000-grain weight were not impacted (Table 2). It was also showed that rice cultivation under CA boosted the profit (BCR) by 24% than the TA. 3.2 Effect of Crop Establishment Methods on the Yield Traits and Yield of Wheat Data presented in the Table 3 showed that about 11% higher number of heads m–2 and 27% higher grains head–1 in CA boosted 31% higher grain yield in CA (4.74 t ha–1) relative to the TA (3.61 t ha–1), while the plant population and 1000-grains weight were not influenced by the crop establishment methods. Moreover, the CA earned 36% higher profit over the TA. 3.3 Effect of Crop Establishment Methods on the Yield Traits and Yield of Mungbean We found 17% higher number of pods plant–1 and a yield increase of about 37% in CA compared to TA (Table 4). There was no significant influence of CA and TA on the number of plants m–2 and seeds pod–1, and 1000-seeds weight. Data also disclosed that mungbean cultivation un- der CA boosted the profit by 49% than the TA. 3.4 Effect of Crop Establishment Methods on the System Productivity, Land Usage Efficiency (LUE) and Production Efficiency (PE) The CA method increased the productivity of the R– W and R–W–M systems by 27% and 32%, respectively than the TA (Table 5). When mungbean was included, the productivity of the R–W system increased its production by 43%. The R–W–M system under TA had the greatest LUE (99.45%), followed by the same system under CA (92.05%), and the R–W system under TA (81.91%), while the R–W system under CA had the lowest LUE (76.71%). Additionally, data indicated that the R–W–M system in CA had the greatest PE (53 kg–1 ha–1 day–1), followed by the R–W system in CA (45.57 kg–1 ha–1 day–1) and the R– W–M system in TA (45.57 kg–1 ha–1 day–1). While the R– W system with the lowest PE (33.14 kg–1 ha–1 day–1) was discovered under TA. CA’s PE was, on average, was 60% more than TA’s. 3.5 Effect of Crop Establishment Methods on the Economics of Crop Production Data presented in the Table 6 revealed that the TA and CA method exerted a significant influence on the costs of crop production. The CA was the most cost-efficient method where savings were attributable to tillage opera- tions (66.3%, 58.1%, 57.6%), weeding expenses (59.2%, 24.5%, and 42.2%), and labor needs (25.1%, 27.2%, and 31.3%) in rice, wheat, and mungbean, respectively. Table 2. Treatment effect on the yield traits and yield of rice Treatments Hills m–2 (no.) Tillers m–2 (no.) Grains panicle–1 (no.) Sterile spikelets panicle–1 (no.) 1000-grains weight (g) Grain yield (t ha–1) BCR TA 26 239b 145b 35 29.60 5.41b 1.07b CA 26 288a 199a 26 32.48 6.23a 1.33a LSD (p ≤ 0.05) 1.93 6.68 8.52 3.66 3.40 0.17 0.11 TA: Traditional Agriculture, CA: Conservation Agriculture, BCR: Befit Cost Ratio, LSD: Least Significant Difference. The means with similar letters do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance Table 3. Treatment effect on yield traits and yield of wheat Treatments Plants m–2 (no.) Heads m–2 (no.) Grains head–1 (no.) 1000-grains weight (g) Grain yield (t ha–1) BCR TA 164 293b 31b 44.87 3.61b 1.12b CA 167 324a 39a 46.13 4.74a 1.52a LSD (p ≤ 0.05) 15.25 5.52 4.54 2.50 0.14 0.11 TA: Traditional Agriculture, CA: Conservation Agriculture, BCR: Befit Cost Ratio, LSD: Least Significant Difference. The means with similar letters do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance 53 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 4. Discussion In the present study, CA increased the productivity of rice–wheat–mungbean system than the TA. The produc- tion gaps between these two practices might be explained by variations in yield and yield-contributing characters of individual crops such as the number of effective tillers m–2 and grains panicle–1 of rice; the number of heads m–2 and grains head–1 of wheat; and the number of pods plant–1 of mungbean. The higher output in CA is consistent with prior research [14], which revealed that the higher crops yield in minimum tillage (MT) compared to plow tillage (PT) might be attributed to changes in soil characteristics caused by MT’s beneficial effect on grain production. Increased soil porosity and greater moisture conservation supported root growth, whereas increased nutrient absorp- tion boosted grain production [22]. The CA’s physical soil environment is more favorable to crop production than the PT’s [23]. Additionally, it was reported that the lower crop yields in TA than CA were caused by the formation of the surface crust in PT [24], which resulted in the loss of struc- ture and homogenization of the cultivated soil layer. It re- sults in discontinuity of the nutrient and water conducting pores and compaction of the soil beneath the cultivated layer due to mechanical pressure from tractors. Moreover, one previous study observed that increasing crop yield in CA may be influenced by the improve soil fertility by conserving soil and water and sequestering organic carbon in farmed soils, hence lowering extremes of waterlogging and drought [25]. Furthermore, the higher production in CA might be related to improved soil struc- Table 4. Treatment effect on the mungbean yield Treatments Plants m–2 (no.) Pods plant–1 (no.) Seeds pod–1 (no.) 1000-seeds weight (g) Seed yield (t ha–1) BCR TA 60 42b 10 40.6 1.30b 1.23b CA 63 49a 11 41.3 1.79a 1.83a LSD (p ≤ 0.05) 15.25 3.24 0.56 0.89 0.21 0.07 TA: Traditional Agriculture, CA: Conservation Agriculture, BCR: Befit Cost Ratio, LSD: Least Significant Difference. The means with similar letters do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance Table 5. Effect of crop establishment methods on the REY, LUE) and PE Treatments Cropping system REY (t ha–1) Growth duration (days) LUE (%) PE (kg–1 ha–1 day–1)R W M Total TA R–W 9.91d 153 146 - 299 81.91c 33.14d R–W–M 13.57b 153 150 60 363 99.45a 37.38c CA R–W 12.76bc 142 139 - 280 76.71d 45.57b R–W–M 17.81a 142 139 54 337 92.05b 53.00a LSD (p ≤ 0.05) 0.91 4.07 3.96 TA: Traditional Agriculture, CA: Conservation Agriculture, REY: Rice Equivalent Yield, R: Rice, W: Wheat, M: Mungbean, LUE: Land Utilization Efficiency, PE: Production Efficiency, LSD: Least Significant Difference at 5% level of significant. The means with similar letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05. The market price of wheat, mungbean, and rice @ 271.14, 589.71, and 209.50 US$ ha–1, respectively. 1 US$ = 86.42 BDT on 05 April 2022. Table 6. Effect of crop establishment method on the major inputs requirements in rice, wheat, and mungbean Crops & treatments Tillage Weed control Labors TA CA % Cost savings in CA TA CA % Cost savings in CA TA CA % Cost savings in CA Rice 117.9 39.8 66.3 336.8 137.6 59.2 191 143 25.1 Wheat 88.5 36.4 58.1 135.2 102.1 24.5 182 132 27.2 Mungbean 70.9 30.1 57.6 87.2 50.4 42.2 164 112 31.3 Costs are in US$ per ha basis, 1 US$ = 86.42 BDT on 05 April 2022. TA: Traditional Agriculture, CA: Conservation Agriculture 54 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 ture and stability, which would allow for better drainage and water holding capacity [26]. Increased infiltration rates and favorable moisture dynamics permitted a 30% im- provement in maize production [27], due to a 25%, 18%, and 7% increase in soil organic carbon, total soil nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in the ST in CA compared to the PT in TA, respectively [28]. These findings have im- plications for a better understanding of how conservation tillage improves soil quality and sustainability in CA prac- tice. While hand weeding TA, physical shock or interrup- tion in the normal growth of agricultural plants occurred, which may temporarily impair crop development and, subsequently, output may be lowered [29,30]. On the other hand, herbicides applied in CA had little impact on crops. Herbicides applied at field rates have a hormetic effect on crop growth and development, which may have resulted in increased crop yields in this study [31]. The author found that glyphosate may accelerate plant growth, induce the accumulation of shikimic acid, increase photosynthesis, and open stomata, all of which led to increased seed pro- duction by shortening the plant life cycle. However, that glyphosate may help prevent wheat rust infections, hence improving grain production [32]. Glyphosate has been shown to boost total biomass growth by 25% when paired with pendimethalin in crop plants [33], while carfentrazone- ethyl+isoproturon has been shown to improve total bio- mass growth in wheat, resulting in a higher number of tillers per m2 area and a higher yield [34]. The favorable impact of the herbicides employed may have resulted in more rice, mungbean, and wheat grain output in CA than in TA in the present investigation. Furthermore, the higher productivity in CA might be re- lated to the residues’ positive contribution on soil fertility, which is linked to increased crop output. This result is con- gruent with the results of a study conducted in China [35], which showed that recorded residue returns increased average crop output by roughly 5% as compared to no- straw treatment. Another study found that applying 50% stubble mulch increased rice production by 3% [36] and wheat yield by 4% [37]. Increased crop residue retention enhances soil porosity, decreases compaction and bulk density, and improves soil aeration and productivity under dry circumstances [38]. Crop leftover increases the organic matter, accessible minerals, fulvic acid, and humic acid levels in the soil, as well as the rate of potassium release. Furthermore, it lowers the requirement for synthetic fer- tilizers, improves the soil environment, increases plant leaf area, and enhances photosynthetic material transfer to grain, all of which increase crop yield and quality [39,40]. Crop residues are high in organic matter, which can serve as a carbon source for soil microorganisms, stimulate mi- crobial activity, improve soil fertility, promote earthworm reproduction, and increase the diversity of soil arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [41], all of which contribute to increased crop yield. In this research, 50% residue generated more rice tillers m–2 and grains panicle–1, wheat heads m–2 and grains head–1, and mungbean pods plant–1, which could be linked to agricultural residues’ favorable impact and re- sulted in enhanced rice, wheat, and mungbean yields, and ultimately system productivity. According to the economic assessment of this study, CA profited the most over TA. The differential in BCR might be attributed to disparities in grain yield and culti- vation expenses in TA and CA, respectively, in PT and ST. Savings may be attributed to tillage, weeding, and labor expenditures required in all crops (Table 7). This conclu- sion is consistent with previous study, which predicted 70% [42] and 49% [43] savings in land preparation in ST and PT, respectively. The ST had the lower plowing cost (ranging from US$30.1~39.8 ha–1) due to reduced till- age intensity and fuel use, whereas the PT had the higher price (ranging from US$70.9~117.9 ha–1). This conclu- sion is consistent with prior research that found a 67% reduction on land preparation expenses in reduced tillage, RT (US$ 36 ha–1) over conventional tillage (US$ 191 ha–1) due to single plowing and fewer fuel use compared to PT [44]. ST reduced fuel and labor requirements in field prepara- tion and fertilizer application due to fewer tillage opera- tions and TSP fertilizer applied with VMP during tillage. Due to the softness of the soil in ST, employees had mini- mal difficulty transplanting plants by inundating the area. The VMP sowed wheat and mungbean at the same time during the ST operation in the CA technique. Moreover, herbicidal weed control provided better net benefits in CA than manual three-times hand weeding in TA. This finding is consistent with prior studies, which found that herbicide weed treatment saves 100% more than manual weeding [45]. Furthermore, past research has demonstrated that the higher weeding costs associated with human weeding are economically unproductive when compared to herbicidal weed treatment. Hand weeding may be efficiently re- placed by the application of an appropriate herbicide [46]. Furthermore, using herbicides to control weeds under CA yielded larger net benefits than three manual weeding procedures under TA. Manual weeding was required three times in TA, costing US$336.7 ha–1, US$58.1 ha–1, and US$87.2 ha–1 in rice, wheat, and mungbean, respectively. All herbicides, on the other hand, cost just US$137.6 ha–1, US$102.1 ha–1, and US$50.4 ha–1, respectively. As a result, herbicides saved 59.2%, 24.5%, and 50.4% of the cost of hand weeding in TA, respectively. Findings of past re- 55 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 search corroborate our findings by showing that the great- er expenses associated with manual weeding are unprofit- able when compared to herbicidal weed management [47,48]. Furthermore, rice, wheat, and mungbean production (from sowing to seed storage) in the PT needed 191, 182, and 164 person-days ha–1 of work, respectively. In CA, the figures were 143 person-days, 132 person-days, and 112 person-days, respectively. Therefore, CA reduced labor needs by 25.1%, 27.2%, and 31.3%, respectively, as com- pared to TA. In this research, this reduction enabled CA to generate larger economic returns than TA. Our find- ings are consistent with prior studies demonstrating that one-third of work in CA procedures is harsh compared to TA [49,50]. Result found that the productivity of the rice–wheat– mungbean system was about 43% higher than that of the rice–wheat system. Incorporating mungbean into the rice– wheat system, which generates an average yield of 1.23 t ha–1 in TA and 1.60 t ha–1 in CA, may increase productivity. This finding is consistent with prior studies, which found that including one or more short-duration crops into es- tablished cropping patterns increases system production efficiency [51-53]. Cropping sequence intensification using mungbean as a grain legume in the current R–W system resulted in the largest land use and production efficiency of sequence. This conclusion backs up the results of pre- vious study, who observed that including blackgram and mungbean into the wheat–rice cropping sequence boosted system productivity, gross return, gross margin, benefit- cost ratio, and production efficiency. This farming series provided 57% greater wheat equivalent yield than the prior wheat–rice system [54]. Every year, the wheat–rice agricultural method produc- es a significant number of crop residues. Wheat and rice straw have traditionally been harvested from fields for use as cow fodder and a variety of other applications such as animal bedding, home thatching, and fuel [55]. It has been established that including legume crops into the system as green manure or grain legumes is more beneficial than keeping a rice–wheat sequence [6]. Legume crops may help cereal-based farming systems sustain long-term productiv- ity by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, improving soil fertility, and improving soil fertility. It is well known that the rice– wheat cropping system may be modified by replacing grain legumes such as mungbean for rice [7]. Differences in efficiencies in the land use and production might be a result of the variations in crop growth length (days). Crops that grow more rapidly in the CA system than in the TA system have a lower LUE and PE. It has extended the scope to incorporate other crops with a growth period of roughly 30 days, such as leafy vegetables: Amaranthus gangeticus L., Spinacia oleracea L., and others, by ad- justing the planting dates of rice, wheat, and mungbean in the R–W–M system. Such improvements have attributed a significant productivity with a better sustainable profit, land utilization efficiency, and production efficiency of the rice–wheat–mungbean cropping system under conserva- tion agriculture practice: single tillage, which sequentially applied a pre-plant herbicide, then a pre- and post-emer- gence herbicide, and retained 50% crop residue than the current traditional agriculture practice under rice–wheat system. 5. Conclusions Conservation Agriculture is an innovative technique to cultivate crops with less inputs. When combined with efficient herbicides and residue recycling, single tillage was a lucrative alternative to the traditional laborious crop cultivation practice by increasing the yield of rice, wheat and mungbean by 15.2%, 31.3% and 37.6% and the BCR by 24.3%, 35.7% and 38.8% higher profit, respectively. Moreover, practice of rice–wheat–mungbean system was 43% more profitable over rice–wheat system. In the pre- sent study, the practice of conservation agriculture under rice–wheat–mungbean system was expedient over the existing traditional agriculture practice of rice–wheat sys- tem. Because the rice–wheat–mungbean system utilized the land more efficiently with the maximum crop produc- tion efficiency. This practice has also extended the scope to incorporate other leafy vegetable crops with a growth period of roughly 30 days. To validate this result, it is rec- ommended to practice conservation agriculture under the diversified cropping system across the country. Funding We acknowledge the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research’s (ACIAR) Conservation Agricul- ture Project LWR/2010/080 research funds. Conflict of Interest The authors disclosed no possible conflicts of interest. References [1] Li, F., Zhang, X., Xu, D., et al., 2022. No-Tillage Promotes Wheat Seedling Growth and Grain Yield Compared with Plow–Rotary Tillage in a Rice– Wheat Rotation in the High Rainfall Region in Chi- na. Agronomy. 12(4), 865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040865 [2] Kumar, D., Hamd-Alla, W., Shivay, Y., et al., 2021. Diversification of rice–wheat cropping system to sus- 56 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 tain the productivity and profitability. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 91(4), 597-601. [3] Kundu, D.K., Mazumdar, S.P., Ghosh, D., et al., 2016. Long-term effects of fertilizer and manure application on soil quality and sustainability of jute– rice–wheat production system in Indo-Gangetic plain. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 8(4), 1793-1800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v8i4.1042 [4] Nawaz, A., Farooq, M., Nadeem, F., et al., 2019. Rice–wheat cropping systems in South Asia: issues, options and opportunities. Crop and Pasture Science. 70(5), 395-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/CP18383 [5] Bell, R.W., Haque, M.E., Jahiruddin, M., et al., 2019. Conservation agriculture for rice-based intensive cropping by smallholders in the eastern gangetic plain. Agriculture (Switzerland). 9(1), 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9010005 [6] Mishra, J.S., Poonia, S.P., Kumar, R., et al., 2021. An impact of agronomic practices of sustainable rice– wheat crop intensification on food security, economic adaptability, and environmental mitigation across eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains. Field Crops Research. 267, 108164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108164 [7] Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R., 2019. Glob- al spread of conservation agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 76(1), 29-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2018.1494927 [8] Hossain, M.M., Begum, M., Rahman, M., et al., 2021. Resource conservation technology for sustain- able productivity of intensive rice-based cropping pattern in Bangladesh. International Journal of Ag- ricultural Science and Food Technology. 7(1), 053- 060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-815X.000088 [9] Farmer, J.A., Bradley, K.W., Young, B.G., et al., 2017. Influence of tillage method on management of Amaranthus species in soybean. Weed Technology. 31(1), 10-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-d-16-00061.1 [10] Adhikary, P., Ghosh, R.K., 2014. Effects of cropping sequence and weed management on density and ver- tical distribution of weed seeds in alluvial soil. Jour- nal of Crop and Weed. 10(2), 504-507. [11] Krishna, V., Keil, A., Aravindakshan, S., et al., 2017. Conservation tillage for sustainable wheat intensi- fication: the example of South Asia. In: Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Wheat. 1st ed. Cambridge CB22 3HJ UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited. pp. 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0004.14 [12] Sen, S., Kaur, D., Das, T.K., et al., 2021. Impacts of herbicides on weeds, water productivity, and nutri- ent-use efficiency in dry direct-seeded rice. Paddy and Water Environment. 19(2), 227-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-020-00834-3 [13] Busi, R., Powles, S.B., 2017. Inheritance of 2,4-D re- sistance traits in multiple herbicide- resistant Rapha- nus raphanistrum populations. Plant Science. 257, 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.01.003 [14] Li, S., Hu, M., Shi, J., et al., 2022. Improving long- term crop productivity and soil quality through inte- grated straw-return and tillage strategies. Agronomy Journal. 114, 1500-1511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20831 [15] BRRI, 2021. Modern Rice Cultivation. 23rd ed. Ban- gladesh Rice Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh. pp. 103. [16] BARI, 2019. Handbook on Agro-technology. 8th ed. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydeb- pur, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh. pp. 535. [17] Lal, B., Gautam, P., Panda, B.B., et al., 2017. Crop and varietal diversification of rainfed rice-based cropping systems for higher productivity and profit- ability in eastern India. PLoS One. 12(4), e0175709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175709 [18] Islam, M., Nath, L.K., Samajdar, T., 2020. Sustain- able diversification of maize (Zea mays L.) -legumes cropping systems for productivity, profitability and resource-use efficiency in West Garo Hills of Megha- laya, India. Legume Research. (43), 427-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-3970 [19] Perrin, R., Anderson, J., Winkelmann, D., et al., 1988. The partial budget. In: Cassaday K, editor. From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: An economics training manual. Maxico, DF: CIM- MYT. pp. 97. [20] IRRI, 2014. Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research (STAR). Biometrics and Breeding Informatics, PBGB Division, International Rice Research Insti- tute, Los Baños, Laguna, The Philippines. [21] Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A., 1984. Statistical Proce- dures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 704. [22] Hossain, M., Begum, M., Rahman, M., et al., 2019. Effects of the components of conservation agriculture on the profitability of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the Eastern Gangetic Plain of Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural and Life Sciences. 7(1), 333- https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-3970 57 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 337. [23] Rodenburg, J., Büchi, L., Haggar, J., 2020. Adoption by adaptation: moving from Conservation Agricul- ture to conservation practices, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 19(5-6), 437-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1785734 [24] Luying, S., Fengbin, S., Shengqun, L., et al., 2018. Integrated agricultural management practice im- proves soil quality in Northeast China. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 64(14), 1932-1943. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1468077 [25] Xiao, L., Kuhn, N.J., Zhao, R., et al., 2021. Net ef- fects of conservation agriculture principles on sus- tainable land use: A synthesis. Global Change Biolo- gy. 27, 6321-6330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15906 [26] Alam, M.K., Bell, R.W., Biswas, W.K., 2019. In- creases in soil sequestered carbon under conservation agriculture cropping decrease the estimated green- house gas emissions of wetland rice using life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 224, 72- 87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.215 [27] Hossain, A., Mottaleb, K.A., Maitra, S., et al., 2021. Conservation Agriculture Improves Soil Health: Major Research Findings from Bangladesh. In: Ja- yaraman S, Dalal RC, Patra AK, Chaudhari SK (eds) Conservation Agriculture: A Sustainable Approach for Soil Health and Food Security. Springer, Singa- pore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0827-8_26 [28] Zhang, Y., Li, X., Gregorich, E.G., et al., 2018. No-tillage with continuous maize cropping enhances soil aggregation and organic carbon storage in North- east China. Geoderma. 330, 204-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.05.037 [29] Singh, V., Jat, M.L., Ganie, Z.A., et al., 2016. Herbi- cide options for effective weed management in dry direct-seeded rice under scented rice–wheat rotation of western indo-gangetic plains. Crop Protection. 81, 168-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.12.021 [30] Zahan, T., Hashem, A., Rahman, M., et al., 2018. Efficacy of herbicides in non-puddled transplanted rice under conservation agriculture systems and their effect on establishment of the succeeding crops. Acta Scientifica Malaysia. 2(1), 17-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26480/asm.01.2018.17.25 [31] Brito, I.P., Tropaldi, L., Carbonari, C.A., et al., 2018. Hormetic effects of glyphosate on plants. Pest Man- agement Science. 74(5), 1064-1070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4523 [32] Belz, R.G., Duke, S.O., 2017. Herbicide-Mediated Hormesis. In: Pesticide Dose: Effects on the Envi- ronment and Target and Non-Target Organisms. ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society. 1249, 135-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2017-1249.ch010 [33] Shalini, B., Didal, V.K., Singh, V.K., 2017. Influence of pre- and post- emergence herbicides on weeds and yield of dwarf field pea. International Journal of Pure & Applied Bioscience. 5(2), 675-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.2615 [34] Mustari, S., Bari, M.N., Islam, M.R., et al., 2016. Evaluation of selected herbicides on weed control ef- ficiency and yield of wheat. Journal of Science Foun- dation. 12(2), 27-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/jsf.v12i2.27734 [35] Lu, X., 2020. A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficien- cy. Plos One. 15(4), e0231740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231740 [36] Hossain, M., Begum, M., Rahman, M.M., et al., 2021. Influence of non-puddled transplanting and residues of previous mustard on rice (Oryza sativa L.). International Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Technology. 1(1), 8-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51483/IJAGST.1.1.2021.8-14 [37] Hossain, M., Begum, M., Hashem, A., et al., 2020. Weed control in strip planted wheat under conserva- tion agriculture practice is more effective than con- ventional tillage. Scientific Journal of Crop Science. 9(6), 438-450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14196/sjcs.v9i6.1593 [38] Akhtar, K., Wang, W., Ren, G., et al., 2018. Changes in soil enzymes, soil properties, and maize crop pro- ductivity under wheat straw mulching in Guanzhong, China. Soil and Tillage Research. 182, 94-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.05.007 [39] Xu, H., Sieverding, H., Kwon, H., et al., 2019. Glob- al meta-analysis of soil organic carbon response to corn stover removal. GCB Bioenergy. 11, 1215-1233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12631 [40] Huang, R., Tian, D., Liu, J., et al., 2018. Responses of soil carbon pool and soil aggregates associated organic carbon to straw and straw-derived biochar addition in a dryland cropping mesocosm system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 265, 576- 586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.013 [41] Lu, X., 2020. A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficien- 58 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | June 2022 cy. PLoS One. 15(4), e0231740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231740 [42] Haque, E., Bell, R.W., 2019. Partially mechanized non-puddled rice establishment: on-farm perfor- mance and farmers’ perceptions. Plant Production Science. 22(1), 23-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2018.1564335 [43] Islam, A.K.M.S., Hossain, M.M., Saleque, M.A., 2015. Effect of unpuddled transplanting on the growth and yield of dry season rice (Oryza sativa L.) in high barind tract. The Agriculturists. 12(2), 91-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/agric.v12i2.21736 [44] Hossain, M., Begum, M., Bell, R., 2020. On-farm evaluation of conservation agriculture practice on weed control and yield of wheat in northern Ban- gladesh. Current Research in Agricultural Sciences. 7(2), 84-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2020.72.84.99 [45] Islam, A.K.M.M., Popy, F.S., Hasan, A.K., et al., 2017. Efficacy and economics of herbicidal weed management in monsoon rice of Bangladesh: Weed Management in Monsoon Rice of Bangladesh. Jour- nal of Scientific Agriculture. 1, 275-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25081/jsa.2017.v1.834 [46] Islam, A.M., Hia, M.A.U.H., Sarkar, S.K., et al., 2018. Herbicide based weed management in aromatic rice of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Agri- cultural University. 16(1), 31-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v16i1.36478 [47] Muoni, T., Rusinamhodzi, L., Rugare, J.T., et al., 2014. Effect of herbicide application on weed flora under conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Crop Protection. 66, 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.08.008 [48] Rugare, J.T., Pieterse, P.J., Mabasa, S., 2019. Effect of short-term maize–cover crop rotations on weed emergence, biomass and species composition under conservation agriculture. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 36(5), 329-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2019.1594419 [49] Nhamo, N., Lungu, O.N., 2017. Opportunities for smallholder farmers to benefit from conservation agricultural practices. In: Smart technologies for sus- tainable smallholder agriculture: upscaling in devel- oping countries. Elsevier Inc. pp. 145-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810521- 4.00007-4 [50] Hossain, M.M., Begum, M., Hashem, A., et al., 2021. Mulching and weed management effects on the per- formance of rice (Oryza sativa L.) transplanted in non-puddled soil. Journal of Wastes and Biomass Management. 3(1), 13-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26480/jwbm.01.2021.13.21 [51] Salahin, N., Jahiruddin, M., Islam, M.R., et al., 2021. Establishment of crops under minimal soil distur- bance and crop residue retention in rice-based crop- ping system: yield advantage, soil health improve- ment, and economic benefit. Land. 10, 581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060581 [52] Naab, J.B., Mahama, G.Y., Yahaya, I., et al., 2017. Conservation agriculture improves soil quality, crop yield, and incomes of smallholder farmers in north western Ghana. Frontiers in Plant Science. 8(996), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00996 [53] Hossain, M.M., Begum, M., Hashem, A., et al., 2020. Interactive effects of strip planting, herbicides and wheat straw mulch on weed control and yield of mungbean in northern Bangladesh. International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Studies. 6(12), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4889117 [54] Hossain, M., Sarkar, M., Jahiruddin, M., et al., 2016. Productivity and partial budget analysis in wheat– rice sequences as influenced by integrated plant nutrition system and legume crops inclusion. Bangla- desh Journal of Agricultural Research. 41(1), 17-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v41i1.27665 [55] Bhatt, R., Meena, R.S., Hossain, A., 2022. Input use efficiency in rice–wheat cropping systems to manage the footprints for food and environmental security. In: Bhatt R, Meena RS, Hossain A, editors. Input Use efficiency for food and environmental security. Springer, Singapore. pp. 1-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5199-1_1