Comparative analysis of machine-planted and manual-planted wheat on crop and water productivity, and profitability under system of wheat intensification management

System of Wheat Intensification (SWI) can outperform conventional wheat cultivation. However, the manual planting (dibbling) of two seeds in each hill, with hills laid out in a 20 x 20 cm square pattern essential for SWI, is a laborious task and requires more time, manpower, energy, and monetary expenditure. To deal with these constraints, a scientific team of Agricultural Engineers and Agronomists at ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, developed a single-row manual SWI-planter (SRMSWIP) to make SWI planting easier, faster, and more economical. The SRMSWIP was field-evaluated for wheat var. HD-2967 during the winter season of 2015-2016 in a randomized complete design block thrice-replicated study with eight treatments. These treatments comprised (i) sowing with SRMSWIP using treated seeds (MSWIT); (ii) sowing with SRMSWIP using non-treated seed (MSWINT); (iii) manual sowing with SWI-management using treated seeds (MLSWIT); (iv) manual sowing with SWI-management using non-treated seeds (MLSWINT); (v) recommended planting with SWI-management using treated seeds (RPSWIT); (vi) recommended planting with No-SWI management using non-treated seeds (RPNoSWIT); (vii) check-row with SWI-management using treated (CRSWIT), and (viii) check-row with SWI-management using non-treated seeds (CRSWINT). The results showed that SWI-management increased the grain yield by 0.61-1.52 t/ha, with an overall average increase of 1.12 t/ha over control plots. The greatest increase (similar to 25%) in grain yield was achieved with the mechanical seeder and seed treatment. At the same time, straw yield was lower by 0.09-0.66 t ha(-1) under SWI-management, with one treatment exception. The increase in grain yield is attributable to SWI methods that led to an increase in the harvest index, i.e., in the wheat plant phenotypes. The water productivity and production efficiency were higher under SWI compared to conventional seed drilling with or without SWI-management. The gross returns using SWI planting ranged between Rs.123,526/ha in MLSWINT to Rs. 139,210/ha in MSWIT vs. Rs. 117,113/ha in RPNoSWIT. However, SWI with manual sowing (MLSWIT and MLSWINT) increased the cost of cultivation (COC) by Rs. 9,623/ha over RPNoSWIT. This increase in COC was lowered to Rs. 5,475/ha when planting was performed using SRMSWIP. Thus, owing to higher gross returns, SWI planting and management, barring MLSWINT, resulted in net returns of an increment of Rs. 7,615-16,372/ha over conventional planting without SWI-management. The B:C in MSWIT and MSWINT was significantly higher than RPSWI. The monetary efficiency (ME) was highest with MSWIT (Rs. 702/ha/day). Overall, the SRMSWIP may facilitate wheat sowing using SWI methods, with greater feasibility and economic viability achieved. The promotion of this low-cost SRMSWIP may be a boon in enhancing the adoptability of SWI-technology among wheat growers, particularly small and marginal farmers in India and adjoining regions.