In order to make the best use of the agricultural waste which is generated in our farm. There are some techniques and methods to make the best use of these wastes into a source of nutrient for plant growth and development.

1. Welcome

2. Seminar II
AGRICULTURAL WASTE AS A
SOURCE OF ENERGY AND
COMPOST
SATHISHA, G. S.
Sr. M.Sc (Agri.)
PG16AGR8063
Dept. of Agronomy

3. Sequence of presentation
Introduction
Agricultural waste as a source of energy
Agricultural waste as a source of compost
Research findings
Conclusion

4. Agricultural waste
Types of Agricultural
wastes
Crop production wastes
Animal and poultry wastes
Forestry and wood industries
waste
Agro-industrial wastes
Municipal Solid wastes
 Agricultural waste is waste produced as a result of various agricultural operations.
 It includes manure and other wastes from farms, poultry houses slaughterhouses
and harvest waste.

5. Table 1: Potential Agricultural waste available in India
Resources Million
tonnes/ year
Crop residues 501
Live stock wastes (Dung & urine) 390
Urban &rural wastes 68.8
Green manures 25
Agro-industrial wastes (rice husk, press mud, oil
cake)
22.5
Human excreta 19.2
TOTAL 1028
Anon., 2015

6. cereals
70%
Fibre crops
13%
oilseed crop
6%
pulses
3%
Sugarcane crops
2%
Other crops
6%
cereals
Fibre crops
oilseed crop
pulses
Sugarcane crops
Other crops
Fig 1. Residue generation by different crops in India
Anon., 2010

7. Table 2: State-wise generation and surplus crop residues in India
State Crop residues
generation
(MNRE, 2009)
(mt)
Surplus crop
residues (MNRE,
2009)
(mt)
Crop residue
burnt ( by IPCC)
(mt)
Crop residues
burnt (Pathak et
al., 2010)
(mt)
Andhra Pradesh 43.89 6.96 6.46 2.73
Arunachal Pradesh 0.40 0.07 0.06 0.04
Assam 11.43 2.34 1.42 0.73
Bihar 25.29 5.08 3.77 3.19
Chhattisgarh 11.25 2.12 1.84 0.83
Goa 0.57 0.14 0.08 0.04
Gujarat 28.73 8.9 9.64 3.81
Haryana 27.83 11.22 6.06 9.06
Himachal Pradesh 2.85 1.03 0.20 0.41
Jammu and
Kashmir
1.59 0.28 0.35 0.89
Jharkhand 3.61 0.89 1.11 1.10
Karnataka 33.94 8.98 3.05 5.66

8. State Crop residues
generation
(MNRE, 2010)
(mt)
Surplus crop
residues
(MNRE, 2010)
(mt)
Crop residue
burnt
( by IPCC)
(mt)
Crop residues
burnt (Pathak
et al., 2010)
(mt)
Kerala 9.74 5.07 0.40 0.22
Madhya
Pradesh
33.18 10.22 3.74 1.91
Maharashtra 46.45 14.67 7.82 7.41
Manipur 0.90 0.11 0.14 0.07
Meghalaya 0.51 0.09 0.11 0.08
Mizoram 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01
Nagaland 0.49 0.09 0.11 0.08
Odisha 20.07 3.68 2.61 1.34
Tamil Nadu 19.93 7.05 3.62 4.08
Uttar Pradesh 59.97 13.53 13.34 21.92
Punjab 50.75 24.89 9.84 19.62
West Bengal 35.93 4.29 10.83 4.96
India 501.76 140.84 91.25 92.81
New Delhi Anon., 2012

9. Burning of crop
residue
 The residues of rice, wheat,
cotton, maize, millet,
sugarcane, jute, rapeseed-
mustard and groundnut are
typically burnt on-farm across
different states of the country.
 In states like Punjab and
Haryana, where crop residues
of rice are not used as cattle
feed, a large amount is burnt
on-farm.
Which leads
 Human and animal health
problems.
 Emission of greenhouse gases
viz., CO2, CH4 and N2O.
 Loss of plant nutrients viz., N, P,
K and S.

10. How to manage Agricultural waste
Compost
Biogas
Soil mulching
Energy
Animal feed
Pulp and
Paper
Briquetting
Biochar
Agricultural
wastes

11. Table 3. Mode of Agricultural waste management in other
countries
Mode of utilization Countries
Source of energy
Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines,
Nigeria
Composting Philippines, Israel, China
Animal feed Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Israel, China, Africa
Burning China, USA, Philippines, Indonesia,
Anon., 2016

12. AGRICULTURAL WASTE AS
A SOURCE OF ENERGY

13. Table 4: Indian renewable bio-feedstock’s available for power generation
Maulana azad national technology, Bhopal. Anil Kumar et al., 2015

14. Energy extraction from Agricultural waste
Carbohydrates Dry matter Oil
Starch sugar Dry matter Raw vegetable oil
Fermentation
Distillation
Ethanol
Acid or
enzymatic
hydrolysis
Pyrolysis
Liquification Combustion
Bio-oil, charcoal
and Gas
Gas
Gasification
Bio-oil
Heat
Esterification
Ester+Glyserin
Energy crops
Biological
conversion
Thermo chemical
conversion
Oil extraction

15. 1. Thermo-chemical conversion
Three main processes are used for the thermo-chemical
conversion of biomass
1.Combustion
2.Gasification
3.Pyrolysis

16. 1.1 Combustion
• Combustion is the burning of biomass in air,
and it is used to convert the chemical energy
stored in biomass into heat energy,
mechanical power and also in electricity by
different process and devices.
Eg. furnaces, stoves, steam turbines, boilers,
etc.
• It is possible to burn any type of biomass but
in practice combustion is feasible only for
biomass with a moisture content less than
50%, unless the biomass is pre-dried. High
moisture content biomass is better suited to
biological conversion processes.
• The scale of combustion plant ranges from
very small scale (e.g. for domestic heating) up
to large-scale industrial plants in the range
100–3000 MW.

17. 1.2 Gasification
• Gasification is the conversion of biomass into a
combustible gas mixture by the partial oxidation
of biomass at high temperatures, typically in the
range 800–900 0C.
• The process breaks down biomass completely to
yield energy rich gaseous product.
• One ton of biomass can be used for generation of
300 kWh of electricity.(1 MW=1000 kWh)

18. 1.3 Pyrolysis
• Thermochemical decomposition of
organic material at elevated temperatures
without the participation of oxygen.
• Temperature of biomass to be raised to
200-500 0C.
• End product are gas, liquid and char.
• The biochar yield is more than 50% in
slow pyrolysis.
• Fast pyrolysis yields 20% biochar and
60% bio-oil and 20% syngas.
• The calorific value of bio-oil varies 16-20
MJ/kg.

19. Biochar
Improves soil fertility
Improves soil health
Inceased soil carbon
Carbon sequestration
Reduced methane emission
As a fertilizer
Biochar – High carbon material produced from slow pyrolysis
Uses

20. Table 5:Fate of initial feedstock mass between products of pyrolysis
processes
Process
Liquid
(bio-oil)
Solid (biochar)
(%)
Gas (Syngas)
(%)
Fast pyrolysis:
Moderate temperature
(500o C), short hot
vapor residence time
(<2 s)
75%
(25% water)
12 13
Intermediate pyrolysis:
Low moderate
temperature, moderate
hot vapor residence
time
50%
(50% water)
25 25
Slow pyrolysis: Low
moderate
temperature, long
residence time
30%
(70% water)
35 35
Gasification: High
temperature
(>800o C), long vapor
residence time
5%
(5% water)
10 85
Sohi et al., 2010United Kingdom

21. Fig 2 :Effect of biochar application soil mineral N content
Jha et al., 2016College of agriculture, Palampur.

22. Table 6: Effect of biochar on Soil Bulk Density, Total Porosity and
Hydraulic conductivity
Treatments
Bulk density
(g cm-3)
Total Porosity
(%)
Hydraulic
conductivity
(cm hr-1)
T1 (0 t ha-1) 1.45 45.28 42.69
T2 (0.5 t ha-1) 1.38 47.92 42.75
T3 (10 t ha-1) 1.37 48.30 53.11
T4 (15 t ha-1) 1.28 49.06 54.61
FLSD (0.05) 0.04 0.51 NS
Ebonyi state university Nigeria Njoku et al., 2015

23. Table 7: Effect of biochar on plant height, leaf area index and grain
yield of maize
Treatments Plant height (m) Leaf area index
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
T1 (0 t ha-1) 1.10 2.83 0.51
T2 (0.5 t ha-1) 1.39 3.68 0.53
T3 (10 t ha-1) 1.55 4.58 0.60
T4 (15 t ha-1) 1.91 5.27 0.67
FLSD (0.05) 0.29 0.91 0.34
Ebonyi state university Nigeria Njoku et al., 2015

24. Table 8: Electricity from bagasse
Cost of bagasse
(₹ t-1)
Cost of electricity
production (₹)
Selling price
(₹)
Benefit
(₹)
1 kWh 350 kWh
840
2.48 868
5250 3542
Anon., 2014
Note: From 1 tonne bagasse 350 kWh electricity is
generated
5250 – 840 – 868 = 3542

25. 2. Bio-chemical conversion
2.1 Fermentation
Fermentation is used commercially on a large scale in various
countries to produce ethanol from sugar crops (Eg. sugarcane, sugar
beet) and starch crops (Eg. maize, wheat).
The conversion of ligno-cellulosic biomass into bio-based alcohol
production
Blended with gasoline as a fuel extender and octane-enhancing
agent or used as a neat fuel in internal combustion engines
Ethanol production from different feedstock varies from 382 to
471 L t-1 of dry matter.

26. Ethanol production chart
Crop residues: corn stover, rice straw, wheat straw,
etc.
Forestry residues/slash
Energy crops: switchgrass, poplar, Miscanthus, etc.
Municipal & construction wastes, etc

27. Table 9: Estimated conversion rate to bioethanol from
different feed stock
Crop Conversion rate to bioethanol
(l/ton)
Sugarcane 70
Cassava 150
Sweet sorghum 80
Corn 410
Wheat 390
Mahalleshi university, Turkey Mustafa, 2009

28. 2.2 Biogas production
• In Anaerobic digestion,
organic material is directly
converted to a gas which is
termed as biogas.
• It is a mixture of methane
and carbon dioxide with
small quantities of other
gases such as hydrogen
sulphide.

29. Table 10: Estimated cost for the biogas plants
Capacity of plant Quantity of
cattle dung
required daily
No. of cattle
heads
required
Estimated cost of
plant
1 cubic metre 25 kg 2-3 ₹ 18000/-
2 cubic metres 50 kg 4-6 ₹ 24000/-
3 cubic metres 75 kg 7-9 ₹ 29000/-
4 cubic metres 100 kg 10-12 ₹ 33000/-
Anon, 2016

30. Table 11: State-wise estimated potential and cumulative achievement from
1981- 82 to 2005- 06
State/ Union Territory Estimated potential Cumulative
achievement
% age of achievement
over potential
Andhra Pradesh 1065000 400857 38
Assam 307000 58667 19
Bihar 733000 124935 17
Chhattisgarh 400000 16952 4
Gujarat 554000 378846 68
Haryana 300000 49190 16
Himachal Pradesh 125000 44866 36
Karnataka 680000 392382 58
Kerala 150000 108313 72
Maharashtra 897000 719084 80
Sikkim 7300 5574 75
West Bengal 695000 263587 38
Tamil nadu 615000 210040 34
Madhya Pradesh 1491000 247536 17
TOTAL 12339000 3834080 31
New Delhi Anon, 2012

31. Briquetting
• The briquetting process is the
conversion of agricultural waste into
uniformly shaped briquettes that are
easy to use, transport and store
• Raw materials suitable for
briquetting are rice straws, wheat
straws, cotton stalks, corn stalks,
sugar cane waste (bagasse) and fruit
branches.
Advantages
 Decreases the volume of waste
 Efficient solid fuel of high thermal
value
 Low energy consumption for
production
 Protects the environment
 Provides job opportunities
 less hazardous.

32. AGRICULTURAL WASTE AS A
SOURCE OF COMPOST

33. • Compost : It is an organic manure artificially
prepared by using plant residue and animal
products.
• The process of making compost is called as
composting.
Composting

34. Benefits of compo

35. Factors influencing composting
C:N ratio
Moisture
Aeration
Temperature
Paticle size

36. Table 12: Nutrient content of organic manures
A. Bulky organic manure N P2O5 K 2O
Cattle dung 0.40 0.20 0.17
Sheep &Goat droppings 3.00 1.00 2.00
Horse dung 0.55 0.30 0.40
Pig dung 0.55 0.50 0.40
Poultry manure 3.03 0.63 1.40
FYM 0.75 0.20 0.50
Rural compost 0.75 0.20 0.50
Urban compost 1.75 1.00 1.50
Vermicompost 3.00 1.00 1.50
Coir dust 0.20 0.18 0.96
B. Concentrated Organic manures
Coconut cake 3.00 1.08 1.90
Neem cake 5.22 1.08 1.48
Ground cake 7.30 1.50 1.30
Blood meal 12.00 2.00 1.00
Meat meal 10.00 5.00 0.50
Bone meal 2- 4 25- 30 -
Anon., 2012

37. Table 13. Average nutrient content of crop residues
Crop residues Nutrient content (%)
N P2O5 K 2O
Rice straw 0.58 0.23 1.66
Wheat straw 0.49 0.25 1.28
Maize stalks 0.59 0.31 1.31
Sorghum stalks 0.40 0.28 2.17
Pigeon pea stalks 1.60 0.15 2.00
Chick pea 1.10 0.58 1.28
Sugar cane trash 0.35 0.04 0.50
Anon., 2010

38. Table 14. Nutrient composition of sugar cane trash
compost
Nutrient composition Sugarcane trash Sugarcane trash
compost
Nitrogen (%) 0.17 0.70
Phosphorous (%) 0.12 0.25
Potassium (%) 0.11 0.70
Organic carbon (%) 25 17
C:N ratio 142.4:1 24:1
Anon, 2012

39. Table 15: Nutrient uptake of organic Basmati rice as influenced by nutrient
management .
Treatments Nitrogen uptake
(kg ha-1)
Phosphorus uptake
(kg ha-1)
Potassium uptake
(kg ha-1)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Grain Straw
T1 38.51 26.91 8.39 3.45 12.52 76.11
T2 32.65 24.07 7.64 3.04 11.21 76.90
T3 26.88 23.45 6.83 2.80 10.02 76.30
T4 33.28 22.39 7.81 2.72 10.95 70.41
T5 34.99 25.11 8.06 3.09 11.53 78.02
T6 37.07 27.85 8.57 3.61 11.95 85.58
T7 42.13 30.62 9.38 3.82 13.53 85.87
T8 22.82 18.70 5.65 2.11 8.56 65.14
S.Em.(±) 1.56 1.63 0.33 0.12 0.97 3.52
CD (p=0.05) 4.57 4.77 0.97 0.35 2.85 10.32
University of agriculture & technology, Buvaneshwar Nayak et al., 2016
T1: 100% N (75% FYM + 25%vermicompost) T5:T2+ Azospirillum + PSM (10 kg ha-1)
T2: 75% N (75% FYM + 25%vermicompost) T6: T2+Azospirillum+ PSM + EM Spray (two times)
T3: 50% N (75% FYM + 25% vermicompost) T7: T2+Azospirillum + PSM+ Neem Cake (250 kg ha-1)
T4: T2+ Azospirillum (10 kg ha-1) T8: control(no manure)

40. Table 16: Yield and economics of organic basmati rice as influenced by
nutrient management.
Treatment Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
Straw
yield
(kg/ha)
Harvest
index (%)
Cost of
cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross
returns
(Rs/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
T1 3320 5850 36.20 38100 71080 32980 1.86
T2 3080 5730 34.96 34950 66184 31234 1.89
T3 2800 5720 32.86 31800 60576 28776 1.90
T4 3110 5330 36.84 35450 66464 31014 1.87
T5 3240 5840 35.68 35950 69472 33522 1.93
T6 3310 6330 34.33 36250 71264 35014 1.96
T7 3570 6380 35.87 36850 76504 39654 2.07
T8 2480 4920 33.51 25550 53536 27986 2.09
S.Em.(±) 0.16 0.13 0.01 - 626 326 0.03
C.D.at 5% 0.48 0.39 0.03 - 1976 1976 0.08
University of agriculture & technology, Odisha Nayak et al.,2016
T1: 100% N (75% FYM + 25%vermicompost) T5:T2+ Azospirillum + PSM (10 kg/ha),
T2: 75% N (75% FYM + 25%vermicompost), T6: T2+Azospirillum+ PSM + EM Spray (two times)
T3 : 50% N (75% FYM + 25% vermicompost) T7: T2+Azospirillum + PSM + Neem Cake (250kg/ha)
T4: T2+ Azospirillum (10 kg/ha) T8: control (no manure)

41. Table 17: Physical Properties of vermicompost at various stages
Treatments Bulk Density (g/cc) Porosity (%) WHC (%)
30
DAC
60
DAC
90
DAC
30
DAC
60
DAC
90
DAC
30
DAC
60
DAC
90
DAC
T1 : Sunflower husk 1.22 1.17 1.10 53.95 55.85 58.49 36.99 45.09 52.76
T2 : Wheat straw 1.26 1.20 1.13 52.44 54.71 57.36 35.44 45.01 49.23
T3 : Sugarcane trash 1.19 1.11 1.03 55.08 58.11 61.13 37.10 46.79 53.36
T4 : Glyricidia 1.03 0.99 0.93 61.12 62.84 64.91 37.74 47.94 54.67
T5 : Garden wastes 1.17 1.13 1.05 55.84 57.35 60.37 37.34 46.20 52.09
T6: Parthenium 1.12 1.07 1.01 57.73 59.62 61.89 36.57 47.31 53.79
S.Em.(±) 0.0279 0.0101 0.0229 1.053 0.3855 0.8658 0.046 0.019 0.0262
CD at 5% 0.0859 0.0313 0.0706 3.242 1.1862 2.664 0.144 0.059 0.0806
COA, Parbhani Kulkarni et al.,2015

42. Table 18: Chemical Properties of vermicompost at various stages.
Tr.
no
Treatments pH EC (dsm-1) Organic Carbon (%)
30
DAC
60 DAC 90 DAC 30 DAC 60 DAC 90 DAC 30 DAC 60 DAC 90 DAC
T1
Sunflower
husk
7.64 7.42 7.27 0.52 0.42 0.35 37.11 27.18 20.83
T2
Wheat straw
7.60 7.39 7.12 0.57 0.49 0.43 54.13 38.48 21.35
T3
Sugarcane
trash
7.51 7.36 7.10 0.61 0.52 0.47 36.92 24.98 19.94
T4 Glyricidia 7.43 7.26 7.07 0.64 0.57 0.43 34.94 29.41 19.02
T5
Garden
wastes
7.57 7.34 7.29 0.59 0.53 0.48 32.34 26.52 20.97
T6 Parthenium 7.49 7.29 7.10 0.64 0.61 0.58 33.19 28.01 26.59
S.Em.(±) 0.0145 0.0158 0.0446 0.0252 0.0165 0.0099 1.3199 1.2848 0.0567
CD at 5% 0.447 0.0488 0.1372 0.0776 0.05808 0.0305 4.0609 3.9531 0.11747
Kulkarni et al., 2015COA, Parbhani

43. Table 19: Crop growth attributes of green gram as affected by application of
different sources of organic nutrient
Treatment Plant height (cm) Nodules
per plant
Number of branches per
plant
30 DAS Harvest Harvest 45DAS At harvest
T1 - FYM @ 10 t/ha 25.76 51.69 32.73 1.73 1.93
T2 - Vermicompost @ 1.4
t/ha 24.31 55.69 34.50 2.27 2.40
T3 - Pig manure @ 5 t/ha 25.73 54.41 25.90 1.70 1.80
T4 - Rhizobium + PSB 23.15 50.64 23.87 1.53 1.87
T5 - Rhizobium + PSB +
FYM @ 5 t/ha 27.76 67.15 35.57 2.27 2.60
T6 - Rhizobium +
PSB+vermicompost @ 0.7
t/ha 29.71 68.21 35.79 2.37 2.63
T7 - Rhizobium + PSB + pig
manure@ 2.5 t/ha 26.49 60.26 27.63 2.13 2.47
T8 - Control 22.85 50.37 22.71 1.27 1.53
S.Em.(±) 1.32 3.67 2.56 0.22 0.23
CD (P=0.05) 4.71 13.11 9.15 0.80 0.82
School of agric, sciences, Nagaland Rambuatsaiha et al., 2017

44. Table 20: Yield and yield attributes of green gram as affected by application of
different sources of organic nutrient
Treatment
Number of pods
per plant
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Stover yield
(kg/ha)
Harvest index
T1 - FYM @ 10 t/ha 18.17 316 809 26.84
T2 - Vermicompost @ 1.4
t/ha 19.07 334 843 29.77
T3 - Pig manure @ 5 t/ha 18.73 271 727 24.27
T4 - Rhizobium + PSB 16.67 194 724 21.61
T5 - Rhizobium + PSB +
FYM @ 5 t/ha 22.53 358 978 24.21
T6 - Rhizobium + PSB
+vermicompost @0.7t/ha
25.00 368 989 26.39
T7 - Rhizobium + PSB
+pig manure @ 2.5 t/ha
19.00 275 815 24.28
T8 - Control 15.87 193 717 21.69
S.Em.(±) 1.63 0.23 0.64 3.05
CD (P=0.05) 5.84 0.82 2.30 NS
School of agric, sciences, Nagaland Rambuatsaiha et al.,2017

45. Table 21:- Effect of residual fertility of preceding potato on yield and straw
yield of succeeding finger millet (pooled data)
Treatments
Grain yield
(t/ha)
Straw yield (t/ha)
T1: 50 % N as Parthenium Incorporation + 50% N as inorganic 4.13 10.22
T2: 50 % N as Parthenium Compost + 50% N as inorganic 4.20 10.30
T3: 50 % N as Chromolaena Incoporation + 50% N as inorganic 4.38 10.33
T4: 50 % N as Chromolaena Compost + 50% N as inorganic 4.16 10.41
T5: 50 % N as Lantana Incoporation + 50% N as inorganic 4.06 09.06
T6: 50 % N as Lantana Compost + 50% N as inorganic 4.56 11.21
T7: 100% N as FYM (125:100:125 kg NPK/ ha) 4.77 11.72
T8 : 100 % NPK 4.12 9.69
T9: 100% NPK + 10 t FYM /ha 4.26 11.38
S.Em.(±) 0.14 0.42
C.D.at 5% 0.40 1.18
MRS, GKVK Saravanane et al., 2011

46. Table 22:Nutritive value of raw and composted coir pith
compost
Parameters Raw coir pith (%) Composted coir pith (%)
Lignin 30.00 4.80
Cellulose 26.52 10.10
Carbon 26.00 24.00
Nitrogen 0.26 1.24
Phosphorous 0.01 0.06
Potassium 0.78 1.20
Calcium 0.40 0.50
Magnesium 0.36 0.48
Iron(ppm) 0.07 0.09
Manganese(ppm) 12.50 25.00
Zinc(ppm) 7.50 15.80
Copper(ppm) 3.10 6.20
C:N ratio 112:1 24:1

47. Table 23: Economics of coconut production under different nutrient
management practices in coconut
Treatments Mean nut
yield/palm/y
ear (no.)
Mean nut
yield/ha
(no.)
Gross
income
(Rs/ha)
Net income
(Rs/ha)
Benefit : cost
ratio
T1: Control 48 5592 25158 12578 2.00
T2: RDF 78 9672 40188 22115 2.22
T3: Composted
coir pith (CCP)
100% N
equivalent basis
93 11532 47128 29128 2.57
T4: Composted
coir pith on 50%
N equivalent
basis + 50%
chemical
fertilizer
88 10912 46648 26648 2.44
Hanumanthappa et al., 2004ARS Arisikere

48. Table 24: Growth and yield parameters as affected by different
sources of nutrients in maize
Treatment Plant height
(cm)
(at harvest)
Dry matter per
plant (g)
(at harvest)
Grain yield
(t/ha )
Stover
yield (t/ha)
T1: 100% RDF(120:60:60) 162.5 224.2 5.2 10.4
T2: 25% RDF 136.7 170.4 3.0 8.0
T3: Compost(10 t/ha) 152.2 177.9 4.2 8.9
T4: Green manuring with sunhemp 149.3 178.6 3.0 8.4
T5: Biofertilizers (Azotobacter+
PSB
147.1 170.1 2.5 7.9
T6: 25% RDF+ biofertilizers
(Azotobacter+ PSB)+ green
manuring with sunhemp+ compost
172.6 256.6 7.4 12.6
T7: 25% RDF+ compost 155.9 187.2 5.8 9.8
CD (P=0.05) 5.8 9.5 0.22 0.27
Kalhapure et al., 2013MPKV, Maharashtra.

49. Table 25: Effect of integrated nutrient management on
growth and yield attributing characters of wheat
Treatments Dry matter
accumulation @ 90
DAS (g m-2)
Effective tillers
m-2
Grains / spike
T1(100% RDF) 564.90 230 36.20
T2 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1t ha-1) 645.82 251 43.63
T3 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1t ha-1 +
PSB)
683.47 303 45.45
T4 (100% RDF + PSB ) 564.57 239 41.57
T5 (75% RDF+ Vermicompost @ 1t ha-1 ) 660.13 277 43.53
T6 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1t ha-1 +
PSB)
682.80 303 47.25
T7 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1t ha-1 ) 595.90 272 38.76
S.Em.(±) 19.31 4.73 2.33
Devi et al., 2011CAU, Imphal.

50. CONCLUSIONS
Crop residue generated from paddy has huge potential for
converting to energy, compost etc.
More than 80 per cent of syngas can be produced through
gasification process by utilizing different agricultural wastes.
Application of agricultural waste compost with bio fertilizers
have increased the population of N fixing and P solubilizing
bacteria.

51. Thank you