Humiphos - Phosphate Rich Organic Manure

To have ample quantity of food
Adoption of Chemical Agriculture
Technologies

MATERIALISTIC APPROACH OF DEVELOPMENT
FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS
FROM OUTWARDS AND
NEGLECTING NEEDS OF
FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS BY
EXPLOITING RESOURCES ,
MANY TIMES
MODERN AGRICULTURE
NEGLECTING NEEDS OF
OTHER LIVING BEINGS
MANY TIMES
OVERPOWERING NATURE
EVER INCREASING NEEDS CONVERTED INTO EVER
INCREASING DEMANDS
BIRTH OF CHEMICAL
AGRICULTURE

BIRTH OF CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE
CHEMICAL
FERTILISERS
DRIP &
SPRINKLER
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
USE OF
POISONOUS
PESTCIDES ,
FUNGICIDES ,
HERBICIDES etc
HIGH YIELDING
SEED VARIETIES ,
USE OF
ARTIFICIAL
HORMONES ,
CYTOKININS etc
Soil became
hard , saline ,
alkaline and in
some cases
actually dead
Better water
management ,
however , failed in
chemical
agriculture system
due to saturation
of salts over the
period
More resistant
varieties of pests
and predators ,
pollution of water
, air and soil.
Residues in
produce.
Naturally resistant
varieties of seeds
having good taste ,
nutritive value are
becoming extinct.
Biodiversity of
nature is in danger.
LOSS OF SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURE

What is the solution ?
अ नात ् जायते मनः| - We are what we eat.
Positive , inclusive approach.
Management of natural resources - without wastingManagement of natural resources - without wasting
them.
Better quantity as well as quality – healthy , residue free ,
nutritious – produce
Management of vital life energies which control all
actions in crop , soil , microbes , pests and diseases etc .

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM
TECHNOLOGY FOR VITAL LIFE ENERGY
MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTUREMANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE
CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM OF
AGRICULTURE
Beautiful blend of principles of Vedas ,
Upanishadas and Yog Shastra.
Believes that Imbalance in nutrition / pest disease
resistance due to imbalance in vital life energies.
Provides solar / lunar / cosmic energy stored in
herbs to balance vital life energies.

LACK OF VITAL ENERGIES IS THE CAUSE OF IMBALANCE IN PLANT HEALTH
THUS CAUSING NUTRITION IMBALANCE AS WELL AS PROTECTION
IMBALANCE
Sanjeevan System:
Impact of Vital Energy Management

Sanjeevan system identified specific
problems in Agriculture –
Lowest nutrient use efficiency – 60 to 70% nutrients-
N , P , K , Si , micro nutrients are wasted.
Delay in Nutrient uptake.
Lack of pest disease resistance .

Sanjeevan Solutions to these problems-
to enhance nutrient use efficiency.
to fulfill nutrition requirement dynamically.
to manage pest disease attack.

100% ORGANIC , HERBAL IN ORIGIN100% ORGANIC , HERBAL IN ORIGIN
FOR LIFE ENERGY IN AGRICULTURE

PROBLEMS OF PHOSPHATE
70 to 80 % P OF CHEMICAL
P FERTILISERS IS WASTED
DUE TO FIXATION
LIMITED STORES OF ROCK
PHOSPHATE – WORLD OVER
1,80,000 MILLION TONS
ROCK PHOSPHATE
DUE TO FIXATION
ROCK PHOSPHATE
SUFFICIENT ONLY UPTO
2060
HAVE TO USE PHOSPHATE WITHOUT WASTING
IT DUE TO FIXATION

Why phosphate gets fixed in soil?
pH of soil
Organic matter content in soil.
Salts in soil – Ca , Mg , Na , Al , Fe , Zn , Cu salts.
Porosity , aeration in soil.
Clay content in soil.

RESEARCH PROJECT FUNDED BY DEPT. OF SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY , GOVT. OF INDIA – 1995-1998
BREAKTHROUGH IN PREPARATION OF PHOSPHOCOMPOST -
FOR SOLUBILISATION OF P IN SHORT DURATION.
VLEPL UNIVERSITY
PIONEERING RESEARCH IN VLEPL TO AVOID
FIXATION OF P
RESEARCH WAS FELICITED BY DST AS -
‘EXCELLENT RESEARCH’
VLEPL
RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH
TOTAL P 8% 4-5%
AVAILABLE P 6% 2%
DURATION 1 MONTH 3 MONTS

Effect of Samved Humiphos on Onion , Spinach ,
Maize , Soya bean , Cabbage
Treatment Onion Spinach Cabbage Maize Soya bean
Control 53.100 7.745 134.00 10.02 7.850
Super
phosphate
54.400 8.653 154.00 12.175 9.370
D.A.P. 55.76 8.799 162.8 12.400 10.230
Samved 68.250 9.766 162.8 13.178 12.240
Production q/40 R
Samved
Humiphos
68.250 9.766 162.8 13.178 12.240
Crop SSP DAP
Onion +20 +18
+ More production
in Humiphos than
SSP and DAP
Spinach +5.71 0
Cabbage +12 +10
Maize +6.6 +20.51
Soya bean +30.5 +22
Difference in production in % with compared to Humiphos / 40 R

SSP DAP Samved Humiphos
Crop % F.P. U.P.in
kg
W.M.
in Rs.
% F.P. U.P.in
kg
W.M.
in Rs.
% F.P. U.P.in
kg
W.M.
in Rs.
Spinach 55 8.8 220 66 30.36 580.74 1.4 0.14 5.60
Cabbage 23.5 4.8 102 16 7.36 136 1.7 0.07 0.28Cabbage 23.5 4.8 102 16 7.36 136 1.7 0.07 0.28
Soya
bean
82 13.17 329.50 61.1 28.11 519 2.3 0.23 9.20
onion 82 13.17 329.50 72.2 33.22 613.60 0.25 10.00
% F.P. - % fixed phosphate
U.P - unused P2O5
W.M - wasted money

SAMVED HUMIPHOS
PHOSPHATE RICH
ORGANIC MANURE
AVOIDS FIXATION OFAVOIDS FIXATION OF
PHOSPHATE IN SOIL
SUBSTITUTE FOR
CHEMICAL PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER

ROLE OF PHOSPHATE IN PLANT NUTRITION
BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF ALL CELLS
CAUSES PROFUSE WHITE ROOT DEVELOPMENT
PLAYS MAJOR ROLE IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
ENHANCES K UPTAKE
ENERGY NUTRIENT – PHOSPHATE IS PART OF ADP &ENERGY NUTRIENT – PHOSPHATE IS PART OF ADP &
ATP MOLECULES.
ENHANCES MATURITY OF PLANT.
ENHANCES SIZE , WEIGHT OF YIELD
MAKES STEMS & STALKS STRONGER

ROLE OF PHOSPHATE IN PLANT PROTECTION
FIXATION OF P
IMBALANCE IN N : P
UPTAKE.
BLOCKING OF Ca , Mg , Zn
, Fe IONS IN PHOSPHATIC
SALTS
MORE UPTAKE OF N
THAN P MAKES
LEAVES SUCCULENT.
LOW UPTAKE OF THESE
MICRO NUTRIENTS
PLANT BECOMES
SUSCEPTIBLE TO PEST &
DISEASE ATTACK

PLANT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE TO PESTS &
DISEASES –
PESTS - SUCKING & CHEWING PESTS
FUNGUS – DOWNEY MILDEW , FUSARIUM ,FUNGUS – DOWNEY MILDEW , FUSARIUM ,
PHYTOPTHORA
VIRUS – LEAF CURL , LEAF MOSAIC VIRUS

SOURCES OF PHOSPHATE
ROCK PHOSPHATE
CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS LIKE DAP , SSP , 12:61:0
PHOSPHATE RICH ORGANIC MANURES (PROM)
LIKE SAMVED HUMIPHOS

CONTENTS & ATTRIBUTES OF SAMVED
HUMIPHOS
TOTAL PHOSPHATE – 10.4%
SILICA – 8% TO 10%
Ca – 6% - 7%
ORGANIC CARBON – 8%
C:N RATIO - 7 TO 8
Organic
Compost (>40%)
Rock
Phosphate (>40%)
Proprietary Herbal
additives
C:N RATIO - 7 TO 8
YIELD DECIDING ORGANIC
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER
BALANCES N, K UPTAKE OF
PLANT
PEST DISEASE RESISTANCE
SUBSTITUTE FOR CHEMICAL
PHOSPHATE
additives

SANJEEVAN CONCEPT FOR P UPTAKE
ENERGY OF
PRITHVI
ENERGY OF TEJ, AKASH
Binding Ca,Mg ions with
humic acid and protecting
P from fixation
ENERGY OF
AKASH AND JAL
UPTAKE
OF P BY
ROOTS
PRITHVI
Phosphate
solubilization, Silica
and Calcium
availability
AKASH AND JAL
Phosphate Uptake
By Plant

SOCON
CUL
PHOS
CUL
SIL
CUL
SANJEEVAN
SYSTEM
CUL K
CUL N
CUL
WATER
CUL
MIC
CUL
HM
SYSTEM
FOR P-
SOLUBILISA
TION

Table 1: Initial soil properties of experimental site at
the start of experiment 2010-11
Soil Properties Value Soil Properties Value
Texture Clay Available N (kg ha-1) 195
Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.28 Available P (kg ha-1) 14.10
Hydraulic conductivity 5.41 Available K (kg ha-1) 299Hydraulic conductivity
(mmhr-1)
5.41 Available K (kg ha-1) 299
pH 8.16 Available S (kg ha-1) 11.83
EC (dSm -1) 0.30 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.68
Organic Carbon ( g kg-1) 5.07 Available Fe (mg kg-1) 14.22
Calcium Carbonate (%) 8.25 Available Mn (mg kg-1) 5.67
CEC (c mol (p+) kg-1) 46 Available Cu (mg kg-1) 1.53

Table 2: Yield of cotton as influenced by various
treatments
Treatments
Seed
Cotton
(q /ha)
Cotton
stalk
(q /ha)
No. of
bolls-1
plant
Weight
boll-1
gm
T1- RDF through straight fertilizer
(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)
9.09 30.67 20.70 4.46
T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal
and N & K through urea and MOP
9.90 33.99 22.92* 4.84
T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at
basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and N & K
11.48* 39.25* 26.41* 5.73*
through urea and MOP
T4-50 % P through Humiphos and 50 % P
through SSP and N & K through urea
and MOP
9.21 31.69 22.00 4.29
basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and 50 % P
and MOP
8.3 28.32 19.30 3.43
SE (m) +
-
0.49 1.73 0.53 0.168
CD at 5% 1.51 5.33 1.64 0.52

YIELD OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (PKV,
AKOLA)
25
30
35
40
Control
0
5
10
15
20
Seed cotton (q/ha) Cotton stalk (q/ha) No. of bolls/plant Boll weight (g)
Control
Humiphos

Table 3: Soil chemical properties and nutrient content after
harvest of Cotton as influenced by various treatments
Treatments
pH EC OC
gm kg-1
N
kg ha-1
P
kg ha-1
K
kg ha-1
(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)
8.21 0.37 5.65 210 18.34 323
8.09* 0.33* 5.92* 223* 21.94* 338*
T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 %
at basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and N
8.06* 0.32* 5.98* 228* 21.62* 335*
& K through urea and MOP
and MOP
8.14* 0.35 5.72 203 16.88 323
basal and 20 % at 45 DAS) and 50 % P
and MOP
8.11* 0.34* 5.69 201 16.67 320
SE (m) + - 0.016 0009 0.034 3.00 0.29 2.11
CD at 5 % 0.051 0.028 0.105 9.26 0.89 6.51
Initial value 8.16 0.30 5.07 195 14.10 299

SOIL ORGANIC CARBON AFTER
HARVEST
5.8
5.9
6
6.1
OC gm/kg
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

SOIL N AFTER HARVEST
210
215
220
225
230
235
N kg/ha
185
190
195
200
205
210
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

SOIL P AFTER HARVEST
15
20
25
P kg/ha
0
5
10
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

SOIL K AFTER HARVEST
325
330
335
340
K kg/ha
310
315
320
325
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

Table 4: Soil nutrient content after harvest of Cotton as
influenced by various treatments
Treatments
S
mg kg -1
Zn
mg kg -
1
Fe
mg kg -1
Mn
mg kg -1
Cu
mg kg -1
(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)
12.92 0.76 15.67 7.04 2.51
T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal and N & K
14.56* 0.89* 19.37* 9.63* 3.65*
T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20% 14.47* 0.87* 19.02* 9.43* 3.65*T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20%
at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea and MOP
14.47* 0.87* 19.02* 9.43* 3.65*
through SSP and N & K through urea and MOP
12.74 0.81* 16.67 7.53* 2.72*
T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20 %
at 45 DAS) and 50 % P through SSP and N & K
12.67 0.80 16.55 7.44* 2.68*
SE (m) + - 0.408 0.014 0.39 0.022 0.027
CD at 5 % 1.26 0.043 1.22 0.07 0.08
Initial value 11.83 0.68 14.22 5.67 1.53

Soil nutrient content after harvest
15
20
25 S mg/kg
Zn mg/kg
Fe mg/kg
0
5
10
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50%HP
BASAL
T5-50%HP
SPLIT

Table 5: Soil microbial count at grand growth stage of
Cotton as influenced by various treatments
Treatments
Bacteria
x 107
Fungi
x 10 4
Actinomycets
x 10 6
T1- RDF through straight fertilizer (80:40:40 kg
N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)
15 13 11
T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal and N &
K through urea and MOP
24* 21* 16
T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and
20% at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea & MOP
25* 23* 18*
20% at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea & MOP
25* 23* 18*
T4-50 % P through Humiphos and 50 % P through
SSP and N & K through urea & MOP
22* 16 12
T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and
20 % at 45 DAS) and 50 % P through SSP and N
20 14 13
SE (m) + -
1.66 1.76 1.64
CD at 5 %
5.11 5.43 5.07

Soil microbial count
15
20
25
30
BACTERIA x 10⁷
FUNGI x 10⁴
ACTENOMYCETSx10⁶
0
5
10
15
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

Table 6: Uptake of nutrients by Cotton as influenced by
various treatments
Treatments
N
Kg /ha
P
kg /ha
K
Kg/ha
S
Kg/ha
Zn
gm/
ha
Fe
gm/ha
Mn
gm /ha
Cu
gm/ ha
(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O
kg ha-1)
30.9 14.2 32.6 11.8 216 1004 172 115
T2-100 % P through Humiphos at
basal and N & K through urea
and MOP
36.5* 17.5* 37.5* 15.0* 251* 1174* 226* 135*
T3-100 % P through Humiphos
42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4* 304* 1391* 294* 161*
T3-100 % P through Humiphos
(80 % at basal and 20% at 45
DAS) and N & K through
urea and MOP
42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4* 304* 1391* 294* 161*
T4-50 % P through Humiphos and
50 % through SSP and N & K
30.0 13.8 30.8 10.6 214 1008 163 111
T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 %
at basal and 20 % at 45 DAS)
and 50 % P through SSP and N
25.3 13.3 31.7 10.3 182 876 134 96
SE (m) + - 0.99 0.72 1.06 0.70 5.23 25.93 6.55 4.26
CD at 5 % 3.07 2.24 3.28 2.06 16.12 79.9 20.18 13.14

Uptake of nutrients
25
30
35
40
45
50
N kg/ha
P kg/ha
K kg/ha
S kg/ha
0
5
10
15
20
T1- RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50%HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

Uptake of micro-nutrients
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Fe gm/ha
Zn gm/ha
Cu gm/ha
Mn gm/ha
0
200
400
600
800
T1-RDF T2-100% HP
BASAL
T3-100% HP
SPLIT
T4-50% HP
BASAL
T5-50% HP
SPLIT

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS IN COTTON
(PKV, AKOLA)
Treatments
Available nutrients kg ha-1 Nutrients uptake kg ha-1
N P K S
mg kg-
1
N P K S
mg
kg-1
(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1
210 18.3 323 12.9 30.9 14.2 32.6 11.8
223* 21.9* 338* 14.6* 36.5* 17.5* 37.5* 15.0*
228* 21.6* 335* 14.5* 42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4*
and MOP
203 16.9 323 12.7 30.0 13.8 30.8 10.6
and MOP
201 16.7 320 12.7 25.3 13.3 31.7 10.3
SE (m) +
-
3.00 0.29 2.11 0.41 0.99 0.72 1.06 0.70
CD at 5% 9.26 0.89 6.51 1.26 3.07 2.24 3.28 2.16
Initial value 195 14.1 299 11.8 - - - -

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS ON COTTON
(PKV, AKOLA)
Treatments
Soil microbial count, CFUg-1
Bacteria
(x 107 )
Fungi
(x 104 )
Actinom
ycetes
(x 106 )
(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)
15 13 11
24* 21* 16
T -100 % P through Humiphos (80 % atT3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at
25* 23* 18*
and MOP
22* 16 12
and MOP
20 14 13
SE (m) +
-
1.66 1.76 1.64
CD at 5% 5.11 5.43 5.07

SOIL NUTRIENTS STATUS, UPTAKE OF NUTRIENTS AND
MICROBIAL COUNT HARVEST OF COTTON AS
INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (PKV, AKOLA)
250
300
0
50
100
150
200
Control
Humiphos

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS ON POTATO
(UAS , DHARWAD)
Treatments
No. of
tubers
/plant
Tuber
yield/pl
gm
Tuber
Yield
t/ha
Havest
Index
B:C
Total PO4
Uptake
Kg/ha
T1-Recommended dose of fertilizer through
Urea, SSP and MOP (Check)
5.50 185 11.15 0.55 2.15 12.65
T2- Recommended dose of fertilizer through
Urea, DAP and MOP
5.65 190 11.35 0.58 2.31 12.21
T3-100% P through Humiphos and RDF for
N & K
7.13 255* 15.65* 0.75* 3.05 19.85
T4-75% P through Humiphos and 25% P
6.90 230* 14.90* 0.70* 2.87 17.774
through DAP + RDF for N & K
6.90 230* 14.90* 0.70* 2.87 17.77
through SSP + RDF for N & K
6.54 223* 14.10* 0.67* 2.63 16.61
through DAP + RDF for N & K
6.15 205* 13.70* 0.63* 2.41 15.11
through SSP + RDF for N & K
5.8 193 12.35 0.60 2.23 13.77
T8-50% P through Humiphos + RDF for
N & K
5.10 175 10.15 0.52 1.98 11.50
SE +- 0.71 4.49 0.49 0.02 - -
CD at 5% 2.06 13.63 1.49 0.06 - -
CV % 8.32 9.75 1.86 0.06 - -

YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES OF POTATO AS
INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (UAS , DHARWAD)
20
25
Urea, SSP, MOP
Urea, DAP, MOP
Humiphos+N,K
0
5
10
15
No. of tubers/plant Tuber yield (t/Ha) P uptake (Kg/Ha)

YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES OF POTATO AS
INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (UAS, DHARWAD)
200
250
Urea, SSP, MOP
Urea, DAP, MOP
0
50
100
150
No. of tubers/Plant Tuber yield/Plant (g) Tuber yield (T/ha) Total P uptake (kg/ha)
Urea, DAP, MOP
Humiphos+N,K

COMPARISION OF HUMIPHOS WITH CHEMICAL
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
Description Single Super Phosphate D.A.P. Humiphos
Bag Weight 50 Kg 50 Kg 40 Kg
Price Rs.400/- Rs.1300/- Rs.510/-
Percentage of P 16 % 46 % 10%
Total Phosphate in 50 kg
bag
8 Kg 23 Kg 4 Kg
Phosphate Fixation 80 % 75 % 0 %
Available Phosphate 1.60 Kg 5.75 Kg 4 Kg
Cost of Available
Phosphate per kg
Rs.200.0/- Rs.-226.08 Rs.127.5/-

VISUAL OBSERVATIONS
PROFUSE WHITE ROOT DEVELOPMENT

GERMINATION OF SEEDS IS TRIGGERED
STEMS , STALKS BECOME STRONG , GIRTH OF
STEM IS INCREASED

LEAVES ARE DARK GREEN
EXTRA VEGETATIVE GROWTH IS AVOIDED
YIELD IS INCREASED NEARLY BY 20-25%

LOWER PEST AND DISEASE INCIDENCE
Nearly no Incidence of
Downy mildew in plot
treated with Humiphos due
to uptake of P
Incidence of Downy
mildew in Grapes in plot
not treated with
Humiphos

NON VISUAL EFFECTS
IMPROVES AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS TO PLANTS AND
MAINTAINS AVAILABILITY
IMPROVES USEFUL MICROBIAL COUNT IN THE SOIL
IMPROVES SOIL CONDITIONS – TEXTURE, MOISTURE
CONTENT, PLOUGHING ABILITY , pH etc.
ESSENTIAL MINERALS LIKE Cu, Mg, Zn AND Fe ARE
PROVIDED IN POTENTISED FORM TO ENSURE EFFICIENT
USE IN PLANTS

CHALLENGES FACED - SUBSIDY
Product
2013-14 Sale in
India
((Million Ton) *
Total Phosphate
Available for
Plants after
fixation
(Million Ton)
Sale Price
(Per Ton)
Subsidy
(Per Ton)**
Total Price
(per Ton)
Total Subsidy
Outflow
(Rs. Million)
DAP 6.92 0.83 23,000.00 12,000.00 35,000.00 83,040.00
* For 2013-14 Annual Sale – GSFC Analysts Meet - http://bit.ly/1wN8nRK
**for subsidy on DAP : http://www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/agriculture/agri_nutrientmgt_priceoffertilizers.html
HUMIPHOS Reqd
for Replacement of
DAP
8.00 0.83 18,750.00 - 18,750.00 -
• As per above data, subsidy of Rs. 83000 Million is spent every year on sale of
Di-ammonium Phosphate

CHALLENGES FACED
Average Requirement of HUMIPHOS per year per District
- 0.012 Million Tonnes
Huge quantity of raw material required to fulfill demand
for phosphatic fertilizers (i.e. Organic manure and rockfor phosphatic fertilizers (i.e. Organic manure and rock
phosphate)
How to fulfill requirement of organic manure?
Organic manure not scarce, but scattered
Ray of Hope – Municipal Solid Waste compost

MSW DISPOSAL IN INDIA
– A STUDY
Municipal solid waste is a mixture of vegetables and non
vegetable wastes in cooked and uncooked
stages, leftovers, packaging materials , papers , plastics
, rags and other fabrics, dust, ash and a variety of
combustible and non - combustible matter.combustible and non - combustible matter.
India generates about 50 million tons of municipal solid
wastes (MSW) every year from cities (CPCB, 2000).
Ever - increasing population directly influences the quality
and quantity of Municipal Solid waste generated around the
surrounding areas

MSW DISPOSAL IN INDIA
– A STUDY
Improper and unscientific techniques adopted for MSW
disposal are economically non - viable and socially
unacceptable
Selection of proper disposal method is necessarySelection of proper disposal method is necessary
Common practices used in MSW disposal: Open
dump, landfill, sanitary
landfill, composting, incineration, biogas production
A major hurdle in biological processing of MSW: high
levels of heavy metals

USE OF SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FORUSE OF SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FOR
REDUCING HEAVY METAL LEVELSREDUCING HEAVY METAL LEVELS
Use of Prana shakti or vital power in herbsUse of Prana shakti or vital power in herbs
for reducing heavy metal content in MSW

SANJEEVAN TREATMENT FOR REDUCING
HEAVY METAL CONTENT IN MSW
ELEMENTS
THRESH
HOLD
LEVELS AS
PER F.C.O.
(mg/kg)
2012 2013
UN-
TREATED
(mg/kg)
TREATED
(mg/kg)
UN-
TREATED
(mg/kg)
TREATED
(mg/kg)
NICKEL 50 153.37 31.86 48 35NICKEL 50 153.37 31.86 48 35
LEAD 100 145.63 70.18 43 <5
CHROMIUM 50 45.3 45.3 89 69
CADMIUM 5 2.89 2.44 7.76 4.69
MERCURY 0.15 0.74 0.30 <0.5 <0.5

COMPARISON BETWEEN UNTREATED SAMPLE AND
TREATED SAMPLE
(FOR METAL CONTENT MORE THAN 30 MG/KG)
120
140
160
180
THRESH HOLD LEVELS
AS PER F.C.O.(mg/kg)
UNTREATED (2012)
0
20
40
60
80
100
NICKEL LEAD CHROMIUM
UNTREATED (2012)
TREATED (2012)
UNTREATED (2013)
TREATED (2013)

COMPARISON BETWEEN UNTREATED SAMPLE AND TREATED
SAMPLE
(FOR METAL CONTENT LESS THAN 10 MG/KG)
6
7
8
9
THRESH HOLD LEVELS
AS PER F.C.O.(mg/kg)
UNTREATED (2012)
0
1
2
3
4
5
CADMIUM MERCURY
UNTREATED (2012)
TREATED(2012)
UNTREATED(2013)
TREATED(2013)

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FOR MANAGEMENT
OF MSW WASTE
TREATED TO
ORGANIC
N, P, K - RICH
FERTILIZER
MSW
COMPOST
TREATED TO
REDUCE
HEAVY
METAL
RESIDUES

BENEFITS TO GOVERNMENTBENEFITS TO GOVERNMENT
1. Enhanced quantity and quality of agricultural output.
2. Efficient utilization of waste materials after
composting of city waste.composting of city waste.
3. Complying to WTO objectives to greater extent.
4. Complying to vision 2030 of IISS
……… and many more benefits.

FUTURE RESEARCH
Limited stocks of high grade rock phosphate and
organic matter poses a great problem in front of us.
To find solution for this problem , we need to answer
certain questions-
Can we use low grade rock phosphate ( total P =
10%), which is available abundantly even in India , to10%), which is available abundantly even in India , to
make phosphatic fertilizers?
Can we avoid organic matter completely and still get
excellent results?
Can P in rock phosphate be solubillised without using
organic matter and chemical treatment (H2SO4) ?

Sanjeevan way to sustainable
agriculture………

Humiphos - Phosphate Rich Organic Manure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Humiphos - Phosphate Rich Organic Manure

Similar to Humiphos - Phosphate Rich Organic Manure (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Humiphos - Phosphate Rich Organic Manure