The document discusses organic rice cultivation. It begins by noting that the green revolution led to increased food production but also environmental issues from overuse of chemicals. It then discusses what organic farming entails, focusing on avoiding synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Subsequent sections provide details on organic rice production methods like nutrient management using compost and green manures, and integrated pest management. Case studies show positive effects of organic nutrient sources and management practices on rice growth and yields. Overall the document promotes organic rice cultivation as a sustainable alternative to conventional methods.

1. ON

2.  Green revolution brought spectacular increase in
production and productivity.
 Green Revolution increased production of food grains
from 50.8 M.T. in 1950-51 to 253.16 M.T. in 2015-16.
 Fertilizer consumption increased from 69,000 T in
1950-51 to 27.74 M.T. NPK nutrients in 2014-15.
 Pesticides consumption increased from 160 T in 1948-
49 to 50580 T in 2014-15.
Introduction
Cont…

3.  Indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides created
health hazards and deteriorated the agro-ecosystem badly.
This situation has compelled us to switch over to organic
farming.
 172 countries produce organic food commercially.

4. Green revolution technologies
(High yielding varieties, chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, mechanization,
irrigation)
High production
(Overcoming food crisis, self sufficiency in food grain, buffer stock of food grain)
Not sustainable
(Stagnation or fall in productivity, decline in soil fertility, salinity problem, lowering
of water table, environmental pollution)

5. What does organic farming means?
Production system which avoids or
largely excludes the use of:
 Inorganic fertilizers
 Pesticides
 Growth regulators
 Livestock feed additives
It rely upon:
 Crop rotations
 Crop residues
 Animal manures
 Green manures
 Off-farm organic wastes
 Biological pest control
Depend
Avoid

6. Why it is necessary ?
 Sustainable crop production
 Maintaining the soil fertility and productivity
 Reduce water and air pollution
 Avoid contamination of food
 Proper utilization of Agricultural waste
 Maintaining the biodiversity of soil
 Reduce the fertilizer and pesticides dependence
 Reducing disease and pest infestation in crop

7. Organic Farming status: World
 World-wide, 37.2 m. ha land and 1.8 million producers.
 Largest organic agricultural land in Australia (17.2 m. ha).
 More organic agricultural land in Australia, Argentina and
USA
 Organic share in Falkland Islands (36.3 %), Liechtenstein
(30.9 %) and Austria (19.4 %).
 World’s Organic Agricultural land was 15 as per 2013 data
(Source FIBL & IFOAM Year Book 2015).
 Total organic cultivation land share in world 0.99 %.
 0.4 % of the world arable land under organic cultivation.
Source FIBL & IFOAM Year Book 2015

8.  The total area and production under organic certification
is 5.71 M. ha and 1.35 million MT in 2015-16, respectively.
 The total export 263687 MT and earn 298 million USD in
2015-16.
 Organic production in India growing @ 15-20% annually.
 Madhya Pradesh has covered largest area under organic
certification followed by Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Organic Farming status: India
Source: www. apeda.gov.in

9. Certified Organic Products Produced &
Exported from India
 Cereals like wheat, rice particularly Basmati .
 Beverage products like tea and coffee
 Spices like black pepper, white pepper, coriander, mustard, clove,
cardamom, ginger , nutmeg, cinnamon, vanilla, chili, turmeric, etc.
 Fruits like banana, pineapple, passion fruit and mango
 Vegetables-okra, brinjal, garlic, onion, tomato, potato
 Sugar and similar products
 Cashewnut, Groundnut
 Cotton

10. What is Organic rice?
Organic rice is rice that is certified by an
independent body, to have been grown and processed
according to set “organic” standards.
 For example, “organic” as applied to most field crops

11. Why should grow organic rice?
 For receiving higher prize
 For better health benefit.
 Healthy food: Contains no toxic substances.
 increasing demand for organic rice in recent years that
have eventually created a considerable gap between
demand and supply.

12. Rice : scenario
 The huge demand for rice in the global market.
 India is second largest producer of rice.
 India produced 105.48 million tonnes of rice (2014-15).
 In 2014-15, rice share in India's total cereals export with
93.60%.
 India export 40,45,796.25 MT of basmati and 6366585.53
MT of non basmati rice to get Rs. 15129.09 and Rs.
22718.44 crores in the year 2015-16.

13.  India export 5630 M.T. organic basmati rice to France,
Germany, U.K., Kuwait, Italy Thailand, Israel, Netherlands
with Ex. Value 1261905.36 US $. (2008-2009)
 In 2009-2010 area under organic rice in India and
Maharashtra 11292.272 and 168.87 (ha).
Year Production (Metric Tonn) India
2007-08 22674
2008-09 176683
2010-11 76690
2011-12 44132
 Maharashtra produced organic rice 168.87 tonn in 2009-2010
Sources: www. ncof.dacnet.nic.in

14. What is involved to growing organic rice?
 Strictly need to follow standards for production and processing as set by
the certifying body.
 Need to develop and submit annual plans showing that produce meet the
production and processing requirements of the certifying body.
 Certified “organic” if produce is grown on land, which has been free of
prohibited substances (e.g., artificial chemical pesticides and fertilizers)
for three years prior to certification.
 Need to keep detailed records of methods and materials used in growing
or processing organic products to demonstrate that standards have been
maintained and audited.
 Require that a third party certifier approved by the national certifying
body has annually inspected all methods and materials.

15. Certification, Accreditation and Labeling
CERTIFICATION ACCREDITATION LABELLING
Skal (N) (Bangalore) APEDA Annual Crops
SGS (S) (Gurgaon) Spice Board 1 Year- No label
Lacon (G) (Cochin) Coffee Board, 2 Year- In Conversion to
Organic Agriculture
APOF (Bangalore) Coconut Board 3 Year- Certified Organic
IRFT (Mumbai) Tea Board, 4 Year- Certified Organic
IMO (S) (Bangalore) Cashew nut Board
Naturland (G) (Gurgaon)
Indocert (S) (Cochin)
ISCOP (Coimbatore)
Bioinspectra (S)
(Cochin)

16. Why organic rice cultivation
• Production of rice-wheat system facing a sustainability problem due to
practices of modern production system with indiscriminate use of
chemical, fertilizer and pesticides (Prassad, 2005)
• Introduction of high yielding varieties and intensive cultivation with
excess and imbalanced use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation showed
reduction in the soil fertility status and yield by 38 per cent of rice crop
(Singh et al., 2001).
• Continuous imbalanced use of fertilizer has adversely affected the
production potential and soil health. The organic manures, on the other
hand, not only supply a good amount of plant nutrients but also improve
soil health and can contribute to crop yield substantially ( Sharma, 2016).
Cont…

17. • N-use efficiency is very low particularly in rice and it is difficult
to sustain in the soil system due to volatilization, leaching and
denitrification losses. Hence, N is the element to be first thrust in
sense of organic farming (Magar, 2004).
• The area under scented rice varieties is increasing day by day with
the opening of the world market as well as increased domestic
consumption due to their premium quality ( Singh et al., 2008).
• Rice monoculture over time has clearly indicated a long-term
degradation of soil resource base. Hence, enhancement and
maintenance of system productivity and resource quality is
essential for sustainable agriculture.

18. COMPONENTS OF ORGANIC RICE
Nutrient Management
Weed Management
Insect Pest Management
Disease Management

19. Inputs for nutrient
management in rice
Compost
Vermicompost
Glyricidia
Sesbenia
Pongamia
Crotalaria
Rice straw
Azolla BGA

20. Nutrient content in different organic sources
Manures Nutrient content (%)
N P K
FYM 0.5-1.5 0.4-0.8 0.8-1.2
Vermicompost 1.5 0.9 0.26
Poultry manure 1-1.8 1.4-1.8 0.8-0.9
Green Manuring crops
Glyricidia 2.76 0.28 4.60
Sesbenia rostrata 3.56 -
Crotalaria junacea 2.30 0.50 1.80
Sesbenia aculata 3.50 0.60 1.20
Sesbenia speciosa 2.71 0.53 2.21
Green leaf manures crops
Azardirecta indica 2.83 0.28 0.35
Pongamia glabara 3.31 0.44 2.39
Crop residue
Rice husk 0.3-0.4 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.5
Reddy and Reddy

21. Weed management
Weed causes 30-40 and 70-80 % loss in yield transplanted and drilled rice
respectively .
• Tillage
• Irrigation
• Crop rotation
• hand weeding
• Seedling rate and cultivar
selection
• Mulching with crop residue
• Use of bio-herbicide/Biological
control - Collectrotrichum gloesporiodes
weed control in rice. Purohit et.al (2003)

22. Management of pests
 Cultural control: Land preparation,
irrigation, transplanting, manual
weed control, time of planting,
destruction of crop residues etc.
eg. BPH, YSB, sucking pests etc.
 Mechanical control: Collection
and destruction of various stages
of pests eg. Rice bug, case worm
etc.
 Biological control: Parasites like
Trichogramma and Predators like
spiders, beetles, grass hoppers etc.
 Use of pheromone traps-YSB,
Leaf folder etc.
 Use of Biopesticides/ botanicals
like Neem products etc.

23.  Stem borer: Infestation takes place at
earing stage, white grain less ears emerge
which are called white ear heads .
Control :1 (5 mg pheromone per trap; 20
traps/ha; 20 x 25 m distance) within a week
of transplanting for stem borer and replace
lure after 30 days.
2.Tri chogramma
3. Lures, Bt
 Rice hoppers: The young one start
sucking plant sap from the stem
immediately after coming out of the
eggs. The infested fields present masses
of dried plants bearing spots identical to
burnt spots and hence it is called
hopper-burn.
Control: 1.Drain the water for about 5-6
days if possible.
2. Neem 1500 ppm.

24.  Gandhi bug: Grey green adults
measuring 15 mm in length and can be
identified by their smell. Both the adults
and the young ones suck the milky grains
leaving dull whitish spots on the grains
resulting in unfilled grains.
Control: 1.The field bunds should be kept
free of weeds. 2.When there are one or more
bugs per hill spray neem based insecticide.
 Gall midge Formation of a hollow
cavity or tubular gall at the base of
the infested tiller
Control: Release Platygaster oryzae
parasitized galls @ 1 per 10 m on 10
days after transplanting (DAT)

25.  Leaf-eating caterpillars:
Control: 5 to 10% dashaparni extract
Ginger-chili-garlic extract 60 litres of
extract is needed for spraying 1 ha.
7 to 10% vermiwash diluted in water, as
foliar spray.
( Source MOF , 2006) ( Mohan, 2010)

26. Disease Management
 Selection of the resistant varieties for specific areas. Jaya,
Mangala, KRH 2 (Nagaraju et.al 2000)
 Selection of the clean and diseased free seeds.
 Cultural practices : 1 practices Avoid planting under full
or partial shade to avoid bacterial blight (BLB). Once BLB
attacks plants in shade these plants become source of
inoculums for remaining field. 2) Sowing 1 july – 15 july
Blast control ( Singh, 1999)
 Foliar application of cow urine, Neem based extract,
herbal extract eg. Bacterial leaf spot: 10% vermiwash + 5%
cow urine in 10 litres of water.
 Rust/virus: Cow urine + buttermilk extract (1 litre of
buttermilk + 1 litre of cow’s urine + 8 litres of water ((Source
MOFF , 2006)

27. Organic formulation for rice
 Bijamrut: protection against soil borne diseases. and improves seed
germination
 Dashparni ark : disease and pest control
 Onion (Allium cepa) Bulb dust: fungal diseases and pest of rice
 Sitaphal (Custard apple) Seed and leaf extract : prevent and
insects in rice.
 Cow urine: prevents soil borne diseases and increase germination
 Ginger-chili-garlic extract: disease and pest control
 Vermiwash: nutrient management
Organic Farming Newsletter, September 2013 : 9(3)

28. Bio control module for pest and disease management
Pest Bio control Rate of application
Yellow stem
borer
Trichogramma japonicum
BT
2.00 lakh eggs/ha
0.75 kg/ha
Leaf folder Trichogramma japonicum 2.00 lakh eggs/ha
Hoppers Neem 1500 ppm
Sheath blight Trichoderma Seed treatment @ 4-5 g/kg
seed
Leaf spot Pseudomonas Seed treatment @ 4-5 g/kg
seed
Brown spot Trichogramma japonicum 2.00 lakh eggs/ha
Neck blas Nimbecidene +
Trichogramma japonicu
500 g /acre + 2.00 lakh
eggs/ha
Mohan et.al 2010

29. Case studies

30. Table 1. Effect of organic nutrient management on growth
attributes of rice (mean of 2009–2013)
Treatment Plant height Productive
tillers/hil
Total dry- matter
(g/hill)
Rice variety
‘Karjat 3’ 76.5 10.5 26.7
‘Revathy 83.4 8.7 27.5
‘Pusa Sugandh 5’ 91.9 8.0 33.00
SEm± 1.03 0.16 0.92
CD (P=0.05) 4.16 0.64 3.72
Nutrient sources
FYM 83.3 9.20 29.6
Vermi-compost 82.3 9.01 27.8
Gliricidia + Eupatorium sp 84.5 9.51 29.6
Paddy straw + water hyacinth 86.2 8.98 29.5
Sesbania rostrata 83.7 9.02 29.5
RDF (NPK) 88.7 9.47 29.6
Control 78.9 8.34 28.0
SEm± 0.60 0.16 1.08
CD (P=0.05) 1.73 0.45 -
Manjunath et.al (2016)

31. Table.2. Effect of organic manures and varieties on tillers, yield attributes
and yields of rice
Treatment
Tillers/
m2
Panicles
/m2
Total
grains/
panicle
Filled
grains/
panicle
1000
grain
wt. (g)
Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
Straw
yield
(kg/ha)
M1- 60 kg ha-1 FYM- N 424 294 109 92 21.70 3739 5210
M2- 60 kg ha-1 Neem
leaf- N
479 353 129 101 22.56 4127 5739
M3- 60 kg ha-1 Sheep
manure- N
451 312 110 88 22.20 3914 5517
M4- 60 kg ha-1 Poultry
manure- N
546 376 121 106 23.44 44
705
5931
SEm 14.2 11.8 3.7 3.2 0.63 120 147
CD(P=0.05) 49 41 13 11 NS 415 509
Varieties
S1- Pusa Sugundh 472 326 120 96 22.85 3910 5341
S2- Pusa basmathi 428 291 108 84 21.93 3609 4893
S3- RNR 2465 517 372 133 105 23.04 4415 5865
S4- RNR 18833 494 358 118 94 22.84 4164 5602
SEm 13.6 10.7 3.8 3.2 0.51 133 159
CD(P=0.05) 40 31 11 9 NS 388 464
Rao et.al 2013

32. Table 3: Effect of organics and inorganics on growth
attributes of rice. (pooled mean 2001and 2002)
Treatments Total tillers
m-2
Dry matter
m-2
75 DAT
Leaf Area
Index
75 DAT
T1- Control 217.7 538.18 4.255
T2-120 N (D.S.) 259.0 794.13 5.825
T3-120 N (P.M. ) 295.3 859.93 6.52
T4-120 N (C.W. ) 262.8 801.27 6.215
T5-60 N (D.S.) + 60 N ( P.M.) 275.0 820.03 6.145
T6- 60 N (D.S.) + 60 N (C.W.) 280.3 820.32 6.085
T7-60 N(P.M.) + 60 N (C.W.) 291.5 863.77 6.45
T8-40 N(D.S.) +40 N (P.M.) + 40
N (C.W.)
308.5 883.6 6.59
T9- RDF 308.5 892.85 6.65
C.D. (P=0.05) 7.85 7.43 0.11
B.H.U., Varanasi. Dash .et al (2011)
(D.S.) digested sludge, C.W) woolen carpet wastes, (P.M.) press mud

33. Table 4 : Yield attributing character of paddy as influenced nutrient management
practices for organic cultivation of rice (Pooled data of 2013 and 2014)
Tr.
No
Treatments Paniclelength
(cm)
Test
weight
(gm)
NO.
filled
grains
T1 FYM + 100 % N equi. FYM 24.19 20.62 149.03
T2 75% N equi.FYM 19.98 17.68 107.92
T3 100 % N equi. FYM 20.84 18.67 117.57
T4 125 % N equi.FYM 23.14 19.76 129.40
T5 FYM + 100 % N equi. V.C. 25.85 21.12 171.82
T6 75 % N equi. V.C. 20.15 18.25 116.75
T7 100% N equi. V.C. 22.19 19.33 129.33
T8 125 % N equi. V.C. 23.15 19.84 137.15
T9 50 % N equi.FYM+ 50 % N equi.V.M. 23.14 18.78 120.75
T10 RDF (10 t FYM +125:50:50 Kg NPK ha ) 25.10 20.00 169.85
Sem ± 0.49 0.93 12.21
C.D. at
5%
1.46 2.79 36.60
OFRC, Karnataka C. Sunil et.al. (2015)

34. Table 5: Grain and straw yield of paddy as influenced by nutrient management
practices for organic cultivation of rice (Pooled data of 2013 and 2014)
Tr.
No
Treatments Grain yield
(q/ha)
Straw yield
(q/ha)
H.I.
T1 FYM + 100 % N equi.FYM 35.83 46.29 0.43
T2 75% N equi.FYM 30.54 41.27 0.43
T3 100 % N equi. FYM 33.16 42.59 0.41
T4 125 % N equi.FYM 34.10 44.70 0.43
T5 FYM + 100 % N equi. V.C. 36.69 47.59 0.46
T6 75 % N equi. V.C. 32.14 42.12 0.43
T7 100% N equi. V.C. 33.48 43.31 0.44
T8 125 % N equi. V.C. 34.97 45.33 0.44
T9 50 % N equi.FYM+ 50 % N equi.V.M. 33.22 42.68 0.44
T10 RDF (10 t FYM +125:50:50 Kg NPK ha ) 38.67 48.78 0.43
Sem ± 0.34 0.56 0.00
C.D.
at 5%
1.03 1.69 0.01
OFRC, Karnataka C. Sunil et.al. (2015)

35. Table 6 : Grain yield (t/ha) as influenced by nutrient sources
Year Kharif (WS) Rabi (DS)
Cont. Inorg Org. INM Cont. Inorg Org. INM
2004-
2005
3.45c 5.47a 4.68b 5.00ab 2.03c 3.79a 3.52b 4.28a
2005-
2006
3.36c 5.35a 4.59b 5.15a 2.17c 3.74a 3.10b 3.62a
2006-
2007
3.13b 5.20a 4.87a 5.03a 2.48c 3.81a 3.14b 3.77a
2008-
2009
3.33b 5.33a 5.23a 5.12a 2.01c 3.76a 3.27b 3.86a
2009-
2010
3.19b 5.23a 5.36a 5.08a 2.12b 4.18a 3.98a 4.13a
Hyderabad. clay soil
Surekha et.al (2013}

36. Table 7. Effect of nutrient combination on grain and straw yield
of rice
Treatment Grain yield (t ha) Straw yield ( t ha)
Nutrient comb. 2007 2008 2007 2008
control 2.4 2.4 4.9 5.0
FYM 3.2 3.5 6.3 6.5
GM 3.4 3.8 6.5 6.9
GM+BF 3.8 4.0 6.9 7.1
GM+BF+FYM 4.2 4.5 7.3 7.5
Control VS other 4.6 4.8 7.8 7.9
SEm± 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.39
C.D (P.0.050 0.57 0.35 0.67 0.79
IARI, New Delhi Moola Ram (2013)

37. Table 8. Grain yield and sustainability yield index of rice varieties with
different organic nutrient management during 2009–2013
Treatments Grain yield of rice (t/ha
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 P. Mean SYI
FYM 1.93 2.89 4.35 5.83 3.31 3.66 0.76
Vermi-compost 1.66 2.82 3.16 4.90 3.59 3.22 0.80
Gliricidia +
Eupatorium sp
2.38 3.00 3.88 4.66 3.47 3.47 0.76
Paddy straw +
water hyacinth
2.13 2.66 3.14 5.13 3.88 3.28 0.88
Sesbania rostrata 1.76 3.07 3.41 4.67 3.42 3.26 0.79
RDF (NPK) 3.15 3.03 3.68 5.62 3.74 3.87 0.83
Control 1.91 1.98 2.49 3.81 3.25 2.68 0.88
SEm± 0.18 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.08 0.02
CD (P=0.05) 0.57 0.37 0.54 0.46 - 0.23 0.06
ICAR Research Complex for Goa. Manjunath et.al (2016)

38. Table 9. Productivity of rice as influenced by different organic, integrated and
chemical fertilizers packages
Treatments
Rice yield (tonnes/ha)
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
T1: 50% RDF + 50% (N 1/3 each from CDM + NC
+ CCR)
2.92 4.10 3.47 3.5 4.28
T2: 100% N (1/3 each from CDM+NC + CCR) 2.86 3.41 3.51 3.5 3.66
T3: T2 + GM in rice 2.71 3. 2 3.62 3.87 4.03
T4: T2 + DSP 2.78 3.13 3.71 3.92 3.37
T5: 50% N (CDM) + Azosppirillum + RP + PSB 2.44 2.74 2.81 2.99 3.58
T6: T2 + Azosppirillum + PSB 2.25 3.22 3.45 3.49 4.03
T7: RDF 3.06 3.85 3.97 4.13 4.10
SE m 0.12 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.00
CD ( P = 0.05 0.35 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.12
Raipur Urkurkar et.al(2010)
•CDM, cow dung manure; NC, neem cake; CCR, composted crop residue; GM, green manure; RP,
rock phosphate; PSB, phosphorus solubilizing bacteria and DSP, deep summer ploughing

39. Table 10. Effect of organic nutrient and cropping system on nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium uptake
Treatment detail
Nutrient uptake (kg/ha
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
2005–
06
2006–
07
2005–
06
2006–
07
2005–
06
2006–
07
T1 Control 142.7 139.6 23.3 22.6 67.9 63.3
T2 100% RDN
O.M.
288.9 296.6 46.8 47.5 121.2 116.8
T3 100% RDN
O.M.+B.F.
316.4 326.8 51.1 52.2 131.9 127.9
SEm± 4.1 4.1 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.5
CD (P=0.05 11.8 11.8 1.9 1.9 1.5 4.4
BHU, Varanasi Clay soil
Yadav et.al (2013)

40. Table 11: Grain quality parameters as influenced by nutrient sources
(5th year)
Treat Protein
%
Phosphorus
(g/kg)
Potassium
(g/kg)
BR WR WR BR WR BR
DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS
Cont. 8.0
2
7.66 7.46 7.74 2.0 2.8 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.3 1.1 1.1
Inorg 8.5
5
8.31 8.16 7.56 1.7 3.2 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.0 1.0
Orga. 8.5
8
8.71 8.14 7.76 2.0 3.3 1.1 1.2 1.9 2.5 1.1 1.2
INM 8.5
7
8.16 8.20 7.8 1.8 3.1 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.3 1.0 1.2
LSD
(0.05
%)
NS NS NS NS 0.25 0.32 0.08 NS 0.11 0.15 NS NS
Hyderabad. clay soil Rao et.al (2013}

41. Table12. Effect of different nutrient management associated with various
cropping systems on changes in physic-chemical properties of soil till the
completion of 4th crop cycle during 2007-08
Treatment O.C (%) BD
(g/cm3)
Avail. N
(kg/ha)
Avail. P
(kg/ha)
Avail. K
(kg/ha)
Initial 0.70 1.35 264 12.6 282
Nutrient Management
100% organic 0.78 1.36 288 13 297
100% inorganic 0.71 1.40 271 12.4 271
Integrated (50% each of
organic and inorganic
0.74 1.37 278 12.7 291
Cropping System
Green Manure- Rice-
Wheat
0.75 1.38 281 12.7 283
Rice-Potato-Okra 0.73 1.37 274 12.5 288
Rice-Berseem 0.74 1.38 279 12.5 287
Rice-Vegetable Pea-
Sorghum
0.75 1.38 283 13.0 287
Dubey et.al ( 2014)
Jabalpur Sandy clay loam

42. Rao et .al 2013
Fig 1. Soil quality and sustainability indices as influenced by different nutrient
management practices

43. Table 13 : Return, Gross margin and B:C ratio from organic rice
production
Particulars Minimum Maximum Mean
Grain
revenue
28421.05 75600.00 56718.19
Straw
revenue
2812.50 18750.00 9878.88
Total revenue 40263.16 89250.00 66597.07
Total cost 19485.00 74005.00 32249.91
Gross margin 12995.00 58125.00 34347.16
B:C Ratio 0.18 2.18 1.15
Source: Field Study, 2011)
Bhutan Adhikari R.K.(2011)

44. Table 14. Economics* of organic nutrient management during
2009–2013
Treatments Gross returns
(×103 Rs/ha)
Cost of
production
(×103 /Rs ha)
Net Return
(×103
Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
FYM 80.1 49.9 30.30 0.61
Vermi-compost 71.8 102.4 - -
Gliricidia +
Eupatorium sp
76.6 36.6 40.0 1.09
Paddy straw +
water hyacinth
73.5 52.2 21.3 0.41
Sesbania rostrata 72.1 35.4 36.6 1.04
RDF (NPK) 72.1 30.6 41.7 1.35
Control 59.7 24.0 35.7 1.49
SEm± 2.1 6.30 1.7 0.05
CD (P=0.05) 4.9 15.0 5.1 0.14
ICAR Research Complex for Goa. Manjunath et.al (2016)

45. Table 15. Cost of cultivation and net return (ha )under different production
system
Treat. Year (2004-2005 Kharif + rabi)
Total cost Gross returns (Rs) Net returns(Rs) B:C ratio
Control 25420 28496 3,076 1.12:1
Inorganic 35,045 48,152 13,107 1.37:1
Organic 38,950 42,640 3,6 90 1.09:1
INM 36,997 48,256 11,259 1.30:1
Year5 (2009-2010 Kharif + rabi)
Control 35,850 44,000 8150 1.23:1
Inorganic 50,995 89,395 38,400 1.75:1
Organic 58,600 1,16,750 53,480 1.99:1
INM 53,750 87,495 33,745 1.63:1
Rao et.al (2013)

46. Table. 16 Effect of Non chemical weed management practices on total weed
dry weight (gm-2, on organic rice production
Treatments 20 DAT 30 DAT 50 DAT
T - S. aculeataas intercrop and incorpn on 35 DAT
1
3.63 (11.18) 3.81 (12.54) 3.49 (10.16)
T - Azolla + manual incorpn. on 20 and 40 DAT
2
3.36 (9.28) 3.21 (8.32) 3.18 (8.14)
T - Azolla + rotary weederincorpn. on 20 and 40 DAT
3
3.25 (8.58) 3.21 (8.33) 2.77 (5.67)
T - Azolla + conoweederincorpn. on 20 and 40 DAT
4
3.25 (8.59) 3.09 (7.54) 2.61 (4.81)
T - Rotary weeder four times on 10, 20, 30 and 40 DAT
5
3.04 (7.24) 3.14 (7.87) 3.42 (9.75)
T - Conoweeder four times on 10, 20, 30 and 40 DAT
6
2.90 (6.41) 3.11 (7.70) 3.37 (9.37)
T - Rice hull solution (50%) on 3 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
7
4.18 (15.51) 6.44 (39.51) 3.53 (10.60)
T - Rice hull solution (50%) on 15 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
8
4.50 (18.24) 7.23 (50.30) 3.43 (9.84)
T - Sunflower dried stalk on 3 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
9
4.48 (18.12) 7.24 (50.46) 3.67 (11.48)
T -Sunflower dried stalk on 15 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
10
4.49 (18.22) 7.20 (49.88) 3.63 (11.17)
T -Rice straw at 3 t ha-1on 3 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
11
3.46 (9.96) 3.73 (11.93) 3.46 (9.98)
T -Rice bran at 2 t ha -1on 3 DAT + HW on 35 DAT
12
2.43 (3.92) 2.71 (5.34) 2.32 (3.38)
T -Hand weeding on 15 DAT and on 35 DAT
13
2.59 (4.72) 3.18 (8.11) 2.82 (5.98)
T -Unweeded control
14
5.00 (23.06) 8.01 (62.25) 9.67 (91.59)
SEd 0.12 0.13 0.14
CD (P=0.05%) 0.25 0.28 0.29
Coimbatore. Gnanasoundari and Somasundaram (2014)

47. Table 17. Effect of organic and inorganic treatments on the incidence of
insect, pests and yield of rice (mean of 4 years
Treatments % Dead
hearts
% Silver
shoot
No. of
hoppers
/hil
%
White
ears
Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
T1-100% Organics + Need
based plant protection
5.7 15.9 17.3 8.9 4678
T2-100% Organics + No plant
protection
8.5 18 22.7 8.7 4709
T3-50% Organics + 50% RDF +
Need Based plant protection
6.8 19.6 22.5 9 5460
T4-50% Organics + 50% RDF +
No plant protection
9.6 22.4 25.9 8.3 5001
T5-100% RDF + Need Based
Plant Protection
5.9 18.2 28.3 8.1 5312
T6-100% RDF + No plant
protection
10 26.5 31.1 8.8 4589
SEm ± 3.03 2.2 5.6 N.S 310
CD at 5% 0.99 0.96 2.5 139
Warangal Reddy et.al (2012)

48. Table 19. Incidence of blast and sheath rot as influenced by
organic sources during kharif 2008
Treatments % leaf blast % neck
blast
% sheath rot
Untreated control 30.19 d 35.06d 47.8c
FYM @5t/ha 16.80c 19.90c 26.2b
Vermicompost @ 5t/ha 16.67c 19.80c 26.0b
Neem cake @ 5t/ha 14.26b 17.01b 22.1a
Karanj cake @ 5t/ha 13.09a 15.45a 20.1a
Figures in a row within a season with different letters differ significantly
(p=0.05)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad Jagadeshewar et.al (2011)

49. Constraint in organic rice production
 Less avaibility of farm input
 Slow release nutrients from organic input
 Bulk amount required
 Lack of awareness
 Less avaibility of bio-herbicides and bio pesticides particularly
India.
 High certification and input cost
 Lack of support during conversion period
 Lack of local market channel
 NO premium prize
 Lack of organic input responsive varieties

50. Future prospects and research needs
 Location-specific crop management
 Future re- search activity.
 Deployment of rice varieties more relevant to organic rice
 Organic responsive and hold resistance to major diseases, insect pests and
weed control (Stockdale et al. 2001).
 Identification of favourable eco-zones.

51. Conclusion
 Organic system of rice production needs particular
transition period to stabilize rice system.
 Organic rice production can be sustainable and
economical/remunerative over a period of time, once
the soil fertility is built up due to continuous use of
organic nutrient sources.
 Organic farming effective tool against weed, disease
and insect pest management.
 Given the same profitability, organic farming is more
advantageous than conventional farming, considering
it rice productivity and bring about perceptible
improvement in soil quality, sustainability indices and
economic returns of organic s contribution to health,
environment and sustainability.