Crop residue management for sustaining soil productivity and environment health

Yadvinder Singh PAU and CIMMYT

Production of crop residues in India500 mt, Punjab -51 mt

Rice 34%

Crop Residues
Residue production, although unavoidable, involves a major input of resources in the form of nutrients water, fuel, labour and time 25% of N & P, 50% of S, 75-85% of K and 50-80% of micronutrients removed by the rice and wheat crops are retained in straw

Crop residues production and N content in million tons in Punjab

Item Total residues Residue burnt Rice Wheat Total 42.5 24.9 0.20 (0.11) 1.4 22.0 20.5 18.7 5.1

Total N in residues (mt) 0.11 0.09 (.09) (.02) Total N consumption mt)
(values in parenthesis-N lost during burning)

Management options for crop residues

Burning (Partial/complete) In-situ recycling as stubble mulch Mulching material for crops other than
rice/wheat Incorporation Composting Animal feed Bio fuel Electricity Gasification of residues Building material Paper

Present status of rice straw management in Punjab

Fodder 5% Sold 2% Incorporation 11% Fuel 0% Composting 1%

Burnt 81%

Burning of crop residues

About 140 Mt of residues are burned in field in India primarily to clear the field from straw and stubble after the harvest of the preceding crop. Unavailability of labour, high cost in removing the residues, interference with tillage and seeding operations, short interval between harvest and sowing of next crop, especially in the IGP are some of the reasons of burning crop residues in field. It is easy & cheapest way to remove large amount of residues as the primarily tool of convenience in field preparation & seeding. Burning is perceived to improve weed, insects & disease control but has no direct agronomic benefits.

Burning of crop residues

Burning of crop residues is unacceptable as it leads to:
1) release of soot particles and smoke causing human health problems such as asthma or other respiratory problems,

2) emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as

carbon dioxide, carbon mono oxide, methane and nitrous oxide causing global warming; 3) loss of plant nutrients such as N, P, K and S; 4) adverse impacts on soil properties and 5) wastage of valuable C and energy rich residues. 6) Accidental deaths

On-farm straw management

Incorporation by using mould board plough, discs
and rotavator Surface retention as mulch using newly developed machine called Happy Seeder Collection, storage and use as surface mulch in other crops Crop residues help in nutrient cycling, improve organic matter, physical, chemical and biological properties of soil, and air quality. However, improvements in soil properties often do not flow to yield on short -term basis. Phtytoxicity/pests

Straw incorporation (most difficult)

The incorporation of rice residue before wheat planting is challenging for farmers because of the short interval between rice harvest and wheat planting. The incorporation of crop residue with high CtoN ratio into soil typically results in microbial N immobilization and a temporary decrease in plantavailable N. Maximum rate of N immobilization: 2535 mg N per g of carbon (10-14 kg/t of rice straw) Incorporation or surface placement of crop residues may cause phytotoxicity and pest build up. We must examine each situation (soil, climate and crop rotation) on its merit for evaluating the effect of straw management on crop yields. The incorporation of paddy straw involves use of straw chopper followed by rotavator and allowing residue to decompose for 15-20 days and involves additional cost of Rs. 2500/ha.

Effect of management of rice straw in wheat and wheat straw in rice on mean (11 yrs) crop yields (t ha-1) in RWS (Beri et al., 1995) Crop Removed Burned Incorp.

Rice

5.50

5.65

4.63

Wheat

4.14

4.26

3.87

Factors affecting crop residue decomposition

A. Crop residue factors Composition (N, C:N ratio, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, polyphenol), particle size, age of material B. Soil and climatic factors pH, texture, available nutrients, moisture, temperature, aeration, microbial activity, rainfall C. Management factors Loading rate, method and mode of application, time and frequency of application, irrigation, cropping system, fertilization, (starter N) manure, microbial inoculation, earthworm population

Effect of time of incorporation on Kinetics of in situ rice straw decomposition (YadvinderSingh et al., 2004)

Effect of pre-decomposition of rice straw on N immobilization (Y.S. et al., 2004b)

Effect of rice straw management on yield (t/ha) and recovery efficiency of N (%) in RW rotation , mean for 8 yrs (Y-Singh et al., 2004)
Treatment Removed Burned Incorp. -10DBS Incorp. -20DBS Incorp. -20DBS +25% N Incorp. -40DBS Wheat yield 4.94 b 5.10 ab 4.95 b 5.22 ab 4.96 b 5.17 ab REN(%) 52 bc 56 ab 53 bc 53 bc 49c 54 ab

Field after uniform distribution of rice straw and wheat sown with Happy Seeder

Rice residue decomposition during wheat season as a function of time as affected by method of placement
(A). Sandy loam Surface placement 120 100 % w e ig h t r e m a in in g 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Days after placement y = 106.01e-0.0788x R2 = 0.956 y = 135.69e-0.2373x R2 = 0.989 Subsurface placement

(B). Silt loam 120 100 % w e ig h t r e m a i n in g 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Days after placement Surface placement y = 100.49e-0.0777x R2 = 0.941 Subsurface placement y = 123.41e-0.2097x R2 = 0.940

Release of N from rice residue at three wheat growth stages on sandy loam (mean for two yrs)-Residue load, 8t/ha
Growth Stage Residue Residue placement decomposition Amount % of (t/ha) initial 1.4 2.7 2.1 4.0 4.2 6.5 17.2 33.8 26.5 49.9 51.7 81.2 Nitrogen released Amount % of (kg/ha) initial -8 6 -8 12 -7 28 14.6 29.2 64.6

Maximum Surface tillering Buried Boot stage Surface Buried Maturity Surface Buried

Effect of straw management in wheat on the grain yield (t ha-1) of following rice
Treatment 2008 (After one year) Experiment 1 (Sandy loam) No Mulch With mulch 7.10 7.37 (3.8%) 2009 (After two years) 6.51 7.27* (11.7%)

Experiment 2 (Silt loam) No Mulch With mulch 7.65 7.92 (3.5% ) 7.40 8.01* (8.2%)

FERTILIZER N MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR ZT WHEAT- literature survey

The efficiency and N losses associated with the application method have a major impact on the success of nutrients in the CA systems. When possible, place N below the soil surface (about 5 cm beside and/or below the seed row) to minimize immobilization and volatilization. Apply urea before irrigation/rain. Apply more N the first few years after conversion to NT due to tie-up and volatilization loss of N , especially with surface broadcasting of urea on fineto medium-textured soils. Seed row N should not exceed 30-35 kg/ha as urea. Factors that influence how much fertilizer can be safely applied with the seed include: row spacing, width of seed row, soil texture, moisture, organic matter, fertilizer placement, seed furrow opener, source, and crop.

Effect of straw management on urea hydrolysis and NH3 volatilization losses

Treatment Days for % applied N complete urea loss in 16 hydrolysis days - Straw 12 23.0 + Straw 6 56.4

Effect of straw and urea placement on 15N recovery (%) by barley (Malhi et al., 1989)
Straw management Grain yield (t/ha) Urea Incorp. 3.44 2.81 Urea banded 3.46 3.27
15

N recovery (%) Urea banded 54 53

Urea Incorp. 49 42

No straw Straw incorp.

Effect of method & time of N application on yield & NUE of wheat under straw mulch (3 yrs mean)
Treatment (D-drill at sowingGrain yield 1st irrig.-2nd irrig.) B-broadcast (t/ha) Apparent N recovery (%)

No N control 25D+35B600 25D+35B -30- 30 25D+65B-0 30 25D+95B - 0 0 25D - 48 48 25D+35PSI-60-0 25D+35PSI30-30 25D+65PSI-0-30 25D+95PSI-0-0

2.49 4.42 4.29 4.17 4.02 4.79 4.37 4.36 4.36 4.40

45.0 44.1 41.9 39.1 56.7 47.8 49.4 45.3 45.4

Effect of high doses of fertilizer N applied at sowing using modified furrow openers on wheat yield
Treatment (% of 120 kg N/ha as urea) 50% 80% 20% Furrow opener Grain yield (t/ha) 4.79a 0.26 4.80a 0.18 3.76b 0.19 4.92a 0.18 5.10a 0.24

unmodified modified unmodified modified unmodified

Unmodified- seed and fertilizer in the same row; Modified- fertilizer placed in between two rows

Use of straw mulch in other crops

Greater advantage in summer crops Mentha, turmeric, sunflower, spring maize, sugarcane, potato, chillies, maize/sorghum fodder Reduction in evaporation losses, moderating soil temperature Increasing soil N mineralization thereby economizing use of fertilizer N, Magnitude of yield gain 5-30%, saving in 7-40 cm of irrigation water

Effect of rice straw mulch on the red chillies yield (t/ha). Averaged for three years (Sekhon et al., 2008)
Straw mulch No mulch Straw mulch N rate (kg/ha) 45 13.3 16.0 75 14.9 17.3 105 15.8 17.9 Mean

15.1 17.5

Burning of wheat straw during 2012

Effect of wheat straw management practices on mean yield (t/ha) and REN (%) in RWS (1988-2001) Treatment WS Removed GM Rice yield Recovery efficiency 5.74a 38 ab 5.70 a 39 a 32 b 42 a Wheat yield 4.41 ab 4.41 ab 4.32 b 4.44 a

WS Incrop. 5.37b WS Incorp. 5.76a +GM

Wheat straw management left after using straw combine (1-2 t/ha)
Treatment Complete removal WS incorporated at field preparation WS incorporated at 2 WBT WS incorporated at 4 WAT Direct seeding of mungbean (67% N to rice) Mean rice yield (t/ha) 7.6a 7.6a 7.5a 7.5a 7.6a

Tillage and Residue Management in wheat on permanent raised beds (PB) in Mexico. Lemon-Ortega et al. (2001)
Treatment Conven.till beds- straw incorp. PB- straw burned PB- straw removed PB- straw incorp. Grain yield (t/ha) (mean for 6 yrs ) 5.55a 5.59a 5.55a 5.89b

Effect of tillage and rice straw mulch on wheat yield (t/ha) in rice-wheat system
Rice Wheat treatments Treatments CT ZT-SR 2010-11 CT-DSR 4.88 3.57 ZT-DSR 4.91 3.51 PTR 4.81 4.04 Mean 4.87 3.71 2011-12 CT-DSR 5.22 4.48 ZT-DSR 5.58 3.60 PTR 5.15 4.92 Mean 5.32 4.33 ZT-SM (HS) 4.79 4.82 4.85 4.82 5.54 5.35 5.65 5.51

Effects of mulching in rice on water consumption , yield and WUE in rice-rice system (Jiang-tao et al., 2006)
Treatm ent Irrigat- ET ion m3/ha m3/ha 19950a 7990a 8230b 6030c 5080b 3050c Seepage Yield WUE (m3/ha) (t/ha) kg/m3

PTR -F NF NF + Mulch

13560a 4750b 4680b

6.81a 4.72b 6.49a

0.311b 0.462b 0.810a

Crop residues as animal feed

Straws are a poor livestock feed, and rice straw is no exception. Straws contain only 3 to 5% crude protein. For good growth on straw
diets, a level of 8 to 10% protein is needed for young stock; this also improves consumption and thus increases energy intake. Rice straw differs from other straws in having a higher content of silica (1216 vs. 35%) and a lower content of lignin (67 vs. 10 12%). Whereas in all other straws lignin is the chief cause of low digestibility, in rice straw it is silica. Rice straw in the western IGP contains more silica compared the straw from the other reasons (need data??). Rice straw stems are more digestible than leaves because their silica content is lower; therefore the paddy crop should be cut as close to the ground as possible if the straw is to be fed to livestock. Protein supplements increase intake, while the alkali treatment of straws increases digestibility and usually voluntary intake as well.

Composting of residues for manure

The residues can be composted by using it as animal bedding and then heaping in dung pit. Each kg of straw absorbs about 2-3 kg of urine from the animal shed. Can also be composted by alternative methods on the farm itself. The residues of rice from one hectare give about 3.2 tons of manure as rich in nutrients as FYM. Valued added compost can contain 1.5% N, 2.3% P2O5 and 2.5% K2O

Bioethanol Production from Rice Straw

Using rice straw as lignocellulosic biomass to produce bioethanol would appear to be a promising and ambitious goal to both manage this agricultural waste and to produce environmentally friendly biofuel. Technical difficulties, however, associated with the conversion of lignocellulose into simple, fermentable sugars, have hampered the massive development of ricestraw-derived bioethanol. Recent technical advances in straw pre-treatment, hydrolysis and fermentation may, however, overcome these limitations and facilitate a dramatic turnover in biofuels production in the near future. Agnienergy Corporation Ltd. Has already established pilot plant in Mohali & likely to start commercial production of ethanol. Working on utilization of liquid and solid wastes. Total potential can never be more than 10% of the total residues proudced

Biomethanation and Biochar

Biomass such as rice straw can be converted to biogas, a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane and used as fuel. It is reported that biogas of 300 m3 t-1 of rice straw can be obtained. The process yields good quality of gas with 55-60% of methane and the spent slurry can be used as manure. This process promises a method to utilize crop residues in a non-destructive way to extract high quality fuel gas and produce manure to be recycled in soil. (Economics???) Biochar is a high carbon material produced from the slow pyrolysis (heating in the absence of O2) of biomass. Can be used as soil amendment to store C , reduce GHG emissions and increase nutrient use efficiency. (Economics??, Data??)

Effect of crop residue management on soil properties after11 yr of RWS at Ludhiana ( Beri et al., 1995)
Property
Total N (mg/kg) Total p (mg/kg) Total K (%) Olsen-P (mg/kg) Dehydrogenase activity Phosphatase activity

Removed
1140 420 1.54 17.2 33 135

Burned
1236 390 1.71 14.4 58 36 125

Incorporated
1343 612 1.81 20.5 62 52 175

NH4OAc-K (mg/kg) 45

Effect of rice residue recycling in wheat on soil fertility after two yrs ( 2008-09)
Soil property Silt loam Sandy loam

- straw +straw - straw +straw 5.3 Organic carbon (g/kg) Olsen-P 5.3 (kg/ha) NH4OAc-K 159 (kg/ha) 5.8* 3.9 4.5*

6.8* 173*

17.1 95

18.6 105*

Effect of crop residue management on soil physical properties (NSW, Australia) Property Organic carbon (%) WSA (%) Incorp. 0.8 15 Burn 0.55 8 1.6 15

Bulk density (Mg/m3) 1.3 Hydraulic conductivity (mm/h) 50

Sub soil strength (kPa) under different tillage options

Location Time (yrs) of Roto CT Seeder in use 3 2 1 Gurusar 3220 2887 2241 Kaunke Sangrur 3579 3160 2548 2274 Mean 3400 3024 2548 2258 HS

Total no. of fields

1522 120 24 2090 135 27 1806 255 51

Roto-seeder is a rotavator with attachment of seed-cum fertilizer box on the top.

Wheat Productivity and Soil compaction under different tillage systems BR Kamobj, CSISA Hub, Karnal

Wheat canopy temperature during third week of March, 2010 (n=76)

Effect of residue management on soil temperature (5 cm)

35 Temperature ( C) 30 Max. 25 Min. 20 Bare Mulch Mulch Bare 15 Mulch Bare
o

10 18-Oct-03

26-Oct-03

03-Nov-03

11-Nov-03

19-Nov-03
Sidhu et al. 2007

Effect of Straw mulch on Wheat Phenology

Sowing Date- 13/11/2008
Sow ing-Flow ering, 103

Non-mulch

Sow ing-Maturity, 148

Germination

Sowing-Flowering

Sowing-Maturity

Mulch

Sow ing-Flow ering, 113

Sow ing-Maturity, 154

20

40

60

80

100 120

140

160

180 200

220

240

260 280

300

Soil evaporation under mulch and no mulch during wheat

Cummulative Es (mm) 2007-08
180 Mulch Ep 160 140 Soil Evaporation (mm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 4/11/2007 4/12/2007 3/01/2008 2/02/2008 3/03/2008 2/04/2008 2/05/2008 Non-mevp

Effect of mulching on soil water content prior to irrigation to wheat

Gravimetric water content (%)
4 0 6 8 10 12 14
0 4 6

Gravimetric water content (%)

8 10 12 14

no mulch mulch
20
20

no mulch mulch D e p th (c m )
40

D e p th (c m )
40

Prior to 1st irrigation

60
60

Prior to 2nd irrigation

Effect of irrigation and rice straw mulch (4 t/ha)on grain yield and WUE (kg grain/ha/cm) in wheat (Hari Ram, personal communication)
Irrigation Grain yield (t/ha) level (Number) 2 3 4 5 No mulch 4.3 5.0 5.2 5.6 + Mulch 5.2 6.0 6.4 6.4 Water use efficiency No Mulch 133 130 106 103 + Mulch 162 158 139 118

Lsd (0.05)= Yield-0.31; WUE-3.2

Challenges with residue management

Disease, insect or weed problems and difficulties in proper seed, fertilizer and pesticide placement. Nutrient management is more complex with crop residue management because of higher residue levels and reduced options with regard to method and timing of nutrient applications. No-till in particular can complicate manure application and may also contribute to nutrient stratification within soil profile from repeated surface applications without any mechanical incorporation. Limiting factor in adoption of residue management systems for some farmers include additional management skill requirements , apprehension of lower crop yields and/or economic returns, negative attitudes or perceptions, and institutional constraints.

Research needs for efficient residue management

Reliable data on yields and chemical composition of both above- and below-ground crop residues are needed in order to interpret soil OM dynamics and nutrient cycling. Better quantification of mineralization-immobilization , decomposition rates , ammonia volatilization and leaching losses will be useful. Use of labelled residues for generating better information. Evaluation and breeding of rice cultivators with more root biomass. Si content in rice straw under different soil and water management situations needs investigation. Further improvement in the machinery used for planting, fertilizer drilling, and pesticide application.

Research Agenda
-Developing complete package of practices (fertilizer, irrigation, weed control, pest management, etc.) of CA for each agro-ecological region. Establishment of long-term expts. at different sites & soil types. Long term studies will provide useful database for simulation modelling and economic analysis. Many changes in soil quality become apparent after several years (10 yrs or more). -Investigate largely unexplained benefits that arise from residue recycling, such as microbiological , BNF, pest suppression, etc. -Multidisciplinary approaches are needed to problems (genotypes, machinery, insects, diseases, weeds, phytotoxicity, soil physical, chemical& biological properties, and economics) associated with residue management

Policy needs for efficient residue management

Monitoring and discouraging burning of crop residues through incentive and punishment. Supplying machineries on subsidized rates and providing soft loans. Subsidies have been an important component in helping make the technology affordable during the awareness raising phase. Promoting custom hiring systems for agricultural implements. Establishing self-help groups and encouraging unemployed youth to take up custom hiring of CA machineries as profession. Medium farmers have the opportunity to supplement their farm income by the purchase of Happy Seeder for use on their own and neighbouring farmers. At current hire rates, this business model will provide reasonable returns on the investment, but operators need to be aware of the risks involved. Capacity building through training