CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT IN Major cropping system.pptx

CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT IN
MAJOR CROPPING SYSTEM

1. CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT IN MAJOR CROPPING SYSTEM WELCOME II seminar SIDDU MALAKANNAVAR PGS17AGR7312

2. Introduction Adverse effect of crop residue burning Alternate crop residue management practices over burning under major cropping system Rice and Wheat based major cropping system Maize based major cropping systems Cotton based major cropping systems Sugarcane based major cropping systems Conclusion Future line of work Outline

3. INTRODUCTION The Green Revolution relied upon just a few varieties of few crop High yielding verities and hybrids use of high doses of chemical fertilizers Insufficient use of organics Degrading soil health Decreased productivity of major cropping system UNFPA, 2011 and FAO, 2010

4. Emerging deficiencies of nutrients in Indian soils Anon.,2016

5. Major cropping systems “Practice of intensification of cropping system in time & space dimension that is more no. of crops within a year & more no. crops in a same piece of land” cropping system 1) Sequential cropping 2) Inter cropping 3) Multi storied cropping Advantages Increases overall income To meet diverse need of food Disadvantages Problem for mechanization Use of herbicide may not possible Fertility reduces

6. Crop residues The vegetative crop material left on a field after a crop is harvested, pruned or processed or left after pasture are grazed. The removal of crop residues leads to low soil fertility and there by decreased crop production. It is imperative to recycle organic resources for maintenance of soil health Crop residues are an important natural renewable resource of plant nutrients for improving soil health and productivity.

7. India produces 500-550 mt /year crop residues Used as animal feed, for thatching, as a source of domestic and industrial fuel etc. Unused crop residues are burnt in the fields. Reasons:- Unavailability of labour High cost in removing the residues Less time consuming

8. Table 1 . Residue generation in India and Karnataka Residue generation ( m t ) India 501.73 Karnataka 33.94 Fig. 1. Residue generation by different crops in India (MNRE, 2009)

9. Fig 2:Individual crop wise availability of crop residues in India Anon., 2014

10. Table 1 (b): State wise production of crop residues and that available for incorporation as manure. S. no.   State   Total crop residue production ( mt ) 1 A.P. 3 4.6 2 Assam 15.0 3 Bihar (including Jarkhand ) 3 7.7 4 Gujarat 3 1.1 5 Haryana 35.50 6 M.P. 45.40 7 Maharastra 47.80 8 Punjab 51.90 9 U.P.(including Uttaranchal) 70.00 10 Karnataka 33.80 11 W.B. 38.40 12 Delhi 2 .2 BHU, Varanasi Indra Bahadur et al. , 2015

11. Table 1 (c) : Estimated cereal residues and nutrient present in the cereal residue of major crop of India Crop Residue ( mt ) Nutrients x (10 3 ) tones N P 2 O 5 K 2 O N+P 2 O 5 + K 2 O Paddy 212.9 1220 542 2417 4179 Wheat 108.9 534 237 1058 1824 Pearl millet 11.1 62 28 124 214 Maize 15.5 59 26 116 201 Sorghum 12.9 65 29 128 222 Barley 2.6 14 6 27 47 Others 4.1 22 10 43 75 Tarafder and Mani (2014) BCKV (WB)

12. Fig 3:Crop residues used for different purpose

13. Adverse impact of “CROP RESIDUE BURNING”  

14. Fig. 4. Emission of different pollutants and GHGs due to field burning of crop residues. (b) Contribution of different crops in burning. Singh et al . (2008) Panjab

15. Table. 2. L oss of nutrients due to paddy straw burning (per ton basis) Singh et al . (2008) Panjab

16. Table 3. Elemental analysis of crop residues Crop residues Elemental analysis (%) Ash (%) C H N Na K P Mg Ca Si o 2 O S Arhar stalks 53.30 4.70 0.60 0.05 0.57 0.08 0.40 o.11 0.68 - - 1.98 Bagasse 48.20 6.10 0.20 0.06 0.51 0.04 0.36 0.14 1.30 44.40 0.01 3.01 Cotton sticks 51.00 4.90 1.00 0.09 0.61 0.08 0.43 0.12 1.33 43.87 3.10 Ground nut shell 41.10 4.80 1.60 0.05 1.20 0.12 0.40 0.10 2.52 - - 4.43 Maize cobs 46.20 4.90 0.60 0.03 0.54 0.07 0.28 0.09 2.00 - - 3.02 Maize stalks 41.10 4.20 0.60 0.04 0.42 0.05 0.45 0.08 0.90 - - 2.10 Rice husk 37.80 5.00 0.30 0.02 0.30 0.03 0.17 0.10 15.77 35.45 0.03 16.5 Rice straw 36.80 5.00 1.00 0.09 2.50 0.06 0.53 0.08 15.60 40.50 0.02 19.2 Wheat straw 43.80 5.40 1.00 0.06 0.78 0.04 0.35 0.10 7.08 - - 8.47 Gopal Krishnan et al ., 2016

17. Alternate crop residue management practices over burning under major cropping system Use of crop residue for compost/vermin-compost/FYM Crop residue utilization for conservation agriculture Retention of Crop Residue as Mulch and Incorporation of in soil

18. Advantages of crop residues

19. Benefits of good crop residue management Increased water infiltration Increased water availability to crop Reduced erosion Increased microbial activity More SOM and available nutrient Moderate soil temperature Reduced weed pressure

20. Disc plough Mould board plough Rotavator Cultivator Residues incorporation tools

21. 1.  Mixed cropping 2. Intercropping 3.  Relav / paira / utera cropping 4.Sequential cropping in rice Irrigated conditions • Rice-Rice-Rice Rice-Wheat • Rice-Chickpea • Rice-Lentil • Rice-Rice-Pulses • Rice-Wheat-Pulse • Wheat-fallow-wheat   Rice and wheat based major cropping system

22. Rice and wheat based major cropping system Over mining of nutrients from soil Disturbed soil aggregates due to puddling in rice Decreasing response to nutrients Residue C:N Cellulose (%) Hemi cellulose (%) Lignin (%) Rice 51:1 38 11 40 wheat 100:1 45 9 38

23. Kaewpradit et al ., 2008 Residue management Rice dry weight (t ha -1 ) REN (%) PFPN ( kg kg -1 ) Control 6.5 NA NA 0 NPK 7.0 19 90 Groundnut (GN) 7.7 10 26 Rice straw (RS) 7.3 28 120 1:0.5 GN:RS) 8.5 10 27 1:1 (GN:RS) 9.2 15 26 C. D. 0.2 5 2 Table 4. Effect of CRM on dry matter accumulation and N use efficiencies of rice Thailand

24. Table 5: Performance of zero-till wheat sown into rice residue using Happy Seeder in farmer’s fields in Punjab during 2007-2010 Year Grain yield (t/ha) % Increase in yield over CT Happy seeder ( HS) Conventional tillage (CT) 2007-08 4.59 4.50 2.0 2008-09 4.54 4.34 4.6 2009-10 4.42 4.30 2.8 Mean 4.56 4.42 3.24 Panjab Sidhu et al., 2011 sandy loam

25. Table 6: Effect of tillage and rice straw mulch on wheat yield (t/ha) in rice-wheat system (data average for two years) Rice treatments Wheat treatments CT ZT-rice straw removed ZT + rice straw mulch (HS ) Conventional-till (CT) direct seeded rice (DSR) 5.05 4.03 5.17 Zero-till (ZT)-DSR 5.10 3.56 5.15 CT-Puddled trans- planted rice 4.98 4.48 5.25 Mean 5.05a * 4.02b 5.17a Panjab Singh and Sidhu , 2014 sandy loam

26. Bhopal (MP) Mandal et al ., 2004 Table 7. Influenced of rice straw on water stable aggregates, mean weight diameter, bulk density, and total porosity to 0-15 cm soil depth (5 years) Structural indices Treatment LSD (0.05) Control SI SM SB FYM SI + FYM WSA > 0.25 mm (%) 69.7 ± 5.7 77.3 ± 6.7 76.9 ± 6.1 67.3 ± 6.1 80.7 ± 8.5 81.2 ± 9.0 3.1 MWD (mm) 0.61 ± 0.19 0.74 ± 0.24 0.72 ± 0.22 0.59 ± 0.21 0.81 ± 0.32 0.83 ± 0.28 0.11 Bulk density (Mg. m -3 ) 1.32 ± 0.04 1.25 ± 0.04 1.33 ± 0.04 1.32 ± 0.04 1.20 ± 0.05 1.18 ± 0.04 0.11 Total porosity (%) 49.4 ± 2.8 51.9 ± 2.9 48.8 ± 2.7 49.2 ± 2.9 53.8 ± 3.4 54.6 ± 3.9 2.9 Wheat yield (t/ha) 1.34 1.84 2.31 1.76 2.38 2.77 0.24 SI = straw incorporation; SM = straw mulch; SB = straw burning; FYM = farmyard manure. WSA = water stable aggregates; WD = mean weight diameter.

27. Table 8 (a): Treatments in the Replicated Experiment in Rice-Wheat Cropping System

28. Table 8 (b): Productivity (t ha -1 ) of Rice-Wheat Systems Under Various Residue Management and Crop Establishment Techniques Naresh , 2013 Treatments 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 T1: ( Puddled tranplanted rice+sesbania ) -(Zero till wheat) 9.90 10.15 10.60 T2: ( DSR on permenant wide bed with sesbania ) -( Wide bed-DSW +residue retension ) 9.35 9.55 9.85 T3 :( DSR on permenant wide bed ) -( Wide bed-DSW +residue burning ) 9.70 9.75 9.92 T4: ( TPR on permenant wide bed+sesbania ) -( Wide bed-DSW + partial residue retension ) 9.80 10.05 10.60 T5: ( TPR on permenant wide bed )- ( Wide bed-DSW under ZT +residue retension ) 10.50 10.70 11.05 T6: ( DSR on under RT with sesbania ) -( F Bed CT-DSW +RI ) 9.10 9.40 9.70 T7 :( DSR on under RT ) -( ZT-DSW on conventional till beds with residue burning ) 9.35 9.50 9.60 T8 :( TPR on under ZT with sesbania )- ( ZT-DSW on conventional till beds with partial residue burning ) 9.40 9.75 10.20 T9 : ( TPR under ZT ) -( ZT-DSW on conventional till beds with residue retention ) 9.55 9.90 10.10 T10: ( conventional transplanted rice ) -( Conventional DSW ) 10.08 9.80 9.30 C. D. (0.05) 1.43 1.31 1.12 Meerut silty loam

29. Table 09 . Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) of spring wheat as affected by tillage plus crop residue management and N rate Khalid et al ., 2016 N rate (kg ha -1 ) Tillage plus residue management N means ZTsr ZTsb RTsi RTsb CTsi CTsb 1684 1347 2126 1700 2378 1902 1856e 100 2841 2273 3409 2727 2778 2222 2708 d 150 4672 3737 5064 4052 4945 3956 4404 c 200 7386 5908 6544 5235 6604 5283 6160 a 250 6439 5151 6208 4966 6523 5218 5751 b Tillage means 4604 a 3683 b 4670 a 3736 b 4646 a 3716 b C. D. 0.05 for T =841.8, N =367.9 Islamabad ( Pakistan) ZTsr : zero tillage straw retained ZTsb : zero tillage straw burnt RTsi : reduced tillage straw incorporated RTsb : reduced tillage straw burnt CTsi : conventional tillage straw incorporated CTsb : conventional tillage straw burnt silty clay

30. Fig. 3. Effect of residue incorporation on grain yield (kg/ha) of rice and chickpea system (25 Years ) IIPR (Kanpur) Anon., 2009

31. Table 10 . Effect of conservation tillage on chickpea productivity in rice-chickpea system Treatments Chickpea yield (kg/ha) Increase over conventional tillage (%) ZT dibbling + mulching 1660 28.2 No till drill + mulching 1589 22.7 Deep tillage 1314 1.5 Deep tillage + mulching 1482 14.4 Conventional 1295 - CD (P=0.05) 115 - Uttar Pradesh clay loam Singh et al ., 2011

32. Fig. 4. Effect of crop residue incorporation on earthworm population and SMBC in rice – chickpea s ystem IIPR (Kanpur) clay loam Anon., 2012

33. Table 11. Effect of rice residue management on yield of wheat and microbial Biomass Carbon ( μ g g -1 soil) Raipur Vertisol (clay) Mithilesh , 2018 Treatments Grain yield (q ha -1 ) Straw yield (q ha -1 ) SMBC T1 : Rice Stubble + Zero tillage 28.22 37.55 138.10 T2 : Rice Stubble Burn + Conventional tillage 23.87 30.53 113.03 T3 : Rice Stubble + Rice Biochar (@ 2 t ha -1 ) + Conventional tillage 26.58 35.95 145.68 T4 : Rice Stubble + Trichoderma (@ 10 kg ha -1 ) + Conventional tillage 25.67 33.95 152.61 T5 : Rice Stubble + 5% Urea Spray + Conventional tillage 24.10 32.48 141.71 T6 : Rice Stubble + Trichoderma (@ 10 kg ha -1 ) + FYM (@ 2 t ha -1 ) + Conventional tillage 30.13 39.76 158.63 C. D. 4.13 5.63 26.72

34. Fig. 5: Effect of tillage, straw treatment and N level on soil organic C after 4 years in a rice–wheat–maize cropping system Fig. 6 : Soil colour after 4 years of PRB with different amounts of straw retention, and after 2 years of CTF Note; PRB = permanent raised beds SR = straw retention CTF = conventional tillage on flat Talukder , 2007 Punjab

35. Fig. 7. Yields of rice crop under different fertilizer management treatments under rice-wheat system Japan Takeshi et al ., 2016 Rice straw compost (RSC) (kg/ha) N (kg/ha) P 2 O 5 (kg/ha) K 2 O (kg/ha) Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry F0 6000 6000 00 00 00 00 00 00 F40 6000 6000 32 40 12 12 12 12 F60 6000 6000 48 60 18 18 18 18 F100 6000 6000 80 100 30 30 30 30

36. Table 12. Effect of varying tillage and crop residue management practices on yield and total P uptake of different kharif crops in wheat-based cropping system Tillage and crop residue management Crop Mean Maize Pigeon pea Soybean groundnut Cotton Grain/Cotton lint yield (t ha -1 ) CT-R 2.41 1.11 0.93 1.26 1.35 1.41 CT+R 2.72 1.31 1.15 1.34 1.45 1.59 ZT-R 2.06 1.09 0.76 1.09 1.31 1.26 ZT+R 2.39 1.23 0.96 1.27 1.95 1.55 CD ( P =0.05) 0.13 Total P uptake (kg ha -1 ) CT-R 19.1 13.2 12.6 10.9 34.1 18.0 CT+R 20.7 14.1 14.9 11.9 40.0 20.3 ZT-R 16.2 11.8 10.9 9.6 33.2 16.4 ZT+R 17.8 14.0 13.0 11.0 46.9 20.6 CD ( P =0.05) 1.62 Note; CT: Conventional tillage, ZT: Zero tillage, +R: With residue, -R: Without residue Pradhan et al., 2011 IARI, New Delhi sandy loam

37. Table 13 . Effect of residue incorporation on microbial biomass carbon, organic carbon content in soil and yield of wheat Treatments Grain yield (kg/ha) SMBC soil ( μg /100 g) SOC (g/kg) Mungbean1 4405 262 3.1 Urdbean1 4269 222 4.2 Mungbean2 4427 322 3.9 Urdbean2 4356 312 4.1 Mungbean3 4631 327 3.6 Urdbean3 4603 320 3.7 Mungbean4 4777 337 3.7 Urdbean4 4780 347 3.9 Control 3702 132 3.1 CD (P=0.05) 703 39.8 0.29 Singh et al ., 2011 Kanpur Incorporation 2) incorporation + irrigation 3) Chopping + incorporation and 4) chopping + incorporation + irrigation along with a control clay loam

38. Table 14 . Effect of crop residue incorporation on soil physical properties under pulse-wheat cropping system Singh et al ., 2011 Treatments Soil physical properties Available nitrogen (kg/ha ) Bulk density (g/cc ) Pore space (%) WHC (%) Mungbean1 1.38 45.5 37.3 228.2 Urdbean1 1.39 44.7 38.3 222.1 Mungbean2 1.38 46.8 38.3 237.8 Urdbean2 1.38 47.0 41.6 235.7 Mungbean3 1.34 47.3 42.5 240.4 Urdbean3 1.35 48.2 45.1 241.1 Mungbean4 1.32 49.6 46.4 245.3 Urdbean4 1.33 48.2 45.9 246.1 Control 1.44 38.2 33.4 196.8 CD (P=0.05) 0.05 3.5 3.8 14.9 Kanpur Incorporation 2) incorporation + irrigation 3) Chopping + incorporation and 4) chopping + incorporation + irrigation along with a control clay loam

39. Maize based major cropping systems Sequential cropping systems Intercropping systems Maize-wheat Maize-wheat- mungbean Maize-potato-wheat Maize-potato-sunflower Maize-potato-onion Maize-potato-sugarcane- ratoon Rice-potato-maize Maize-wheat- greengram Rice-maize- pearlmillet Maize-rice Rice-maize Rice-rice-maize Maize-mustard Maize-chickpea Maize-sugarcane Maize + Pigeon pea Maize + Cowpea Maize + Mungbean Maize + Urdbean Maize + Sugarcane Rice + Maize Maize + Soybean Residue C:N Cellulose (%) Hemi cellulose (%) Lignin (%) Maize 56:1 44 25 9

40. Fig.8. Effect of tillage, residue and crop rotation on system yield under maize- wheat system Note: ZT=Zero tillage, CT=Conventional tillage, RR=residue removed, RK=residue kept, MS=Maize as sole crop, M+S-W=Maize and soybean intercrop followed by wheat, Ms-W=Maize sole followed by wheat Nepal Alluvial Tika et al ., 2014

41. Table 15 . Yield of rabi maize (q ha -1 ) and economics ratio as influenced by CRM under maize-maize system Bihar Lomoro , 2016 Mulch Grain yield (q/ha) Stover yield (q/ha) Gross returns (Rs./ha) Net returns (Rs./ha) B: C ratio M 1 -Sugarcane trash @ 5 t/ha 49.21 103.13 106007 70039 1.95 M 2 -Sugarcane trash @10 t/ha 50.84 105.67 109458 72584 1.97 M 3 -Maize stover @ 5 t/ha 50.25 104.78 108077 72108 2.01 M 4 -Maize stover @ 10 t/ha 51.78 106.72 112019 75146 2.04 M 5 -No mulch 44.61 94.90 98782 63718 1.82 SEm ± 0.75 1.33 1496 1479 0.04 CD (P=0.05) 2.17 3.65 4309 4262 0.11 Alluvial

42. Table 16 . Mean economic yield (t ha -1 ) of sweet corn and groundnut as influenced by crop residue Rosenani et al., 2003 USA T1, the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer with residue T2, the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer without residue T3, a combination of poultry manure and chemical fertilizer with residue.

43. Table 17 . Contents of the soil organic matter , N, and C after the fourth crops, as influenced by crop-residue application Treatments SOM (g kg –1 soil) N (mg kg –1 soil) C (mg kg –1 soil) T1 24.6a 101a 2.20a T2 18.7b 92b 1.75b T3 28.1a 115a 2.24a T1, the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer with residue T2, the recommended rate of chemical fertilizer without residue T3, a combination of poultry manure and chemical fertilizer with residue . USA Rosenani et al., 2003

44. Table 18 . Quantity of crop and weed residues returned to the 15-cm top soil for five cropping systems Nigeria Diels et al ., 2004

45. Fig. 9 . SOM build up for different cropping systems Nigeria Diels et al ., 2004

46. Cotton based major cropping systems Residue C:N Cellulose (%) Hiemicellulose (%) Lignin (%) Cotton 57:1 45 25 8

47. Fig.11: Evolution of crops yields during 30 years under crop residues management practices and fertilization ; A) Seed cotton yields; B) Maize yields and C) Sorghum yields Bazoumana et al., 2016 South-Sudan

48. Table 19 . Effect of different planting methods on productivity and profitability of cotton-wheat system Treatment Seed cotton yield (t/ha) Wheat yield (t/ha) System productivity on wheat equivalent yield (t/ha) Net returns 2011 2012 2011-12 2012-13 2011 2012 2011 2012 ZTC-RZTSPS 2.87 a 2.99 a 6.05 a 5.19 a 14.15 a 14.27 a 128940 a 145320 a CTC-RZTSPS 2.92 a 3.03 a 5.99 a 5.18 a 14.23 a 14.38 a 124510 a 141470 a CTC-CTW 2.65 b 2.76 b 5.08 b 3.88 b 12.56 b 12.26 b 106360 b 113920 b ZTC: Zero till cotton . RZTSPS : Relay seeding of wheat in standing cotton after 3rd picking, using self propelled relay seeder without prior tillage. CTC : Conventional till cotton. CTW : Conventional till wheat. Ludhiana Singh et al ., 2014

49. Figure 12. Water stable aggregates, volume of macro-pores (equivalent diameter > 60 μ m ), meso -pores (equivalent diameter 30-60 μ m), Infiltration and cumulative infiltration as affected by crop-residue management in a cotton-wheat system. (a) crop residue removed and (b) crop residue incorporated. Muhammad et al .,2013 Pakistan

50. Table 20 . Soil microbial biomass and dehydrogenase activities at 115 days after seeding during the three experimental seasons Spain Tejada and Gonzaleb , 2006 control (2) CC10, fertilized with 10 t ha −1 of CC (3) CC15, fertilized with 15 t ha −1 of CC (4) CC20, fertilized with 20 t ha −1 of CC (5) CCM10, fertilized with 250 kg N ha −1 (as urea) plus 10 t ha −1 of CC (6) CCM15, fertilized with 250 kg N ha −1 (as urea) plus 15 t h −1 of CC (7) CCM20, fertilized with 250 kg N ha −1 (as urea) plus 20 t ha −1 of CC

51. Sugarcane based major cropping systems Maize – sugarcane – greengram Sugarcane – ratoon – wheat Potato – sugarcane – ratoon Rice – sugarcane ( adasli ) Rice – sugarcane – groundnut Rice – sugarcane – fingermillet Rice – sugarcane – ratoon Sugarcane + cowpea Sugarcane + groundnut Sugarcane + maize Sugarcane + linseed Residue C:N Cellulose (%) Hemicellulose (%) Lignin (%) Sugarcane trash 70:1 44 22 17

52. Table 21. Average microbial biomass N and Millable cane as affected by different sugarcane stover management treatments and crop system treatments Treatment Microbial biomass N (µg g -1 soil) Millable cane (t ha -1 ) Sugarcane stover management method Burned 11.1 112 Mulched 15.9 125 Incorporated 13.4 118 SED 1.0* 3* Crop systems Soybean 15.4 116 Groundnut 13.4 127 Fallow 13.0 112 SED 0.8* 3*** N fertilizer N 13.8 123 -N 12.0 114 C. D. 0.9* 2** Brazil Hemwong et al., 2006

53. Table 22. Effect of sugarcane residue management on yield under sugarcane- ratoon -wheat sequence. Uttar Pradesh Ramesh Chandra et al ., 2008 Sugarcane residue management Ratoon cane Wheat Cane yield (t ha -1 ) Grain yield (t ha -1 ) Trash removal 104.9 3.74 Trash burning 134.2 3.60 Trash incorporation 120.7 3.52 Trash incorporation þ cellulolytic culture (CC) 128.2 3.93 Trash incorporation þ 25% Extra N 134.9 3.80 Trash incorporation þ CC þ 25% Extra N 137.4 4.02 Trash removal + GM mulch 144.5 3.93 Trash burning + GM mulch 150.0 4.18 Trash removal + GM incorporation 145.7 4.22 Trash burning+ GM incorporation 158.0 4.30 C. D. (0.05 ) 7.6 0.20

54. Table 23. Total soil carbon and nitrogen under sugarcane residue burning (BUR) or mulching (MUL) Tantely et al., 2006 Brazil Depth Carbon (g C kg -1 soil) Nitrogen (g C kg -1 soil) BUR MUL BUR MUL 0-5 21.0c 25.2a 1.62c 1.92a 5-10 20.5c 22.3c 1.65c 1.70c 0-10 20.7c 23.7b 1.60c 1.85b

55. Table 24 . Yield of kharif and rabi crops (kg ha -1 ) obtained as influenced by different conservation tillage practices during 2015-16 CT1 : No tillage with BBF and crop residues retained on the surface CT2 : Reduced tillage with BBF and incorporation of crop residues CT3 : No tillage with flat bed with crop residues retained on the surface CT4 : Reduced tillage with flat bed with incorporation of crop residues CT5 : Conventional tillage with crop residues incorporation CT6 : Conventional tillage Dharwad Clay loam Prabhamani et al ., 2017 Treatment Groundnut dry pod (kg ha -1 ) Soybean (kg ha -1 ) Maize (kg ha -1 ) Sorghum (kg ha -1 ) Wheat (kg ha -1 ) Chickpea (kg ha -1 ) Tillage practices CT1 2432a 1423a 3318a 1893a 1862a 1394a CT2 2352ab 1344bc 3152a-c 1804bc 1788ab 1344a CT3 2403ab 1394ab 3251ab 1869ab 1831ab 1365a CT4 2322ab 1323c 3080bc 1780c 1762ab 1310a CT5 2261b 1290c 3003cd 1760c 1730b 1224b CT6 2111c 1229d 2797d 1542d 1551c 1172b S.Em ± 46.6 17.9 67.6 23.4 35.5 25.9

56. Table 25 : Long-term effects of land management treatments and CRM on crop yields and sustainable yield index (SYI) Tillage Residues Sorghum yield (kg ha -1 ) Castor yield (kg ha -1 ) SYI Conventional tillage Sorghum stover 1126.75 820.5 0.49 Glyricidia loppings 1200.75 925.0 0.50 No residue 1103.5 840.5 0.49 Minimum tillage Sorghum stover 810.25 447.75 0.35 Glyricidia loppings 895.5 507.5 0.37 No residue 839.75 477.5 0.34 Hyderabad Sharma et al., 2011

57. Pulse based cropping system Greengram -wheat Blackgram -wheat Blackgram -chickpea Greengram -sorghum Redgram -chickpea Lentil – wheat

58. Table 26. Growth , yields and yield attributes of blackgram influenced by tillage and residue management practices (Pooled data of two years) Asha Ram et al., 2016 Jhansi

59. Table 27. Growth , yields and yield attributes of greengram influenced by tillage and residue management practices (Pooled data of two years) Asha Ram et al., 2016 Jhansi

60. Table 28. Effect of treatments on the yield attributes of mung bean Davari et al., 2012 IARI, New Delhi

61. Oil seed based cropping system Sunflower-Sunflower Sunflower-maize Sunflower-chickpea Groundnut-chickpea Rice-mustard Castor- chickpea

62. Table 29. Residual effect of sunflower stover on seed and stover of sunflower Residual effect of SFS management Seed yield Seed yield Stover yield Stover yield 2009 2010 2009 2010 Control 2.22 1.89 3.85 3.29 Sunflower stover incorportion 2.52 2.38 4.21 4.21 S.EM ± 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 CD @ 5% 0.14 0.12 0.24 0.24 Babu et al., 2013 IARI, New Delhi

63. Decomposers National Centre of Organic Farming,Ghaziabad Procedure of mass multiplication Take 2 kg of jiggery and mix it in plastic drum containing 200 litres of water Now add 20 litres of decomposer and pour in a plastic drum containing jiggery solution Mix properly with a wooden stick for uniform distribution of decomposer Cover drum with paper or cardboard and stir every day once or twice After 5 days solution of drum turns to creamy

64. Table 30. Effect of decomposer on different physico - chemical and microbial properties of crop residue State Treatment pH Organic carbon (%) N (%) P(%) K(%) Total microbial load Karnataka Control 6.22 0.42 73 63 253 10 3 Decomposer after 6 months 7.14 0.65 95 73 290 10 14 Maharashtra Control 6. 16 0.45 88 43 300 10 5 Decomposer after 6 months 7.18 0.49 95 60 330 10 14 National Centre of Organic Farming,Ghaziabad Anon., 2016

65. More information on the use of decomposer, in regional languages ( youtube links) National Centre of Organic Farming,Ghaziabad

66. Conclusion Deploying crop residue for composting, burying in-situ, mulches as soil cover and employing of crop residues under conservation agriculture improves system productivity under major cropping system. Crop residues incorporation improves soil biological activities, availability of nutrients and thereby avoids degradation of soil. An integrated nutrient management approach is the better way of supply of nutrients particularly through cheaper and locally available sources like crop residues to get maximum economic yield

67. Future line of work Creating awareness and popularization importance of CRM among farmers Nutrients release pattern from bio-resources could be studied to optimize its time and quantity of application to different crops.

68. Thank you Conservation agriculture is recognized as agriculture of the future, the future of agriculture