ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PRACTICING CROP RESIDUE
ON-FIELD COMPOSTING AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR BURNING
– A CASE STUDY OF PUNJAB (INDIA)
by
Parveen Brar
B.Sc., Khalsa College, 2020

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
December 2024
© Parveen Brar, 2024

Abstract
Crop residue burning, a prevalent and urgent issue in India, particularly in the IndoGangetic Plains of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab states, has detrimental effects on
the climate of the region, agricultural production, and the health of humans, animals, and plants.
Despite legal and technological barriers to crop residue burning and the availability of profitable
alternatives for farmers, this practice persists in Punjab state. The primary reasons for the
ongoing crop residue burning practice are, the amount of surplus crop residue generated, the time
constraints of the rice-wheat crop rotation, and the height of stubble left in the field after the
mechanical harvesting of rice and wheat crops. One of the proposed alternatives, the
incorporation of crop residues directly into the soil before planting the next crop, is considered
best. However, this practice is not accepted by farmers of Punjab on a large scale, as it generally
decreases crop yields due to Nitrogen (N) immobilization. To counter this constraint, a modified
method of incorporation, on-field composting is proposed to manage the rice and wheat crop
residues in Punjab. In this method, crop residues will be collected on the field and composted in
an on-field composting pit. A valuable product – compost is formed which is broadcasted in the
field as an organic fertilizer.
This study includes a theoretical analysis of the on-field composting method to manage rice and
wheat crop residues. Firstly, crop residue on-field composting costs are assessed and compared
with crop residue burning costs to give farmers of Punjab an idea of cost savings by composting
crop residues on the field. For this, various input and output costs of the burning method and onfield composting method are evaluated and compared on a per acre basis for managing rice and
wheat crop rotation based residues in all districts of Punjab based on the data for three
consecutive years (2020, 2021, and 2022). For all three years, in most of the districts of Punjab,
ii

the burning practices-related costs per acre were found to be higher than on-field composting
costs per acre only if a crop residue burning penalty imposed on a farmer is added as an input
cost to the Net Burning Costs per acre. However, without adding crop residue burning penalty
cost, the on-field composting costs per acre are higher as the chances of imposing penalties on
every farmer who burns crop residues are quite low. Secondly, in this study, the variation of
input costs of the on-field composting process, such as labor and machinery costs, along with
variation in landholding size (number of acres) with farmers, is also analyzed. For this, four onfield composting models (one-acre, four-acre, eight-acre and sixteen-acre) are studied keeping in
mind farmer’s land-holding categories in Punjab. The input cost (labor and machinery costs) per
acre for each on-field composting model varies depending on the size of the farmland (number of
acres) in each district. In addition, GHG emissions and the social cost of these emissions on crop
residue burning are studied as compared to on-field composting of crop residues.
As per our assessment, the on-field composting method for managing crop residues is better for
both the farmers and the environment of Punjab. The practical implication of this study could be
a future research project.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of contents ……………………………………………………………………………...….iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ xii
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Crop Residues are not waste: until wasted ........................................................................... 1
1.2 Background of the case study ............................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Agriculture in India ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 A study of Punjab state, India ........................................................................................ 2
1.2.3 Management of crop residues of rice and wheat crops .................................................. 5
1.3 Importance of the Research Study ........................................................................................ 8
1.4 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 11
2.1 Impact of Green Revolution on crop rotation in Punjab ..................................................... 11
2.2 A short time window between rice and wheat crops .......................................................... 13
2.3 Various crop residue management strategies used in Punjab ............................................. 14
2.3.1 Use of crop residues as a source of energy .................................................................. 16
2.3.2 On-field use of crop residues ....................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 District-wise use of rice-wheat crop residues in Punjab .............................................. 17
2.4 Limitations of crop residue management methods used in Punjab ..................................... 18
2.5 Effects of Crop Residue Burning on the Environment ....................................................... 19
2.6 Effects of Crop Residue Burning on Animal and Human Health ....................................... 22
2.7 Role of Punjab government to restrict crop residue burning .............................................. 22
2.8 On-field composting as a substitute for crop residue burning in Punjab ............................ 24
2.9 Awareness among farmers in Punjab regarding composting method of residue
management .............................................................................................................................. 26
2.10 Research Gap .................................................................................................................... 26
iv

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Objectives of the study........................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Resources required for comparative analysis of on-field composting v/s burning of crop
residues ..................................................................................................................................... 35
3.3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 40
3.4 The outline of the on-field composting method to manage crop residues .......................... 41
3.5 Assessment of rice and wheat crop residues generated in Punjab ...................................... 42
3.6 Factors included in the on-field composting of crop residues ............................................ 46
3.6.1 Inputs of on-field composting method ......................................................................... 46
3.6.2 Outputs of on-field composting method ...................................................................... 54
3.7 Factors included in the burning of crop residues ................................................................ 58
3.7.1 Inputs of burning method ............................................................................................. 58
3.7.2 Outcomes of burning method....................................................................................... 60
3.8 Factors affecting on-field composting costs for different landholding sizes in Punjab ...... 61
3.8.1 Labor in Punjab ............................................................................................................ 61
3.8.2 Farm Machinery Renting in Punjab ............................................................................. 68
3.9 Four on-field composting models ....................................................................................... 72
3.9.1 One-acre on-field composting model........................................................................... 72
3.9.2 Four-acre on-field composting model .......................................................................... 73
3.9.3 Eight-acre on-field composting model......................................................................... 74
3.9.4 Sixteen-acre on-field composting model ..................................................................... 76
3.10 Release of GHGs on Burning Crop Residues ................................................................... 77
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................... 82
4.1 Assessment of crop residue generated in districts of Punjab .............................................. 82
4.1.1 Amount of gross residue generated by rice and wheat crops ....................................... 82
4.1.2 Amount of surplus residue generated by rice and wheat crops ................................... 84
4.1.3 Amount of surplus residue produced by rice and wheat crops per acre of districts .... 86
4.2 Quantitative analysis of factors involved in the on-field composting method ................... 88
4.2.1 The quantity of Inputs required in the on-field composting method ........................... 88
4.2.2 The quantity of outputs from on-field composting method ......................................... 96
v

4.3 Quantitative analysis of factors involved in the burning method ..................................... 105
4.3.1 The quantity of inputs required for the burning method - ......................................... 105
4.3.2 The outcomes of burning method .............................................................................. 107
4.4 Expected Environmental Change ...................................................................................... 107
4.5 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................... 113
4.5.1 Net Composting Costs (NCC) ................................................................................... 113
4.5.2 Net Burning Costs (NBC) .......................................................................................... 137
4.5.3 Comparison between on-field composting and on-field burning costs per acre ........ 145
4.5.4 The Effect of farmer’s landholding size on the On-field composting costs /acre ..... 155
4.5.5 Costs of environmental change .................................................................................. 166
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 170
5.1 On-field composting costs v/s burning costs of crop residues .......................................... 170
5.1.1 Burning costs including penalty cost ......................................................................... 170
5.1.2 Burning costs without penalty cost ............................................................................ 171
5.2 Variation of costs of on-field composting method ........................................................... 172
5.2.1 Variation of on-field composting costs within districts ............................................. 172
5.2.2 Variation of on-field composting costs within years ................................................. 173
5.3 Variation of on-field composting costs per acre in different on-field composting models
................................................................................................................................................. 173
5.3.1 Labor costs of on-field composting method .............................................................. 173
5.3.2 Farm machinery costs of on-field composting method.............................................. 174
5.4 Reduction in the amount of GHG released into the environment ..................................... 174
5.5 Government policy to promote on-field composting of crop residues ............................. 174
5.6 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................... 175
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 177
References .................................................................................................................................. 179
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 194
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 198
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 200
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 201
vi

List of Tables

Table 1 – Use of rice crop residues in different districts of Punjab .............................................. 17
Table 2 - The properties of rice and wheat straw.......................................................................... 25
Table 3 - Categories of landholding size in Punjab ...................................................................... 32
Table 4– Inputs and outputs of the on-field composting method ................................................. 36
Table 5 – Inputs and outcomes of crop residue burning method .................................................. 39
Table 6 – CRR values of rice and wheat crops ............................................................................. 43
Table 7 – SF (Surplus Fraction) mean value of rice and wheat crops .......................................... 44
Table 8 – Percentage of households in Punjab that hired labor on a contract basis ..................... 62
Table 9- Percentage of households (with no contract labor) hiring casual labor .......................... 65
Table 10 - The percentage of farmers owning and renting tractors among different farm-size
groups ............................................................................................................................................ 69
Table 11 – Hourly renting charges of tractor and implements (Rs/hr.) ........................................ 70
Table 12 – SC-GHG estimates (C$2021, $/ton of respective GHG) ............................................ 80
Table 13 – Gross residue generated by rice and wheat crops in 3 years (tons) ............................ 83
Table 14 – Surplus crop residue generated in Punjab in three years (tons) .................................. 85
Table 15– Surplus crop residue generated per acre in 3 years (tons/acre) .................................... 87
Table 16 – Area under compost pit (m2) per acre ......................................................................... 90
Table 17 - Decrease in yield of crops on making a compost pit (kg/acre) ................................... 92
Table 18 – Estimated labor required for one acre per crop residue composting method ............. 93
Table 19 – Inorganic fertilizer recommended for rice and wheat crops in Punjab ....................... 94
Table 20 – Farm machinery required for on-field composting and preparation of fields ............. 95
Table 21 - Amount of nutrients present in rice and wheat crop residues ..................................... 97
Table 22 – Amount of fertilizer added to fields from crop residue compost ................................ 98
Table 23 – The quantity of crop yield increased on using crop residue compost as fertilizer .... 101
Table 24 – A nutrient-rich compost produced from crop residues (tons/acre), (year 2021-22) . 103
vii

Table 25 – Inorganic fertilizer recommended for rice and wheat crops in Punjab ..................... 105
Table 26 – Farm machinery required in crop residue burning method and preparation of fields
..................................................................................................................................................... 106
Table 27 - Emissions of various pollutants from burning of different crop residues in Punjab in
2017-18 ....................................................................................................................................... 107
Table 28 - Yard waste composting emissions............................................................................. 109
Table 29 – GHG emissions reduced by substituting the burning of crop residues with the on-field
composting method (Gg) ............................................................................................................ 111
Table 30 – Minimum Support Price for rice and wheat crops .................................................... 114
Table 31 - Decrease in yield revenue on making on-field compost pit (Rs/acre) ....................... 115
Table 32 – The labor wage (Rs/day) and total labor cost (Rs/acre) in different districts ........... 117
Table 33 - Subsidized Price of Inorganic Fertilizer in Punjab .................................................... 118
Table 34 – Inorganic fertilizer cost/acre for rice and wheat crops in on-field composting method
(Rs/acre) ...................................................................................................................................... 119
Table 35 – Farm machinery cost of on-field composting method per acre (Rs/hr) .................... 120
Table 36 – Total Input Composting Costs (TICC) per acre (Rs/acre) ........................................ 122
Table 37 – Total Inorganic fertilizer cost reduction per acre by on-field composting method
(using subsidized price) (Rs/acre) ............................................................................................... 124
Table 38- The cost reduction of inorganic fertilizers per acre by using non-subsidized prices of
inorganic fertilizers (Rs/acre) ..................................................................................................... 126
Table 39 – Revenue generated per acre by increased yield of crops by using crop residue
compost fertilizer (Rs/acre)......................................................................................................... 128
Table 40– Total Output Composting Revenue (TOCR) per acre (Rs/acre)................................ 129
Table 41 – The revenue generated per acre by farmers by selling compost in the market for each
district in the year 2021-22 (Rs/acre).......................................................................................... 132
Table 42 – Net Composting Cost (NCC) per acre for rice and wheat crop residues .................. 134
Table 43 – The labor cost of burning rice and wheat crop residues per acre in different districts
..................................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 44 – Farm machinery costs of burning method and preparation of fields per acre (Rs/hour)
..................................................................................................................................................... 140
viii

Table 45 – Penalty cost on burning crop residues by Punjab government ................................. 141
Table 46 – Net Burning Costs (NBC) per acre (Rs/acre) ........................................................... 142
Table 47 – Cost Savings per acre by substituting crop residue burning (with penalty) method
with on-field composting method ............................................................................................... 149
Table 48 – Cost Savings per acre by substituting crop residue burning (without penalty) with onfield composting method............................................................................................................. 152
Table 49 – Variation of labor and farm machinery costs per acre of Patiala district in different on
field composting models ............................................................................................................. 165
Table 50 – Social Cost -GHG benefitted (profits) by using the on-field composting method for
crop residue management for the year 2019-20 .......................................................................... 167

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1- Cropping pattern of Punjab in 2004-05 (a) Kharif, (b) Rabi......................................... 12
Figure 2 - Operation as a Basic' Work Unit' of a Composting Process ........................................ 35
Figure 3 – On-field composting process ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 4 – Percentage of households (with no contract labor) hiring casual labor ....................... 66
Figure 5 – Percentage of farmers owning tractors within different landholding sizes ................. 69
Figure 6 - India-wide annual mean population-weighted PM2.5 exposure due to crop residue
burning averaged from 2003 to 2019 ............................................................................................ 77
Figure 7 - The Total Cost of Composting rice crop residues for 3 years .................................... 135
Figure 8 - The Total Cost of Composting wheat crop residues for 3 years ................................ 136
Figure 9 – The net cost related to burning rice crop residues over 3 years ................................ 143
Figure 10 – The net cost related to burning wheat crop residues over 3 years ........................... 144
Figure 11 – Net costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the
year 2019-20 ............................................................................................................................... 145
Figure 12- Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the year
2020-21 ....................................................................................................................................... 145
Figure 13 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the
year 2021-22 ............................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 14- Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2019-20 ............................................................................................................................... 147
Figure 15 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2020-21 ............................................................................................................................... 147
Figure 16 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2021-22 ............................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 17 – Total cost savings on composting rice crop residues per acre over 3 years (Rs/acre)
..................................................................................................................................................... 151
Figure 18 - Total cost savings on composting wheat crop residues per acre over 3 years (Rs/acre)
..................................................................................................................................................... 151
Figure 19 – Cost Savings on composting rice crop residues (without penalty) .......................... 154
x

Figure 20- Cost Savings per acre on composting wheat crop residues (without penalty) .......... 155
Figure 21– Variation in labor cost/acre in different on-field composting models ...................... 164
Figure 22– GHG emission costs reduced on composting crop residues ..................................... 168

xi

Glossary

1. Bioinoculant carrier or inoculant

- The vehicle of living latent microbes

2. Bioremediation

- Living organisms remove contaminants and

pollutants from soil, water and other environments.
3. Collateral damage

- Accidental damage to the properties on burning of
residues in the field.

4. CRR (Crop to Residue Ratio)

-

5. Genetic diversity

- The biological variation that occurs within
species.

6. Incentive

- A reward or compensation is provided for
performing a task.

7. Incorporation

- Mixing of any substance in the soil through
tillage.

8. Inorganic fertilizer

- Fertilizers are synthetically derived chemicals and
minerals from the earth.

9. MSP (Minimum Support Price)

- It is the minimum price set by the government for
certain agricultural products, at which the
products would be directly bought from the
farmers.

10. N – immobilization

- The process by which soil organisms take up
nitrate and ammonium from soil and make it
unavailable to crops.

11. On-field Composting

- It is the natural process of recycling organic
matter, such as crop residues into a valuable
fertilizer that can enrich the soil and plants.

12. Organic fertilizer

- Materials of animal and plant origin used to

Used to calculate how much crop residue left
after harvesting the particular crop.

improve plant nutrition and physical and chemical
xii

properties and biological activity of soils.
13. Penalty

- Punishment for breaking a law, rule or contract.

14. Rupees (Rs)

- Currency of India

15. SF (Surplus Fraction)

- The percentage or amount that remains when use
or need is satisfied.

16. Soil contamination

- Soil containing chemical compounds potentially
harmful to human health or the environment.

17. Soil erosion

- A gradual process that occurs when the impact of
water or wind detaches and removes soil particles,
causing the soil to deteriorate.

18. Soil reclamation

- The process of improving soils to make them

suitable for more intensive use.
19. Straw

- Dried stalks of grain after threshing.

20. Stubble

- The cut stalks of grain plants are left sticking out
of the ground after the grain is harvested.

21. Subsidized prices

- A price for a product that is reduced because the
government has paid part of the cost of producing
it.

22. Sustainable

- Ability to maintain or support a process over time.

xiii

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, praises and thanks to the Almighty God, for his blessings throughout my
research work to complete the research successfully.
I want to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my mentor and research supervisor Dr.
Balbinder Deo for providing me with an opportunity to do research and for his invaluable
patience and feedback. His dynamism, vision, continuous support, motivation, enthusiasm, and
immense knowledge have inspired me throughout the research. He taught me the methodology to
carry out the research and to represent the research works as clearly as possible. I also could not
have undertaken this journey without my advisory committee members: Dr. David J. Connell
and Dr. Leandro Freylejer and thank them for their invaluable knowledge, expertise and
guidance throughout the research. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under
their guidance in developing my research proposal and their input after reviewing the rough draft
of the thesis.
My sincere thanks to my parents for their love, prayers, caring and sacrifices for educating and
preparing me for my future. I am grateful to my husband, mother-in-law and my 3-month-old
son, who would sit in the waiting area during my meetings with my supervisor. I was pregnant
during research work time and my husband, in-law family, sister and brothers supported and
encouraged me during this period. Their faith in me has kept my spirits and motivation high
during the research study.
Lastly, I would be remiss in not mentioning my father and many other farmers of Punjab, who
helped me in getting information related to on-field operations and practices that were not
available in the peer-reviewed literature.
xiv

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Crop Residues are not waste: until wasted
Crop residues are waste left in the field after the crop is harvested and threshed. On a yearly
average from 2010-2014, India generated 121.2 million tons of rice crop residues and 114.14
million tons of wheat crop residues (Retrieved from Devi et al., 2021). These residues have
sometimes been regarded as waste materials that require disposal and are burnt, causing various
environmental and health issues. However, it has been realized that crop residues are vital natural
resources, not waste. Recycling crop residues through composting can convert surplus farm
waste into valuable compost product. This nutritional product will improve the overall ecological
balance of the crop production system. As per (Odum, 1971) ecological balance is a delicate
balance, where each organism and environmental factor plays a role in maintaining harmony and
stability within the ecosystem. Composting of crop residues will maintain ecological balance by
recycling the soil nutrients, while burning of crop residues openly in the field would disturb the
ecological equilibrium by loss of soil biodiversity and emission of GHGs into the environment.
Therefore, in this research, we have made an effort to study the economic and environmental
effects of practicing the on-field composting method as a substitute for burning to manage the
rice and wheat crop residues.

1

1.2 Background of the case study
1.2.1 Agriculture in India
India is an agrarian economy and is one of the world's leaders in production volume for various
commodities such as Rice, Wheat, Cotton, Sugar, Horticulture, and Dairy (Gulati, 2011). As per
a study by Kanwal (2022), agriculture employed more than 50% of the Indian workforce and
contributed 17–18% to the country's GDP. Due to India's rapid population growth and economic
development, there is intense pressure on the country’s agriculture sector to compete with the
rising demands of food and related industries. In intensive agriculture, the aim is to get
maximum yield from minimal land, for which higher inputs are required per unit of agricultural
land, such as capital, labor, water, and agrochemicals (pesticides and fertilizers). It results in
quicker soil and water degradation, loss of biodiversity, and groundwater pollution
(Kuchimanchi et al., 2023). This immense pressure has also led to increased agriculture and
multiple cropping nationwide. The leading farming states of India are Uttar Pradesh, West
Bengal, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana, and agriculture in Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, and Punjab states contributed more than 25 percent of their respective state income (Gupta
& Kannan, 2024).
1.2.2 A study of Punjab state, India
Punjab has explicitly played a prominent role in achieving self-sufficiency in food grains by
contributing a high percentage of wheat and rice to the country’s food reserves (Gulati et al.,
2021). Punjab covers an area of 50,362 square kilometers, which is 1.53% of India's total
geographical area (3,287,263 square kilometers), and 84% of Punjab’s total land is under
2

cultivation, with 75% of its population depending on agriculture {Website - Department of
Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, n.d.). The soil of Punjab has the potential for crop
diversification to grow many crops (Ray et al., 2005). Punjab state has 23 districts, i.e., Amritsar,
Bathinda, Barnala, Faridkot, Fazilka, Ferozepur, Fatehgarh Sahib, Kapurthala, Gurdaspur,
Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Malerkotla, Mansa, Moga, Sri Muktsar Sahib (SMS), Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar (SBSN), Pathankot, Patiala, Rupnagar, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar
(SASN), Sangrur and Tarn Taran. The Malerkotla district was carved out of Sangrur district as
the 23rd district on 21 May 2021. So, the data for the Malerkotla district is included in the
Sangrur district.
1.2.2.1 Rice -Wheat crop rotation in Punjab
More than half of the districts of Punjab undergo only rice-wheat crop rotation; the rest grow one
other crop along with these two significant crops (Kaur & Kaur, 2018). In the Year (2016-2017),
a 3468-thousand-hectare area was under wheat production, and rice crop was grown on a 3033thousand-hectare area (Website – Crops grown in Punjab, n.d.). So, there are two major cereal
crops grown in this state, "Wheat" (winter/rabi crop) and "Rice" (summer/kharif crop). Rice is
grown in the summer season, also called the Kharif season, while wheat is grown in the winter
season, called the Rabi season. Rice alone covered nearly 63% of Punjab's kharif (summer)cropped area. In comparison, wheat covered 85% of the total rabi (winter)-cropped area, and
rice-wheat is the significant crop rotation of Punjab (Bal et al., 2009). According to the National
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development's Punjab State Focus Paper 2021-'22, Punjab state
alone contributes more than 35% of wheat and 25% of rice to the central pool of India (website –

3

State Focus Paper, n.d.). So, only rice and wheat crops and their residues are focused in this
study.
The high cropping intensity (189%) of Punjab state depicts severe competition between different
crops and it further leads to overlapping of harvesting and sowing seasons. Rice and wheat crops
are grown in rotation during a year – Rice (May – late October) and Wheat (mid-November –
mid-April). The nursery of rice crops is grown in May, while the transplanting of seedlings is
done in June month or even rice crop can be sown directly in the field in June month. Harvesting
of high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat crops using combine harvesters leaves large
quantities of one-foot-long crop residues in the field.
1.2.2.2 Surplus crop residues of rice and wheat crops
The total residue produced by crops is called the gross residue of crops. However, crop residues
have competing uses, and therefore, only a particular portion of gross crop residue, which is
unused, needs management or disposal. This portion of gross crop residue is termed surplus crop
residue. According to the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), India
generates 500 Mt of gross crop residue annually; 28% (140 Mt) of this gross crop residue is
surplus. Further, 92 Mt (65% of surplus value) of total surplus crop residue is managed through
the burning method in fields (cited in Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019). In India, Punjab state alone
produces about 18% of national residue surpluses, of which 80% are burnt in fields (Downing, et
al., 2022).

4

1.2.3 Management of crop residues of rice and wheat crops
The farmers themselves handle the agricultural waste produced on their farms, but there may
also be little intervention from the public sector. The residues of rice and wheat crops are used
for various purposes, such as domestic and industrial fuel, for thatching of homes, and as animal
fodder or burnt in many places. Most of the wheat straw is collected from fields for cattle fodder
but rice straw is a poor cattle feed due to the high silica content present in it (Sidhu et al., 1998).
1.2.3.1 Crop residues of rice-wheat crops – a primary concern
Before the 1980s, farmers manually performed harvesting and ploughing of fields, and later, they
used to till plant debris back into the soil. In the 1980s, Combine harvesters were introduced for
mechanized harvesting, leaving one-foot stalks behind, which became a significant concern.
Combines and harvesters were used for harvesting rice and wheat crops (88.6 % of rice and
56.6% of wheat), leaving the stub ends in a field (Sidhu et al., 1998). The reasons to use combine
harvesters were a) high labor cost for manual harvesting, b) rice residues have no significant
income-generating alternative, c) combine harvesting speeds up the harvesting process to create
a reasonable time duration window for preparation of the field for the next crop, d) presence of
high silica content in rice residue making it unfit for use as cattle feed (Sidhu et al., 1998).
One-foot-long crop residues left behind by combine harvesters make it difficult for farmers to
remove them from the field and prepare the land for the next crop in a short time. The wheat crop
must be sown within a 15-20-days time window after harvesting the rice crop to maintain the
yield of crops. Thus, crop waste management is a significant concern for the Punjab agriculture
sector.

5

1.2.3.2 Rice crop residues vs wheat crop residues
The straw reaper is used to chop and thresh the standing ends of wheat crops, producing fine
straw. Farmers store some part of this by-product for cattle feed, while most of it is sold in the
market to generate revenue. The buyers usually buy wheat straws for various purposes, such as
reselling them in the market for animal fodder or as a raw material input in industries such as
cardboard and cushioning material, thus making the burning of wheat crop residue less
prominent among farmers than rice crop residue. On the other hand, rice crop residues are not a
good source of cattle forage, as they contain a high amount of silica content, which is less
digestible. Also, wheat straw demand is much higher, and it trades at 16 times the price of rice
straw, so farmers do not find any reasonable margin of profit in threshing and chopping rice
straw (Hayashida, 2020). Thus, more rice crop residues are burnt as compared to wheat crop
residues.
1.2.3.3 Crop residue burning
In Punjab, India, burning residue from the rice and wheat harvest dates back to a few decades.
Burning crop residue effectively removes or manages crop residue in fields and facilitates the
time window for sowing of the next crop. The time window between the harvesting of one crop
and the sowing of another crop is short (15-20 days), which creates the issue of management of
crop residues in a short time.
In study (Sidhu & Beri, 2005), it is estimated that 81 percent of rice crop residues and 48 percent
of wheat crop residues are burnt in Punjab. 18.4 million tons of rice straw and 8.5 million tons of
wheat straw are burnt in Punjab fields (Kumar et al., 2015). This massive crop residue burning in
6

Punjab results in the deterioration of air quality through emissions of smog, haze, heat waves,
and GHGs, contributing to global warming (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019). To combat the issue of
crop residue burning, sustainable and environmental friendly methods are required to manage the
crop residues to protect our environment and public health.
The government of India has banned crop residue burning. Punjab state imposes fines on farmers
who perform this illegal activity of burning crop residue on their farms. However, this practice is
ongoing because farmers find this method to be the easiest method to clear the fields in a short
time.
Numerous studies have focused on alternative and sustainable methods of crop residue
management, such as residue incorporation or use in cardboard industries in generating biofuels
and composting. However, the acceptance and adoption rate of such practices by farmers of
Punjab is low due to the lack of information related to the cost and benefits of such practices as
compared to burning residues and it leads to the low adoption rate of such sustainable practices
(Mandpe & Kumar, 2020).
Burning crop residues in the open field has become a significant concern in Punjab as it causes
climate change and various health problems in animals and humans.
1.2.3.4 Crop residue composting
Crop residues have numerous competing uses that have made them a precious commodity and
must not be considered a waste. Punjab locals have traditionally used the composting of crop
residues, household waste, or cow dung to generate nutrient-rich fertilizer. The composting
method is a fascinating segment for converting on-farm waste materials into a nutrient-rich
7

resource. Composting crop residues helps to prevent soil erosion and reduces reliance on
chemical fertilizers. Compost used as manure improves plant growth and promotes higher yields
of crops. However, nowadays many farmers in Punjab do not make compost out of crop residues
as they used to do in the past due to various reasons. As there is an increase in the volume of
crop residues produced which makes it difficult to move it from the field to the place of
composting and return the compost to the fields to use it as organic fertilizer. More research is
needed on managing crop residues at the farm level, and the cost difference of adopting the
composting method as compared to burning practices. Moreover, the exploration of
implementing the different on-field composting models, their inputs and outputs, costs and
revenues, environmental impacts, and their comparison with the residue-burning practices need
to be assessed and evaluated.
1.3 Importance of the Research Study
A significant size of the farming community has adopted the practice of burning crop residues to
manage rice and wheat residues. The main reason behind this is that farmers find the burning
method of managing crop residues the cheapest and easiest as compared to other methods
proposed by various researchers. However, farmers need to be made aware of the costs of openly
burning crop residues in their fields. Moreover, an alternative method of composting crop
residues is already well known to them, but composting crop residues on the field individually by
farmers with costs and revenue has yet to be researched or studied. So, the costs and revenue of
crop residue burning are assessed and compared with the on-field composting method to
understand their cost differences. Besides the economic effects, the environmental effects of
burning crop residues over on-field composting are evaluated.
8

Hence, this research assesses and analyzes the possible cost and environmental impact of burning
and on-field composting crop residues in different districts of Punjab. This research creates a
base for sustainable management of crop residues for farmers of Punjab to combat a significant
concern: the burning of crop residues.
1.4 Study Objectives
This study will provide farmers of different districts of Punjab with the costs and benefits of
adopting the composting method on the field itself. Current research is based on quantitative data
on rice and wheat crops, their residues, and the management of crop residues through on-field
composting in each district of Punjab. This research addresses four main objectives:
1) What are the costs of crop residue burning for farmers of different districts of Punjab?
2) What are the costs of crop residues on-field composting for farmers of different districts
of Punjab?
3) Comparative cost analysis of crop residue burning vs. on-field composting.
4) Comparative environmental impact of crop residue burning vs. on-field composting.
The variation in costs of applying the on-field composting method per acre under 4 different
on-field composting models are assessed in this research. These models are based on 4
different landholding sizes in Punjab: one-acre on-field composting model, four-acre on-field
composting model, eight-acre on-field composting model and sixteen-acre on-field
composting model. These models are chosen as a multiple of four because the average
landholding with farmers of Punjab in 2015-16 was 8.9 acres (3.62 ha), which is close to
multiple of four and these models would state almost every landholding category of Punjab
9

farmers. 62% of Punjab farmers have land between 4 to 24.71 acres and 33% of farmers have
land below 4 acres, while the rest of farmers have land above 24.71 acres (Gulati et al.,
2021).
In this study the on-field composting costs and factors affecting the on-field composting costs on
different landholding sizes with Punjab farmers are evaluated.

10

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Impact of Green Revolution on crop rotation in Punjab
Agriculture in Punjab has undergone several significant changes over the years. Until the 1990s,
Punjab was an economically leading state in India with thriving agriculture. This success was
attributed to the package program called "Green Revolution," which North America introduced
to the government of India. The aim of the Green Revolution was the production of food grains
and feeding the growing population of the country. This package included a Hybrid High
Yielding Variety (HYV) of crop seeds, chemical fertilizers, various pesticides and herbicides,
and extensive use of farm machinery. During this time, Punjab's agriculture significantly
changed its cropping pattern. The initially introduced HYV seeds were wheat, the staple food of
Punjabis; however, most of the Indian population eat rice. Rice growing was familiar to farmers
of Punjab, but it was a marginal crop. In this way, the Green Revolution had a great impact on
the selection of rice-wheat crop rotation by most of the farmers of Punjab.
After the introduction of the Green Revolution, cultivating rice on a large scale was no longer a
issue for farmers. The tube wells: a new source of irrigation that irrigated rice also took care of
the seepage problem from canals and it helped to prepare the field later in the year for the winter
(wheat) crop (Shergill, 2005). Since the Food Corporation of India (FCI) procured rice from the
farmers, it quickly became a viable commercial crop for farmers. The average agricultural sector
growth for the entire country from 1961 to 1986 was 2.6%, but it was 6.4% for Punjab, the
highest of all states of the country (Singh & Kohli, 2005). Consequently, rice and wheat emerged
as the two main crops of Punjab, and the number of crops grown in the state dropped from 21 in
1960-61 to 9 by 1990-91. The proportion of area under rabi (winter) crops other than wheat
11

declined to 17.12% in 2004-05 from 62.74% in 1960-61. The change was drastic for the rice
crop, as the area under rice cultivation increased ten times from 6.05% in 1960-61 to 63.02% in
2004-05 (Toor et al., 2007).

Figure 1- Cropping pattern of Punjab in 2004-05 (a) Kharif, (b) Rabi
(Figures in brackets represent the percentage of area under each crop for the net sown area)
(Website – State Action Plan on Climate Change, n.d.)
In the above figure, rice covers the maximum area in Punjab during the Kharif (summer) season
(51.1%) and wheat during the Rabi (winter) season (69.9 %) (Website – State Action Plan on
Climate Change, n.d.). Since the Green Revolution in the 1960s, Punjab has contributed
substantially to the country's central food grain pool. In 1980-81, Punjab contributed 2.52 million
tons of rice and 4.3 million tons of wheat, and this contribution has increased to 9.3 million tons

12

of rice and 10.7 million tons of wheat in 2009- 10 (Website – Statistical Abstract Punjab (SAP)
2015, n.d.).
A careful analysis of constraints and parameters suggests that the rice-wheat crop combination
was found to be an optimal specialization for achieving the long-term goals of Punjab's
agricultural development. There are sufficient and sound reasons why the farmers continue with
the rice-wheat crop combination, such as to sustain their incomes, for the stability of their yields
and for the country's food security and good export potential (Shergill, 2005). Punjab's
agricultural growth slowed to 3% annually from 1985-86 to 2004-05. Further, it crashed to just
1.6% per annum in a few years (Gulati et al., 2021) due to the adverse effects of the Green
Revolution, such as a reduction in genetic diversity and soil fertility, soil erosion, soil
contamination, water shortages and greater vulnerability to pests, etc.
2.2 A short time window between rice and wheat crops

Punjab is also known as the 'Rice Bowl of India' because of the usage of high-yielding varieties
of rice and new technology. Punjab produces around 13 million metric tons of rice annually and
it contributes 10 % of the total rice produced by India (Website https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019575/india-rice-production-volume-in-punjab/ ).
According to the Package of Practices -2024, rice crop occupied 31.68 lakh hectares with an
average yield of 64.79 quintals per hectare (26.22 quintals/acre). Rice crops can be either sown
or transplanted in Punjab; the sowing time for rice crops is 20 May – 20 June, and harvested at
the end of October, i.e., 130 days after sowing time (Package of Practices for the crops of
Punjab, 2024). In the case of transplanting, nursery seedlings are sown at the same sowing time
13

(20 may-20 June), and 30 -35 days old seedlings are transplanted to the fields from 20 June-10
July. Farmers had to restrict the timely sowing of rice crop nursery (20 May – 20 June) and
timely transplanting of the nursery (20 June – 10 July) for better grain quality, water saving and
low build-up of pests.
Wheat is a major cereal crop grown in 35.26 lakh hectares during 2021-22, with an average yield
of 42.16 quintals/hectare (17.1 quintals per acre). The first fortnight of November is an optimum
time for sowing and most wheat varieties harvested at the end of April (Package of practices for
crops of Punjab, 2023-24). As per this package of practices, a delay of one week from optimum
sowing time reduces wheat yield by about 150 kg per acre.
As per the Package of Practices, the optimal time window between rice and wheat crops in
Punjab state is the end of October to the first fortnight of November (15-20 days, after rice
harvesting and the end of April to 20 May (20-25 days) after wheat harvesting. This short time
duration between the crop harvesting and sowing of the next crop creates an issue of residue
management for the farmers of Punjab.
2.3 Various crop residue management strategies used in Punjab
Being an agriculture-rich state, Punjab has high biomass availability in the form of crop residues.
According to (Sangeet & Rajkumar, 2016), the total crop residue generated by Punjab is 48.2
million tons. Annually Punjab produces about 23 and 17 million tons of paddy and wheat straw
respectively (Kumar et al., 2015). The categorization of crop residue management can be onfield and off-field options. Various crop residue management options are available in Punjab for
rice and wheat crop residues (Kumar et al., 2022). The agriculture sector produces multiple kinds
14

of waste, and every agricultural waste has a specific management strategy. Crop residues are
leaves, rice straw, wheat straw, oats and barley straw, and seed pods generated in agricultural
fields (Koul et al., 2022). The management technology depends on the source, quantity, and type
of agricultural waste generated. Crop residues are utilized for different applications, such as feed
for cattle, compost making, rural roofing, packaging materials, wood, paper, bioethanol, and
many more (Kaur, 2017).
Biochar – The Pyrolysis process converts crop straw into a carbon-rich form called biochar. In
this process, straw or crop waste is burnt under low-oxygen conditions, which prevents the
complete combustion of the material, resulting in the formation of biochar. There are various
benefits of this method of crop residue management as it helps to improve soil; fertility by
increasing nutrient availability and soil structure of soil (Jiang, Lian, Wang, & Xing, 2020)
(Jiang et al., 2020), reducing carbon emissions by sequestration of carbon into stable form for
long periods (Zhang, et al., 2017). While biochar offers various benefits, this crop residue
management method is not accepted or used by farmers of Punjab due to certain drawbacks. As
this process includes high initial costs for the setup of biochar production facilities, thus can be
prohibitive, especially for small-scale farmers. Additionally, if biochar is not produced under the
right conditions, it may introduce harmful compounds into the soil such as heavy metals or toxic
substances that could harm plants and soil organisms (Kuppusamy, Thavamani, Megharaj,
Venkateswarlu, & Naidu, 2016) (Kuppusamy et al., 2016). So, farmers lack the technical
expertise to produce or apply biochar effectively.

15

2.3.1 Use of crop residues as a source of energy
The study conducted by Gross et al. (2021) indicated that cattle and buffalo manure and crop
residues could be used together as feedstock to produce biogas by anaerobic digestion and
producing organic fertilizer as a byproduct. Many researchers have calculated that bioenergy can
also be generated from rice crop residues via anaerobic digestion to produce biogas, mainly
methane, which can be collected and combusted to generate electricity (Singh et al., 2020).
According to Lohan et al. (2018), many countries such as China, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand,
Japan, Philippines, Malaysia, and Nigeria generate compost and bioenergy from crop residues. It
was estimated that total surplus crop residues generated in Punjab have a high annual bioenergy
potential of 77.3 MW (Mega Watt) and the contribution of wheat and rice crop residues is
maximum due to the higher area under production of these crops in this state (Sangeet &
Rajkumar, 2016).
2.3.2 On-field use of crop residues
Mulching - using crop residues to provide a protective covering of the soil to reduce evaporation,
prevent erosion, control the weeds, and enrich the soil. Some researchers have focused on
residue incorporation in soil for further decomposition that improves soil's organic composition
and properties (Singh Y. et al., 2004).
According to Sidhu et al. (1998), in most districts, farmers managed their rice and wheat straws
by burning it (Appendix C). Only 0.5 to 0.6 percent of rice straw was used as fuel in Gurdaspur
and Jalandhar districts. In contrast, no farmer prepared compost from rice and wheat crop
residues, and very few farmers incorporated crop residues into the soil.
16

2.3.3 District-wise use of rice-wheat crop residues in Punjab
Table 1 – Use of rice crop residues in different districts of Punjab
Use of rice crop residues (%)
Districts

Burnt

Fodder

Sold

Bathinda

100

-

-

Amritsar

52.8

18.2

19.6

9.4

-

Gurdaspur

66.5

12.9

-

20.6

-

Patiala

81.5

11.7

5.9

-

-

Ferozepur

68.1

-

-

18.8

8.8

Given to
Incorporated
poor families
-

(Kumar et al., 2015)
Rice crop residues – The study of Kumar et al. (2015) mentioned the end use of crop residues in
different districts of Punjab. The rice straw was burnt and had no other end-use in the Bathinda
district of Punjab. In the Amritsar district, rice crop residue was used for other uses (apart from
burning), with maximum use as fodder (18.2%). Furthermore, 19.6 percent of the total residue
produced was sold in the market, and 9.4 percent was given to poor, landless families. Almost
20.6 % of the rice crop residue is provided to poor landless families in Gurdaspur district, 12.9 %
is used as fodder, and nearly the rest of the rice residue is burnt. In the Patiala district, 81.5 % of
rice residue produced was burnt; from the rest, 11.7 % was used as fodder for animals, and 5.9 %
was sold in the market. Except for the Ferozepur district, the rice stubble is hardly incorporated
in the soil (8.8 %). In this district, 18.8 % of the rice straw is provided to poor landless families,
and 68.1 % is burnt.

17

Wheat crop residues - However, a significant proportion (47%) of the wheat stubble is used as
animal fodder in seven districts: Amritsar, Bathinda, Faridkot, Gurdaspur, Kapurthala, Ludhiana,
and Sangrur. Gurdaspur district was the only district in which wheat residue (2.4%) was
incorporated into the soil. So, most of the residues burnt belong to rice and wheat crops, and a
small amount is incorporated back into the soil.
2.4 Limitations of crop residue management methods used in Punjab
Methods introduced by various studies for managing residues are less accepted by farmers, as
they specify limitations for each one; for example, most farmers use wheat straw as fodder, but
rice straw has a high amount of silica content (Mirmohamadsadeghi & Karimi, 2020), which
contributes to poor nutrient digestibility (< 50%) and thus is unfit for ruminant consumption.
Moreover, according to the Department of Agriculture of Punjab, it has been evaluated that less
than 1% of farmers in Punjab adopt a method of in situ incorporation of crop stubble. This is
because the yield of wheat crops decreases if the rice residue is incorporated in the soil
immediately (10d or 20d) before wheat seeds are sown. This is due to incomplete decomposition
of residues which leads to nitrogen deficiency in soil due to inorganic nitrogen immobilization
(Singh Y. et al., 2004). However, if crop residues are given the required time for decomposition
after incorporation of crop residues in the field, there would be no N immobilization issue and
there would be considerable increase in soil organic matter and potassium supply. This can be
done by complete composting of crop residues, which takes a period of 4-5 months.
Moreover, in a recent study of Punjab, farmers faced various problems regarding rice straw
management, including technical, managerial, financial, and domestic usage problems (Singh &
Ranguwal, 2023). The (Singh & Ranguwal, 2023) study stated that 100% of surveyed farmers
18

agreed that no other suitable straw management technology exists except for rice crop residue
burning. As other alternatives delay wheat sowing, and also there is a high cost of removing
residue from fields.
Using crop residues for large-scale bioenergy production is a challenge concerning efficiency
and economy. A high alkaline ash content present in crop residues poses an operating issue for
electricity generation machinery (Porichha et al., 2021). Economically, feedstock transportation
from fields and processing costs would be high for centralized large-scale power plants due to
crop residue bulkiness and therefore it might not be profitable for large bioenergy plants to use
crop residue as fuel. For this reason, biomass power plants in Punjab consume only 1 million
tons of rice straw annually, that is, only 5% of the total residue generated (Porichha. et al., 2021).
Crop residues can be used for mulching, as in this process soil of the field is covered with crop
residues to retain soil moisture and control weeds. In the mulching process, biomass (crop
residue) transfer from the field is required before soil puddling/tilling and it need to be returned
after the soil is prepared and this prevents many farmers from applying this method, especially
those with large landholdings.
2.5 Effects of Crop Residue Burning on the Environment

The main reason for crop residue burning in the field is the higher cost of removing crop residues
from field and time-consuming process of other alternatives, such as bioenergy production,
converting it into cushioning materials, and mulching, and farmers believe that it is more
expensive and it also needs more time to complete the process. Moreover, Haider (2012)
indicates that crop residue burning in the field generates some benefits, that includes land
19

clearing in a short time and weed/pest management. Burning the residues within the field kills
residue-borne pathogens and damages weed plants and their seeds in the soil.
Soil - With open field burning, nutrients such as nitrogen, sulphur, and organic carbon decline,
ultimately reducing the soil microbial population as soil nutrients are required for their survival
(Sharma & Mishra, 2001). Even heat produced by crop residue burning harms the soil's
microbes, which further leads to decreased crop yields. As per the study conducted by the
Department of Soils, PAU, Ludhiana (2010), one ton of soil loses 6-7 kg Nitrogen, 1-1.7 kg
phosphorus, 14-25 kg potassium, and 1.2-1.5 kg sulphur due to crop residue burning. This leads
to an additional yearly expenditure of Rs. 150 crore/year to replenish the soil (Kaur, 2017).
Can crop residue burning have a positive effect on soil as well? As, crop residue burning is
generally considered harmful to soil health as mentioned above, but there are few potential shortterm benefits which are often outweighed by long-term negative impacts. Crop residue burning
can lead to quick release of nutrients such as, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium into the soil
due to the breakdown of complex organic compounds from the heat of fire (Biederbeck,
Campbell, Bowren, Schnitzer, & Mclver, 1980) (Biederbeck et al., 1980). The Nitrogen in
organic matter is particularly sensitive to burning due to its low temperature of volatilization
(200 degree Celsius), but there is an increase in inorganic N and there is a temporary increase in
the availability of nutrients such as Nitrogen in soil (Sharma & Mishra, 2001). But these are
temporary benefits, as negative effect on soil is long lasting.
Air - Burning crop residues releases soot particles and smoke, causing human and animal health
problems. There is also an emission of greenhouse gases, namely carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide, which causes global warming. India-wide, agricultural fire emissions from the
20

northwest states (Punjab. Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh) contribute more
than 90% of the fire-related exposure, with 64% from Punjab (Lan et al., 2022). Crop residue
burning has an adverse negative impact on the environment of neighbouring states and countries
as well. A recent study by Huang et al. (2022) has shown that PM2.5 (Particulate Matter that
measures less than 2.5 micrometres) and other harmful gases (CO2, CH4, NO2, etc.) emitted in
crop residue burning affect air quality not only in Punjab or India but also being transported by
the predominantly north-westerly winds to neighbouring countries; Pakistan, Nepal, and
Bangladesh.
Even researchers have suggested that the field's open burning of crop residue leads to Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) emissions (Zhang et al., 2011). Crop residue burning in Punjab
strongly influences Delhi's (the capital of India) air quality. As daily average particulate matter
and gaseous pollutants data of rice residue burning shows that after burning of rice residues in
Punjab, there is an increase of 50-75% in PM2.5 and 40-45% in PM10 (Particulate Matter that
measures less than 10 micrometers) concentration in the air of the capital city of India (Delhi)
(Khan et al., 2023).
According to (Godde et al., 2022), open burning of crop residues results in the emissions of
harmful chemicals that have toxicological properties and are potential carcinogens like
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) referred to as dioxins.

21

2.6 Effects of Crop Residue Burning on Animal and Human Health
The dioxins released from crop residue burning have toxicological properties and are potential
carcinogens. Burning of crop residues has adverse impacts, especially for those people who are
already suffering from respiratory disease or cardiovascular disease. Inhaling delicate particulate
matter triggers asthma and can even aggravate bronchial attack symptoms. More than half (60%)
of the population in Punjab live in rice-growing areas and are exposed to air pollution due to the
burning of rice residues (Singh et al., 2008). Irritation in the eyes and congestion in the chest are
two main health issues faced by people due to crop residue burning. Even the medical records of
the civil hospital of Zira city (Ferozepur district), in the rice-wheat belt, depicted a 10 percent
increase in the patients' number within 20–25 days of the crop residue burning period every
season (Singh et al., 2008). Ravindra et al. (2019) described that crop residue burning emissions
will increase by 45% in 2050, considering 2017 the base year. In addition, crop residue burning
led to accidents on the road due to decreased visibility caused by smoke during the peak periods
of stubble burning, that is, the months of October and November.
Air pollution can result in animal deaths because inhaling carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
from polluted air can cause hemoglobin to convert to deadly hemoglobin. There can also be a
potential decrease in the yield of milk from milk-producing animals.
2.7 Role of Punjab government to restrict crop residue burning
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes stubble (crop residue) burning a crime.
Additionally, under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, it was notified as an
offence. National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a specialized body with expertise in handling
22

environmental disputes involving multi-disciplinary issues, and it has stated to every district
administration of Punjab that fines should be levied on the farmers found burning crop residues.
The NGT fines the farmers for burning the crop residues in fields; the amount varies depending
on landholding size (Singh & Zaffar, 2017). Despite being banned or penalized, the practice
continues, as farmers do not find viable alternatives to clear their fields of stubble in a short time.
The Punjab Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department has taken significant steps, such as an
80% subsidy on Crop Residue Management (CRM) Machines if renting through Custom Hiring
Services and 50% on purchasing CRM machines. Farmers will receive these machines at
subsidized prices, and the machines being provided are Super Straw Management System,
Happy Seeder, Rice Straw Chopper, Mulcher, Super Seeder, Crop Reaper, Straw rake, etc. The
state has allocated Rs. 350 crores to curb crop residue burning during harvest (Bajwa, 2023).
Even the Agricultural Department has launched an Extension drive to educate and train farmers
regarding the usage of this farm machinery. It is advertised in local newspapers to inform people
about the adverse impacts of crop residue burning on the environment and the health of humans
and animals. The District Commissioner has directed gram Panchayats to restrict crop residue
burning in Punjab. By providing subsidies and promoting new advanced machinery, the Punjab
government is taking significant strides toward restricting crop residue burning and ensuring a
greener future for farmers.
However, farmers still find this agro-machinery expensive and there is low availability of all
advanced machinery to farmers on rent from Custom Hiring Centers in Punjab as it is not
available for all farmers on time. Thus, farmers take the risk of penalty and continue with the
crop residue burning.

23

2.8 On-field composting as a substitute for crop residue burning in Punjab
Crop residue burning wastes valuable resources, as it could be a good source of carbon, bioactive compounds, feed, and energy for small industries and rural households. Instead of being
burnt in the field, the agricultural waste, i.e., crop residues, can be composted. On-field
composting is one of the strategic technologies for the sustainability of farming activities, which
could solve the critical issue of the disposal of crop residues (Pergola et al., 2018).
Composting is a biological process in which organic waste is recycled into value-added products,
i.e., compost under aerobic conditions, and this compost can be utilized for crop cultivation (Kim
Ho et al., 2022). Compost limits the transport properties of soil, prevents the erosion of
pesticides, and retain it in the porosity of soil (Woignier et al., 2016), thus enhancing soil health.
Besides agricultural lands, urban soil such as gardening soil can also benefit from this compost,
as it would provide soil nutrients and contribute to Soil Organic Carbon (SOC), etc. (Kranz et al.,
2020), so it can be a source of income for farmers.
The crop residues have been traditionally used as organic waste to prepare compost. Straw from
crops, especially rice and wheat, along with cow dung and kitchen waste, are used in compost
preparation. This compost serves as an organic manure for the soil. However, there was a steep
decline in using crop residue as household fuel for bedding and composting.
In composting, microorganisms release biochemicals to break down these raw materials
(feedstock) by undergoing several biochemical processes, including oxidation. Carbon and
nitrogen are the most essential elements required for microbial decomposition. The composting
process has four phases: mesophilic, thermophilic, cooling, and maturation. The mesophilic
24

phase is characterized by the explosive growth of mesophilic bacteria and fungi; during the
thermophilic phase, more complex compounds such as proteins, fats, and cellulose get broken
down by heat-tolerant microbes. In the cooling phase, temperatures drops, and in the maturation
phase, a series of secondary reactions take place, which cause condensation and polymerization
of the compost. Crop residue would act as a carbon energy source for microbial growth in soils
for decomposition and biological nutrient cycling (Singh Y. et al., 2004). Various factors affect
the length of the composting process, such as pH, C: N ratio of raw material, moisture,
composting technology, oxygen availability, etc. The ideal C: N ratio for the composting process
from the northwest states of India is generally considered to be around 30:1, and the C: N ratio of
crop residue, such as straw, is 75-80:1. Moreover, adequate phosphorus, potassium, and trace
minerals (calcium, iron, boron, copper, etc.) are essential to microbial metabolism, and these are
present in ample concentration in the crop residues. In addition, compost positively affects soil's
physical and chemical properties (Becker et al., 2010). So, crop residues can be used as a good
compost source.
Table 2 - The properties of rice and wheat straw
Parameter

PH

TOC (%)

C: N ratio MC (%)

Source

Rice straw

7.6

39.2

61.3:1

11.4

(Jusoh et al., 2013)

Wheat straw

7.5-9

49.6

80:1

9.33

(Lentz et al., 2016-17), (Ferraz
et al., 2020)

TOC - Total Organic Carbon, C/N ratio - Carbon/Nitrogen ratio, MC - Moisture Content
The properties of rice and wheat straw are almost the same, and they would undergo composting
similarly.
25

2.9 Awareness among farmers in Punjab regarding composting method of residue
management
Besides burning crop residues, farmers needed help finding a suitable and sustainable crop
residue management method. However, farmers are aware of the composting method but very
few farmers of Punjab have implemented it on their field (on-field composting) using on-field
compost pit. And they might be unaware of the cost savings of recycling the crop residues
through the composting process. The composting strategy of crop residue management can allow
farmers to adopt organic farming, Bioremediation, Biocontrol, and compost can be a
bioinoculant carrier (Koul et al., 2022). Hence, crop residue disposal costs are reduced, and ecofriendly and productive agricultural development is established with composting. A high quality
of compost can be produced to overcome the cost of composting (Bernal et al.,2009).
2.10 Research Gap
The awareness of the negative impact of crop residue burning on the environment and health
persists among the farmers of Punjab. However, the practice of on-field crop residue burning to
manage crop residues has been adopted on a large scale among farmers in Punjab. The main
reasons for adopting the residue-burning strategy are the high cost of removing residue from the
field as required for other alternatives (industrial use or mulching) and the short time window
between harvesting one crop and sowing the next crop (rice and wheat). There is a decrease in
the yield of crops due to N-immobilization on incorporating the crop residues directly into the
field, and farmers resist this method as well. So, farmers find crop residue burning as the
cheapest and easiest method to clear the fields before sowing the next crop in a short time
window.

26

Nevertheless, on-field composting can be an excellent alternative to crop residue burning, as it
does not require the removal of residue from the field and can be managed within a short time
window without delaying the sowing of the next crop. The on-field composting method of crop
residue management will also positively impact the environment and health.
However, the farmers are unaware of the costs of on-field composting crop residues as literature
on costs per acre related to burning and composting is not available to farmers to make a rational
decision to choose composting over burning. In this research, on-field composting costs would
be figured out for farmers of different districts of Punjab and with different landholding sizes
within each district. Various factors (inputs or outputs) would affect composting costs, such as
labor cost, the quantity of residue production, area required for a compost pit for on-field
composting, etc., which are different for farmers in all districts. So, the implications of the onfield composting process and its costs will be studied in each district of Punjab and compared
with burning costs on a per-acre basis.
In the on-field composting method, a compost pit would be dug out in the corner of the field
where crop residue collected from the field will be composted. In 4-5 months, when the compost
matures, then it can be broadcasted in the field as an organic fertilizer. By this method, the field
would be ready for the next crop in a short time interval without removing the residue away from
the field, and a valuable product would be formed from crop residues (compost), that would be
broadcasted back into the field. Using this strategy, residues of rice and wheat crops can be
managed by eco-friendly method (on-field composting) and would help to combat the adverse
impacts of crop residue burning. This research is all about the cost analysis of managing residues
of rice and wheat crops through composting in various districts of Punjab.
27

The on-field composting costs (labor and farm machinery costs) are assessed under four on-field
models: one acre, four acres, eight acres, and sixteen acres to manage the rice and wheat crop
residues for different landholding size categories in Punjab state.
Outline of the methodology of the study
Assessment of rice and wheat crop residues generated in Punjab
(Crop residue management methods)

On-field composting method

Inputs

Burning method

Revenue

Inputs

Outcomes

On-field composting models
(Variation of labor & farm machinery costs per acre)
- One-acre model
- Four-acre model

Environmental Change
(GHG emissions reduced by on-field composting method)

- Eight-acre model
- Sixteen-acre model

28

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
To achieve sustainable agriculture and the environment, it is critical to strategically handle and
reuse crop residues in various districts of Punjab to produce value-added products such as
compost from crop residues.
This research is based on secondary data that is already collected and organized for past years,
related to the rice and wheat crop residues generated in various districts of Punjab. This data is
used to develop the input and output costs of burning as well as composting crop residues.
In this project, the standard field unit considered is 1 acre size. The dimensions of a 1 acre field
are 198 ft (N-S) and 220 ft (E-W) in Punjab.

198 ft

220 ft
The dimension of an acre is 198 ft in North-South direction = 60. 3504 meters
The dimension of an acre is 220 ft in East-West direction = 67.056 meters
So, the area of an acre is 4046.856 sq. meters.
The 22 districts of Punjab (Amritsar, Barnala, Bathinda, Faridkot, Fatehgarh Sahib, Fazilka,
Ferozepur, Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Mansa, Moga, Pathankot,
Patiala, Rupnagar, S.A.S Nagar, Sangrur, SBSN, SMS, Tarn Taran) as per data available for 3
years ( 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22) are covered in this research. This study provides evidence29

based insights into the problem of crop residue management. The basic costs and benefits
analysis approach is used to estimate costs/benefits associated with the crop residue on-field
composting vs. crop residue burning to determine which crop residue management approach is
more economical, environment friendly and socially sustainable.
3.1 Objectives of the study
1) To compare the costs of the on-field composting process with that of burning in all
districts- The input and output costs of the on-field composting and burning processes
are evaluated and compared, and cost savings are analyzed. No doubt, the on-field
composting process to manage crop residues positively impact soil health, crop yield and
the environment, as compost is a good source of nutrients and supplies organic matter or
a blend of nutrients to the soil that becomes gradually available to the growing crops.
However, the main objective here is to assess on-field composting costs and compare it
with the burning costs to find out the economic benefits or losses to farmers on adopting
the on-field composting method for rice and wheat crop residue management instead of
the burning method. It further includes two sub-objectives.
a) To assess the inputs and outputs (quantity and cost) of the crop residue on-field
composting process: - During the on-field composting process, multiple inputs such
as the area under the on-field compost pit, labor for implementing the composting
process in the field, use of farm machinery for collection of crop residues and
preparation of the field for next crop, inorganic fertilizers, farm tools for digging a pit
and making a compost pile, gunny bags and inoculants will be required. Once the
compost is prepared, it can be used as organic fertilizer for the next crop, as the
30

remains of wheat and rice crops do contain certain amounts of Nitrogen, Phosphorus
and Potassium (Abbas et al., 2012), and this would lead to enhanced soil nitrogen
content, organic matter, available Phosphorus and Potash, and soil quality through
organic fertilization (Herencia et al., 2007). Adding compost in the field as organic
fertilizer would reduce the quantity and cost of inorganic fertilizer recommended for
crops. This reduction in the cost of inorganic fertilizer could vary from district to
district. In addition, rice and wheat straw compost proved to be a good nutrient source
for enhancing yield (Moharana et al., 2020), providing farmers with increased crop
productivity. Compost as a product can also be sold in the market directly to generate
revenue. Even pit sand can be used for various other purposes in fields or households
such as bedding for animals, gardening etc.
b) To assess the inputs and outputs (quantity and cost) of the crop residue burning
process: - Being the easiest but risky method for residue management, the burning
process requires less labor to clear the crop residues from the field. However, farm
machinery and farm tools are required to reduce the risk of spreading fire to other
fields and to prepare the field for the next crop. Along with this, the recommended
amount of inorganic fertilizers is applied to rice and wheat crops. The legal penalty in
monetary units for burning crop residues will be an input cost for burning crop
residues, as this practice is against the law, and this would put farmers at risk of being
caught and fined. On the other hand, the outcomes of burning crop residues would be
a decrease in soil fertility due to loss of nutrients, and also uncontrolled fire could
cause collateral damage.

31

2) To evaluate the variations of on-field composting costs with different landholding
sizes owned by farmers of Punjab - In this study, four on-field composting models
(land size with one acre, 4 acres, 8 acres, 16 acres) are examined to measure the
variations of on-field composting costs per acre. The models include multiples of 4
because, as per data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, the average
landholding of a farmer in Punjab is 3.62 hectares (approx. 8.9 acres) and these four
models could represent landholding size category of Punjab. After assessing cost savings
in the on-field composting process for 1 acre as per the first objective, the next objective
is to find whether the input costs increase or decrease per acre with an increase in the
land size of a farmer. Some factors, such as labor and machinery costs, may not increase
in direct proportion to the increase in land size. The variation in cost savings on adopting
on-field composting method with land size may differ, and this study will give an idea of
composting costs per acre related to marginal, small, medium, semi-medium and large
farmers of Punjab (Categories depending on land size).
Landholdings Size in Punjab However, implementing any new technology or method in the field would need a clear
understanding of the landholding size owned by farmers.
Table 3 - Categories of landholding size in Punjab

Size Category

1. Marginal

Landholding

Below 1 ha ( < 2.471
acres)
32

Percentage
of area (%)

Percentage
of farmers
(%)

Average size

2.36

14.13

0.60

(ha)

2. Small

1 – 2 ha ( 2.471 – 4.94
acres)

7.33

18.98

1.40

3. Semi-medium

2 – 4 ha ( 4.94 – 9.88
acres)

24.87

33.67

2.67

4. Medium

4 – 10 ha (9.88 – 24.71
acres)

43.75

27.93

5.67

5. Large

10 ha and above ( > 24.71
acres)

21.68

5.28

14.85

(Agricultural Census 2015-16, 2018)
The marginal and small farmers dominate the agriculture of all states of India except
Punjab, where the semi-medium and medium farmers largely dominate the sector. There
has been no significant change in the landholding size of Punjab state from 1995 to 2016
(Appendix D). So, the on-field composting models selected represent the categories of
land size holdings in Punjab to some extent.
There was a marginal decline in average landholding size from 3.79 ha in 1995-96 to
3.62 ha in 2015-16 (Agricultural Census 2015-16, 2018). Depending on the farmer's
landholding size, the costs of composting crop residues on the field would be impacted.
Landholding size could significantly impact labor and machinery costs to compost crop
residues.
3) To evaluate environmental changes by on-field composting crop residues instead of
burning in various districts of Punjab – Crop residue burning in Punjab emits
Particulate Matter and various GHGs with detrimental impacts on the health and climate
of the region, ultimately threatening agricultural production. The study (Yin et al., 2019)
33

showed that burning caused the most severe PM2.5 (Particulate Matter) pollution around
the rice crop harvesting season, and the amount of PM2.5, CH4, CO2, and NO2 released in
the atmosphere varies from district to district. On-field composting is expected to help
farmers, their families and society from various health issues by substituting the burning
method to manage crop residues.
The composting of organic waste is a biological process and it also leads to the formation
of CO2, CH4, NOx, etc., but the amount of these gases released depends upon the C/N
ratio and water content of organic waste (Zhang et al., 2011). Waste with a low C/N ratio
and high water content has great potential for generating GHG emissions during
composting and storage (Pang et al., 2020). The crop residues (straw) have a C/N ratio
between 60 - 80 (high) and humidity is 20 %, which is relatively low (Argun et al., 2017).
It is expected that the GHG released during an on-field composting method of residue
management would be less than that produced by burning agricultural waste. So, the
GHG emissions reduced by adopting the on-field composting method over burning will
be analyzed. As per the Canadian government, Social Costs (SC) is assessed to estimate
environmental cost savings on adopting the on-field composting method for crop residue
management.
Secondary data regarding the inputs and outputs of the on-field composting and burning
process is used to achieve the above research objectives.

34

3.2 Resources required for comparative analysis of on-field composting v/s burning of crop
residues

Crop
Residue

Compost

OPERATIONS IN
A PROCESS

Figure 2 - Operation as a Basic' Work Unit' of a Composting Process
(Adapted from Deo & Strong, 2002)
In on-field composting process, input material, i.e., straw, is routed through a specific sequence
of operations to carry out a composting process. On-field composting is completed by routing the
material (straw) through pre-defined operations performed in a sequence. Further, in a
composting operation, a set of 'tasks' is specifically sequenced, and each task takes some
specified time for its completion. The sequence of all the tasks performed in a composting
operation is also called 'procedure’ (Deo & Strong, 2002).
Based on the eight resource input categories described in the Deo & Strong, (2002) model, the
inputs and outputs of each task performed in the composting and burning processes are assessed.
Each task of the procedure involves inputs and outputs/outcomes. According to Deo & Strong,
(2002) model, the resource content of an 'Operation' can easily be categorized into a maximum
of 8 input factor categories. This model helps to highlight most of the resources in the form of
inputs and outputs. Considering the on-field composting and burning processes are based on the

35

sequence of operation of the basic unit of work, the inputs and outputs of the composting process
and burning process are shown below –
On-field composting method –
Grains are sold in the market
Crop harvesting operation
Gross Crop
residues

Crop residues can be used for fodder and other purposes
(Gross crop residues – Surplus crop residues)

Surplus crop residues
(Input for composting)

Table 4– Inputs and outputs of the on-field composting method

On-field composting method
Tasks
Inputs

Outputs

1. Pit digging

1. Decrease in area
under production
(used for pit)
2. Labor
3. Farm tools

1. Dirt/ Sand from the
pit can be used for
other purposes.

2. Collection of crop
residues

1. Labor
2. Farm machinery

3. Chopping, mixing of 1. Farm machinery
Crop residues and pit 2. Labor
filling
3. Inoculants
4. Farm tools

36

1. Suitable size of raw
waste for
composting
2. More stable
compost
3. Easy breakdown of
waste

4. Moisture the
chopped straw and
cover it with gunny
bags

1.Water
2.Labor
3.Gunny bags

-

5. Compost pit left for
3-4 months and
turning of crop
residues done for 2-3
times over the
composting period

1. Labor

1. Release of GHGs

6. Compost digging
out of the pit and
broadcasting it back
into the field

1. Labor
2. Farm tool
3. Farm machinery

1. Nutrient-rich
compost

(Source – Anecdotal information from farmers)
(Output)
Compost cycled it back into the field
Decrease in use of

Increase in yield of crop

recommended inorganic
fertilizers

On-field composting of crop residues on an individual level can be practiced in Punjab, India.
Instead of ploughing (mixing) the crop residues into the soil right away, the crop residues can be
collected from the field and decomposed in the on-field compost pit. Then compost can be
cycled back into the field to reduce the recommended dose of chemical fertilizers.
Labor is a significant input in the composting process, as it is required in each task of the residue
composting process. Following it, farm machinery is required to perform heavy duties such as
37

collecting crop residues, chopping of crop residues, broadcasting of compost in the field,
preparation of field for next crop etc. The decrease in area under production due to compost pit
would reduce the total area under production of crops per acre. Along with that, agricultural farm
tools, gunny bags and inoculants are also used as input in the on-field composting process. Water
used in the composting process is an input but will not be studied further as it does not cost
farmers, and even does not require extra effort because water passage to the compost pit would
be the same through which growing crops beside the compost pits are irrigated. Here,
recommended inorganic fertilizers would also be considered as input because, from this, the
fertilizer dose applied to crops through compost as organic fertilizer (an output) would be
subtracted to calculate net composting costs.
The output of the on-field composting process would be a nutrient-rich compost, which can
either be sold directly in the market to earn revenue or used in the same field as organic fertilizer
for upcoming crops. If compost is used as an organic fertilizer in the field, there would be a cost
reduction due to a reduction in the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers because of the
nutrients present in organic compost. In addition, using compost as a fertilizer would enhance
crop yield due to its benefits to the soil environment, such as increasing soil fertility and soil
microorganisms’ activity. The dirt or sand dug out from the pit can be used for various other
purposes, such as soil reclamation and other household requirements. The output of the onfield composting process would also release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxide, and methane.
These inputs and outputs are analyzed on a cost basis to evaluate the Net Composting Costs
(NCC) of crop residues.
38

Crop residue burning method Table 5 – Inputs and outcomes of crop residue burning method

Crop Residue Burning method
Inputs

Outcomes

1. labor

1. Loss of nutrients

2. Farm machinery

2. Collateral damage

3. Recommended inorganic

3. GHGs
•

fertilizers
4. Farm tools

Environment
pollution

5. Penalty

•

Increase in
hospital visits
by patients

Inputs assessed in the crop residue burning process are labor, farm machinery and farm tools
required to control the fire within the field. Farm machinery can also be used to prepare the field
for the next crop. The recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers would be input along with the
legal penalty cost of crop residue burning. Burning crop residues is banned in Punjab, so using
burning as a crop residue management method would involve a risk of being caught and fined or
penalized by the government. At the same time, the significant negative outcomes of residue
burning would be the instant release of GHGs, which would degrade the environment causing
environmental pollution and increasing the number of hospital patients. Crop residue burning
also causes the loss of nutrients and soil microorganisms, affecting soil health. An uncontrolled
fire could cause other collateral damage. The outcomes of crop residue burning would be a cost
to society.

39

A cost analysis of the burning process would be calculated as Net Burning Costs (NBC) of crop
residue.
To calculate the NCC and NBC of crop residues, the data is collected from several government
websites, journal articles, Punjab statistics, and Packages of practices for rice and wheat crops
published by Punjab Agricultural University.
3.3 Data Sources
Secondary data for rice and wheat crops, residues of these crops, etc. gathered and accessed by
researchers supports this research study. The secondary data collected from sources such as, –
Practice guidelines for rice crops (Package of Practices for the crops of Punjab, 2024) and wheat
crops (Package of practices for crops of Punjab, 2023-24). These packages provide information
and data related to rice and wheat crops, such as the sowing and harvesting time, amount of
recommended fertilizer, yield of crops, etc. Some organizational records and data were initially
collected for other research purposes, such as CRR (Crop-to-Residue Ratios) and SF (Surplus
Fraction) values, formulas of CR (Total Crop Residue), formulas of SR (Surplus Residue),
nutrients present in crop residues, emissions released on burning crop residues and composting
yard waste., etc., are used. Moreover, secondary data related to basic pay for labor in Punjab
districts, inorganic fertilizer cost, farm machinery rental cost, etc., are collected from government
agencies of Punjab state. The data regarding district-wise production of rice and wheat crops, the
area under crops, etc., and other such information is collected from the official website of
the Indian government website - (indiastatdistricts, 2000).
https://www.indiastatdistricts.com/Home/Login

40

3.4 The outline of the on-field composting method to manage crop residues
After harvesting one of the crops of rice-wheat crop rotation, a compost pit is dug out at a
suitable site in the field using labor and farm tool. Farmers can use a straw reaper to cut the footlong stalks of crops (left after mechanical harvesting) from the ground and later cultivator is used
to collect the residues near the pit. Then straw chopper is used on collected residues to break
down them into small pieces to make them suitable for the on-field composting process. The
composting material size must be small enough to decompose quickly and enhance the porosity
and water-holding capacity of crop residues (Woignier et al., 2016). The on-field compost pit is
filled with chopped straw, watered, and gunny bags are used to cover the pile to provide and
retain moisture for the composting process and keep it safe from animals and birds. The entire
on-field composting process will be completed within 4-5 months. It is also the time required for
the next crop of rice-wheat rotation to grow and to be ready for harvesting and residue
composting. The compost prepared is dug out from the pit using labor and farm tools and
broadcasted in the fields as an organic fertilizer before sowing the next crop, while crop residues
of the next harvested crop undergo the same procedure.
So, the compost prepared from rice crop residues will be used in the rice crop fields and compost
prepared from wheat crop residues will be used in wheat crop fields as an organic fertilizer.

41

The procedure for the on-field composting process is given below Crop sowing

Crop harvesting

Broadcasting of compost in the field before sowing

Pit digging at a suitable site

the next crop

Dug out the prepared compost

Collection of residues near the pit

Leave the covered pit for 4-5 months

Chopping straw using a chopper

Moist the straw and cover it with
wet gunny bags

Addition of any green waste or
inoculants in chopped straw
Pit filling

Figure 3 – On-field composting process
The first step in analyzing the inputs and outputs/outcomes of the composting and burning
process is to calculate the amount of rice and wheat crop residues generated in each district of
Punjab state. The amount of crop residues produced per acre is then used to assess the inputs and
outputs of the on-field composting and burning method.
3.5 Assessment of rice and wheat crop residues generated in Punjab
Crop residue generated by rice and wheat crops per year in various districts of Punjab for the
three years (2020, 2021, and 2022) is estimated by using the formula, as follows ࣁ

࡯ࡾ = ෍(࡭࢏ ) ∗ (ࢅ࢏ ) ∗ (࡯ࡾࡾ࢏ )
࢏ୀ૚

(Singh & Ranguwal, 2023)
42

Where CR = Total crop residue generated
Ai = Area under ‘ith’ crop
Yi = Average yield of ‘ith’ crop
CRRi = Crop-to-residue ratio of ‘ith’ crop
The residue generated from a particular crop depends upon three parameters viz area covered by
the crop, yield, and CRR of the crop, The data related to area under rice and wheat crops (Ai) and
yields of rice and wheat crops (Yi) in various districts of Punjab for three years (2020, 2021 and
2022) are taken from the official website (indiastatdistricts, 2000) (Appendix A). The total
production of crop residues is estimated using crop-to-residue ratios (CRR). The CRR values for
rice and wheat are taken from the study of Chauhan, (2012).
Table 6 – CRR values of rice and wheat crops
Crop

Residue type

CRR

1. Rice

Straw

1.20

2. Wheat

Straw

1.15
(Chauhan, 2012)

Using the above CRR values, gross (total) crop residue produced (tons) is calculated. For
instance, in the Amritsar district, using the CRR value from Table 6, and the area and yield of
rice and wheat crops from Appendix A, the gross crop residue generated in three years in
the Amritsar district is a) The Gross crop residue generated (tons) for rice crops in the 2019-20 year is,
= Area (Appendix A) × Yield (Appendix A) × CRR (Table 6)
= 447251 acres × 1.337057 tons/acre × 1.20 = 717600 tons,
43

b) The Gross crop residue generated (tons) for wheat crops in the 2019-20 year is,
= Area (Appendix A) × Yield (Appendix A) × CRR (Table 6)
= 464548 acres × 1.834041tons/acre × 1.15 = 979800 tons
Similarly, the amount of gross crop residues generated by rice and wheat crops for all districts of
Punjab for three years is evaluated.
These crop residues have competing uses, such as animal fodder, bioenergy production,
mulching etc. Therefore, only a particular portion of gross crop residue needs to be managed in
the field and this percentage of gross crop residue which needs to be managed is called surplus
crop residue. The surplus crop residue produced per acre in each district for rice and wheat is
required for further evaluation of variables (inputs and outputs). So, the surplus crop residues
(tons) generated in Punjab are estimated as follows.
ࣁ

ࡿࡾ = ෍(࡯ࡾ࢏ ) ∗ (ࡿࡲ࢏ )
࢏ୀ૚

(Hiloidhari et al., 2014)
where SR is Surplus Residue (tons), CRi is gross crop residue of ith crop (tons), and SF(i) is the
Surplus Fraction of ith crop.
Table 7 – SF (Surplus Fraction) mean value of rice and wheat crops
Crop

SF (mean value)

1. Rice

0.15

2. Wheat

0.09
(Kapoor, et al., 2023)

44

The Surplus Fraction (SF) value of wheat is almost half that of rice because wheat crop residues
have more competent uses than rice crop residues. Thus, more rice crop residues need to be
managed in the field. For instance, surplus crop residue for the Amritsar district is calculated
using the above equation, from which the SF value is taken (Table 7) and the CR (Gross crop
residue) is already evaluated above.
For 2019-20 year,
a) Surplus Residue (tons) for rice crop in the 2019-20 year,
= CR × SF (Table 7)
= 717600 tons × 0.15 = 107640 tons
b) Surplus Residue (tons) for wheat crop in the 2019-20 year,
= CR × SF (Table 7)
= 979800 tons × 0.09 = 88182 tons
Similarly, the amount of surplus crop residues generated by rice and wheat crops for all districts
of Punjab for three years is evaluated.
Later, all the inputs and outputs of on-field composting and burning crop residues are analyzed
based on the surplus crop residues of these crops.

45

3.6 Factors included in the on-field composting of crop residues
Various factors (inputs and outputs) are considered before implementing the on-field composting
method to manage the crop residues on the field.
Factors included in the on-field composting method
Inputs

(NCC*)

Outputs

Quantity-based

Cost-based (TICC)

Quantity-based

Cost-based (TOCR)

-Decrease in
an area under
production

- Decrease in yield
revenue

- Amount of fertilizer
added by compost

- Inorganic Fertilizer
cost reduction

- Increase in yield
of crops

- Revenue based on
increase in crop yield

- Labor

- Labor cost

-Recommended
inorganic fertilizer

- Recommended
inorganic fertilizer cost

- A nutrient-rich
compost

- Revenue generated
from selling compost

-Farm machinery

- Farm machinery
cost

- Sand as filler
for other purposes

- N/A

-Farm tools

- Farm tool cost

-Gunny bags

- Gunny bag cost

-Inoculants

- Inoculant cost

*NCC (Net Composting Costs) = TICC (Total Input Composting Costs) - TOCR (Total Output
Composting Revenue)
3.6.1 Inputs of on-field composting method – The inputs of composting crop residues are1) Decrease in an area under production (used for compost pit)- The area of an acre is
4046.856 sq. meters in Punjab, and if a small portion of a field (acre) is used for composting
46

in the form of a cylindrical pit, then the area under crop production would be decreased. This
would affect the average yield of the crop per acre.
1 acre = 4046.856 sq. meters

To calculate the surface area of the cylindrical compost pit, the formula that would be used is.
The surface area of the compost pit (circular) = πr ଶ ,
To calculate the surface area of the compost pit, a radius of the compost pit is required, which is
not known. So, the surface area under the compost pit can be calculated from the volume of
surplus crop residues to be composted.
As the formula of volume is,
Volume of compost pit (cylinder) = πr ଶ h
And the pit's height is assumed to be 1 m (below and above ground level), h = 1,
Volume of compost pit (cylinder) = πr ଶ ∗ 1 = πr ଶ
So, the value of the surface area of the compost pit will be the same as the volume of crop
residues to be filled in the compost pit, if the height of the compost pit is 1m (in total).
Volume of surplus crop residues per acre = The area under the compost pit per acre

47

Now, the volume of crop residues is calculated using the bulk density values and the mass of rice
and wheat crop surplus residues.
Bulk density = Mass/Volume (surplus straw)
The mass (surplus residue) is already calculated; rice and wheat's bulk density now depend on
the particles' size, moisture content, and compaction pressure. Rice straw with 12.8 % moisture
content and 2.5 -5 cm particle size has a mean bulk density of 43.5 kg/m3 (Gowda & Kumaran,
2014), whereas wheat straw with 8.45 % moisture content and 5-6 cm particle size has a
measured bulk density of 24.16 kg/m3 (Lam et al., 2007). The volume of these two kinds of
straws (Appendix B) is calculated using mass and bulk densities.
Volume of surplus crop residues = Mass of surplus residue per acre ÷ Density of crop residues
So, the surface area under the compost pit would be the same as the volume calculated. The area
under the compost pit for rice and wheat crop residues per acre is calculated (m2). From this, the
estimation of the decrease in area under production and decrease in rice and wheat yield
(kg/acre) is calculated.
The decrease in area under production (m2) = The area under on-field compost pit
This decrease in the area under production is further used to calculate the decrease in yield of
crops per acre due to the compost pit made on the field.
The decrease in yield of crop per acre (t/m2) = (Yield of crop per acre (without pit) ÷ area of
acre without pit (4046.856 m2)) × decrease in the area under production

48

Further, for cost analysis, this decreased yield per acre is converted into cost/acre that a farmer
would lose on making on-field compost pit for composting crop residues.
The central government always fixes Minimum Support Price (MSP) for rice and wheat crops;
{Website -(Minimum Support Price-2021-22 (MSP))}. These MSP values for rice and wheat
grains fixed by the government are the same for all districts of Punjab. The Indian government
sets the Minimum Support Price for about two dozen commodities twice per year. MSP is fixed
based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), an
apex advisory body for pricing policy under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
website- (Minimum Support Price for various crops).
Decrease in revenue generated due to decrease in yield/acre (Rupees) = Decrease in yield per
acre (t/m2) × MSP of the crop (Rs)
The decrease in the value of yield per acre is multiplied by the MSP value to estimate the cost a
farmer would use as an input per acre for implementing the composting method in the field.
2) Labor - Composting is relatively a laborious process, as labor is required to collect crop
residues in the field, shred and mix straw waste, add inoculants to enhance the composting
process, dig pits, fill pits, turn compost, etc. The labor required to compost crop residues per
acre is an estimation based on the experience of practicing farmers in Punjab (anecdotal
information). This estimation is based on the regular hours a person or labor would spend on
each task of the on-field composting process.
The total number of labors required for each crop (rice/wheat) residue composting process
per acre is estimated based on number of hours required for each task. Every district has a
different basic wage rate (Rs/day), which varies yearly. The basic wage of labor (Rs/day)
49

prevailing in each district is multiplied by the number of labors to calculate the labor cost for
the on-field composting method for residue management in each district of Punjab.
Labor cost per acre (Rs)= labor required per acre × basic wage of labor in the district (Rs/day)
The labor wage per day vary from district to district in Punjab.
3) Recommended doses of Inorganic fertilizers –As per the Package of Practices, a
recommended amount of fertilizers is required for rice crops (Website - (Package of
Practices for the crops of Punjab, 2024) and wheat crops {Website - (Package of practices
for crops of Punjab, 2023-24)} in Punjab.
The recommended fertilizer values are multiplied by the subsidized price of fertilizers fixed
by the government of Punjab every year and this subsidized price is almost the same for
every district. Hence, the cost of the recommended fertilizer (Urea, DAP, and MOP) per acre
is calculated using the subsidized inorganic fertilizer prices and the amount of inorganic
fertilizer recommended for crops.
Inorganic fertilizer cost/acre = Recommended quantity of inorganic fertilizer required by a
crop per acre × Subsidized fertilizer price (Rs)
4) Farm Machinery– A variety of farm machinery is essential in the composting process for
residue collection and field preparation. For instance, based on anecdotal information, after
harvesting one of the crops of rice-wheat crop rotation, farmers can use straw reaper to cut
stalks of the crops and cultivator to collect the residues near the pit. Then straw chopper is
used on collected residues to break down them into small pieces suitable for the on-field
composting process. Additionally, a laser leveler, Disc-harrow and cultivator are necessary to
50

prepare the field for the next crop by ploughing and tilling the soil, levelling the field, and
mixing and incorporating the broadcasted compost into the soil . A tractor would be required
to operate every tractor-drawn implement in the field.
The machinery would be the same for both rice and wheat crop residue management. Some
farmers own this machinery, while others rent it from cooperative societies. The rental cost
for this machinery is considered as part of the composting cost for a farmer and is calculated
on a per-hour basis. The number of hours each farm implement used on an acre might vary as
it depends on the type of tractor (horsepower) used. For instance, a HMT 2511 tractor (25
horsepower) needs twice the time required by an HMT 5911 (59 horsepower) tractor to
perform field operations. After collecting crop residues near the pit, the remains of crops
such as the roots are mixed with soil using rotavator with high horsepower tractor and it takes
40 minutes to perform its operation in one acre, while disc harrow or straw reaper needs 30
minutes approximately to till the soil in one acre using tractor with high horsepower (Source
– Anecdotal information from practicing farmers of Punjab).
So, keeping in mind tractors with different horsepower, each farm machinery would spend
approximately an average of one hour per acre. The government of Punjab has encouraged
the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACSs) to establish Agro Machinery
Service Centers (AMSCs) to provide farm machinery to farmers on a custom-hire basis.
Farm machinery cost/acre = number of hours farm machinery rented for the composting
process per acre × Subsidized renting prices/hour (Rs)
If one hour is the estimated time of each machinery per acre then,

51

Total farm machinery cost/acre = adding subsidized renting prices/hour (Rs) of all farm
machinery required in the on-field composting process
The subsidized machinery renting prices are fixed by these societies and are the same for all
districts of Punjab.
5) Farm tools —The key farm tool used for pit digging and filling is a hoe (spade) for both rice
and wheat crop residue management. The cost of this farm tool usage per acre is calculated
using the price of this farm tool prevailing in Punjab is considered the same for all districts.
Farm tool cost/acre (Rs) = Number of spades required per acre × Price of each spade (Rs)
6) Gunny bags – Gunny bags are made of jute and are used to store and transport grains,
potatoes, and other agricultural products in states like Punjab to prevent grain moisture,
thereby preventing the growth of bacteria and fungi. These lightweight bags do not contain
proteins and are not affected by dampness, so they cannot support insect life, website - (Top
21 Benefits of Jute and Jute Bags, 2022).
In the on-field composting process, gunny bags are used to cover the compost pit as there are
various benefits of using jute gunny bags. For example, jute bags are breathable, allowing air
circulation within a bag and preventing moisture buildup and mould and fungi growth. Jute
bags are sturdy and durable, protecting against predators, ruminants, etc. These are readily
available and cost-effective, making them a practical choice for small and large farmers. Jute
bags are eco-friendly and biodegradable, making them a sustainable option for covering
compost. The number of bags required to cover a compost pit depends on the surface area of
each gunny bag and compost pit. The surface area of the compost pit will be taken from the
above given input factor.
52

Number of gunny bags required per pit =

ୗ୳୰୤ୟୡୣ ୟ୰ୣୟ ୭୤ ୮୧୲
ୗ୳୰୤ୟୡୣ ୟ୰ୣୟ ୭୤ ୥୳୬୬୷ ୠୟ୥

The number of bags required for each pit is multiplied by the price of each bag. The
government fixed the price of each used bag weighing 580 gm at Rs 22 per bag. A new
gunny bag costs Rs 55 in the wholesale market. So, the cost of bags required per acre is
calculated using the Rs 55 price.
Gunny bag costs/acre (Rs) = Number of gunny bags required per acre × Price of
each gunny bag (Rs)
The cost input regarding gunny bags would be the same for rice and wheat crops and
even for all districts of Punjab.
7) Inoculants contain microorganisms that can help to decompose and stabilize organic
materials (raw material) into compost. They accelerate the composting process and reduce
odours, thus improving its performance. The study (Karnchanawong & Nissaikla, 2014)
revealed that mature compost can be used as a starter to improve composting, and it might
not be necessary to add commercial inoculants to facilitate composting. Moreover, straw is a
brown raw material, so N–rich materials (greens) such as grass clippings, food scraps, tea
bags, and rotten fruits and vegetables can be added to reduce the C: N ratio to the ideal level
for composting. So, farmers could prevent spending money on buying inoculants for the
composting process. Therefore, this input of composting is not included in the cost
estimation.
The Total Input Costs of Composting (TICC) is calculated by adding together the costs of all
inputs of the composting process discussed above.

53

3.6.2 Outputs of on-field composting method – The outputs of composting crop residues is the
compost that make the soil more fertile and thus reduces the amount of inorganic fertilizer
application and increases yield of crops.
1) A nutrient-rich compost – The on-field composting process would lead to the production of
a nutrient-rich product called compost. The compost can either be used in the farms to get an
increase in crop yields and cost reduction of fertilizers as discussed above or can be directly
sold in the market to generate revenue. The compost output from 1 ton of straw depends on
many factors such as moisture content, C: N ratio, decomposition rate, and volume reduction
of straw, website - (Waste and compost volume/weight conversion and process weight
reduction, 2022). If wheat straw is composted for 175 days, as much as 45 % of total weight
loss can be observed (Verma et al., 2014), the remaining 55% will be wheat straw compost.
The weight loss for rice straw compost is 60% (Dash et al., 2022) and 40% is the mass of rice
straw compost formed. It is mainly caused by the evaporation of water and the breakdown of
carbon into carbon dioxide by microorganisms.
Mass of compost formed from rice straw of 1 acre = 40 % × the mass of the crop
residue composted per acre
Mass of compost formed from wheat straw of 1 acre = 55 % × the mass of the crop
residue composted per acre
The amount of compost prepared from straw is multiplied by the price of compost prevailing in
Punjab. The price of compost in Punjab varies depending on various factors, such as the quality
of the compost, the region, local demand, and supply conditions. Additionally, prices may
change over time.
54

Revenue on selling compost per acre (Rs) = mass of compost formed from straw per acre
(kg) × Rs 40
As per the website, ( https://www.cleantech-mart.com/shop/eco-friendly-products/wasteto-wealth/gardening-corner/natural-compost-cost-rs-40-kg/.); the average price of
compost is Rs 40/kg. By using this price (Rs 40/kg), the revenue for compost is assessed.
2) Inorganic fertilizer cost reduction – Adding decomposed crop residues into the field
instead of burning will increase soil fertility, resulting the reduced amount of inorganic
fertilizer cost. The amount of nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium) present in rice
and wheat crop residues would be deposited back in the soil if composted.
The fertilizer deposited per acre by crop residue-based compost =
Amount of nutrients present in crop residue × Amount of surplus residue produced per acre
The nutrients from the compost will be deposited into the field and this will reduce the amount of
inorganic fertilizers required for the next crop. Using the percentage of nutrients present in
compost, the amount of fertilizer (Urea, Di-Ammonium Phosphate, and Muriate of Potash) that
compost would deposit back into the rice and wheat fields is assessed.
Fertilizer cost reduction would be a savings in cost for farmers by adopting composting methods
for residue management.
Fertilizer cost reduction (Rs) = Fertilizer deposited by compost × Subsidized prices of
Inorganic fertilizers (Rs)
The quantity of fertilizers deposited by compost would be multiplied by the subsidized price of
inorganic fertilizers prevailing in Punjab to calculate the fertilizer cost reduced. The subsidized
55

price of inorganic fertilizers is fixed by the Punjab government. The cost reduction of inorganic
fertilizers would differ for rice and wheat crops as the amount of nutrients present in rice and
wheat straw are different.
3) Increase in yield of crops – The organic fertilizer in the form of compost increases the crop
yield in the long run. However, in the first two years, production/yield may not increase. The
long-term use of organic fertilizer or compost leads to an increase in the productivity of
crops. This is due to higher soil nitrogen content, organic matter, available Phosphorus (P)
and Potassium (K), and enhanced soil quality due to organic fertilization (Herencia et al.,
2007). When compared, compost-treated soils have improved chemical, physical, and
microbiological properties (Tejada et al., 2006). The study (Huang et al., 2023) stated that
substituting 10 % of chemical fertilizers with rice straw would increase the yield of rice crops
by 6.3 percent. According to a study by Long et al. (2023), the yield of wheat crops with total
straw return in the field is 8.21% more than that of crops without straw return. Using this
information every year, an increase in the yield of crops in the long run in all districts of
Punjab is assessed.
For rice crops Increase in rice crop yield/acre for the particular year = 6.3% × Crop yield/acre in the
particular year (without composting)
For wheat crops –
Increase in wheat crop yield/acre for the particular year = 8.21% × Crop yield/acre in a
particular year (without composting)
56

Further, the increased percentage of yield for rice and wheat crops is multiplied by the Minimum
Support Price (MSP) of rice and wheat crops to get the increased profits.
Revenue due to increased yield/acre (Rs) = Increase in yield of crop/acre × MSP of crop (Rs)
These revenues would depend on the previous yields of crops in each district, but the percentage
increase is assumed to be the same for all districts.
The central government always fixes yearly MSP (Minimum Support Price) for rice and wheat
crops ,website - (Minimum Support Price-2021-22 (MSP)) and is same for all districts in Punjab.
As per the MSP fixed by the Government of India, there could be savings in cost to the farmer
due to increased crop productivity.
4) Use of sand from the pit – Sand from the pit can typically be used for other purposes. It can
have various practical uses in agriculture as sand can be used in construction for building
structures of agricultural fields, such as barns or irrigation systems; sand can be used to
create pathways or driveways on a farm for easy access to fields; In some cases, sand can be
used as bedding material for livestock, such as dairy buffaloes or cows; more significantly,
sand can be mixed with organic compost to create a potting mixture for home-grown plants,
which can improve aeration and drainage for potted plants. However, this sand as an output
is not evaluated for the study.

57

3.7 Factors included in the burning of crop residues
Factors included in the burning process
Inputs

Quantity-based

(NBC*)

Outcomes

Cost-based (TIBC)

Quantity-based

Cost-based (TOBC)

-Labor

- Labor cost

- Loss of soil nutrients

- N/A

-Recommended
inorganic fertilizer

-Recommended
inorganic fertilizer cost

- Collateral fire damage

- N/A

-Farm machinery

-Farm machinery
cost

-Farm tools

-Farm tool cost

-Penalty

-Penalty cost

*NBC (Net Burning Costs) = TIBC (Total Input Burning Costs) - TOBC (Total Outcome
Burning Costs)
3.7.1 Inputs of burning method – The inputs of burning crop residues are –
1) Labor—Crop residue burning is not a labor-intensive process. Labor is required to check
the residue-burning process and control the fire within the field to prevent collateral
damage. Each district's cost of labor per day is calculated for each cropping season and it
depends on the prevalent labor wage in each district of Punjab.
Labor cost per acre (Rs) = labor required per acre × basic wage/day of labor in the district (Rs)

58

2) Farm machinery – The farm machinery is required to prepare the field for the next crop,
as in the composting method. However, the farm machinery required would be different
for each crop.
The estimated costs of farm machinery are on a per-hour basis. The estimated renting
cost of farm machinery is calculated based on subsidized farm machinery renting costs
prevailing in CHC (Custom Hiring Centers) of Punjab.
Farm machinery cost/acre (Rs) = Number of hours farm machinery rented per acre ×
Subsidized rental cost (Rs/hr)
The machinery cost would be the same for all districts of Punjab but different for rice and
wheat crops.
3) Recommended inorganic fertilizers—Burning the crop residues would require the
recommended amount of inorganic fertilizers as per the package of practices for rice and
wheat cultivation in Punjab. This quantity recommendation is same for all districts of
Punjab. The amount of inorganic fertilizer required is multiplied by the subsidized
fertilizer price in the respective year to calculate the cost of inorganic fertilizers used per
acre under the burning process.
Inorganic fertilizer cost/acre (Rs) = Recommended amount of inorganic fertilizer
required for a crop per acre × Subsidized fertilizer price (Rs)
4) Farm tools — The rake is the key farm tool used in residue assemblage and burning. The
cost of this farm tool is same for all districts and its cost per acre is calculated as Farm tool cost/acre (Rs) = Number of rakes required per acre × Price of each rake (Rs)
5) Fine or legal penalty (as per the law) –Despite being legally banned, the crop residue
burning practice continues in India, as farmers do not find viable alternatives to clear
59

their fields in a short time window. Under the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution
Act, 1981, it was notified as an offence. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a
specialized body with expertise in handling multi-disciplinary environmental disputes.
Moreover, the NGT had asked every district administration of Punjab to levy fines on the
farmers found burning crop residues. These fines are per acre basis and are included as
the input cost for burning crop residues.
3.7.2 Outcomes of burning method –
1) Loss of nutrients - Mandal et al. (2004) described that about 80 % of N, 25 % of
Phosphorus, 21 % of potassium, and 4–60 % of sulphur are lost from the soil through
burning rice and wheat crop residues. According to Singh et al. (2008), nutrient loss due
to the burning of rice residues in Punjab in 2001–2002 was 973 kg of carbon, 15 kg of
Nitrogen, 1.30 kg of phosphorus, 8.5 kg of potassium, and 1.09 kg of sulphur per acre. It
also kills soil-borne deleterious pests and pathogens.
Crop residues are viable nutrient sources as about 25 % of nitrogen and phosphorus, 50 %
of sulphur, and 75 % of potassium uptake by cereal crops are retained in crop residues
(Gadde et al., 2009). While the loss of carbon and nitrogen was almost total, the loss of
phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur was partial (around 20–60 %). This cost is not
included in the cost-benefit analysis because farmers do not add fertilizer other than the
recommended amount of fertilizer to overcome soil fertility loss. Even the effect of
nutrient loss on crop yield could not be assessed. To compensate this, the increase in crop
yields by adopting composting methods has already been considered in the cost-benefit
analysis.
60

2) Collateral damage due to uncontrolled fire – Sometimes, fire in the field can cause
various accidents, such as the expansion of uncontrollable fire in neighbouring crop
fields, which still need to be harvested. Moreover, some houses are built on farms and are
at high risk of catching fire from fields. Furthermore, some crop fields are harvested, but
straws need to be collected for other uses, such as wheat straw for fodder or to sell in the
market, and such fields can easily catch fire and burn whole straw stock. This kind of
damage is difficult to assess due to the absence of the proper data and information.
3.8 Factors affecting on-field composting costs for different landholding sizes in Punjab
There are two main factors: Labor and farm machinery that could affect the costs of the on-field
composting process for different landholding sizes in Punjab.
3.8.1 Labor in Punjab
The cultivation of rice crops required more labor throughout the cropping season. Most of the
landowners preferably self-cultivate by hiring labors over leasing their lands to tenants. The
agriculture sector of Punjab generates two kinds of labor employment. Some of the operations,
such as animal care, irrigation, fertilizer, spraying the crops, etc., performed on the farm must be
attended regularly. So, in Punjab, farmers usually hire farm workers on annual wage basis by
paying them wages in advance, these labors are called contract labors. Other tasks, such as
sowing and harvesting, generate additional seasonal work, which increases the demand for casual
labor. The demand for casual labor is exceptionally high during peak farm operations (harvesting
and crop sowing of crops).

61

Total labor

Contract-based labor

Casual labor

The contract labor usually performs daily routine work as per the direction of land/farm owner.
Sometimes landowners also hire casual labor in addition to contract labor depending on the
additional labor requirement. Marginal (less than 2.5 acres) and small-sized (2.5 -5 acres) farm
owners usually fulfill the labor demand through their own family members, whereas the farmers
owning medium (10-25 acres) and large-size (above 25 acres) farms hire casual labors from the
labor market. So, the number of labors hired or contracted on a farm depends on the number of
acres a farmer owns or cultivates.
Table 8 – Percentage of households in Punjab that hired labor on a contract basis
Farm size
Acres

Percentage of households with hired contract labor (%)
None

One

Two

Three or more

contract

contract

contract labor

labor

labor

2.5 or less

99.4

0.40

0.20

-

2.5-5.0

92.95

6.51

0.36

0.18

5.0-10.0

78.68

20.62

0.35

0.35

10.0-15.0

60.34

34.91

3.88

0.86

Above 15.0

36.57

39.48

13.92

10.03

Total

79.15

16.57

02.62

01.66
(Ghuman et al., 2007)

62

Table 8 depicts a positive relationship between hiring contract-based labor and the size of
landholdings with a farmer. With the increase in the farm size with the farmer, there is an
increase in the number of contract labors hired by them. This is due to the increased agricultural
activities to be performed in fields by labors on daily basis. So, hiring contract labor on an
annual salary is not a common practice for farmers with marginal landholdings. So, the number
of casual labor a farmer needs during the on-field composting process would decrease by the
exact number of contract labor a farmer already have on an annual basis.
The number of casual labors required by farmers per acre for the on-field composting process
based on the number of contract labors already hired by various farmer categories (using Table
8) is as follows 1) Farmers with upto 2.5 acres – 99.4 % × ࢞ + 0.40 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.20 % × (࢞ -2)
2) Farmers with 2.5 - 5 acres - 92.95 % × ࢞ + 6.51 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.36 % × (࢞ -2) + 0.18
% × (࢞ -3)
3) Farmers with 5- 10 acres – 78.68 % × ࢞ + 20.62 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.35 % × (࢞ -2) + 0.35
% × (࢞ -3)
4) Farmers with 10 - 15 acres – 60.34 % × ࢞ + 34.91 % × (࢞ -1) + 3.88 % × (࢞ -2) +
0.86 % × (࢞ -3)
5) Farmers with more than 15 acres– 36.57 % × ࢞ + 39.48 % × (࢞ -1) + 13.92 % × (࢞ -2)
+ 10.03 % × (࢞ -3)
Here, ࢞ is the actual number of labor required in on-field composting process per acre.
As, 99.4 percent of marginal farmers do not hire any contract labor, so these farmers need exact
number of casual labors as required per acre to perform on-field composting. While 0.40 percent
63

of marginal farmers already have one contract labor, so the number of casual labors they require
will be one less than the farmers that do not have any contract labor (99.4 percent) and so on.
The percentage of farmers with no contract labors is further divided into two categories, one who
donot not hire any casual labor, even if required (as they can use family labor or farm machinery
instead) and the others who can hire casual labors when required.
Number of labors hired on a contract basis

None
No casual labor

One

Two

Three

(as in Table 8)

Hire casual labor (as in Table 9)

On-field composting crop residues would be a seasonal job, and the number of casual labors
engaged (hired) would depend on the number of acres owned by the farmer. Some farmers with
small landholdings with no contract labor also do not hire casual labors because they use their
family labor. On the other hand, some farmers with large landholding sizes with no contract
labor also do not hire casual labor because they use more farm machinery for their farm
operations. The percentage of households having no contract labor but hiring casual labors also
differs with landholding sizes, as shown in Table 9.

64

Table 9- Percentage of households (with no contract labor) hiring casual labor
Category of

Farm size

No contract

farmers

group (acres)

labor hired

Casual labor hired (%)

(%)
Marginal

Up to 2.5

99.4

32.4 % – Hire casual labors
67.6 %– No casual labor hired

Small

2.5 – 5.0

92.95

61.68 %– Hire casual labors
38.32 %-No casual labor hired

Semi-medium

5.0 – 10.0

78.68

43.84 %– Hire casual labors
56.16 %– No casual labor hired

Medium*

10.0 – 15.0

60.34

29.3 %– Hire casual labors
70.7 %– No casual labor hired

Medium* and

Above 15.0

36.57

Large

0 %– Hire casual labors
100 % – No casual labor hired
(Ghuman et al., 2007)

Medium* farmers own 10.0 – 25.0 acres of farmland.
In Table 9, it is depicted that 32.4 % of marginal farmers with no contract labors (99.4 %) hire
casual labors, while 67.6% of marginal farmers with no contract labors (99.4%) do not hire
casual labors, as 67.6% here use the family labor. So, the percentage of households that donot
hire casual labors would use family labor (marginal and small farmers) or use farm machinery
instead (medium and large farmers).
To clarify, it can be stated in simple words that marginal farmers that do not hire contract labors
at all are 99.4% of which 67.6% farmers even do not hire casual labors and so on. So, the above
percentage of casual labors hired (Table 9) is only for those households that do not hire contract
labors at all.
65

Percentage of households

Casual labors hired (%)
80

61.68

60
40

43.84

32.4

29.3

20

0

0
0-2.5

2.5-5.0

5.0-10.0

10.0-15.0

Above 15.0

Farm size group (acres)

Figure 4 – Percentage of households (with no contract labor) hiring casual labor
The requirement of casual labor for specific or heavy tasks such as composting would form an
inverted 'U' shape curve relationship, that is, a positive relationship between casual labors hired
and landholdings up to 10 acres and reverse after that. This is explained by farmers with 10 or
more acres hiring fewer casual labors, as they can afford farm machinery which could replace the
labor in the field (Singh & Singh, 2006). Moreover, labor efficiency is directly related to farm
size, as it is more for larger farms (Li et al., 2020).
Using the percentage of contract-based (Table 8) or casually hired labors (Table 9), the number
of labors required per acre for the on-field composting method is estimated for farmers with
different landholding sizes.
1) Marginal farmers – 32.4% of 99.4 % of households (having no contract labor) will hire
casual labor for the composting process
2) Small farmers – 61.68 % of 92.95 % of households (having no contract labor) will hire
casual labor for the composting process

66

3) Semi-medium farmers – 43.84% of 78.68 % of households (having no contract labor)
will hire casual labor for the composting process
4) Medium farmers (10- 15 acres) – 29.3% of 60.34 % of households (having no contract
labor) will hire casual labor for the composting process
5) Medium (above 15 acres) and Large farmers - 0% of 36.57 % of households (having no
contract labor) will hire casual labor for the composting process
So, the percentages of contract labor and casual labor hired are combined and used to estimate
the number of labors that a farmer with different landholdings would hire per acre, especially for
the on-field composting process to manage crop residues.
So, the labor cost per acre for on-field composting of different categories of farmers is as1) Marginal farmers – (32.4 % × 99.4 % × ࢞ ) + 0.40 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.20 % × (࢞ -2)
2) Small farmers – (61.68 % × 92.95 % × ࢞) + 6.51 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.36 % × (࢞ -2) + 0.18 %
× (࢞ -3)
3) Semi-medium farmers – (43.84 % × 78.68 % × ࢞ ) + 20.62 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.35 % × (࢞ –
2) + 0.35 % × (࢞ -3)
4) Medium farmers (10- 15 acres) – (29.3 % × 60.34 % × ࢞ ) + 34.91 % × ( ࢞ –1) + 3.88
% × (࢞ -2) + 0.86 % × (࢞ -3)
5) Medium (above 15 acres) and Large farmers– (0 % × 36.57 % × ࢞ ) + 39.48 % × (࢞ -1)
+ 13.92 % × (࢞ -2) + 10.03 % × (࢞ -3)
Here, ࢞ is the actual number of labor required in on-field composting process per acre.

67

The labor cost would be either fixed labor cost (contract-based hired labor cost) or variable cost
(casual labor cost). The labor cost of the composting process depends on the number of casually
hired (variable labor) and contract-based (fixed labor), as contract (fixed) labor would not require
paying extras for the on-field composting process. However, it would reduce the variable labor
cost as the number of casually hired workers by farmers would be decreased. As per Table 18,
(Page no. 93), in total 8 labors are required per acre for on-field composting, (࢞ = 8) so a
household already having 2 contract labors will have to hire 6 casual labors during the on-field
composting process. Hence, the variable labor cost would be decreased for the farmer, but the
actual cost (variable cost + fixed cost) would be the same for all farmers. On the other hand, a
farmer having no contract labor, may either use family labor in place of all 8 casual labors or a
combination of family labor and casual labor. So, the variable labor cost would even vary for
farmers having no contract labor depending on the number of acres they own.
3.8.2 Farm Machinery Renting in Punjab
Punjab has highly mechanized agriculture, but the economic viability of a farm determines the
machinery ownership. Most farmers with small holdings led to the development of custom-hiring
services, where farmers rent machinery for their on-farm operation.
A tractor is the most common farm machinery required in field operations and is even used to
operate other farm implements such as straw chopper, planker, straw reaper, leveler, cultivator
etc.
A field survey done in 2011-12 (Singh & Kingra, 2013) revealed that all farm size categories
except marginal farmers own tractors to operate various operations on their landholdings.
68

Table 10 - The percentage of farmers owning and renting tractors among different farmsize groups
Farm Category

Percent of farmers

Percent of farmers

(Operational holding)

owning tractors (%)

renting tractors (%)

1. Marginal (< 2.5 acres)

-

100

2. Small (2.5 – 5.0 acres)

34.78

65.22

3. Semi-medium (5-10 acres)

82

18

4. Medium (10-25 acres)

96.15

3.85

6. Large (> 25 acres)

100

(Singh & Kingra, 2013)

Percentage (%)

Percentage of owning tractors
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1

4

8

16

32

Landholdings (acres)

Figure 5 – Percentage of farmers owning tractors within different landholding sizes
The percentage of farmers owning tractors increases with the increase in number of acres they
are operating. As per Table 10, all marginal farmers of Punjab rent tractors for field operations,
while large farmers do not rent tractors. Semi-medium and medium farmers constitute more than
50% of farmers (Table 3) and 82.97% of these own tractors (Singh & Kingra, 2013)
As in Custom Hiring Centers (CHCs) such as, PACS, AMSC, and ZFS, the price for renting
implements along with tractors costs more in comparison to when only implements are rented
(without the tractor). Thus, the farmers owning tractors pay less to rent other farm implements
69

required in the on-field composting process. However, farmers with no tractors have to pay much
more to rent tractors and farm implements. In addition, the tractor's operational costs are paid by
the farmer renting the tractor.
Table 11 – Hourly renting charges of tractor and implements (Rs/hr.)

Farm machinery

Rental cost when
implement hired
without tractor

Rental cost when
implement hired
with tractor

Disc harrow

50

700

Cultivator

62.5

650

Rotavator

250

1060

Laser leveler

351.67

575

Straw chopper

250

N/A

Reaper

150

700

(Singh S. , 2017), (Singh et al., 2015)
As per Table 11, tractor ownership will make a quite big difference in the farm machinery costs
of the on-field composting process, and this depends on the number of acres a farmer owns.
If the farmer owns a tractor, then the operational charges of the tractor are Operating charges = Repair cost + Fuel cost + lubrication cost + labor cost
So, a farmer owning a tractor also pays operational costs and it is the same for a farmer renting a
tractor. Thus, the operational costs of machinery are not included in both owning and renting
tractors.
Farm machinery includes both tractors and implements used in farms.
70

Farm Machinery costs for farmers owning a tractor per hour (Rs) = Implement renting cost
Farm Machinery costs for farmers renting tractor per hour (Rs) = Tractor + Implement combined
renting cost
All marginal farmers will pay tractor + implement renting costs for the composting process while
65.22 percent of small farmers pay for combined tractor and implement renting costs. This
percentage decreases to 18 and 3.85 percent in the case of semi-medium and medium farmers
respectively, while 100 percent of large farmers will pay for only implement renting costs. In this
way, the farm machinery costs per acre differ with the size of the landholdings with the farmer.
So, the average machinery cost per acre for the on-field composting process for different
categories of farmers is as 1) Marginal farmers – 100 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs
2) Small farmers – 65.22 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs + 34.78 % × (implement
renting costs)
3) Semi-medium farmers – 18 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs + 82 % ×(Implement
renting costs)
4) Medium farmers – 3.85 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs + 96.15 % × (Implement
renting costs)
5) Large farmers –100 % × (Implement renting costs)
The labor and machinery costs per acre is calculated for four on-field composting models based
on landholding sizes with farmers.

71

3.9 Four on-field composting models
Four on-field composting models are studied in this study based on landholding sizes.
3.9.1 One-acre on-field composting model

The labor cost of a farmer owning 1 acre for on-field composting –
The labor costs would exclude the contract labor, which is already hired and is not paid extra for
performing the on-field composting process on a seasonal basis. Table 8 depicted that 99.4
percent of total farmers having 2.5 acres or less do not hire contract labor, 0.4 percent hire one
contract labor and 0.2 % hire two contract labors for agricultural operations. However, 67.6 % of
that 99.4% (those who do not hire contract labor) even do not hire casual labor (Table 9), due to
use of their family labor in performing farming operations, and the rest, 32.4% of 99.4%, who do
not have contract labor, hire casual labor as and when required. So, the number of casual labors
required would decrease by the exact number of contract labor already hired by the farmer.
The equation for calculating labor cost for a farmer with one acre would be evaluated asLabor cost (Rs/acre) – {(32.4 % × 99.4 % × ࢞) + 0.40 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.20 % × (࢞ -2)} × labor
wage (Rs/day)
࢞ in the above equation refers to the total number of labors engaged in the composting operation,
which is calculated further in chapter 4, Page no. 93.
72

The Farm machinery renting cost per acre for on-field composting –
As per Table 10, farmers with 2.5 acres or less do not own tractors, as 100% of these rent tractors
for agricultural operations. So, the equation defining farm machinery hiring costs will be
evaluated using Table 10 and Table 11.
Farm machinery cost (Rs/hr) = 100 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs
Farmers with one acre will rent farm machinery with a tractor and pay combined renting costs.
3.9.2 Four-acre on-field composting model

The labor cost per acre of a farmer owning 4 acres for on-field composting –
Table 8 states that 92.5 % of these farmers do not hire contract labor. However, 6.51% of this
category of farmers have one contract labor, 0.36% have two contract labors, and 0.18% have
three contract labors. Furthermore, Table 9 depicts that 38.32% of this 92.5 percent also do not
hire casual labor, as 61.68% of 92.5 percent farmers hire casual labors. So, the equation for
calculating labor cost for a farmer with 4 acres would be evaluated as -

73

Labor cost (Rs) – {(61.68 % × 92.95 % × ࢞) + 6.51 % × (࢞ -1) + 0.36 % × (࢞ -2) + 0.18 % × (࢞
-3)} × labor wage (Rs/day)
Here ࢞ refers to the total number of labors that would be engaged in the on-field composting
process.
The Farm machinery cost per acre for on-field composting –
Almost 34.78 percent of farmers with 4 acres own tractors (Table 10), so they will rent only farm
implements. While the rest, 65.22% rent tractors and CHCs will charge for the combined renting
price of tractor and farm implements. So, the equation would be evaluated to calculate the Farm
machinery cost per acre for farmers owning four acres.
Farm machinery cost (Rs/hr) - 65.22 % × (tractor +implement) renting costs + 34.78 % ×
(Implement renting costs)
3.9.3 Eight-acre on-field composting model

74

The labor cost per acre of a farmer owing 8 acres for on-field composting –
Table 8 states the percentage of farmers without contract labor is 78.68, of which 56.16% do not
hire casual labors either (Table 9). The percentage of farmers having one contract labor, two
contract labor and three contract labor is 20.62, 0.35 and 0.35, respectively. So, the equation for
calculating labor cost per acre for a farmer owning 8 acres would be evaluated as Labor cost (Rs)-{(43.84 % × 78.68 % × ࢞) + 20.62 % × (࢞ - 1) + 0.35 % × (࢞ -2) + 0.35 % ×
(࢞ -3) × labor wage (Rs/day)}
Here ࢞ refers to the total number of labors that would be engaged in the on-field composting
process.
The Farm machinery hiring cost per acre for on-field composting –
Most farmers with 8 acres, that is, 82% own tractors, and 18% rent tractors for field tasks (Table
10). So, the equation defining this percentage will be evaluated.
Farm machinery costs (Rs/hr) = 18 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs + 82 % ×
(Implement renting costs)

75

3.9.4 Sixteen-acre on-field composting model

The Labor cost per acre of a farmer owning 16 acres would be –
36.57 percent of farmers with 16 acres do not have contract labor (Table 8), and almost 100% of
this 36.57 percent do not hire casual labors as well due to easy access to farm machinery (Table
9). 39.8 percent of farmers have one contract labor, 13.92 percent have two contract labor, and
10.03% have three contract labors. So, the equation for calculating labor cost for a farmer with
more than 15 acres would be evaluated.
Labor cost (Rs) = (0 % × 36.57 % × ࢞) + 39.48 % × (࢞ -1) + 13.92 % × (࢞ -2) + 10.03 % ×
(࢞ -3) × labor wage (Rs/day)
Here ࢞ refers to the total number of labors that would be engaged in the composting process.

76

The Farm machinery renting cost per acre for on-field composting –
Table 10 depicts that 96.15 % farmers having 16 acres own tractors, and 3.85% of these farmers
rent tractors. So, all farmers would have to pay only for farm implement rental costs for
composting crop residues.
Farm machinery costs (Rs/hr) = 3.85 % × (tractor + implement) renting costs + 96.15 % ×
(Implement renting costs)
3.10 Release of GHGs on Burning Crop Residues
This study includes the assessment of the GHGs released during on-field composting and
burning crop residues. The difference in GHG emissions is assessed in terms of quantity and
costs and interpreted using the Social Cost of GHGs (SC–GHGs).

Figure 6 - India-wide annual mean population-weighted PM2.5 exposure due to crop residue
burning averaged from 2003 to 2019
(Lan et al., 2022)
In Figure 6, the shaded areas in April-May and October–November denote the pre-monsoon fire
season (wheat residue burning) and the post-monsoon fire season (rice residue burning),
respectively.
77

The pollution created by burning crop residue is quite different in all districts of Punjab. For
instance, districts that rank high in agricultural emissions per unit of production and more
mortalities per unit emissions are – Sangrur (includes Malerkotla), Barnala, Patiala, Moga,
Ludhiana, and Fatehgarh Sahib because they grow coarse varieties of rice, which generate more
residue to be burnt in the field. These districts, on average, are responsible for 40% of India's
total air quality impacts due to residue burning, with Patiala and Sangrur alone contributing 20
percent (Lan et al., 2022). On the other hand, districts such as Jalandhar, Kapurthala,
Hoshiarpur, Rupanagar, SBSN (Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar), and SASN (Sahibzada Ajit Singh
Nagar) collectively contributed 14%. Districts such as Fazilka, Ferozepur, Sri Muktsar Sahib,
Tarn Taran, and Faridkot have an 11% contribution to the total air quality impact of residue
burning in fields. The remaining districts – Amritsar, Bathinda, Mansa, Pathankot, and
Gurdaspur are minor contributors to the total effects (Lan et al., 2022).
No doubt, the on-field composting process also leads to the emission of GHG to some extent. In
this study, composting is assumed to be done by an aerobic process that uses bacteria that need
oxygen for the decomposition of organic matter. Aerobic composting uses organic materials,
oxygen, and water, resulting in carbon dioxide, water, and energy in the form of heat. Methane is
produced in anaerobic pockets of a compost pile, whereas Nitrous oxide is a product of
nitrification or denitrification. Even though the overall emissions of these two GHGs are low
relative to carbon dioxide, their emissions are significant because the global warming potential
(GWP) is 25 and 298 times greater than CO2 for CH4 and N2O, respectively.
The McGaughey and Gotass (1953) experiment tested that the raw materials having Carbon:
Nitrogen ratios varying from 20:1 to 80:1 can undergo composting. They found that the materials
78

having a C: N ratio between 30:1 and 35:1 have an optimum speed range of composting. Below
this range, excess nitrogen was lost, while above this range, the composting speed slowed down,
website - (The Essential Role of the Carbon - Nitrogen Ratio in Composting, 2023). Waste with
a low C/N ratio and high-water content has great potential for generating GHG emissions during
storage and composting. The nitrous oxide (N2O) emission peaked at the low C/N ratio. If the
C/N ratio is increased, GHG emissions will decrease. The C/N ratio of the straw to be composted
is 60-80:1, which is high and may not release much GHGs. The use of compost in agriculture has
a positive effect on GHG emissions (Nordahl et al., 2023) since its application as an organic
amendment provokes carbon to stay bound to soil and the content of other nutrients (Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, etc.) is typically low. While composting results in greenhouse gases, the amount
varies depending on compost maintenance (compost turning and moisture). By mass, CO2 is the
dominant compound emitted to the atmosphere during composting operations.
The emissions from on-field composting crop residues have yet to be evaluated, so the emissions
from yard waste can be assumed as emissions from composting rice and wheat straw in the field.
Yard waste (C: N ratio – 30:1) can be considered a substitute for straw waste with a high C: N
ratio. These emissions are assumed to be equivalent to straw composting emissions and are
compared with the emissions of the straw-burning process. These emissions depend on the
amount of surplus feedstock composted (surplus straw). The amount of surplus straw produced
by rice and wheat crops in all districts of Punjab for three years estimates each crop's total
emissions yearly when composted.
Further, the emissions of the straw-burning process in Punjab are already evaluated for the year
2017-18 (Singh, et al., 2020), which are compared with crop residue composting emissions.
79

The difference in GHG emitted by composting and burning methods in each district
= GHG emitted by the burning method – GHG emitted by the composting method
This difference in GHGs emitted on composting crop residues and burning crop residues is
assessed and converted into Canadian dollars (Social Cost of GHGs) (Table 12) to give an idea
of the cost benefits of climatic change after adopting the on-field composting process to manage
crop residues. The Social Cost of GHG emissions (2020 as a year of analysis) given in Table 12
is used for environmental costs.
GHG emission cost to be saved on composting crop residues is calculated (in a million $) for
each district of Punjab.
Table 12 – SC-GHG estimates (C$2021, $/ton of respective GHG)
Year

SCC/SC-CO2

SCM/SC-CH4

SCN/SC-NO2

2020

$247

$2107

$69,230

2021

$252

$2203

$70,797

2022

$256

$2300

$72,364

2023

$261

$2396

$73,932

2024

$266

$2494

$75,499

Source - (Social cost of greenhouse gas emissions, n.d.)
The above table represents annual SC-GHG estimates for use by Government of Canada
departments and agencies, effective December 12, 2022.
Environmental savings (Rs/year) – (GHG emitted by burning method – GHG emitted by onfield composting method) per year × Social Cost of GHGs each year

80

The amount of money (in Canadian dollars) that a farmer of each district could save on
substituting crop residue burning with on-field composting would be calculated.

81

Chapter 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The data for on-field composting and burning crop residues is taken for all districts of Punjab
and for three consecutive years (2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22). The assessment of data provides an
idea about the expenditures and revenue of switching from crop residue burning to the on-field
composting method if it would have done in 2020, 2021 and 2022 years. In this study, NCC (Net
Composting Costs) are compared with the NBC (Net Burning Costs) of rice and wheat crop
residues.
The amount of surplus residue produced by rice and wheat crops for each district is used to
assess the cost and benefits of the on-field composting and burning process. First, the gross crop
residue generated in each district is assessed and by using it, the surplus crop residue generated
in each district is assessed.
4.1 Assessment of crop residue generated in districts of Punjab
4.1.1 Amount of gross residue generated by rice and wheat crops
Using CRR values of crops (Table 6), area under crop production (Appendix A) and yield of
crops (Appendix A), the gross residue produced by rice and wheat crops is assessed as –
Gross residue of rice crop = Area under rice crop × Yield of rice crop × 1.20

(Chauhan, 2012)

Gross residue of wheat crop = Area under wheat crop × Yield of wheat crop × 1.15
For instance, in Ferozepur district, the gross crop residue generated in 2021 is –
Gross rice residue = 466030.6 (acre) × 1.765978 (t/acre) × 1.20 = 987600 tons
Gross wheat residue = 484563.1 (acre) × 1.995612 (t/acre) × 1.15 = 1112050 tons
82

Similarly, the gross residue of rice and wheat crop generated in all districts of Punjab in 3 years
is assessed and shown in Table 13.
Table 13 – Gross residue generated by rice and wheat crops in 3 years (tons)
Gross residue generated (tons)
2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

Sr.no.

District

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

717600

979800

740400

1035000

790800

969450

2

Barnala

630000

688850

722400

627900

661200

603750

3

Bathinda

916800

1595050

986400

1455900

994800

1321350

4

Faridkot

523200

742900

572400

676200

603600

608350

5

Fatehgarh S.

439200

430100

496800

485300

494400

333500

6

Fazilka

930000

1168400

456000

1131600

426000

1003950

7

Ferozepur

368400

1100550

987600

1112050

992400

944150

8

Gurdaspur

764400

887800

816000

966000

805200

893550

9

Hoshiarpur

374400

700350

396000

676200

349200

592250

10

Jalandhar

855600

1000500

956400

971750

896400

841800

11

Kapurthala

595200

583050

613200

558900

603600

504850

12

Ludhiana

1453200

1466250

1516800

1427150

1495200

1200600

13

Mansa

586800

1060300

693600

979800

673200

883200

14

Moga

991200

1083300

1070400

1047650

1033200

894700

15

SMS

764400

1343200

970800

1250050

919200

1140800

83

16

SBSN

301200

449650

324000

441600

330000

343850

17

Pathankot

103200

181700

126000

209300

116400

165600

18

Patiala

1113600

1283400

1257600

1336300

1209600

1043050

19

Rupanagar

172800

343850

216000

356500

202800

285200

20

SASN

126000

259900

121200

243800

135600

213900

21

Sangrur

1634400

1929700

1837200

1761800

1434000

1137350

22

Tarn Taran

848400

983250

913200

1012000

868800

915400

691363.6 920993.2

763200

898306.8 728890.9 765481.8

Average

The above table depicts that Sangrur district in 2020 and 2021 and Ludhiana district in 2022
produced the highest amount of gross residue of rice crops while Bathinda in 2022 and Sangrur
district in 2020 and 2021 produced the highest gross residue of wheat crops. This is due to the
highest area under production and yield of crops in these districts. Pathankot and SASN districts
consecutively produced the least amount of gross residues of both crops, i.e., rice and wheat for
three years as the area under crop production and yield of crops is low in these districts. In most
districts, wheat produces more crop residues than rice, and the amount of crop residue produced
per district is directly proportional to the area under production and the yield of crops.
4.1.2 Amount of surplus residue generated by rice and wheat crops
The Surplus Fraction (SF) values (Table 7) are multiplied by the gross amount of crop residues
produced (Table 13) to assess the surplus residues generated by rice and wheat crops.
Surplus residue of rice crop = Gross rice crop residue produced × 0.15
Surplus residue of wheat crop = Gross wheat crop residue produced × 0.09
84

(Kapoor, et al., 2023)

For instance, in Ferozepur district, the surplus residue produced in 2021 is –
Surplus rice residue produced = 987600 tons × 0.15 = 148140 tons
Surplus wheat residue produced = 1112050 tons × 0.09 = 100084.5 tons
In this way, the surplus crop residue produced in all districts of Punjab is assessed in Table 14
Table 14 – Surplus crop residue generated in Punjab in three years (tons)
Year (2019-20)

Year (2020-21)

Year (2021-22)

No.

Districts

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

107640

88182

111060

93150

118620

87250.5

2

Barnala

94500

61996.5

108360

56511

99180

54337.5

3

Bathinda

137520

143554.5 147960

131031

149220

118921.5

4

Faridkot

78480

66861

85860

60858

90540

54751.5

5

Fatehgarh S.

65880

38709

74520

43677

74160

30015

6

Fazilka

139500

105156

68400

101844

63900

90355.5

7

Ferozepur

55260

99049.5

148140 100084.5

148860

84973.5

8

Gurdaspur

114660

79902

122400

86940

120780

80419.5

9

Hoshiarpur

56160

63031.5

59400

60858

52380

53302.5

10

Jalandhar

128340

90045

143460

87457.5

134460

75762

11

Kapurthala

89280

52474.5

91980

50301

90540

45436.5

12

Ludhiana

217980

131962.5 227520 128443.5

224280

108054

13

Mansa

88020

95427

104040

88182

100980

79488

14

Moga

148680

97497

160560

94288.5

154980

80523

85

15

SMS

114660

120888

145620 112504.5

137880

102672

16

SBSN

45180

40468.5

48600

39744

49500

30946.5

17

Pathankot

15480

16353

18900

18837

17460

14904

18

Patiala

167040

115506

188640

120267

181440

93874.5

19

Rupanagar

25920

30946.5

32400

32085

30420

25668

20

SASN

18900

23391

18180

21942

20340

19251

21

Sangrur

245160

173673

275580

158562

215100

102361.5

22

Tarn Taran

127260

88492.5

136980

91080

130320

82386

Average

103704.5 82889.39 114480 80847.61 109333.6 68893.36

Districts that generate high or low amount of rice and wheat crop gross residues will also
generate surplus residues in same ranking, as each district is expected to have same Surplus
Fraction value or same percentage of generated residues to be managed on fields. For rice crops,
on average, the surplus residue is highest in 2021, followed by 2022 and 2020. but for wheat
crops, it is highest in 2020 and decreases with the upcoming year. Surplus residues generated by
rice crops are high in amount as compared to wheat crops, and this is due to more competitive
uses of wheat residues.
These quantities of surplus crop residue produced in each district are further assessed as surplus
residue generated per acre of the district.
4.1.3 Amount of surplus residue produced by rice and wheat crops per acre of districts
Amount of surplus residue produced by rice and wheat crops per acre = The total surplus residue
of crops produced in the district (tons) ÷ The area under production of the crop (acres)
86

For instance, the surplus residue produced per acre in Ferozepur district in 2021 is –
Surplus residue/acre of rice crop = 148140 tons (Table 14) ÷ 466030.6 acres (Appendix A)
= 0.3179 tons/acre or 317.9 kg/acres
Surplus residue/acre of wheat crop = 100084.5 tons (Table 14) ÷ 484563.1 acres (Appendix A)
= 0.2065 tons/acre or 206.5 kg/acre
In a similar way, surplus residue generated per acre of different districts is given in Table 15.
Table 15– Surplus crop residue generated per acre in 3 years (tons/acre)
2019-20

2020-21
Rice

Wheat

2021-22

Sr.no

District

Rice

Wheat

Rice

1

Amritsar

0.24067

0.189823 0.243343 0.199457 0.262322 0.186528

2

Barnala

0.33547

0.220085 0.380336 0.201141 0.345716 0.191551

3

Bathinda

0.310914 0.226936 0.337915 0.207463 0.334748 0.184606

4

Faridkot

0.273797 0.233261 0.299028 0.212318

5

Fatehgarh S.

6

Fazilka

0.295575 0.206583 0.238425

7

Ferozepur

0.19617

0.214357 0.317876 0.206546 0.320782 0.183111

8

Gurdaspur

0.26668

0.174789 0.283541

9

Hoshiarpur

0.29138

0.179637 0.302756 0.173565 0.276374 0.151696

10

Jalandhar

0.296791

0.21064

11

Kapurthala

0.301093 0.194827

0.31669

Wheat

0.191841

0.310015 0.184298 0.346244 0.207707 0.343782 0.142402
0.19863

0.18957

0.228647 0.179159

0.279948 0.176781

0.331567 0.205299 0.311478 0.176921

87

0.31626

0.193503 0.307391 0.167163

12

Ludhiana

0.3406

0.213618 0.356056 0.208171

13

Mansa

0.299338 0.225841 0.346824 0.207965 0.333057 0.186483

14

Moga

0.332431 0.224185 0.355264 0.215582 0.345182 0.183177

15

SMS

0.244222 0.228611 0.317862

16

SBSN

0.304735 0.212693 0.317741 0.207004 0.328939 0.162017

17

Pathankot

0.223738 0.165449 0.267438 0.181505 0.256013 0.153085

18

Patiala

0.28766

19

Rupanagar

0.262242 0.181505 0.325362 0.189005 0.307003 0.151424

20

SASN

0.263749 0.189324 0.265608 0.183089 0.255636 0.155504

21

Sangrur

0.343304 0.241527 0.383513 0.220513 0.364683 0.173472

22

Tarn Taran

0.279899 0.190492 0.299487

0.19711

0.289779 0.179737

Average

0.293861 0.209596 0.323663

0.2039

0.316139

0.21157

0.35085

0.17907

0.304249 0.189557

0.199763 0.325828 0.208264 0.314197

0.1627

0.17663

Surplus crop residue per acre (Table 15) is further used to assess all other inputs and outputs of
the on-field composting and burning methods.
4.2 Quantitative analysis of factors involved in the on-field composting method
4.2.1 The quantity of Inputs required in the on-field composting method
A. Decrease in the area under production due to on-field compost pit—A small portion of a
cropped field (acre) is to be used for digging an on-field compost pit and it will reduce
the area under production. This reduction in the area under production is assessed using
the volume of crop residues (Appendix B), which is assessed from the mass (surplus
residue – Table 15) and density of crop residues. A portion of the field used to make
88

compost pit is counted as an expenditure for the on-field composting process, as crop
yields decrease with the decrease in the area under production.
Volume of rice residues per acre = mass of surplus rice residues per acre ÷ density of rice
crop residues
Volume of wheat residues per acre = mass of surplus wheat residues per acre ÷ density of wheat
crop residues
For instance, the decrease in area under production per acre after making compost pit for the
Ferozepur district in 2021 is assessed –
Volume of rice residues per acre = 317.9 kg (Table 15) / 43.5 kg/m3 = 7.3074 m3
Volume of wheat residues per acre = 206.5 kg (Table 15) / 24.16 kg/m3 = 8.5490 m3
43.5 kg/m3 and 24.16 kg/m3 are bulk densities of rice and wheat straw (as mentioned on Page no.
48). Similarly, volume of crop residues is calculated for all districts of the Punjab (Appendix B).
The volume of crop residues per acre (ߨ‫ ݎ‬ଶ ℎ) = Area for compost pit per acre (ߨ‫ ݎ‬ଶ )
if h =1m, (1 m is the depth of the compost pit) then,
The area for compost pit per acre for all districts of Punjab is given in Table 16.

89

Table 16 – Area under compost pit (m2) per acre
Area under compost pit per acre (m2/acre)
No.

Districts

(2019-20)
Rice

Wheat

(2020-21)
Rice

Wheat

(2021-22)
Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

5.532649

7.856922

5.594081 8.255652

6.030382

7.720539

2

Barnala

7.711963

9.10946

8.743346 8.325357

7.947488

7.928446

3

Bathinda

7.147445

9.393062

7.768168 8.587041

7.695352

7.640991

4

Faridkot

6.294178

9.654843

6.874209 8.787999

7.28023

7.940436

5

Fatehgarh S.

7.126776

7.628222

7.959626 8.597131

7.903027

5.894129

6

Fazilka

6.794834

8.550611

5.481026 8.221436

5.256253

7.415525

7

Ferozepur

4.509662

8.872398

7.307497 8.549083

7.374294

7.579111

8

Gurdaspur

6.130568

7.234629

6.518182 7.846428

6.435596

7.317082

9

Hoshiarpur

6.698391

7.435319

6.959915 7.183988

6.353428

6.278824

10

Jalandhar

6.82279

8.718541

7.622241 8.497479

7.160415

7.322902

11

Kapurthala

6.921671

8.06403

7.270344 8.009238

7.066465

6.918987

12

Ludhiana

7.829876

8.841803

8.185195 8.616362

8.065515

7.411831

13

Mansa

6.88133

9.347715

7.972961 8.607816

7.656474

7.718676

14

Moga

7.642087

9.279165

8.166983 8.923101

7.935216

7.581835

15

SMS

5.614309

9.462366

7.307171 8.757052

6.994231

7.845882

16

SBSN

7.005401

8.803527

7.304384 8.568028

7.561812

6.705982

17

Pathankot

5.143407

6.848063

6.147999 7.512643

5.885362

6.336318

18

Patiala

6.61288

8.268353

7.490305 8.620215

7.222912

6.734279

90

19

Rupnagar

6.028552

7.512643

7.479593 7.823041

7.057532

6.267556

20

SASN

6.063199

7.836265

6.105934 7.578178

5.876694

6.436442

21

Sangrur

7.892049

9.996999

8.8164

9.127177

8.383512

7.180136

22

Tarn Taran

6.43446

7.884587

6.884759 8.158527

6.661587

7.439433

6.755419

8.675328

7.44053

7.267565

7.310835

Average

8.439581

Adopting the on- field composting method decreases the area under production for a farmer in
each district, affecting the amount of rice and wheat grains produced per acre. After removing
the composting pit area, the area left under production differs for all districts of Punjab. The
decrease in area under production per acre for every district is directly proportional to the surplus
residue produced in each district of Punjab; higher surplus residue means more area under
compost pit (keeping the height of compost pit constant), which leads to a decrease in the crop
production area by the exact dimensions. This decrease in the area under production further
decreases the yield of crops per acre.
Decrease in yield of crops per acre (kg) = {yield of crops per acre (Appendix A) (× 1000) kg /
area of an acre (m2)} × area under compost pit (m2) (Table 16)
For instance, in 2021, for Ferozepur district,
Decrease in yield of rice crops per acre (kg/m2) = (1765.978 kg /4046.856 m2) × 7.3074 m2
= 3.1888 kg/acre
Decrease in yield of wheat crops per acre (kg/m2) = (1995.612 kg /4046.856 m2) × 8.5490 m2
= 4.2157 kg/acre

91

Similarly, a decrease in crop yield per acre is calculated for all districts of Punjab in the Table 17
Table 17 - Decrease in yield of crops on making a compost pit (kg/acre)
Decrease in yield of crops (kg/acre)
2019-20
Rice

2020-21

No.

District

1

Amritsar

1.827954 3.560768 1.868773 3.931349 2.171644 3.438223

2

Barnala

3.55164

3

Bathinda

3.050708 5.089243 3.603597 4.253299 3.536356 3.367737

4

Faridkot

2.365794 5.376866 2.821919 4.454704 3.165113 3.636868

5

Fatehgarh S.

6

Fazilka

2.757126 4.217287 1.794001 3.898829 1.649877 3.171923

7

Ferozepur

1.214471 4.540679 3.188866

8

Gurdaspur

2.244401 3.019057 2.537184 3.551263 2.473299 3.088266

9

Hoshiarpur

2.679415 3.188879 2.892723

2.97694

2.410545 2.274026

10

Jalandhar

2.77986

4.384565

4.165039

3.06179

11

Kapurthala

2.86102

3.750966 3.156522 3.700166 2.981971 2.761365

12

Ludhiana

3.661076 4.509418 4.000895 4.282394 3.884751 3.168764

13

Mansa

2.827768 5.040224 3.796106 4.273904 3.500714 3.436564

14

Moga

3.48757

15

SMS

1.882312 5.164619 3.188582 4.423385 2.921318 3.550769

16

SBSN

2.930657

3.03309

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

2021-22
Rice

Wheat

4.786567 4.565143 3.998016 3.771888 3.625893

3.356491 3.783418 4.263301 3.729803

4.966571

4.47046

3.46948

3.98311

3.18615

92

4.21578

3.24743

2.00391

3.313411

3.09318

4.592725 3.760248 3.315793

4.234485 3.414686 2.593962

17

Pathankot

1.579795 2.705044 2.257182

3.25555

18

Patiala

2.611441 3.943455

3.35041

4.286225 3.115471 2.615899

19

Rupanagar

2.170326

3.340834 3.530125 2.974436 2.265872

20

SASN

2.195344 3.542069

21

Sangrur

3.719448 5.764719 4.641748 4.805203 4.197116 2.973748

22

Tarn Taran

2.472425 3.585888 2.830587 3.839391 2.650052 3.192409

Average

2.631984

3.25555

4.19179

2.2264

2.068451 2.315862

3.312596 2.062363

3.203801 4.011121

3.03406

2.38963

2.981549

The decrease in yield per acre is directly proportional to the area under the compost pit.
The decrease in crop yield for rice and wheat crops is highest in Sangrur district.
B. Labor— Labor required for one acre per crop residue composting, as per estimation is in
Table 18.
Table 18 – Estimated labor required for one acre per crop residue composting method
Tasks

Labor/acre

days

Total

Pit digging and collection of crop

2

1

2

2

1

2

Moisture and turning of compost

0.5

4

2

Leave the pit for 4-5 months

0

0

0

Pit dug out and broadcasting of

2

1

2

residues
Straw chopping, addition of inoculants
and pit filling

compost
Total

8

(Source – Anecdotal information from practicing farmers)

93

Based on the anecdotal information from farmers, the total number of labors required for
each crop residue on-field composting process is eight. This number is estimated and is
assumed to be the same for both rice and wheat crops and all districts of Punjab. No
doubt, the labor required for pit digging would not be required next year, as pit is already
dug out. But for next year same labor could be used for pit maintaince or after few years
pit site could be changed to maintain fertility of soil of field.
C. The amount of inorganic fertilizers recommended – The amount of fertilizers to be used
in crops is recommended by the agricultural experts. According to the Package of
Practices of rice, website- (Package of Practices for the crops of Punjab, 2024) and wheat
crops, website- (Package of practices for crops of Punjab, 2023-24) , the amount of
fertilizers required is shown in Table 19.
Table 19 – Inorganic fertilizer recommended for rice and wheat crops in Punjab
Sr.No.

Crop

Inorganic Fertilizer required
(kg/acre)

1.

Rice

Urea - 90
DAP- 27
MOP - 20

2.

Wheat

Urea - 110
DAP- 55
MOP - 20

(Source - (Package of Practices for the crops of Punjab, 2024) for rice crops and (Package of
practices for crops of Punjab, 2023-24) for wheat crops).

94

Urea fertilizer is the source of Nitrogen (N – 46.6%), DAP (Di-ammonium Phosphate) is a
source of Phosphorous (P - 46%) and MOP (Muriate of Potash) consists of 60-62% of Potassium
(K) as per the specifications given on the packets of fertilizers. These inorganic fertilizers would
act as an input of the on-field composting process.
D. Farm machinery – Farm machinery required in the on-field composting process for
chopping and collection of crop residues after crop harvesting, preparation of field for
next crop, broadcasting of compost in field etc., are –
Table 20 – Farm machinery required for on-field composting and preparation of fields
Machinery required for
composting crop residues
1. Straw reaper + tractor
2. Cultivator + tractor
3. Laser Leveler + tractor
4. Straw chopper
5. Rotavator + tractor
6. Disc harrow + tractor
7. Tractor
(Source – Anecdotal information from practicing farmers)
The kind of farm machinery that could be used is based on anecdotal information from farmers
of Punjab. The implements can either be rented alone or in combination with a tractor from
hiring centers. The farm machinery required is assumed to be the same for rice and wheat crops.
The tractor rental charges are added separately to operate the Straw chopper in the field (Straw
chopper + tractor combined rental charges are not found).

95

E. Farm tools - One farm tool (spade) is required per acre for digging a pit and the same
farm tool can be used to dig out compost from the pit as well.
F. Gunny bags – The dimension of each gunny bag is 94cm × 57 cm, website https://asiajute.com/jute-sack-specifications/.
Area of 1 jute bag is – 0.5358 m2
So, the number of bags used to cover one compost pit /acre is –
= Surface area under compost pit / area of one gunny bag
The surface area of the compost pit (on average) – 7.26 m2 for rice and 7.31 m2 for
wheat crop residues
= 7.26/0.5358 (rice) or 7.31/0.5358 (wheat) = 13.54 (rice) or 13.64 (wheat)
No. of bags required per acre is 13-14 bags for a pit.
4.2.2 The quantity of outputs from on-field composting method
A. Amount of fertilizers added to fields by compost - The crop residues based compost
consist of plant nutrients, which are broadcasted into the field and crops grown in the
field uptake these nutrients. There might be nutrient loss during the composting process
through leaching and emissions. During the on-field composting process, nutrient loss
through leaching will ultimately enrich the soil of the surrounding field of the on-field
compost pit. Secondly, rice and wheat straw have a high C: N ratio, which would allow
the least emission of nitrogenous (ammonia and nitrous oxide) gases during composting.
So, it is estimated that most of the nutrients present in crop residues transfer to the
compost produced out of crop residues.

96

Table 21 - Amount of nutrients present in rice and wheat crop residues
Nutrients
(g/kg of straw)
N (g/kg)

Rice Straw

Wheat Straw

7.9

6.0

P (g/kg)

1.97

0.45

K(g/kg)

17.41

23.45
(Wang et al., 2020)

Along with the above macronutrients (N, P & K), trace amounts of micronutrients such as Zinc,
Iron, Manganese, Sulphur etc., are present in rice and wheat crop straw (Shukla & Warsi, 2000).
Amount of fertilizers deposited by the crop residue compost per acre (g) = (Urea + DAP +
MOP)(g/kg of straw) × Amount of surplus crop residues produced per acre (kg)
Amount of fertilizers deposited by the rice residue compost per acre (g) = {7.9 × 2.17* (Urea) +
1.97 × 2.17* (DAP) + 17.41 × 1.67* (MOP)}(g/kg of straw) × Amount of surplus rice residue
produced per acre (kg) (Table 15)
Amount of fertilizers deposited by the wheat residue compost (g) = {6.0 × 2.17* (urea) + 0.45
× 2.17* (DAP) + 23.45 × 1.67* (MOP)}(g/kg of straw) × Amount of surplus wheat residues
produced per acre (kg) (Table 15)
* Here, 2.17, 2.17 and 1.67 are multiplying factors to convert Nitrogen to Urea, Phosphorus to
DAP and Potassium to MOP respectively.

97

Using the percentage of nutrients present in crop residues (Table 21) and the standard amount of
nutrients present in fertilizers (46.6% N in urea, 46% P in DAP and 60% K in MOP), the
fertilizers added to the field by adding compost is assessed.
For instance, for Ferozepur district in 2021 –
Amount of fertilizers equivalent of Urea, DAP and MOP deposited by the compost of rice
residue (kg/acre)
= {(7.9 × 2.17) + (1.97 × 2.17) + (17.41 × 1.67)}(g) × 0.317876 (ton/acre) (Table 15)
= 16.06294 kg/acre
Amount of fertilizers equivalent of Urea, DAP and MOP deposited by the compost of wheat
residue (kg/acre) is,
={(6.0 × 2.17) + (0.45 × 2.17) + (23.45 × 1.67)}(g) × 0.206546 (ton/acre) (Table 15)
= 10.98489 kg/acre
The amount of total fertilizer added to crops through each crop residue compost for all districts
in Table 22.
Table 22 – Amount of fertilizer added to fields from crop residue compost
Wheat (kg/acre)
2020

2021

Rice (kg/acre)

Sr.no.

District

1

Amritsar

10.09552 10.60786

2

Barnala

11.70493 10.69742 10.18742 16.95202 19.21915 17.46973

3

Bathinda

12.06934 11.03367 9.818066 15.71112 17.07556

4

Faridkot

12.40571 11.29188 10.20283 13.83552 15.11051 16.00301
98

2022

2020

2021

2022

9.92028

12.16157

12.2966

13.25566

16.9155

5

Fatehgarh S.

6

Fazilka

10.98686 10.56389 9.528361 14.93603 12.04809 11.55401

7

Ferozepur

11.40033 10.98489 9.738555 9.912894 16.06294 16.20977

8

Gurdaspur

9.295923 10.08204 9.401869 13.47588 14.32791 14.14638

9

Hoshiarpur

9.553795 9.230854

10

Jalandhar

11.20263 10.91859 9.409347 14.99748 16.75479 15.73963

11

Kapurthala

10.36164 10.29124 8.890349 15.21484 15.98127 15.53312

12

Ludhiana

11.36102 11.07134 9.523615 17.21121 17.99225 17.72918

13

Mansa

12.01107 11.06036 9.917885 15.12616 17.52573 16.83004

14

Moga

11.92299 11.46548 9.742056 16.79842 17.95222 17.44276

15

SMS

12.15839 11.25212 10.08134 12.34107 16.06223 15.37434

16

SBSN

11.31183 11.00924 8.616654 15.39889

16.0561

16.62196

17

Pathankot

8.799218

13.5142

12.93688

18

Patiala

10.62418 11.07629 8.653013 14.53607 16.46478 15.87701

19

Rupanagar

20

SASN

10.06898 9.737357 8.270318 13.32779 13.42173 12.91783

21

Sangrur

12.84535

22

Tarn Taran

10.13107 10.48306 9.559081 14.14388

Average

9.80166

9.65315

10.9

11.04663 7.573488 15.66569 17.49642

9.65315

8.06779

17.372

14.72404 15.29891 13.96576

8.141665 11.30596

10.05199 8.053312 13.25163 16.44123 15.51348

11.7277

10.7

9.225904 17.34787 19.37973 18.42818

9.2

14.5

15.1337

14.64314

16

15.6

When composted, rice residues add more fertilizers to the soil than wheat residues, and
the amount varies with the variation in surplus residue produced by each crop per acre.
99

On average, wheat residue compost deposit 9.2 to 10.9 kg of fertilizers/acre, and rice
residue compost deposit 14.5 to 16 kg of fertilizers/acre to the field.
B. Increase in crop yields on applying crop residue compost fertilizer in fields — Adding
compost as fertilizer increases the yield of crops per acre by 6.3% for rice crops (Huang
et al., 2023) and 8.21% for wheat crops (Long et al.. 2023).
Increase in rice crop yield for the particular year = 6.3% × Crop yield in a particular year with
inorganic fertilizer (no compost added) (from Appendix A)
Increase in wheat crop yield for the particular year = 8.21% × Crop yield in a particular year
with inorganic fertilizer (no compost added) (from Appendix A)
For instance, for Ferozepur district in year 2019-20 –
For Rice crop Increase in rice crop yield in 2020 (with composting) = 6.3% × 1.08907 (from Appendix A)
= 0.0686 tons/acre
For Wheat crop Increase in wheat crop yield in 2020 (with composting) = 8.21% × 2.07287 (from Appendix A)
= 0.1701 tons/acre
Similarly, the increase in crop yield for each crop and year is assessed for all districts of Punjab
in Table 23.

100

Table 23 – The quantity of crop yield increased on using crop residue compost as fertilizer
Rice (t/acre)

Wheat(t/acre)

No.

District

2020

2021

1

Amritsar

0.08417

0.090493

0.097523 0.150572 0.170579

0.161917

2

Barnala

0.117583

0.140549

0.130008 0.174504 0.173873

0.166177

3

Bathinda

0.108911

0.12521

0.125216 0.180155 0.179323

0.161306

4

Faridkot

0.095903

0.110617

0.11792

0.183721

0.167318

5

Fatehgarh S.

0.108656

0.127999

0.128453 0.146251 0.176872

0.127533

6

Fazilka

0.103555

0.089929

0.085755 0.163868 0.171006

0.156302

7

Ferozepur

0.068611

0.115529

0.119505 0.170183

0.17784

0.159854

8

Gurdaspur

0.093352

0.1051

0.104565 0.138606 0.161952

0.153564

9

Hoshiarpur

0.102024

0.112533

0.103758 0.142595 0.149316

0.132584

10

Jalandhar

0.10381

0.122593

0.116889 0.167191 0.176597

0.154767

11

Kapurthala

0.10534

0.117333

0.115028 0.154561 0.166253

0.146272

12

Ludhiana

0.119368

0.132245

0.131271 0.169518 0.179115

0.156968

13

Mansa

0.10483

0.128013

0.124628 0.179157 0.179906

0.162683

14

Moga

0.116308

0.131797

0.129202 0.177828

0.18578

0.160506

15

SMS

0.085445

0.11659

0.113961 0.181484 0.182756

0.165576

16

SBSN

0.106615

0.117923

0.122717 0.168853 0.178063

0.143253

17

Pathankot

0.078304

0.09854

0.095734 0.131294 0.154703

0.167262

18

Patiala

0.100749

0.120359

0.117514 0.158549 0.178214

0.143598

101

2022

2020

0.18514

2021

2022

19

Rupanagar

0.091822

0.119797

0.114928 0.143924 0.161723

0.133602

20

SASN

0.092332

0.098914

0.095758

0.157589

0.136254

21

Sangrur

0.120134

0.14173

0.136714 0.191788 0.190582

0.153256

22

Tarn Taran

0.097943

0.111

0.108507 0.151237 0.168972

0.156467

0.100262

0.117036

0.115252 0.162614 0.172943

0.153046

Average

0.15024

The increase in yield per acre is greater for wheat crops than rice crops because the
percentage of yield increase is high for wheat crops (8.21%). The increase in yield is due
to the micronutrients such as silicon, zinc, manganese etc., present in organic compost
generated out of crop residues (Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, it contains enzymes and
microorganisms that are not often found in inorganic fertilizers.
C. A nutrient-rich compost – The amount of compost produced per acre in 2021-22 is
calculated as –
Mass of compost formed from rice straw per acre = 40 % × the mass of the surplus crop
residue generated from per acre (Table 15)
As, on average 60 % mass is lost during rice straw composting (Liang et al., 2017, Dash
et al., 2022).

Mass of compost formed from wheat straw per acre = 55 % × the mass of the crop
surplus crop residue generated per acre (Table 15)
As, on average 45 % mass is lost during wheat straw composting (Verma et al., 2014).
102

For the Ferozepur district (in 2021-22) Compost formed per acre from rice straw = 40% × 0.320782 = 0.1283 t/acre
Compost formed per acre from wheat straw = 55% × 0.183111 = 0.1007 t/acre
Similarly, the compost formed in each district is assessed in Table 24 Table 24 – A nutrient-rich compost produced from crop residues (tons/acre), (year 2021-22)
Rice Compost

Wheat Compost

Sr.No.

Districts

(t/acre)

(t/acre)

1

Amritsar

0.104929

0.102591

2

Barnala

0.138286

0.105353

3

Bathinda

0.133899

0.101533

4

Faridkot

0.126676

0.105513

5

Fatehgarh S.

0.137513

0.078321

6

Fazilka

0.091459

0.098537

7

Ferozepur

0.128313

0.100711

8

Gurdaspur

0.111979

0.097229

9

Hoshiarpur

0.11055

0.083433

10

Jalandhar

0.124591

0.097307

11

Kapurthala

0.122956

0.091939

12

Ludhiana

0.14034

0.098488

13

Malerkotla

0.153098

0.099799

103

14

Mansa

0.133223

0.102566

15

Moga

0.138073

0.100747

16

SMS

0.1217

0.104256

17

SBSN

0.131576

0.089109

18

Pathankot

0.102405

0.084197

19

Patiala

0.125679

0.089485

20

Rupnagar

0.122801

0.083283

21

SASN

0.102254

0.085527

22

Sangrur

0.145873

0.09541

23

Tarn Taran

0.115912

0.098855

0.126456

0.097146

Average

On average, 126.456 kg of rice straw compost and 97.1 kg of wheat straw compost are
prepared per acre in 2021-22. The rice residue compost produced per acre is more than
wheat residue compost, as it depends on the amount of surplus residue produced per acre.
The compost produced per acre is calculated only for 2021-22 year, because the market
price of compost is only available for this year.

104

4.3 Quantitative analysis of factors involved in the burning method
4.3.1 The quantity of inputs required for the burning method A. Labor – As per the anecdotal information from practicing farmers, one labor is required
per acre duirng the burning process of crop residues of both rice and wheat crops. This is
an estimation and would remain the same for all districts of Punjab.
B. Recommended inorganic fertilizers – According to the Package of Practices of rice
(Package of Practices for the crops of Punjab, 2024) and wheat crops (Package of
practices for crops of Punjab, 2023-24), the amount of inorganic fertilizers required is
given in Table 25.
Table 25 – Inorganic fertilizer recommended for rice and wheat crops in Punjab
Sr.No.

Crop

Inorganic Fertilizer required
(kg/acre)

1.

Rice

Urea - 90
DAP- 27
MOP - 20

2.

Wheat

Urea - 110
DAP- 55
MOP - 20

These inorganic fertilizers are inputs required if crop residues are managed through
burning method.
C. Farm Machinery – The farm machinery used in burning crop residues would differ from
those used in the on-field composting process.
105

Table 26 – Farm machinery required in crop residue burning method and preparation of fields
Rice crop residue burning

Wheat crop residue burning

Farm Machinery

Farm Machinery

Reaper + tractor

Straw Chopper (trail type &
combo)

Disc harrow + tractor

Disc harrow + tractor

Planker + tractor

Planker + tractor

Cultivator + tractor

Cultivator + tractor

Rotavator + tractor

Rotavator + tractor

Laser Leveler + tractor

Laser leveler + tractor

-

Tractor

(Anecdotal information from practicing farmers)
Farm machinery used here is different for rice and wheat crops. Farmers can rent the farm
machinery from Custom Hiring Centres (CHC), either only farm implements or tractors
and implements. The farm machinery costs less for rice crops because (Straw reaper +
tractor) is used to cut stalks of crops from the ground after harvesting of rice crops. The
tractor renting cost is added in wheat crop residue burning process to operate the straw
chopper as renting charges of (Straw chopper + tractor) are not given. Other farm
implements are used to control fire within field and prepare field for next crop.
D. Farm tools - One farm tool (Rake) is expected to be required per acre for facilitating
burning crop residues.
E. Penalty – The amount of money fined to farmers for burning crop residues varies with the
number of acres burnt. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) impose a fine of Rs 2,500 on
crop residue burning up to two-acre land, Rs 5,000 fine to 2 to 5 acres land size, Rs 7,000
106

fine on land up to 10 acres, and Rs 15,000 fine on burning crop residues in fields above
10 acres (Singh & Zaffar, 2017).
4.3.2 The outcomes of burning method
Various nutrients and microorganisms gets destroyed during burning of crop residues, leading to
decline in soil health, which is a significant negative output of burning crop residues. However, it
is difficult to quantify the decline in soil health. In addition, other collateral damage could be
possible in burning crop residues.
The emissions of GHGs in the environment is a major outcome of the burning process.
4.4 Expected Environmental Change
The difference in GHG emitted by on-field composting and burning methods in each district =
GHG emitted by the burning method – GHG emitted by the on-field composting method
GHG emitted by the burning process The emissions of the straw-burning process in Punjab are already evaluated for the year 2017-18
(Singh, et al., 2020) in Table 27.
Table 27 - Emissions of various pollutants from burning of different crop residues in Punjab in
2017-18

Sr. No.
1

Districts
Amritsar

PM2.5
(in Gg)
6.92

CO2
(in Gg)
1386.81

CH4
(in Gg)
7.95

N2O
(in Gg)
0.57

2

Barnala

5.58

1054.03

6.45

0.43

3

Bathinda

8.04

1745.02

9.32

0.72

107

4

Faridkot

5.1

987.35

5.91

0.40

5

Fatehgarh S.

3.95

759.7

4.54

0.31

6

Fazilka

4.24

1064.12

4.91

0.44

7

Ferozepur

8.36

1601.31

9.69

0.66

8

Gurdaspur

6.77

1374.32

7.57

0.58

9

Hoshiarpur

3.66

927.1

3.96

0.39

10

Jalandhar

7.3

1436.17

8.31

0.60

11

Kapurthala

5.09

956.64

5.84

0.19

12

Ludhiana

12.09

2276.46

13.96

0.94

13

Mansa

5.33

1152.31

6.18

0.48

14

Moga

8.54

1597.03

9.89

0.65

15

SMS

7.17

1500.77

8.32

0.62

16

SBSN

2.96

611.82

3.36

0.25

17

Pathankot

0.98

225.43

1.09

0.09

18

Patiala

10.03

1948.65

11.59

0.80

19

Rupanagar

1.95

469.3

2.22

0.19

20

SASN

1.23

295.31

1.41

0.12

21

Sangrur

14.32

2723.24

16.53

1.12

22

Tarn Taran

7.54

1441.65

8.72

0.59

6.234091

1251.57

7.169091

0.506364

Average

(Singh, et al., 2020)
108

In the above table, the contributions of rice and wheat crop residues burnt among total crop
residues in Punjab are 97%, of which 70% are rice and 27% are wheat (Singh, et al., 2020).
Sangrur district emitted the highest CH4 with 16.53 Gg, with CH4 average value of 7.169 Gg for
Punjab. These GHG emissions of 2017-18 are expected to remain the same for the next 3 years
(2020, 2021 and 2022), as this is the latest and valuable data available on crop residue burning
emissions. These emissions are combined for both rice and wheat crop residue burning in a year.
GHG emitted by the on-field composting process – Rice and wheat straw composting emissions
are assumed to be similiar as that of yard waste composting emissions.
Table 28 - Yard waste composting emissions
Emission factor

kg pollutant/kg of wet feedstock

CH4

2.06 × 10–3

N2O

4.54 × 10–5

CO2

1.71 × 10–1
(Nordahl et al., 2023)

Emission factors by Nordahl et al., 2023 is applied to the combined surplus residue of rice and
wheat crops for three years and yard waste emissions and difference is evaluated by comparing
emissions from the burning process (Table 27) and the composting process (Table 28) for crop
residue management.
For instance, for Ferozepur district, the CH4 emissions difference in 2020 is assessed using both
emissions of burning process and on-field composting process on per kg basis to differentiate

109

them. The composting process emissions are already on per kg basis (Table 28), but we have
convert burning process emission on per kg basis (Table 27).
CH4 emitted by burning process per kg of crop residue =
CH4 emitted in district(kg) (Table 27) ÷ Total Surplus residue produced by both rice and wheat
crop in the district (kg) (Table 14)
= 9.69 × 106 (kg pollutant) ÷ 154309.5 × 103 kg feedstock (55260 (R) + 99049.5(W))
= 0.0628 kg pollutant/kg feedstock
CH4 emitted by composting process per kg of waste = 2.06 × 10–3 kg pollutant/kg feedstock
(Table 28)
Difference = CH4 emitted per kg of feedstock by burning process - CH4 emitted per kg of
feedstock by on-field composting process
= 60.74 × 10–3 kg pollutant/kg feedstock or 9.372 Gg in Ferozepur district
The 9.372 Gg value is calculated by multiplying the 60.74 × 10–3 kg pollutant/kg feedstock value
(calculated above) with total amount of surplus crop residue (rice + wheat) produced in
Ferozepur district (kg) (Table 14).
In similar way, the N2O and CO2 emissions reduced by substituting burning with on-field
composting crop residues in Gg is evaluated for each district in Table 29.

110

Table 29 – GHG emissions reduced by substituting the burning of crop residues with the on-field
composting method (Gg)
CH4 (Gg)

N2O (Gg)

CO2 (Gg)

No.

Districts

2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

7.546607

7.529327

7.525907

0.56111

0.560729

0.560653

1353.324

1351.89

1351.606

2

Barnala

6.127617

6.110366

6.133754

0.422895

0.422515

0.42303

1027.269

1025.837

1027.779

3

Bathinda

8.740987

8.745279

8.767629

0.707239

0.707334

0.707826

1696.956

1697.313

1699.168

4

Faridkot

5.610598

5.607761

5.6107

0.393402

0.393339

0.393404

962.4967

962.2612

962.5052

5

Fatehgarh S.

4.324547

4.296514

4.3254

0.305252

0.304634

0.30527

741.8153

739.4883

741.8861

6

Fazilka

4.406009

4.559297

4.592234

0.428893

0.432271

0.432997

1022.284

1035.008

1037.742

7

Ferozepur

9.372122

9.178658

9.208303

0.652994

0.648731

0.649384

1574.923

1558.864

1561.324

8

Gurdaspur

7.169202

7.13876

7.155529

0.571167

0.570496

0.570866

1341.05

1338.523

1339.915

9

Hoshiarpur

3.714466

3.712269

3.742294

0.384589

0.38454

0.385202

906.7183

906.5359

909.0283

10

Jalandhar

7.860127

7.83431

7.876943

0.590085

0.589516

0.590456

1398.826

1396.683

1400.222

11

Kapurthala

5.547986

5.546901

5.559888

0.183564

0.18354

0.183827

932.4

932.3099

933.388

12

Ludhiana

13.23912

13.22672

13.27539

0.924113

0.923839

0.924912

2216.62

2215.59

2219.631

13

Mansa

5.802099

5.784023

5.808236

0.471672

0.471273

0.471807

1120.941

1119.44

1121.45

14

Moga

9.382875

9.365012

9.404864

0.638824

0.63843

0.639308

1554.934

1553.451

1556.759

15

SMS

7.834771

7.788264

7.824463

0.609306

0.608281

0.609079

1460.491

1456.631

1459.636

16

SBSN

3.183564

3.178011

3.19428

0.246112

0.245989

0.246348

597.1741

596.7132

598.0636

17

Pathankot

1.024424

1.012262

1.02333

0.088555

0.088287

0.088531

219.9866

218.977

219.8958

18

Patiala

11.00796

10.95365

11.02285

0.787172

0.785976

0.787501

1900.335

1895.827

1901.571

19

Rupanagar

2.102855

2.087161

2.104459

0.187418

0.187072

0.187454

459.5758

458.2731

459.709

20

SASN

1.322881

1.327349

1.328443

0.11808

0.118178

0.118203

288.0782

288.4491

288.5399

21

Sangrur

15.6672

15.63567

15.87603

1.100985

1.10029

1.105587

2651.62

2649.002

2668.954

22

Tarn Taran

8.27555

8.250196

8.281826

0.580205

0.579646

0.580343

1404.756

1402.652

1405.277

6.784708

6.766716

6.801943

0.497892

0.497496

0.498272

1219.662

1218.169

1221.093

Average

111

The GHG emissions reduced by adopting on-field composting is approximately the same for all
years. But there is a vast difference in the emissions of the on-field composting and burning
process, and it depends on the surplus residue produced by rice and wheat crops. In addition, the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (SC-GHG) measures incremental additional damages expected
from increase in GHG emissions.
On-field composting would reduce GHG emissions emitted in crop residue burning.

112

4.5 Cost Analysis
The inputs and outputs related to the on-field composting of crop residues and burning of crop
residues are further evaluated in terms of cost.
4.5.1 Net Composting Costs (NCC)
The Net composting cost is calculated by adding the total input costs of on-field composting crop
residues and subtracting the output revenue from composting crop residues.
Net composting cost (NCC) = Total Input Composting Cost (TICC) – Total Output Composting
Revenue (TOCR)
NCC = TICC – TOCR
4.5.1.1 Total Input Composting Costs (TICC)
TICC = A decrease in yield revenue due to on-field compost pit + Labor cost + Recommended
Inorganic fertilizers cost + Farm machinery cost + Farm tool cost + Gunny bag cost + Inoculants
cost
Each input-related cost component is evaluated one by one.
A. Decrease in yield revenue due to on-field compost pit – The yield revenue decreased per
acre due to the area of the compost pit is evaluated using the decrease in the yield of crop
per acre and converting it into monetary units using Minimum Support Price (MSP) of
crops fixed by the government.

113

Table 30 – Minimum Support Price for rice and wheat crops
Year

Rice (Rs/quintal)

Wheat (Rs/quintal)

2019-20

1815

1925

2020-21

1868

1975

2021-22

1940

2015

Source – website - (Minimum Support Price-2021-22 (MSP))
The MSP may change year to year, as the table above states the MSP for rice and wheat crops
increased from 2019-20 to 2021-22.
A decrease in yield leads to a reduction in revenue/acre due to the area under the compost pit.
Therefore,
Decrease in revenue per acre (Rs) = Decrease in crop yield/acre (Table 17) × MSP of the crop
(Rs) (Table 30)
For Ferozepur district, the decrease in yield revenue per acre for wheat crop in 2020 is assessed
as follows,
Decrease in yield revenue per acre (Rs) = 4.540679 kg/acre (Table 17) × Rs 1925/quintal (Table
30) or Rs. 19.25/kg = Rs. 87.40808 per acre
Similarly, the decrease in revenue of yield is assessed for all districts in Table 31.

114

Table 31 - Decrease in yield revenue on making on-field compost pit (Rs/acre)
No

Districts

Year (2019-20)

Year (2020-21)

Year (2021-22)

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

(Rs/acre)

(Rs/acre)

(Rs/acre)

(Rs/acre)

(Rs/acre)

(Rs/acre)

1

Amritsar

33.17736

68.54478

34.90868

77.64414

42.1299

69.2802

2

Barnala

64.46226

92.14141

85.27687

78.96082

73.17462

73.06175

3

Bathinda

55.37035

97.96792

67.31519

84.00265

68.60531

67.8599

4

Faridkot

42.93917

103.5047

52.71344

87.9804

61.4032

73.28289

5

Fatehgarh S.

55.05058

64.61246

70.67426

84.20019

72.35819

40.37878

6

Fazilka

50.04184

81.18277

33.51194

77.00187

32.00761

63.91425

7

Ferozepur

22.04264

87.40808

59.56802

83.26165

63.00015

66.76523

8

Gurdaspur

40.73587

58.11685

47.3946

70.13744

47.98199

62.22855

9

Hoshiarpur

48.63138

61.38593

54.03607

58.79456

46.76457

45.82163

10

Jalandhar

50.45446

84.40287

64.80988

82.25952

59.39873

62.32758

11

Kapurthala

51.92751

72.20609

58.96384

73.07828

57.85024

55.64151

12

Ludhiana

66.44853

86.8063

74.73671

84.57729

75.36418

63.85059

13

Mansa

51.32399

97.0243

70.91126

84.40961

67.91385

69.24676

14

Moga

63.2994

95.60649

74.4045

90.70631

72.94881

66.81324

15

SMS

34.16397

99.41892

59.56271

87.36185

56.67358

71.548

16

SBSN

53.19142

86.05636

59.51728

83.63108

66.24491

52.26833

17

Pathankot

28.67329

52.0721

42.16416

64.29711

40.12796

46.66462

18

Patiala

47.39766

75.9115

62.58566

84.65295

60.44013

52.71037

115

19

Rupnagar

39.39142

62.66934

62.40678

69.71997

57.70406

45.65731

20

SASN

39.8455

68.18483

41.58915

65.42376

40.00985

48.15104

21

Sangrur

67.50799

110.9708

86.70786

94.90276

81.42405

59.92102

22

Tarn Taran

44.87452

69.02834

52.87536

75.82797

51.411

64.32704

47.77051

80.69196

59.84701

79.21964

58.86077

60.07821

Average

For rice crops, Sangrur district has a high reduction in yield revenue in all three years,
and this is due to the production of the high volume of surplus residue per acre in this
district, which leads to more area under compost pit. For wheat crops as well, Sangrur is
the district which has a higher yield revenue reduction for the same reason in years 201920 and 2020-21, but Faridkot produces a high amount of surplus residue/acre which
require more area under compost pit, thus led to the higher decrease in yield revenue (Rs.
73.28289) in the 2021-22 year. Whereas SASN, Amritsar and Pathankot have a minor
decrease in yield revenue of rice crop per acre for 2021-22, 2020-21 and 2019-20 years
respectively. Pathankot (2019-20), Hoshiarpur (2020-21) and Fatehgarh Sahib (2021-22)
have a minimum decrease in yield revenue of wheat crops when making on-field compost
pits. Thus, the revenue decreased in each district and year depends on the surplus residue
produced per acre and the MSP of crops fixed by the government each year.
B. Labor cost – For the on-field composting process, we estimated that the process needs 8
labors (8 hours workday/labor) per acre for the end-to-end composting process that
includes the collection of residues, pit digging, pit filling, turning and broadcasting of
compost (Table 18). The labor cost is calculated using the labor wages prevailing in the

116

districts of Punjab. The labor wage is fixed by the Punjab government in each district
every year.
Labor cost/ acre (Rs) = Number of labors required per acre (8) × labor wage in a district(Rs)
The data related to labor wage/day is given in Table 32.
Table 32 – The labor wage (Rs/day) and total labor cost (Rs/acre) in different districts
(2019-20)
Labor
No. Districts

wage
(Rs/day)

(2020-21)
Total
Labor
cost
(Rs/acre)

Labor
wage
(Rs/day)

(2021-22)
Total
Labor
cost
(Rs/acre)

Labor
wage
(Rs/day)

Total
Labor
cost
(Rs/acre)

1

Amritsar

500

4000

500

4000

429.17

3433.36

2

Barnala

455

3640

455

3640

500

4000

3

Bathinda

400

3200

400

3200

416.67

3333.36

4

Faridkot

447.27

3578.16

396.67

3173.36

435.83

3486.64

5

Fatehgarh S.

388.33

3106.64

408.33

3266.64

468.29

3746.32

6

Fazilka

404.17

3233.36

400

3200

458.33

3666.64

7

Ferozepur

454.17

3633.36

433.33

3466.64

441.67

3533.36

8

Gurdaspur

450

3600

455.83

3646.64

505

4040

9

Hoshiarpur

445

3560

460

3680

490

3920

10

Jalandhar

520.83

4166.64

530

4240

420

3360

11

Kapurthala

368.33

2946.64

390

3120

409.67

3277.36

12

Ludhiana

400

3200

400

3200

441.67

3533.36

13

Mansa

300

2400

300

2400

350

2800

14

Moga

488.33

3906.64

496.67

3973.36

400

3200

15

SMS

470

3760

476.67

3813.36

535.57

4284.56

117

16

SBSN

360

2880

360

2880

379.17

3033.36

17

Pathankot

350

2800

350

2800

412.5

3300

18

Patiala

410

3280

410

3280

410

3280

19

Rupnagar

298.33

2386.64

300

2400

325

2600

20

SASN

450

3600

434.58

3476.64

490.5

3924

21

Sangrur

415

3320

416.25

3330

428.33

3426.64

22

Tarn Taran

410

3280

410

3280

400

3200

417.489

3339.91

417.424

3339.39

433.971

3471.77

Average

In Table 32 above, Rupanagar district have the lowest labor cost/acre in all three years: Rs.
2386.64 in 2019-20, Rs. 2400 in 2020-21 and Rs. 2600 in 2021-22. Whereas Sri Muktsar Sahib
have the highest labor cost of Rs. 4284.56 in 2021-22, and Jalandhar is highest in the other two
years with Rs. 4240 in 2020-21 and Rs. 4166.64 in 2019-20. This labor cost would be the same
for rice and wheat crop residue for the on-field composting process.
C. Recommended Inorganic fertilizers cost – Table 19 depicts the amount of inorganic
fertilizers recommended for rice and wheat crops, and the subsidized price of inorganic
fertilizers is given in Table 33.
Table 33 - Subsidized Price of Inorganic Fertilizer in Punjab
Price INR (excluding taxes) (Rs)
Fertilizer

2020

2021

2022

Urea (45 kg)

266.50

266.50

266.50

DAP (50 kg)

1350

1700

1200

MOP (50 kg)

1700

900

900
(Source – As per dealer ‘s selling price)

118

Using the amount of inorganic fertilizers recommended (Table 19) and the subsidized price of
inorganic fertilizers fixed by the government (Table 33), the cost of inorganic fertilizers per acre
is calculated as –
Costs of recommended inorganic fertilizers/acre (Rs) = Amount of inorganic fertilizers ×
Subsidized price of inorganic fertilizers
The Inorganic fertilizer cost for rice and wheat crops in on-field composting method is given in
Table 34.
Table 34 – Inorganic fertilizer cost/acre for rice and wheat crops in on-field composting method
(Rs/acre)
Sr.No.

Crop

Inorganic
Fertilizer

Cost of fertilizers (Rs)
(2020)

(2021)

(2022)

Urea - 90

Urea – Rs. 533

Urea – Rs. 533

Urea – Rs. 533

DAP- 27

DAP – Rs. 648

DAP – Rs. 918

DAP – Rs. 729

MOP - 20

MOP – Rs. 360

MOP – Rs. 360

MOP – Rs. 680

Rs. 1541

Rs. 1811

Rs. 1942

Urea - 110

Urea – Rs. 651.4

Urea – Rs. 651.4

Urea – Rs. 651.4

DAP- 55

DAP – Rs. 1320

DAP – Rs. 1870

DAP – Rs. 1485

MOP - 20

MOP – Rs. 360

MOP – Rs. 360

MOP – Rs. 680

Rs. 2331.4

Rs. 2881.4

Rs. 2816.4

required
(kg/acre)
1.

Rice

Total
2.

Wheat

Total

The total amount of rice and wheat inorganic fertilizers (Rs/acre) is an input cost for on-field
composting costs. Wheat crops have high inorganic fertilizer costs as a higher amount of

119

inorganic fertilizer is required for this crop in comparison to rice crops. Table 33 depicts the
subsidized price of inorganic fertilizers, and Punjab farmers buy fertilizers at this rate.
However, the non-subsidized price of inorganic fertilizers (2022) is Rs 2450 for 45 kg Urea,
Rs 4073 for 50 kg DAP, and Rs. 2654 for 50 kg MOP. Using the non-subsidized price of
fertilizers, and the amount of inorganic fertilizers recommended per acre (Table 19), the total
non-subsidized cost of recommended fertilizers (2022) is calculated as Rs.8161.02 for rice
crop and Rs. 11530.79 for wheat crop.
D. Farm machinery cost– The total cost of renting farm machinery for rice and wheat crops
per hour is calculated for each district as per Primary Agricultural Credit Societies
(PACS) and Agro Machinery Service Centres (AMSCs). These organizations rent the
machinery to farmers under the cooperative societies of Punjab, Custom Hiring Centers
(CHC) and these Custom Hiring Centers fix the farm machinery renting charges in
Punjab. As per assumption and anecdotal information from farmers of Punjab, the farm
machinery required for the on-field composting process and field preparation for the next
crop (Table 20) and the farm machinery rental charges are in Table 35.
Table 35 – Farm machinery cost of on-field composting method per acre (Rs/hr)
Composting crop residues
Farm machinery

Cost (Rs/ hour)

Straw chopper

250 (+ tractor cost)

Laser Leveler + tractor

575

Disc harrow + tractor

700

Reaper + tractor

700

Cultivator + tractor

650
120

Rotavator + tractor

1060

Tractor

223.33

Total

4158.33
(Singh S., 2017),(Singh et al., 2015)

The total cost of renting farm machinery for rice or wheat crops per hour is Rs. 4158.33
per acre, assuming the same for each district (as per PACS – Primary Agricultural Credit
Societies and AMSCs – Agro Machinery Service Centres).
Straw chopper charges do not include tractor-renting charges, so tractor-renting charges
are added differently. A straw chopper cuts the stalks from the ground and chop them into
small pieces for composting in the compost pit. The reaper + tractor rental charges are
Rs.300/acre, but we need on per hour basis. So, as per anecdotal information from
farmers, on average reaper can be used on 2.3 acres in one hour, so reaper rental charges
would be Rs. 700/hour.
E. Farm tool cost – If one piece of farm tool is required per acre for the composting process,
each spade would cost Rs 240 per acre.
F. Gunny bags cost—The government fixed the cost of each used 580 gm gunny bag at Rs
22 per bag. A new gunny bag costs Rs 55 in the wholesale market. According to the area
of the compost pit, 13-14 gunny bags are required per acre.
So, the cost of bags required per acre is Rs. 770.
G. Inoculant cost—A small amount of previous compost generated could be used as an
inoculant or starter to prepare the next compost. Thus, a farmer does not need to buy an
inoculant for the composting process.
Adding costs of all on-field composting inputs, TICC is assessed in Table 36.
121

Table 36 – Total Input Composting Costs (TICC) per acre (Rs/acre)
Rice (Rs/acre)
Sr.no.

Wheat (Rs/acre)

District
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

10742.51 11014.24 10585.82 11568.27 12127.37 11487.37

2

Barnala

10413.79 10704.61

11183.5

11231.87 11768.69 12057.79

3

Bathinda

9964.7

10246.65

10512.3

10797.7

4

Faridkot

10330.43

10205.4

10658.37 11181.39 11311.07 11544.65

5

Fatehgarh S.

9871.021 10316.64 10929.01 10670.98 11400.57 11771.43

6

Fazilka

9992.732 10212.84 10808.98 10814.27 11326.73 11715.28

7

Ferozepur

10364.73 10505.54 10706.69

8

Gurdaspur

10350.07 10673.36 11198.31 11157.85 11766.51 12086.96

9

Hoshiarpur

10317.96 10713.37 11077.09 11121.12 11788.52 11950.55

10

Jalandhar

10926.42 11284.14 10529.73 11750.77 12371.99 11407.06

11

Kapurthala

9707.898 10158.29 10445.54 10518.58 11242.81 11317.73

12

Ludhiana

9975.779 10254.07 10719.05 10786.54 11334.31 11581.94

13

Mansa

9160.654 9450.241 9978.244 9996.754 10534.14 10853.98

14

Moga

10679.27 11027.09 10383.28 11501.98

15

SMS

10503.49 10852.25 11451.56 11359.15 11950.45 12340.84

16

SBSN

9642.521 9918.847 10209.93 10465.79 11013.36 11070.36

17

Pathankot

9538.003 9821.494 10450.46

18

Patiala

10036.73 10321.92 10450.77 10855.64 11414.38 11317.44

19

Rupanagar

9135.361 9441.737 9768.034 9949.039 10519.45 10630.39

122

11220.5

10351.8

11333.73 11385.95

11599.63 11584.86

12113.8

11251.54

10914.03 11331.39

20

SASN

10349.18 10497.56 11074.34 11167.91 11591.79 11956.88

21

Sangrur

10096.84 10396.04 10618.39

22

Tarn Taran

10034.2

Average

10930.7

11474.63 11471.29

10312.21 10361.74 10848.76 11405.56 11249.06

10097.01 10378.57 10640.96 10920.33 11468.34 11516.58

The average Total Input Composting Costs (TICC) for Punjab range between Rs.10,000 and
Rs.11,500, with Jalandhar being the highest for rice and wheat crops in 2019-20 and 202021. For 2021-22, the highest TICC is of Sri Muktsar Sahib (SMS), that is, Rs.11451.56 and
Rs.12340.84 for rice and wheat, respectively.
4.5.1.2 Total Output Composting Revenue (TOCR)
TOCR = Fertilizer cost reduction + Revenue due to increase in yield of crops + Pit sand taken
out of pit
Or
TOCR = Selling a nutrient-rich compost directly in the market to generate revenue, if not used
back into the field.
Farmers can either use compost in the field to increase the yield or can directly sell the compost
in the market to generate revenue.
A. Inorganic fertilizer cost reduction –
Applying compost in fields provides nutrients to the soil (Table 21) and the expenditure
on inorganic fertilizers would be reduced.

123

Table 33 depicts the subsidized price of inorganic fertilizers, and Punjab farmers buy
inorganic fertilizers at this rate.
Inorganic fertilizer cost reduction (Rs) = Quantity of inorganic fertilizer added through
composting (kg/acre) (Table 22) × subsidized price of inorganic fertilizer (Rs) (Table 33)
In Table 33 all fertilizers are added, but for cost analysis, each fertilizer is multiplied separately
with the respective subsidized price and later all fertilizer (Urea, DAP and MOP ) prices are
added and the inorganic fertilizer cost reduction through on-field composting in all districts is
shown in Table 37.
Table 37 – Total Inorganic fertilizer cost reduction per acre by on-field composting method
(using subsidized price) (Rs/acre)
Rice (Rs/acre)
Sr.No.

Wheat (Rs/acre)

District
2020

2021

2022

187.537

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

175.1702

2

Barnala

244.1698 293.1136

416.894

177.308

164.0138 274.9057

3

Bathinda

226.2965 260.4215 403.6679

182.828

169.1691 264.9386

4

Faridkot

199.2811 230.4523 381.8923 187.9234 173.1281 275.3214

5

Fatehgarh S. 225.6421

266.84

316.3301 152.9284 162.6406 267.6968

414.5617 148.4769 169.3679 204.3691

6

Fazilka

215.1324 183.7469 275.7224 166.4304 161.9665

257.121

7

Ferozepur

142.7812 244.9779 386.8265 172.6938 168.4213

262.793

8

Gurdaspur

194.101

9

Hoshiarpur

212.0789 233.3255 333.2759 144.7222 141.5283 217.7078

10

Jalandhar

216.0175 255.5294 375.6072 169.6991 167.4047 253.9094

218.5168 337.5861

124

140.816

154.5787 253.7076

11

Kapurthala

219.1482 243.7323

370.679

12

Ludhiana

247.9031

274.402

423.0852 172.0983 169.7468 256.9929

13

Mansa

217.871

267.287

401.6285 181.9454 169.5784 267.6322

14

Moga

241.9575 273.7914 416.2502 180.6111 175.7897 262.8875

15

SMS

177.7556

244.967

366.8898

184.177

16

SBSN

221.7992 244.8735

396.663

171.3532 168.7946 232.5187

17

Pathankot

162.8463 206.1066 308.7229 133.2918 148.0029 219.7013

18

Patiala

209.3715 251.1064 378.8856 160.9365 169.8227 233.4999

19

Rupanagar

190.871

250.7473 370.2104 146.2273 154.1179 217.3171

20

SASN

191.968

204.6965 308.2683 152.5263

21

Sangrur

249.8715 295.5626 439.7661 194.5832 179.8101 248.9592

22

Tarn Taran

203.7226 230.8059 349.4407 153.4668 160.7272 257.9499

Average

156.9596 157.7861 239.9043

208.4435 243.7518 371.4934

165.091

172.5184 272.0429

149.294

223.1729

164.0094 248.4113

The total cost reduction of fertilizers (Urea + DAP + MOP) depends on the subsidized
price of fertilizers fixed by the Punjab government and surplus rice and wheat residues
that would add nutrients to the soil. In most districts, the cost reduction of inorganic
fertilizers increases with the year for both rice and wheat residues. The average surplus
residue of wheat crops per acre is lowest in 2022, but the MSP of inorganic fertilizers is
higher in 2022, thus making the inorganic fertilizer cost reduction high in 2022. Sangrur
and Faridkot districts have the highest inorganic fertilizer cost reduction in 2022 for onfield composting rice and wheat residues, respectively.

125

And the non-subsidized price of inorganic fertilizers (2022) is Rs 2450 for Urea, Rs 4073
for DAP, and Rs. 2654 for MOP. Using this non-subsidized price of fertilizers, the cost
reduction of inorganic fertilizers is assessed and shown in Table 38.
Table 38- The cost reduction of inorganic fertilizers per acre by using non-subsidized prices of
inorganic fertilizers (Rs/acre)
Rice (Rs/acre)

Wheat (Rs/acre)

No.

District

Urea

DAP

MOP

Total

Urea

DAP

MOP

Total

1

Amritsar

245.2869

91.51752

404.837

741.6414

132.4674

14.86487

387.7348

535.0671

2

Barnala

323.2655

120.6117

533.5379

977.4151

136.0346

15.26516

398.1762

549.4759

3

Bathinda

313.0098

116.7852

516.6113

946.4064

131.1025

14.71171

383.7398

529.554

4

Faridkot

296.1247

110.4853

488.743

895.353

136.2403

15.28825

398.7783

550.3069

5

Fatehgarh S.

321.457

119.9369

530.5531

971.9471

101.1302

11.34836

296.0103

408.4889

6

Fazilka

213.799

79.76928

352.8675

646.4358

127.234

14.2776

372.4166

513.9282

7

Ferozepur

299.9507

111.9128

495.0577

906.9212

130.0408

14.59256

380.6321

525.2654

8

Gurdaspur

261.769

97.66708

432.0402

791.4763

125.5449

14.08806

367.4727

507.1057

9

Hoshiarpur

258.4268

96.4201

426.5241

781.371

107.7307

12.08904

315.3301

435.1499

10

Jalandhar

291.2512

108.667

480.6994

880.6176

125.6448

14.09927

367.765

507.509

11

Kapurthala

287.4297

107.2412

474.3923

869.0632

118.7145

13.32158

347.4799

479.516

12

Ludhiana

328.0663

122.4029

541.4614

991.9306

127.1706

14.27049

372.2311

513.6722

13

Mansa

311.4284

116.1952

514.0013

941.6249

132.4354

14.86128

387.6412

534.9379

14

Moga

322.7663

120.4254

532.714

975.9058

130.0875

14.59781

380.7689

525.4542

15

SMS

284.4916

106.145

469.543

860.1795

134.618

15.1062

394.0297

543.7539

16

SBSN

307.5781

114.7586

507.6464

929.9831

115.0598

12.91147

336.7825

464.7538

17

Pathankot

239.3881

89.31668

395.1014

723.8062

108.7172

12.19973

318.2175

439.1345

126

18

Patiala

293.7932

109.6154

484.895

888.3037

115.5453

12.96595

338.2036

466.7149

19

Rupanagar

287.0664

107.1056

473.7926

867.9645

107.5374

12.06734

314.7643

434.369

20

SASN

239.0356

89.18514

394.5195

722.7402

110.4351

12.39251

323.2459

446.0735

21

Sangrur

341.0008

127.2288

562.8095

1031.039

123.1952

13.82439

360.5951

497.6147

22

Tarn Taran

270.9612

101.0967

447.2116

819.2696

127.6442

14.32363

373.6173

515.5852

On average, the cost reduction of fertilizers for rice and wheat residue on-field
composting would be Rs. 833.10/acre and Rs. 474.93/acre, respectively. It is analyzed
that inorganic fertilizers cost reduction using non- subsidized price is 57% more for rice
residues and 50 % more for wheat residues if compared with inorganic fertilizer cost
reduction using subsidized price (Table 37). Thus, if the Punjab government removes
subsidies on inorganic fertilizers in future, the farmers would benefit even more if onfield composting is used as a crop residue management method.
B. Revenue based on the increase in crop yield - Table 23 shows the increase in crop yield,
and Table 30 shows the Minimum Support Price of crops, which are used to assess
farmers' revenue based on increased crop yields by using crop residue compost as organic
fertilizer in fields.
Revenue based on increase in crop yield (Rs) = Increase in crop yield × MSP of crop(Rs)
For Ferozepur district,
Revenue generated on the increase in rice yield in 2020 (Rs) = 0.0686 t/acre ×1815
(Rs/quintal) = Rs 1245/acre
Similarly, it is assessed for all districts of Punjab as shown in Table 39.

127

Table 39 – Revenue generated per acre by increased yield of crops by using crop residue
compost fertilizer (Rs/acre)
Rice (Rs/acre)
No.

District

1

Amritsar

1527.686 1690.409 1891.945 2898.512 3368.935 3262.637

2

Barnala

2134.131 2625.463 2522.164 3359.203 3433.998 3348.459

3

Bathinda

1976.733 2338.915 2429.193 3467.977 3541.631 3250.312

4

Faridkot

1740.636 2066.321 2287.653 3563.954 3628.491 3371.448

5

2020

2021

Wheat (Rs/acre)
2022

2020

2021

2022

Fatehgarh S. 1972.104 2391.024 2491.981 2815.332 3493.222 2569.797

6

Fazilka

1879.517

1679.87

1663.639 3154.452 3377.364 3149.484

7

Ferozepur

1245.296 2158.082 2318.398 3276.023 3512.333 3221.068

8

Gurdaspur

1694.343 1963.265 2028.553 2668.167 3198.545

3094.32

9

Hoshiarpur

1851.741 2102.113 2012.897 2744.949

2671.558

10

Jalandhar

1884.146 2290.031 2267.653 3218.436 3487.788 3118.547

11

Kapurthala

1911.922 2191.776 2231.535 2975.294 3283.497

12

Ludhiana

2166.537 2470.335 2546.652 3263.226 3537.514 3162.898

13

Mansa

1902.664 2391.286 2417.775 3448.782 3553.143 3278.067

14

Moga

2110.985 2461.968 2506.519 3423.188 3669.152 3234.203

15

SMS

1550.833 2177.893 2210.834 3493.571 3609.434 3336.363

16

SBSN

1935.069 2202.806 2380.702 3250.429 3516.742 2886.555

17

Pathankot

1421.211 1840.735 1857.247

18

Patiala

1828.594 2248.312 2279.768 3052.076 3519.728 2893.503
128

2527.4

2948.99

2947.39

3055.394 3370.327

19

Rupanagar

1666.567 2237.807 2229.599 2770.543 3194.039 2692.084

20

SASN

1675.826 1847.715 1857.703 2892.114 3112.373 2745.522

21

Sangrur

2180.425 2647.523

2652.26

3691.924

22

Tarn Taran

1777.671 2073.487

2105.04

2911.309 3337.189 3152.816

Average

3764

3088.103

1819.756 2186.233 2235.896 3130.312 3415.614 3083.885

Due to the high MSP of crops and increased crop yield, wheat crops generate more
revenue per acre than rice crops. This revenue seems to increase yearly for most districts,
but in year 2021 there is high revenue for wheat crops due to the high amount of surplus
wheat residue produced this year in most of the districts of Punjab. Revenue related to
yield increases yearly for rice crops. Sangrur has higher yield revenue for rice and wheat
crops, except for wheat crops in the year 2022, for which Faridkot district shows a yield
revenue of Rs. 3371.48/acre.
C. Sand - It can be used as filler for various purposes, such as fields, households and
gardening, but it is not evaluated in terms of costs.
Adding revenues of these outputs of the on-field composting process from Table 37 and
Table 39, TOCR is assessed in Table 40.
Table 40– Total Output Composting Revenue (TOCR) per acre (Rs/acre)
Rice
Sr.no.

Wheat

District
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

1702.856 1877.946 2208.275 3051.441 3531.575 3530.334

2

Barnala

2378.301 2918.577 2939.058 3536.511 3598.012 3623.365
129

3

Bathinda

2203.03

2599.336 2832.861 3650.805

3710.8

3515.251

4

Faridkot

1939.918 2296.774 2669.546 3751.878

3801.62

3646.769

Fatehgarh S. 2197.746 2657.864 2906.542 2963.809

3662.59

2774.166

3539.33

3406.605

5
6

Fazilka

2094.649 1863.617 1939.361 3320.882

7

Ferozepur

1388.077 2403.059 2705.224 3448.716 3680.754 3483.861

8

Gurdaspur

1888.444 2181.781 2366.139 2808.983 3353.123 3348.027

9

Hoshiarpur

2063.82

2335.438 2346.173 2889.671 3090.518 2889.266

10

Jalandhar

2100.164

2545.56

11

Kapurthala

2131.071 2435.509 2602.214 3132.254 3441.283 3187.294

12

Ludhiana

2414.44

13

Mansa

2120.535 2658.573 2819.404 3630.727 3722.722 3545.699

14

Moga

2352.942

15

SMS

1728.589 2422.859 2577.724 3677.748 3781.952 3608.406

16

SBSN

2156.868

17

Pathankot

1584.057 2046.842

18

Patiala

2037.966 2499.419 2658.654 3213.012 3689.551 3127.003

19

Rupanagar

1857.438 2488.554 2599.809

2916.77

3348.157 2909.401

20

SASN

1867.794 2052.411 2165.972

3044.64

3261.667 2968.695

21

Sangrur

2430.296 2943.086 3092.026 3886.507

22

Tarn Taran

1981.394 2304.293

Average

2643.26

3388.135 3655.193 3372.457

2744.737 2969.737 3435.324

2735.76

2447.68

3707.26

3419.891

2922.769 3603.799 3844.941 3497.091

2777.365 3421.782 3685.536 3119.074
2165.97

2454.48

2660.692 3203.397 3590.028

3943.81

3337.062

3064.776 3497.916 3410.766

1940.017 2324.334 2606.972 3152.124 3423.987 3313.504

130

Sangrur district has high TOCR for rice residues for all three years and wheat residues in 2020
and 2021. For 2022, the Faridkot district has a high TOCR with Rs. 3646.769, and Fatehgarh
Sahib has the lowest with Rs. 2774.166 per acre. There is an increase in TOCR every year for
rice crops, and the year 2021 depicts a high TOCR in wheat crops.
TOCR is higher for wheat crops because of the increased revenue based on the yield of crops
(high MSP) and the inorganic fertilizer cost reduction is less (due to less percent of nutrient
present in wheat straw in comparison to rice straw).
Revenue generation by selling nutrient-rich compost to market –
Table 24 depicts the amount of compost produced by crop residues of rice and wheat crops per
acre in 2021-22 at the market rate of Rs 40/kg is based on the website - https://rur.cleantechmart.com/index.php/product/natural-compost-cost-rs-40-kg/. So, farmers have an option to sell
compost in the market instead of using it in their fields.
Compost price per acre (Rs) = Amount of compost produced × Price of compost
For instance, the rice compost price for the Ferozepur district
= 0.128313 t/acre (Table 24) × Rs 40/kg = Rs 5132.5
Similarly, calculations are made for each district of Punjab in Table 41.

131

Table 41 – The revenue generated per acre by farmers by selling compost in the market for each
district in the year 2021-22 (Rs/acre)
Revenue (Rs/acre)
Sr.no.

Districts

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

4197.146

4103.621

2

Barnala

5531.452

4214.128

3

Bathinda

5355.965

4061.339

4

Faridkot

5067.04

4220.501

5

Fatehgarh S.

5500.507

3132.847

6

Fazilka

3658.352

3941.5

7

Ferozepur

5132.508

4028.449

8

Gurdaspur

4479.175

3889.175

9

Hoshiarpur

4421.986

3337.321

10

Jalandhar

4983.649

3892.269

11

Kapurthala

4918.26

3677.58

12

Ludhiana

5613.599

3939.536

13

Malerkotla

6123.919

3991.948

14

Mansa

5328.906

4102.631

15

Moga

5522.91

4029.897

16

SMS

4867.984

4170.243

17

SBSN

5263.021

3564.363

18

Pathankot

4096.212

3367.88

132

19

Patiala

5027.147

3579.404

20

Rupnagar

4912.042

3331.331

21

SASN

4090.179

3421.098

22

Sangrur

5834.924

3816.386

23

Tarn Taran

4636.464

3954.207

5058.225

3885.855

Average

On average, rice residue compost revenue is Rs. 5058.225, while wheat residue produces
compost which costs Rs. 3885.855 per acre.
So, even if farmers do not want to use crop residue compost in their fields, they have the option
to sell it in the market directly and earn revenue per acre. TOCR is found to be lower than a
farmer's revenue per acre on selling nutrient-rich compost in the market.
But, if a farmer chooses to sell the compost in the market, the input costs of on-field composting
will not be the same as studied earlier because input costs may include transporting costs, storage
and maintenance costs to carry compost from the field to the market. Therefore, market revenue
based assessment is not considered to assess the Net composting cost.
So, to calculate Net Composting Costs,
NCC = TICC– TOCR
Therefore, NCC is calculated using Table 36 and Table 40 and is shown in Table 42.

133

Table 42 – Net Composting Cost (NCC) per acre for rice and wheat crop residues
Rice (Rs/acre)
Sr.No.

Wheat (Rs/acre)

Districts
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

9039.651 9136.293 8377.545 8516.834 8595.799 7957.036

2

Barnala

8035.491

7786.03

3

Bathinda

7761.67

7647.309 7679.434 7146.893 7622.933 7870.699

4

Faridkot

8390.512

7908.63

7988.828 7429.517 7509.451 7897.884

5

Fatehgarh S.

7673.274

7658.78

8022.466 7707.174 7737.981 8997.263

6

Fazilka

7898.082 8349.225 8869.616 7493.391 7787.402

7

Ferozepur

8976.656 8102.479 8001.466 7771.782 7918.878 8100.994

8

Gurdaspur

8461.622 8491.583 8832.173 8348.864 8413.384 8738.931

9

Hoshiarpur

8254.142 8377.928 8730.922 8231.445 8698.007 9061.286

10

Jalandhar

8826.261

11

Kapurthala

7576.827 7722.785 7843.326 7386.323 7801.525 8130.437

12

Ludhiana

7561.339

13

Mansa

7040.119 6791.668

7158.84

6366.027 6811.418 7308.277

14

Moga

8326.327 8291.335

7460.51

7898.178 8268.855 7754.452

15

SMS

8774.905 8429.393

8873.84

7681.401

16

SBSN

7485.653 7471.167

7432.57

7044.004 7327.825 7951.284

17

Pathankot

7953.946 7774.653 8284.488

18

Patiala

7998.762 7822.497 7792.117 7642.629 7724.832 8190.437

19

Rupanagar

7277.924 6953.183 7168.225 7032.269 7171.293 7720.986

8738.58

7509.33

134

8244.447 7695.361 8170.679 8434.427

8308.68

7886.469 8362.637 8716.797 8034.601

7749.317 7351.212 7627.047 8162.049

7691.11

8168.5

7710.63

8732.432

7741.366

20

SASN

8481.382 8445.148 8908.368 8123.275 8330.126 8988.186

21

Sangrur

7666.542 7452.952 7526.368 7044.194 7530.823 8134.229

22

Tarn Taran

8052.811 8007.912 7907.261 7783.982 7907.642 7838.291

Average

7717.996 7602.994 7684.287 7293.413 7545.732 7828.445

Figure 7 - The Total Cost of Composting rice crop residues for 3 years
NCC for rice crop residues – On an average basis, the NCC of rice residues is approximately
the same for all years and the values remain between Rs 7600 – Rs 7800. The Amritsar district
has high NCC in 2020 and 2021, while for 2022 year, SASN has high on-field composting costs
(Rs.8908.368). Mansa district has the lowest NCC in all 3 years.

135

Figure 8 - The Total Cost of Composting wheat crop residues for 3 years
NCC for wheat crop residues - Meanwhile, 17 (more than half) districts of Punjab have high onfield composting costs for wheat residues in 2022, with the Hoshiarpur district being the highest,
with Rs. 9061.286. The Amritsar district in 2020 and Jalandhar district in the 2021 year have
high on-field composting costs of Rs. 8516.834 and Rs. 8716.797, respectively. Mansa district
has the lowest on-field composting cost for wheat residues for all three years. The average values
of NCC increase with the upcoming year and these values range between Rs 7200 – Rs 7850.
The difference in NCC of rice and wheat crop residues is due to the amount of surplus residue
produced by them, as it directly or indirectly affects the input and output costs of these crop
residues. Moreover, the values of the MSP of crops and the recommended amount of inorganic
fertilizers differ for both crops which makes a huge difference in the Net Composting Costs of
both crop residues. NCC differs within districts due to prevailing labor wages, and different
amounts of the surplus residue produced by crops within districts of Punjab. Even nutrient-rich
compost prices differ in districts, and this is due to the compost produced by different amounts of
surplus crop residues generated.
136

What if, in a scenario, a farmer sells the compost made up of these crop residues into the market
instead of using it in the field? Outputs such as cost reduction of fertilizers and an increase in
crop yield would not be achieved. However, the farmers would generate more revenue from
selling the compost in the market (depending on the market demand). However, the positive
effects, such as enrichment and improving soil's physical, biological, and chemical properties of
soil, would not be achieved. Moreover, selling compost into the market would depend on the
demand for compost and would include other inputs than those mentioned above in TICC, such
as transport, storage and maintenance of compost.
4.5.2 Net Burning Costs (NBC)
The Net Burning Costs are assessed by adding the inputs to the crop residue burning process and
subtracting the total outcomes of burning crop residues.
Net Burning Costs = Total Input Burning Costs(TIBC) – Total Outcome Burning Costs(TOBC)
NBC = TIBC – TOBC
4.5.2.1 Total Outcome Burning Costs (TOBC)
Total Outcome Burning Cost (TOBC) = Nutrient loss + Collateral damage
TOBC could not be evaluated in terms of costs but it can make a huge difference as an outcome
of the burning method, if all the required data could be available.
So,

NBC = TIBC– TOBC

As the total outcomes of the burning process are not evaluated in terms of cost.
So, NBC = TIBC
137

4.5.2.2 Total Input Burning Costs (TIBC)
Total Input Burning Costs (TIBC) = Labor cost + Recommended inorganic fertilizer cost + Farm
machinery cost + Farm tool cost + Penalty cost related to crop residue burning
A. Labor cost—Only one labor is expected to be required per acre for burning crop residues
so the labor costs are the same as the labor wage per day in all districts of Punjab.
For burning method,
Labor cost/acre (Rs) = Labor wage/day in a district (Rs)
Table 43 shows labor cost per acre in the district of Punjab.
Table 43 – The labor cost of burning rice and wheat crop residues per acre in different districts

No. Districts

(2019-20)

(2020-21)

(2021-22)

Labor wage

Labor wage

Labor wage

(Rs/day)

(Rs/day)

(Rs/day)

1

Amritsar

500

500

429.17

2

Barnala

455

455

500

3

Bathinda

400

400

416.67

4

Faridkot

447.27

396.67

435.83

5

Fatehgarh S.

388.33

408.33

468.29

6

Fazilka

404.17

400

458.33

7

Ferozepur

454.17

433.33

441.67

8

Gurdaspur

450

455.83

505

9

Hoshiarpur

445

460

490

10

Jalandhar

520.83

530

420

11

Kapurthala

368.33

390

409.67

12

Ludhiana

400

400

441.67

138

13

Mansa

300

300

350

14

Moga

488.33

496.67

400

15

SMS

470

476.67

535.57

16

SBSN

360

360

379.17

17

Pathankot

350

350

412.5

18

Patiala

410

410

410

19

Rupnagar

298.33

300

325

20

SASN

450

434.58

490.5

21

Sangrur

415

416.25

428.33

22

Tarn Taran

410

410

400

417.489

417.424

433.971

Average

The above table depicted that Rupanagar district has the lowest labor wage in all three years,
with Rs. 298.33/day in 2019-20, Rs. 300/day in 2020-21 and Rs. 325/day in 2021-22. The
variation in labor wages in districts over the years varies, as some districts show an increase
in wages while others show a decline. In Patiala district, it remains constant. This cost is
added as an input cost in the burning method of residue management, which is relatively low
compared to the composting method's labour cost.
B. Recommended inorganic fertilizers cost – As per Table 34, the total cost of using the
recommended fertilizer for rice crops per acre is Rs. 1541, Rs. 1811, and Rs. 1942 for
2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively (Package of Practices for the crops of
Punjab, 2024). The total cost of using recommended inorganic fertilizer for wheat crops
per acre is Rs. 2331.4, Rs. 2881.4, and Rs. 2816.4 for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22
respectively (Package of practices for crops of Punjab, 2023-24). The input costs of
139

recommended inorganic fertilizers applied in the burning process of crop residues are the
same as those required for composting crop residues. High amounts of inorganic
fertilizers are recommended for wheat crops, raising their cost compared to rice crops.
C. Farm machinery cost – Custom Hiring Centers rent farm machinery to farmers to use it in
their fields. The total cost related to renting farm machinery for burning of crop residues
is given in Table 44.
Table 44 – Farm machinery costs of burning method and preparation of fields per acre (Rs/hour)
Rice crop residue burning (per

Wheat crop residue burning (per

hour basis)

hour basis)

Farm machinery

Cost

Farm machinery

(Rs/hour)
Straw reaper +

700

(Rs/hour)
Straw Chopper (trail

250 (+ tractor

type & combo)

cost)

Disc harrow +

700

tractor
Disc harrow +

Cost

700

tractor

tractor

Planker + tractor

300

Reaper + tractor

700

Cultivator + tractor

650

Cultivator + tractor

650

Rotavator + tractor

1060

Rotavator + tractor

1060

Laser Leveler +

575

Laser leveler +

575

tractor

tractor

Tractor

-

Tractor

223.33

Total

3985

Total

4158.33

(Singh S., 2017), (Singh et al., 2015)
The farm machinery related cost per hour after rice and wheat residue burning is Rs. 3985
and Rs. 4158.33, respectively. These costs are subsidized rates under the cooperative
societies of Punjab (Custom Hiring Centers—CHC). The farm machinery costs are less
140

for rice crops because (Straw reaper + tractor) is used to cut stalks of crops from the
ground after harvesting of rice crops. Farmers do not gain any revenue from chopping
and collecting rice straw. They directly burn rice crops remains, so straw chopper is not
required after rice crop harvesting. The straw chopper used in wheat crops does not
include tractor-renting charges, so tractor-renting charges are added differently. Straw
reaper is Rs. 300/acre or Rs. 700/hour, as it is used in 2.3 acres approx. in one hour.
D. Farm tool cost– The cost of one Rake is Rs. 250, which is added to the total input cost of
burning.
E. Penalty cost – The legal penalty depends on the number of acres a farmer burns to
manage crop residues. So, to assess TIBC Rs. 2500 per acre is used as penalty cost.
However, the legal penalty varies with the acres burnt as it is shown in Table 45.
Table 45 – Penalty cost on burning crop residues by Punjab government
Land size under

Legal

burning process

Penalty (Rs)

Up to 2 acres

2500

2 -5 acres

5000

Up to 10 acres

7000

Above 10 acres

15000
(Singh & Zaffar, 2017)

TIBC or NBC per acre is assessed by adding input costs related to burning and is shown in Table
46.

141

Table 46 – Net Burning Costs (NBC) per acre (Rs/acre)
Rice
Sr.no.

Wheat

Districts
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022
10153.9

1

Amritsar

8776

9046

9106.17

9739.73

10289.73

2

Barnala

8731

9001

9177

9694.73

10244.73 10224.73

3

Bathinda

8676

8946

9093.67

9639.73

10189.73

10141.4

4

Faridkot

8723.27

8942.67

9112.83

9687

10186.4

10160.56

5

Fatehgarh S.

8664.33

8954.33

9145.29

9628.06

10198.06 10193.02

6

Fazilka

8680.17

8946

9135.33

9643.9

10189.73 10183.06

7

Ferozepur

8730.17

8979.33

9118.67

9693.9

10223.06

8

Gurdaspur

8726

9001.83

9182

9689.73

10245.56 10229.73

9

Hoshiarpur

8721

9006

9167

9684.73

10249.73 10214.73

10

Jalandhar

8796.83

9076

9097

9760.56

10319.73 10144.73

11

Kapurthala

8644.33

8936

9086.67

9608.06

10179.73

10134.4

12

Ludhiana

8676

8946

9118.67

9639.73

10189.73

10166.4

13

Malerkotla

8276

8546

8677

9239.73

9789.73

9724.73

14

Mansa

8576

8846

9027

9539.73

10089.73 10074.73

15

Moga

8764.33

9042.67

9077

9728.06

10286.4

10124.73

16

SMS

8746

9022.67

9212.57

9709.73

10266.4

10260.3

17

SBSN

8636

8906

9056.17

9599.73

10149.73

10103.9

18

Pathankot

8626

8896

9089.5

9589.73

10139.73 10137.23

142

10166.4

19

Patiala

8686

8956

9087

9649.73

10199.73 10134.73

20

Rupanagar

8574.33

8846

9002

9538.06

10089.73 10049.73

21

SASN

8726

8980.58

9167.5

9689.73

10224.31 10215.23

22

Sangrur

8691

8962.25

9105.33

9654.73

10205.98 10153.06

23

Tarn Taran

8686

8956

9077

9649.73

10199.73 10124.73

Average

8675.337 8945.275 9092.103 9639.067 10189.01 10139.83

Figure 9 – The net cost related to burning rice crop residues over 3 years

143

Figure 10 – The net cost related to burning wheat crop residues over 3 years
The costs of burning rice crop residues are lowest in all districts of Punjab for the year 2019-20
and increased for the next two years. On the other hand, burning costs for wheat crop residues
are high in 2021 and the lowest in 2020. This trend is due to the significant impact of the change
in total inorganic fertilizer costs of rice and wheat crops, as inorganic fertilizer costs keep
increasing from 2020 to 2022 in the case of rice crops and highest in 2021 for wheat crops. Sri
Muktsar Sahib district has the highest burning cost of rice and wheat crop residues in 2022
followed by Gurdaspur district, while this cost is high in Jalandhar district for 2021 and 2020.
Within districts, the variation in burning costs is due to the prevailing labor wages. NBC is high
for wheat crop residues in comparison to rice crop residues as farm machinery cost is high for
managing wheat crop residues, and more amount of inorganic fertilizer is recommended for
wheat crops, making it more cost driven.

144

4.5.3 Comparison between on-field composting and on-field burning costs per acre
4.5.3.1 Net Composting Costs vs Net Burning Costs of rice crop residues

NCC v/s NBC for 2019-20 year
10000

Districts

8000
6000
4000
2000
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

0

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 11 – Net costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the
year 2019-20

NCC v/s NBC for 2020-21 year
Costs (Rs)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

0

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 12- Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the year
2020-21

145

Costs (Rs)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

0

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 13 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of rice crop residues in the
year 2021-22
For rice residues, burning costs remained almost the same or with minor differences in each
district for all years, and this constant value of burning costs increased each year. Only labor
wages affected the overall burning costs of rice residues within districts to some extent.
However, the on-field composting costs were quite different for each district. They reflected
different labor wages and surplus crop residues produced in each district.
The on-field composting costs are higher than the burning costs for the Amritsar district for both
2020 and 2021, while Ferozepur, Jalandhar and SMS have higher compost costs than burning
costs only in 2020. The rest of the districts of Punjab have on-field composting costs lower than
burning costs for residue management.

146

4.5.3.2 Net Composting Costs vs Net Burning Costs of wheat crop residues

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

Costs (Rs)

NCC v/s NBC for 2019-20 year

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 14- Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2019-20

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

Costs (Rs)

NCC v/s NBC for 2020-21 year

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 15 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2020-21

147

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh
Fazilka
Ferozpur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
Muktsar
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

Costs (Rs)

NCC v/s NBC for 2021-22 year

Districts
NCC

NBC

Figure 16 – Net Costs of on-field composting v/s on-field burning of wheat crop residues in the
year 2021-22
The above figures depict that the cost of on-field composting wheat crop residues is lower than
the burning method of wheat crop residue management in all three years. The burning costs of
wheat crop residues have a minor difference over the years, but the on-field composting costs are
low for the 2020-21 year due to high surplus residue this year.
4.5.3.3 Cost savings by the on-field composting of crop residues
Cost savings are the savings that farmers of different districts of Punjab can make by substituting
crop residue burning with the on-field composting method for crop residue management.
Cost Savings = Net Burning Costs – Net composting cost
Cost Savings = NBC – NCC
The cost savings are shown in Table 47.
148

Table 47 – Cost Savings per acre by substituting crop residue burning (with penalty) method
with on-field composting method
Rice (Rs/acre)
Sr.No.

Wheat (Rs/acre)

Districts
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

-263.651

-90.2925 728.6249 1222.896 1693.931 2196.864

2

Barnala

695.5089

1214.97

3

Bathinda

914.3296 1298.691 1414.236 2492.837 2566.797 2270.701

4

Faridkot

332.7583

1034.04

1124.002 2257.483 2676.949 2262.676

5

Fatehgarh S.

991.0556

1295.55

1122.824 1920.886 2460.079 1195.757

6

Fazilka

782.0876

596.775

265.7137 2150.509 2402.328

7

Ferozepur

-246.486 876.8514 1117.204 1922.118 2304.182 2065.406

8

Gurdaspur

264.378

510.2467 349.8275 1340.866 1832.176 1490.799

9

Hoshiarpur

466.8584

628.072

10

Jalandhar

-29.4306 337.4201 1210.531 1397.923 1602.933 2110.129

11

Kapurthala

1067.503 1213.215 1243.344 2221.737 2378.205 2003.963

12

Ludhiana

1114.661

13

Mansa

1535.881 2054.332

1868.16

3173.703 3278.312 2766.453

14

Moga

438.0027 751.3353

1616.49

1829.882 2017.545 2370.278

15

SMS

-28.9053 593.2768 338.7305 2028.329

16

SBSN

1150.347 1434.833

17

Pathankot

672.0542 1121.347 805.0116

18

Patiala

687.238

19

Rupanagar

1436.67

932.5535 1999.369 2074.051 1790.303

1874.38

436.0784 1453.285 1551.723 1153.444

1369.353 2288.518 2562.683 2004.351

1623.6

2097.9

1527.868

2555.726 2821.905 2152.616
1898.62

2429.1

2395.864

1133.503 1294.883 2007.101 2474.898 1944.293

1296.406 1892.817 1833.775 2505.791 2918.437 2328.744
149

20

SASN

244.618

21

Sangrur

1024.458 1509.298 1578.962 2610.536 2675.157 2018.831

22

Tarn Taran

633.1893 948.0878 1169.739 1865.748 2292.088 2286.439

Average

624.6756

535.4323 259.1317 1566.455 1894.184 1227.044

1014.84

1077.399 2032.287 2318.435 1974.418

The cost difference between implementing on-field composting and burning methods for rice
residue management in Punjab is significant, with an average of Rs. 624.6756 in 2019-20 and
increased by 38.44 % to Rs. 1014.84 in 2020-21 and further increased by 5.8% to Rs.1077.399 in
2021-22. The cost difference for wheat residues was even higher than rice residues, with Rs.
2032.287 in 2019-20, Rs. 2318.435 in 2020-21, and Rs. 1974.418 in 2021-22. These figures
demonstrate the potential savings per acre achieved by adopting the on-field composting method
over burning for crop residue management. In all three years, Mansa district has the highest cost
difference of Rs. 1535.881 in 2021-22, Rs 2054.332 in 2020-21, Rs. 1868.16 in 2019-20 for rice
management, and Rs. 3173.703 for 2021-22, Rs. 3278.312 for 2020-21 and Rs. 2766.453 for
2019-20 for wheat management.
However, Amritsar district has a negative cost difference (composting cost is high) in 2020 for
rice, which is Rs. -263.651 and Rs.1222.896 for wheat crop residue management. In 2021,
Amritsar (Rs -90.295) and Hoshiarpur (Rs. 1551.723) have the lowest compost savings for rice
and wheat crop residue management respectively. SASN and Hoshiarpur districts have the
lowest cost savings in the year 2022 of Rs. 259.1317 and Rs. 1153.444 for rice and wheat residue
management, respectively. Within three years, 11 districts out of 22 districts (50%) show an
increasing pattern of cost difference in rice crop residue management from 2020 to 2022. While
150

in wheat crop residue management, in most districts, 2021 year has the highest cost savings on
composting, followed by 2020, and the least in 2022.

Cost savings on composting rice crop residue over 3
years (2020-2022)
6000

Costs (Rs)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh S.
Fazilka
Ferozepur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
SMS
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

0
-1000

Districts

2020

2021

2022

Figure 17 – Total cost savings on composting rice crop residues per acre over 3 years (Rs/acre)
Cost Savings on composting wheat crop residues
over 3 years (2020-2022)
Costs (Rs)

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Amritsar
Barnala
Bathinda
Faridkot
Fatehgarh S.
Fazilka
Ferozepur
Gurdaspur
Hoshiarpur
Jalandhar
Kapurthala
Ludhiana
Mansa
Moga
SMS
SBSN
Pathankot
Patiala
Rupanagar
SASN
Sangrur
Tarn Taran

0

Districts
2020

2021

2022

Figure 18 - Total cost savings on composting wheat crop residues per acre over 3 years (Rs/acre)

151

Cost Savings on composting crop residues (without Penalty) –
As farmers who burn crop residues are at risk of Penalty if regulatory agencies find it out and
register a case against them. However, most of the farmers take this risk as regulatory agencies
do not have enough resources to enforce the regulations.
Therefore, without adding a penalty as an input cost, the cost savings on composting crop
residues are shown in Table 48.
Table 48 – Cost Savings per acre by substituting crop residue burning (without penalty) with onfield composting method
Rice
Sr.No.

Wheat

Districts
2020

2021

2022

2020

2021

2022

1

Amritsar

-2763.65

-2590.29

-1771.38

-1277.1

-806.069

-303.136

2

Barnala

-1804.49

-1285.03

-1567.45

-500.631

-425.949

-709.697

3

Bathinda

-1585.67

-1201.31

-1085.76

-7.16276 66.79742

-229.299

4

Faridkot

-2167.24

-1465.96

-1376

-242.517 176.9492

-237.324

5

Fatehgarh S.

-1508.94

-1204.45

-1377.18

-579.114

-39.9206

-1304.24

6

Fazilka

-1717.91

-1903.22

-2234.29

-349.491

-97.6716

-625.62

7

Ferozepur

-2746.49

-1623.15

-1382.8

-577.882

-195.818

-434.594

8

Gurdaspur

-2235.62

-1989.75

-2150.17

-1159.13

-667.824

-1009.2

9

Hoshiarpur

-2033.14

-1871.93

-2063.92

-1046.72

-948.277

-1346.56

10

Jalandhar

-2529.43

-2162.58

-1289.47

-1102.08

-897.067

-389.871

11

Kapurthala

-1432.5

-1286.79

-1256.66

-278.263

-121.795

-496.037

12

Ludhiana

-1385.34

-1063.33

-1130.65

-211.482 62.68305

-495.649

152

13

Mansa

-964.119

-445.668

-631.84

673.7028 778.3122

266.4527

14

Moga

-2062

-1748.66

-883.51

-670.118

-482.455

-129.722

15

SMS

-2528.91

-1906.72

-2161.27

-471.671

-402.1

-972.132

16

SBSN

-1349.65

-1065.17

-876.4

55.72563 321.9051

-347.384

17

Pathankot

-1827.95

-1378.65

-1694.99

-601.38

-70.9002

-104.136

18

Patiala

-1812.76

-1366.5

-1205.12

-492.899

-25.1024

-555.707

19

Rupanagar

-1203.59

-607.183

-666.225 5.790546 418.4365

-171.256

20

SASN

-2255.38

-1964.57

-2240.87

-605.816

-1272.96

21

Sangrur

-1475.54

-990.702

-921.038 110.5363 175.1568

-481.169

22

Tarn Taran

-1866.81

-1551.91

-1330.26

-634.252

-207.912

-213.561

-1875.32

-1485.16

-1422.6

-467.713

-181.565

-525.582

Average

-933.545

If a penalty is not considered as an input of burning costs, the above table depicts the cost
difference between the on-field composting and burning processes. For rice crop residues, all
districts will have more composting costs than burning costs for all three years. Amritsar district
shows the highest negative savings on composting for 2020 (Rs. -2763.65) and 2021(-2590.29),
while the SASN district in the 2022 year (Rs -2240.87) (see Figure 19).

153

Figure 19 – Cost Savings on composting rice crop residues (without penalty)
Cost savings per acre on composting crop residues are less negative for wheat crop residues, as
the cost difference is still positive for Mansa district for all three years, and SBSN, Rupanagar
and Sangrur district still shows positive savings in 2020 and 2021 years, even if penalty input
cost is excluded from Net Burning Cost (NBC). Bathinda, Faridkot, and Ludhiana districts have
positive cost savings only in the 2021 year. On average, 2021 has the highest savings or least
expenditures for composting wheat residues, followed by 2020 and 2022 year (see Figure 20).

154

Figure 20- Cost Savings per acre on composting wheat crop residues (without penalty)

4.5.4 The Effect of farmer’s landholding size on the On-field composting costs /acre
On further studying the on-field composting costs for four on-field composting models. Farmers
with one acre, four acres, eight acres, and sixteen acres may not have the same on-field
composting costs per acre. Labor and machinery costs influence farmers' on-field composting
costs per acre. The equations are developed using the percentage of labor hired and machinery
rented by different categories of farmers based on the size of land owned by them.

155

1) For the on-field one-acre model–
➢ Labor cost (Rs/acre) As, 67.6 % of total farmers that do not have contract labors (99.4%), even do not hire casual
labors, so the labor cost for this percent of farmers is zero. While 32.4 % of farmers who do not
have contract labors (99.4%) do hire casual labors when needed, so these will hire the number of
labors required in on-field composting process. The 0.40 % of total farmers have one contract
labor, so they hire one labor less than the number required for the on-field composting process.
The 0.20 % of total labors have 2 contract labors, so needed 2 labors less than the number
required for the on-field composting process of residue management.
= [67.6% × 99.4% (× 0) + 32.4 % × 99.4% (xy)] + 0.40% ((x-1) y) + 0.20% ((x-2) y)
ଷଶଶ଴.ହ଺

଴.଺଴

଴.଼

= 0 + ଵ଴଴଴଴ ‫ ݕݔ‬+ ଵ଴଴ ‫ ݕݔ‬− ଵ଴଴ ‫ݕ‬
= ‫(ݕ‬32.8‫ ݔ‬− 0.8) ∗ 10ିଶ

Equation 1

Here, x = number of labors required per acre for on-field composting
y = labor wage/day prevailing in the district of Punjab
Equation 1 calculates the labor cost of an on-field composting process for farmers with one acre.
For instance, the labor cost per acre in the Patiala district in the year 2019-20, if eight labors are
required is as Here, x = 8,
y = Rs. 500 (Table 32),
Using Equation 1,
156

Total labor cost per acre per crop is Rs. 1308.
➢ Farm machinery cost (Rs/acre) –
The farmers having one acre do not own tractors, so they need to rent farm implements along
with tractors from hiring centers. So, the farm machinery cost will be the combined rent of farm
implements + tractor, which is higher than the rent cost if a farmer would pay for renting only
farm implements.
Fam machinery costs = (t+a) + (t+b) + (t+c )+ (t+d )+ (t+e )+……., Equation 2
where (t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d), (t+e), …. etc., are the rent-out charges of various tractors and
implements (rented together) used in on-field composting. This is the total rental cost of the
tractor and associated implements, and it is higher than the rental costs if farm implements are
rented without tractors.
For instance, the farm machinery cost per acre in Patiala district for a farmer with one acre in the
year 2019-20 would be –
= (t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d), (t+e) …….
= (Tractor + Straw chopper) + (Tractor + laser leveler) + (Tractor + disc harrow) + (Tractor +
Reaper) + (Tractor + Cultivator) + (Tractor + Rotavator)
Using Farm machinery renting cost (Table 35),
= 250 + 575 +700 + 700 + 650 + 1060 + 223.33 = Rs. 4158.33 hr-1 per acre

157

2) For on-field four-acre model ➢ Labor cost (Rs/acre) −
As, 38.32 % of total farmers that do not have contract labors (92.5%), even do not hire casual
labors, so the labor cost for this percent of farmers is zero. While 61.68 % of farmers that do not
have contract labors (92.5%) do hire casual labors in the on-field composting process. The 6.51
percent of total farmers have one contract labor, so they hire one labor less than the number
required for the on-field composting process. 0.36 % of total labors have 2 contract labors, so
needed 2 labors less than the number required for the on-field composting process of crop
residue management. Similarly, 0.18% of farmers owning 4 acres have 3 contract labors, so does
hire 3 labors less than the number of labors required for on-field composting.
= [38.32% × 92.5% (× 0) + 61.68 % × 92.5% (xy)] + 6.51% ((x-1) y) + 0.36% ((x-2) y)
+ 0.18% ((x-3) y)
=0+

ହ଻.଴ହସ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬+

଺.ହଵ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

଺.ହଵ
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬+

଴.ଷ଺
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

= ‫(ݕ‬64.104‫ ݔ‬− 7.77) ∗ 10ିଶ

଴.଻ଶ
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬+

଴.ଵ଼
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

଴.ହସ
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬

Equation 3

Here, x = number of labors required per acre for on-field composting
y = labor wage/day prevailing in the district of Punjab
For instance, in Patiala district in the year 2019-20, if eight labors are required per acre, then a
farmer with 4 acres would have a labor cost/acre is as follows Here, x = 8
y = Rs.500, (Table 32), using Equation 3,
158

Total labor cost per acre per crop is Rs. 2525.31
➢ Farm machinery cost (Rs/acre) –
65.21% of total farmers having four acres do not own tractors, so they need to rent farm
implements along with tractors from hiring centers. So, the farm machinery cost will be
combined rent of farm implement + tractor, which is higher than a farmer's rental cost for renting
only farm implements. While 34.79% of farmers having 4 acres own tractors, they rent farm
implements without tractors.
=

଺ହ.ଶଵ
ଵ଴଴

൫(t + a) + (t + b) + (t + c ) + (t + d ) + (t + e ) + ⋯ ൯ +

ଷସ.଻ଽ
ଵ଴଴

(ܽ + ܾ + ܿ + ݀ +

Equation 4

݁ + ⋯)

where (t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d), (t+e), …. etc., are the hire-out charges of various tractors and
implements (hired together) used in composting, t = tractor hire-out charges, and a, b, c, d, e =
hire-out charges of various farm implements.
For instance, the farm machinery cost/acre in Patiala district for a farmer with four acres in the
year 2019-20 would be –
=

଺ହ.ଶଶ
ଵ଴଴

((Tractor + Straw chopper) + (Tractor + laser leveler) + (Tractor + disc harrow) +

(Tractor + Reaper) + (Tractor + Cultivator) + (Tractor + Rotavator)) +
laser leveler + disc harrow + Reaper + Cultivator + Rotavator)
Using values from Table 35 and Table 11,
=

଺ହ.ଶଶ
ଵ଴଴

(4158.33) +

ଷସ.଻଼
ଵ଴଴

(250 + 351.67 + 50 + 150 + 62.5 + 250)
159

ଷସ.଻଼
ଵ଴଴

(Straw chopper +

= 2712.06 + 387.50
= Rs 3099.56 hr-1 per acre
3) For the on-field eight-acre model ➢ Labor cost (Rs/acre) –
As, 56.16 % of total farmers that do not have contract labors (78.68%), even do not hire casual
labors, so the labor cost for this percent of farmers is zero. While 43.84 % of farmers that do not
have contract labors (78.68%) do hire casual labors when needed. The 20.62 % of total farmers
have one contract labor, so they hire one labor less than the number required for the on-field
composting process. The 0.35 % of total labors have 2 contract labors, so they need 2 labors less
than the number required for the composting process of crop residue management. Similarly,
0.35% of farmers owning 4 acres have 3 contract labors, so does hire 3 labors less than the
number of labors required for on-field composting process.
= [56.16% × 78.68% (× 0) + 43.84% × 78.68% (xy)] + 20.62% ((x-1)y) + 0.35% ((x-2)y)
+ 0.35% ((x-3)y)
=0+

ଷସ.ସଽ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬+

ଶ଴.଺ଶ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

ଶ଴.଺ଶ
ଵ଴଴

= ‫(ݕ‬55.81‫ ݔ‬− 22.37) ∗ 10ିଶ

‫ݕ‬+

଴.ଷହ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

଴.଻
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬+

଴.ଷହ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

ଵ.଴ହ
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬

Equation 5

Here, x = number of labors required per acre for on-field composting
y = labor wage/day prevailing in the district of Punjab
For instance, in Patiala district in the year 2019-20, if eight labors are required per acre, then a
farmer with 8 acres would have a labor cost/acre as follows 160

Here, x = 8,
y = Rs. 500 (Table 32),
Using Equation 5,
Total labor cost per acre per crop is Rs. 2120.55.
➢ Farm machinery cost (Rs/acre) The 18 % of farmers having eight acres do not own tractors, so they need to rent farm machinery
along with tractors from hiring centers. So, the farm machinery cost will be combined rent of
farm implement + tractor, which is higher than the rent cost a farmer pay for renting only farm
implements. While 82 % of farmers own tractors, they rent farm implements without tractors.
=

ଵ଼
ଵ଴଴

൫(t + a) + (t + b) + (t + c ) + (t + d ) + (t + e ) + ⋯ ൯ +

݁ +⋯)

଼ଶ
ଵ଴଴

(ܽ + ܾ + ܿ + ݀ +

Equation 6

where (t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d), (t+e), …. etc., are the hire-out charges of various tractors and
implements (hired together) used in composting, t = tractor hire-out charges, and a, b, c, d, e =
hire-out charges of various farm implements.
➢ For instance, the farm machinery cost/acre in Patiala district for a farmer with
eight acres in the year 2019-20 is as–
=

ଵ଼
ଵ଴଴

((Tractor + Straw chopper) + (Tractor + laser leveler) + (Tractor + disc harrow) + (Tractor

+ Reaper) + (Tractor + Cultivator) + (Tractor + Rotavator)) +

଼ଶ
ଵ଴଴

(Straw chopper +

laser leveler + disc harrow + Reaper + Cultivator + Rotavator)

161

Using values from Table 35 and Table 11,
=

ଵ଼

଼ଶ

ଵ଴଴

(4158.33) + ଵ଴଴ (250 + 351.67 + 50 + 150 + 62.5 + 250)

= 748.49 + 913.62
= Rs 1662.11 hr-1 per acre.
4) For on-field sixteen-acre model –
➢ Labor cost (Rs/acre) –
100 % of total farmers that do not have contract labors (36.57%) do not hire casual labors. The
39.8 % of total farmers have one contract labor, so they hire one labor less than the number
required for the composting process. The 13.92 % of total labors have 2 contract labors, so
needed 2 labors less than the number required for the on-field composting process of crop
residue management. Similarly, 10.3 % of farmers owning 16 acres have 3 contract labors, so
does hire 3 labors than the required for composting.
= 100% × 36.57% (× 0) + 39.8% ((x-1) y) + 13.92% ((x-2) y) + 10.03% ((x-3) y)
=0+

ଷଽ.଼
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

ଷଽ.଼
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬+

ଵଷ.ଽଶ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

ଶ଻.଼ସ
ଵ଴଴

= ‫(ݕ‬63.75‫ ݔ‬− 97.73) ∗ 10ିଶ

‫ݕ‬+

ଵ଴.଴ଷ
ଵ଴଴

‫ ݕݔ‬−

ଷ଴.଴ଽ
ଵ଴଴

‫ݕ‬

Equation 7

Here, x = number of labors required per acre for on-field composting
y = labor wage/day prevailing in the district of Punjab
For instance, the labor cost in Patiala district in the year 2019-20, if eight labors are required per
acre, then a farmer with 16 acres would have a labor cost as following 162

Here, x = 8,
y = Rs. 500 (Table 32),
Using Equation 7,
Total labor cost per acre per crop is Rs. 2061.35
➢ Farm Machinery cost (Rs/acre) –
3.85 % of farmers who have sixteen acres do not own tractors, so they need to rent farm
implements along with tractors from hiring centers. So, the farm machinery cost will be
combined rent of farm implements + tractor, which is higher than a farmer's rent cost for renting
only farm implements. While 96.15% of farmers having 16 acres own tractors, they rent farm
machinery without tractors and pay the operating charges of the tractor.
=

ଷ.଼ହ
ଵ଴଴

൫(t + a) + (t + b) + (t + c ) + (t + d ) + (t + e ) + ⋯ ൯ +

ଽ଺.ଵହ
ଵ଴଴

(ܽ + ܾ + ܿ + ݀ +

݁ + ⋯ ) ………Equation 8
where (t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d), (t+e), …. etc., are the hire-out charges of various tractors and
implements (hired together) used in composting, t = tractor hire-out charges, and a, b, c, d, e =
hire-out charges of various farm machinery.
For instance, the farm machinery cost in Patiala district for a farmer with sixteen acre in the year
2019-20 is–
=

ଷ.଼ହ
ଵ଴଴

((Tractor + Straw chopper) + (Tractor + laser leveler) + (Tractor + disc harrow) + (Tractor

+ Reaper) + (Tractor + Cultivator) + (Tractor + Rotavator)) +

ଽ଺.ଵହ
ଵ଴଴

laser leveler + disc harrow + Reaper + Cultivator + Rotavator)
163

(Straw chopper +

Using values from Table 35 and Table 11,
=

ଷ.଼ହ
ଵ଴଴

(4158.33) +

ଽ଺.ଵହ
ଵ଴଴

(250 + 351.67 + 50 + 150 + 62.5 + 250)

= 160.09 + 1071.27
= Rs 1231.36 hr-1 per acre.
Depending on the number of contract (attached) labors or hired seasonal labors, the labor costs
per acre for on-field composting process differ for each land size holding category of a farmer in
Punjab. As, in the above example of Patiala district, keeping x (no. of labors/acre) and y (labor
wage/day) variables constant, using the above equations. The labor costs per acre can be
estimated by filling the labor wage/day in a particular district and the number of labors required
per acre in the on-field composting process. The labor cost per acre is the least (Rs. 1308 per
acre) for a farmer having one acre of land, then would be high for farmer having 4 acres (Rs.
2525.31 per acre) and decreases later after an increase in the number of acres.

Figure 21– Variation in labor cost/acre in different on-field composting models
164

To calculate the farm machinery costs per acre in each on-field composting model the renting
charge for a single implement (a, b, c, d…) and the renting charge of a tractor-implement
combined ((t+a), (t+b), (t+c), (t+d)…) are filled in the above equations of farm machinery costs
per acre.
Summarizing labor and farm machinery costs per acre for Patiala district in 2019-20 year, if 8
labors are required per acre for the on-field composting process.
Table 49 – Variation of labor and farm machinery costs per acre of Patiala district in different on
field composting models
On-field composting Models Casual Labor
cost/acre (Rs)
1. One-acre model
1308

Farm machinery
cost/acre (Rs/hr)
4158.33

2. Four-acre model

2525.31

3099.56

3. Eight-acre model

2120.55

1662.11

4. Sixteen-acre model

2061.35

1231.36

Similarly, labor and farm machinery costs/acre can be calculated for various districts of Punjab
based on on-field composting models. So, if x and y values are kept constant, the variation of
labor costs in different on-field composting models will remain the same.
Table 49 shows that labor costs /acre firstly increase and later start decreasing with
the increasing farm size because the farmers with large landholding have more contract-based
labors and even have farm machinery to replace labor in the field operations. While farm
machinery costs per acre decrease with an increase in the number of acres a farmer owns
(economy of scale).
165

4.5.5 Costs of environmental change
The reduced GHG emissions by substituting the burning process with the on-field composting
process for crop residue management calculated earlier (Table 29) is multiplied by the social cost
of GHG (Table 12) to calculate the environmental savings.
Environmental savings ($) per district = Reduced GHG emissions per district (Table 29) ×
Social cost-GHG($) (Table 12, Year 2020)
For instance, for the Ferozepur district, the environmental cost savings for CH4 in year 2020 is
evaluated as,
Environmental savings ($) for CH4 = 9.372122 Gg (Table 29, year 2020) × $2107/ton (SC- CH4
in 2020, Table 12)
= $19.7471 × 106 per district (Ferozepur)
Environmental savings ($) per acre = Environmental savings ($) per district / number of acres
under (rice + wheat) crops per district{Appendix A (year – 2019-20)}
Environmental savings ($) per acre of Ferozepur district = $19.7471 × 106 per district / (281694
+ 462077) acres
= $ 26.54992 per acre of Ferozepur district
Similarly, Table 50 evaluates the Social Cost of all emissions per district and per acre of
the district.

166

Table 50 – Social Cost -GHG benefitted (profits) by using the on-field composting method for
crop residue management for the year 2019-20
No.

Districts

CH4

N2O

CO2

(106 $)

(106 $)

(106 $)

CH4/acre N20/acre CO2/acre
($)

($)

($)

1

Amritsar

15.9007 38.8456 334.271 17.43882

42.60327 366.6061

2

Barnala

12.9109 29.277

51.966

3

Bathinda

18.4173 48.9622 419.148 17.13417

45.55108 389.947

4

Faridkot

11.8215 27.2352 237.737 20.62115

47.50832 414.7014

5

Fatehgarh S.

9.11182 21.1326 183.228 21.56435

50.01306 433.6346

6

Fazilka

9.28346 29.6922 252.504 9.463387

30.26772 257.398

7

Ferozepur

19.7471 45.2068 389.006 26.54992

60.78054 523.0185

8

Gurdaspur

15.1055 39.5419 331.239 17.02818

44.57487 373.4003

9

Hoshiarpur

7.82638 26.6251 223.959 14.39678

48.97737 411.9779

10

Jalandhar

16.5613 40.8516 345.51

19.25937

47.50695 401.7989

11

Kapurthala

11.6896 12.7082 230.303 20.65817

22.45817 406.9968

12

Ludhiana

27.8948 63.9763 547.505 22.17854

50.86613 435.309

13

Mansa

12.225

32.6538 276.872 17.05999

45.56834 386.3748

14

Moga

19.7697 44.2258 384.069 22.41091

50.13423 435.3794

15

SMS

16.5079 42.1823 360.741 16.53624

42.25477 361.3614

16

SBSN

6.70777 17.0383 147.502 19.81458

50.3307

17

Pathankot

2.15846 6.13065 54.3367 12.84584

36.48587 323.3787

18

Patiala

23.1938 54.496

469.383 20.01362

47.0239

19

Rupanagar

4.43072 12.975

113.515 16.45033

48.17338 421.4585

253.736 22.91652

167

450.3743

435.7171

405.0247

20

SASN

2.78731 8.17468 71.1553 14.27859

41.87654 364.5084

21

Sangrur

33.0108 76.2212 654.95

23.03325

53.18326 456.9907

22

Tarn Taran

17.4366 40.1676 346.975 18.96905

43.69784 377.4698

14.2954 34.4691 301.257 18.66463

45.53647 401.4921

Average

Sangrur district benefits more from all kinds of GHGs, while Pathankot has the lowest
environmental savings on the district level. On average, 14.29538 million dollars on CH4,
34.46908 million on N2O, and 301.2566 million on CO2 could be savedby substituting the
burning method with the on-field composting method to manage both rice and wheat crop
residues.

Reduction in GHG emission costs
600
500

Costs ($)

400
300
200
100
0

Districts
CH4/acre ($)

N20/acre ($)

CO2/acre ($)

Figure 22– GHG emission costs reduced on composting crop residues
168

There is a reduction in GHG emissions by using an alternative to burning crop residues: on-field
composting. On-field composting emissions are far less than burning crop waste, and these
reduced emissions when converted into the cost as per the Canadian government. Each district
would make a massive profit (million dollars) from managing crop residues with the on-field
composting process. The amount of GHG emissions and the cost-benefit of reducing these
emissions depend on the surplus residue produced by the crop. Farmers individually could save a
minimum of 9.46 dollars/acre on reducing CH4 emissions (Fazilka district), 22.46 dollars/acre on
N2O emissions (Kapurthala district) and 257.40 dollars/acre on CO2 emissions (Fazilka district)
and a maximum of 26.55 dollars/acre on reducing CH4 emissions, 60.78 dollars/acre on N2O
emissions and 523.02 dollars/acre in the Ferozepur district by implementing the on-field
composting method for rice residue management for both rice and wheat crops.

169

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 On-field composting costs v/s burning costs of crop residues
5.1.1 Burning costs including penalty cost
The outcomes of this study have provided insight into significant differences between on-field
composting and burning costs. The Net Burning Costs of crop residues (including penalty
charges) seem higher than the total on-field composting costs in most districts of Punjab. The
cost savings (Net Burning Costs – Net Composting Costs) by on-field composting of rice crop
residues are relatively less than on-field composting of wheat crop residues. This is due to the
lower NCC of wheat crop residues and lower on-field composting costs are due to the high
amount of surplus residue generated from wheat crops. High surplus residues of wheat crops
ultimately lead to the high amount of compost generated, further reducing the amount of
inorganic fertilizer for the next crop. No doubt, the high surplus residue also leads to more
reduction in the area under production for making compost pits, but the revenue decrease is quite
low. Moreover, the percentage value of the yield increased on using compost as organic fertilizer
in fields is higher for wheat crops than rice crops, so the revenue generated in the on-field
composting process is higher for wheat crops. Other costs such as farm machinery costs, labor
costs, gunny bag costs and farm tools costs are more or less the same for rice and wheat crop
residues. The burning costs of wheat crop residues seem higher due to higher farm machinery
costs and inorganic fertilizer requirement-related costs (as per recommendations of the Package
of Practices).
Overall, farmers can save more money by on-field composting of wheat crop residues than rice
crop residues.
170

5.1.2 Burning costs without penalty cost
If on-field burning penalty costs are not added to the total burning-related costs, then the burning
costs are quite less than the on-field composting costs and the cost savings (Net Burning Costs –
Net Composting Costs) values are negative for rice and wheat crops in most of the districts. The
difference in on-field composting costs and burning costs is lower or less negative for wheat crop
residues than for rice crop residues because wheat crops have less Net on-field Composting
Costs and high Net Burning Costs. In other words, rice crop residues on-field composting will
cost more to farmers than wheat crop residues. These on-field composting costs per acre would
be way more than burning crop residue costs (if penalty costs are not included) and perhaps, this
is the reason that farmers are tempted to go for the burning method for crop residue management.
The penalty imposed by the government for burning crop residues is a kind of risk taken by
farmers of Punjab for burning crop residues. All the farmers committing the activity of burning
crop residues are not penalized by government officials because regulatory agencies do not have
enough resources to go after every farmer who burns crop residues in their fields. Moreover,
government officials cannot reach every village and farmer in Punjab during a short period of
crop residue burning. It is very difficult for government officials to fine every farmer in Punjab
for performing this activity. Even if officials reach out to some of the farms in a short period,
then in most of the cases officials let them escape by accepting bribes.
Overall, most of the farmers escape from the penalty cost of burning, and that leads to less
amount of burning costs in comparison to on-field composting costs of crop residues.

171

Labor costs constitute almost half of the on-field composting costs, followed by farm machinery
costs. Labor costs are minimal in the burning method, but machinery costs for burning crop
residues are almost equal to those of the on-field composting method.
5.2 Variation of costs of on-field composting method
5.2.1 Variation of on-field composting costs within districts
Within districts of Punjab, the costs of on-field composting positively relate to the surplus
residue produced. The amount of surplus residue produced per acre in a district depends on the
area under crop production and the yield of crops in the district. The amount of surplus residue
generated in the district directly reflects the costs of the on-field composting method per acre
such as a decrease in revenue generated on reduction in area under production (by making onfield compost pit), reduction in inorganic fertilizer cost (on adding compost (organic fertilizer),
gunny bag costs etc. Other costs such as machinery costs, labor costs of the on-field composting
process depend on the machinery rental charges and labor wages prevailing in the district of
Punjab.
The Mansa district should have the highest cost savings per acre if farmers would substitute crop
residue burning with crop residue on-field composting. The Amritsar district is the only district
with negative cost savings value in rice crops, even if the penalty is added to the burning costs
(due to relatively high total composting costs than total burning costs).
The burning costs are almost similar for all districts, only labor wages prevailing in districts
make difference to some extent.

172

5.2.2 Variation of on-field composting costs within years
Within three consecutive years, the surplus residue produced per acre, subsidized inorganic
fertilizer prices, MSP (Minimum Support Price) of rice and wheat crops and labor wages every
year greatly impact the on-field composting and burning costs of crop residues. In the case of
rice crop residue management through on-field composting, 11 districts out of total of 22
districts (50%) or the average value of all districts of Punjab show an increasing pattern of cost
difference. Whereas, for wheat crop residue on-field composting, the highest cost savings on
composting are in 2021 for most of the districts followed by 2020 and least in 2022. This pattern
is highly influenced by the amount of surplus residue generated each year.
5.3 Variation of on-field composting costs per acre in different on-field composting models
5.3.1 Labor costs of on-field composting method
The burning and on-field compositing costs calculated are on a per-acre basis, and these costs
change depending on the size of landholdings owned by farmers. On-field composting models of
1 acre, 4 acres, 8 acres, and 16 acres showed that labor and farm machinery costs per acre do not
multiply with an increase in the number of acres. The equations are evaluated to calculate the
labor costs/acre of the on-field composting method based on the number of acres a farmer owns.
The labor costs per acre are calculated by filling out the number of labors required per acre and
the labor wage/day prevailing in the district. Labor costs of on-field composting crop residues
per acre form an inverted U-shaped relation with an increase in the number of acres, as large
farmers replace farm labor with farm machinery and even the number of contract labors
increases with increase in landholding size. The labor costs per acre are lowest for farmers owing
up to 2.5 acres (one-acre model) as most of them use family labor and it is highest for farmers
173

owing 2.5 to 5 acres (four-acre model). Further, farmers owning above 5 acres (eight-acre and
sixteen-acre model) replace casual farm labor with farm machinery, so casual labor costs per
acre decrease in these cases.
5.3.2 Farm machinery costs of on-field composting method
The farm machinery costs per acre decrease with an increase in the number of acres due to the
economy of scale, as costs per unit (acre) go down with the increase in the number of acres.
Further, equations are evaluated which could be used to calculate farm machinery costs per acre
for different on-field models depending on landholding size with farmers.
5.4 Reduction in the amount of GHG released into the environment
Substituting burning with the on-field composting method would significantly impact the
environment, as an incredible amount of GHGs is reduced by managing crop residues by on-field
composting method. The savings on the Social Cost of burning crop residues is very high. On
average, the social cost of $18.66 (CH4), $45.54 (N2O) and $401.49 (CO2) (Table 50) per acre
can be saved in Punjab by switching from crop residue burning to on-field composting for crop
residue management in year 2020.
5.5 Government policy to promote on-field composting of crop residues
The on-field composting costs are higher than the burning costs of crop residues if penalty cost is
not considered. This is the reason farmers take the risk of going for the burning method over the
on-field composting method. However, the Punjab and Indian governments could encourage the
farmers to adopt on-field composting methods instead of burning methods to manage crop
residues by providing incentives for composting and penalties for burning methods.
174

•

For example, the on-average net cost of on-field composting is Rs.7684.287 for rice
(Table 42) and Rs.7828.445 (Table 42) for wheat per acre in 2022 year and it is difficult
for farmers to spend this amount of money for on-field composting methods, especially
the farmers with marginal and small landholdings. If the government could share some
percentage of the costs of on-field composting then farmers can be encouraged to apply
the on-field composting method on their fields and may substitute the burning method
with the on-field composting method to manage crop residues.

•

There are many benefits of on-field composting to farmers such as soil enrichment, an
increase in quality and quantity of yield of crops etc., but it would also benefit the society
and government. On performing on-field composting of crop residues, a huge amount of
GHG emissions-related social costs could be reduced. Moreover, amount of inorganic
fertilizers could also be reduced by applying organic compost in fields. The various kind
of input expenditures, energy and resources spent on the production of inorganic
fertilizers could also be saved by the government and used for other purposes.

5.6 Limitations of the study
The results of the study are interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the current research.
There are at least five potential limitations related to the results of this study.
1) The first limitation is that the use of farm machinery and labor costs are on an hourly
basis and this data is estimated as per anecdotal information from practicing farmers, as
the exact number of labor or farm machinery required per acre and the number of hours
each will be engaged during the on-field composting process might differ.

175

2) The second potential limitation is the percentage increase in the yield of crops (as it is
estimated from previous research sources). When crop residue compost is applied to the
fields, its effect may differ depending on other factors, such as the type of soil,
and climatic conditions of the area.
3) The third limitation is the amount of nutrients present in rice and wheat crop residues is
estimated to be transferred as a whole to the compost generated from them due to low
nitrogenous emissions (high C:N ratio) and leaching of nutrients will deposit the nutrients
within the field.
4) In addition, the killing of soil biodiversity, loss of micronutrients from soil, other
collateral damage and health impacts on animals and humans due to burning crop
residues are not evaluated or calculated in this research.
5) Last but not least is the assumption of yard waste composting emissions as the crop
residue composting emissions, as the GHG emissions on crop residue composting are
unknown.
Despite these above limitations, the present study has helped to enhance our
understanding of the costs of on-field composting of rice and wheat crop residues in
Punjab.

176

Chapter 6: CONCLUSION
In conclusion, on-field composting is a sustainable method, as it helps to Reuse crop residues,
Reduce inorganic fertilizers and Recycle soil nutrients. Punjab farmers will benefit economically
and environmentally sustainable way from on-field composting of rice-wheat crop residues
instead of burning them in the field. Moreover, the farm machinery costs and labor costs per acre
of the on-field composting method vary with an increase in landholding size.
Future research directions 1. The present study has provided clear support for on-site composting of rice and wheat
residues on cost analysis, but the generality of current results must be established by
future research (practical implication).
2. This research does not include quantity and cost analysis of collateral damage, effect on
soil health and human and animal health hazards caused by burning crop residues and this
could be a topic for future research.
3. Even the amount of energy and resources that could be reduced by decreasing the use of
inorganic fertilizers by applying organic compost is not evaluated in this research. This
could be an interesting topic for research in the future.
4. As water is an input for on-field composting of the crop residues, but the use of water is
not included as an input cost to farmers because it is free of cost for agricultural purposes.
But somehow, water use is a cost to society and detailed research on this topic could be
done in future.

177

5. The effect of different climatic and soil conditions prevailing in different regions of
Punjab on the on-field composting process of crop residues and its input and output costs
could be an interesting topic of future research.

178

References

Abbas, M., Atiq-ur-Rahman, M., Manzoor, F., & Farooq, A. (2012). A Quantitative Analysis and
Comparison of Nitrogen, potassium and Phosphorus in rice husk and wheat bran samples.
Pure App. Bio., 14-15.
Agricultural Census 2015-16. (2018). Retrieved from The Hindu Centre:
https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/currentissues/article28682480.ece/binary/T1_ac_2015_16.pdf
Argun, Y. A., Tunc, A. K., Calisir, U., & Kilinc, N. (2017). Composting as a Waste Management
Method. Journal of International Environmental Application & Science, 244-255.
Bajwa, H. (2023). Punjab to provide over 24,000 machines to curb stubble burning. THE NEW
INDIAN EXPRESS. Retrieved from
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2023/sep/21/punjab-to-provide-over-24000machines-to-curb-stubble-burning-2616877.html.
Bal, S., Sood, A., Mukherjee, J., Bains, G., & Choudhury, B. (2009). Cropping system analysis
for the Punjab state using low-resolution remote sensing data. Journal of Agrometrology,
pp. 217–223.
Becker, S., Ebrahimzadeh, A., Herrada, B. P., & Lao, M. (2010). Characterization of Compost
Based on Crop Residues: Changes in Some Chemical and Physical Properties of the Soil
after Applying the Compost as Organic Amendment. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis. doi:10.1080/00103620903563931

179

Bernal, M. P., Alburquerque, J. A., & Moral, R. (2009, November). Composting of animal
manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review. Bioresource
Technology. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027
Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiarachchi, H., & Meegoda, J. (2019). Crop Residue Burning in India:
Policy Challenges and Potential Challenges. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, p. 832.
Biederbeck, V., Campbell, C., Bowren, K., Schnitzer, M., & Mclver, R. (1980). Effect of
Burning Cereal Straw on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in Saskatchewan. Journal of
the Indian Society of Soil Science. doi:10.2136/SSSAJ1980.03615995004400010022X
Chauhan, S. (2012). District-wise agriculture biomass resource assessment for power generation:
A case study from Indian state, Punjab. Biomass and Bioenergy, 37, 205-212. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.011
Crops grown in Punjab. (n.d.).: Retrieved June 4, 2024, from Punjab Data.
https://punjabdata.com/Agriculture-In-Punjab.aspx
Dash, P. K., Padhya, S. R., Bhattacharyya, P., Pattanayak, A., Routray, S., Panneerselvam, P....
Pathak, H. (2022). Efficient Lignin Decomposing Microbial Consortium to Hasten RiceStraw Composting with Moderate GHGs Fluxes. Waste and Biomass Volarization, 481–
496.
Deo, B., & Strong, D. (2002). Operation Based Cost Measurement Model. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2528646

180

Devi, P., Singh, C., Verma, S., & Vikas. (2021). Crop Residue : Not a Waste Until Wasted.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351250590_Crop_Residue_Not_a_Waste_Until
_Wasted
Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare. (n.d.). Retrieved from Government of Punjab:
Retrieved June 4, 2024, from https://agri.punjab.gov.in/
Downing, A., Kumar, M., Andersson, A., Causevic, A., Gustafsson, O., Joshi, N., . . . Crona, B.
(2022). Unlocking the unsustainable rice-wheat system of Indian Punjab: Assessing
alternatives to crop-residue burning from a systems perspective. Ecological Economics.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107364
Ferraz, P. F., Ferraz, G. A., Leso, L., Klopcic, M., Barbari, M., & Rossi, G. (2020). Properties of
conventional and alternative bedding materials for dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science,
103.
Ghuman, R. S., Singh, I., & Singh, L. (2007). Status of Local Agricultural Labor in Punjab.
Patiala: Department of Economics Punjabi University.
https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ERP/uni/SLPJ.pdf.
Godde, B., Menke, C., & Wassmann, R. (2009). Rice Straw as a renewable energy source in
India, Thailand, and the Philippines: Overall potential and limitations for energy
contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1532-1546.
Gowda, N., & Kumaran, G. (2014). Physical and mechanical properties of chopped Rice straw.
Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 204–209.
Gross, T., Kumar, S., Breitenmoser, L., Ehrensperger, A., Wintgens, T., & Hugi, C. (2021).
181

Anaerobic digestion of biowaste in India municipalities: Effects on energy, fertilizers,
water and the local environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170.
Gulati, A. (2011). FEED INDIA THE WORLD; Hybrid seeds and better water management can
keep us from being a big importer of food. Business Today, 20(1), 80–82.
Gulati, A., Roy, R., & Hussain, S. (2021). Performance of Agriculture in Punjab. In Studies in
Business and Economics. Singapore: Springer.
Gulati, A., Roy, R., & Hussain, S. (2021). Performance of Agriculture in Punjab. Revitalizing
Indian Agriculture and Boosting Farmer Incomes, 77-112.
Gupta, N., & Kannan, E. (2024). Agricultural growth and crop diversification in India: a statelevel analysis. Journal of Social and Economic Development. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-023-00311-7
Haider, M. Z. (2012). Options and Determinants of Rice Residue Management Practices in
south-west Region of Bangladesh. PO Box 8975, EPC 1056, Kathmandu, Nepal.: South
Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE).
Hayashida, S. (2020). Do cows prefer wheat straw or rice straw? AAKASH Project. Retrieved
from https://aakash-rihn.org/en/do-cows-prefer-wheat-straw-or-rice-straw/
Herencia, J., Ruiz-Porras, J., Melero, S., Garcia-Galavis, P., Morillo, E., & Maqueda, C. (2007).
Comparison between Organic and Mineral for Soil Fertility levels, Crop Macronutrient
Concentrations and Yield. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 504-512.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0168

182

Hiloidhari, M., Das, D., & Baruah, D. (2014). Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in
India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 504-512. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.025
Huang, T., Ma, J., Song, S., Ling, Z., Macdonald, R., Gao, H., . . . Mao, X. (2022). Health and
environmental consequences of crop residue burning correlated with increasing crop
yields in the midst of India's Green Revolution. Climate and Atmospheric Science.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00306-x
Huang, X., Wang, H., Zou, Y., Cece, Q., Hao, B., Shao, Q., . . . Ren, L. (2023). Rice straw
composting improves the Microbial Diversity of Rice soils to Stimulate the growth,
Yield, and Grain Quality of Soil. Sustainability, 932.
Retrieved from indiastat: indiastatdistricts. (2000).
https://www.indiastatdistricts.com/Home/Login
Jiang, Z., Lian, F., Wang, Z., & Xing, B. (2020). The role of biochars in sustainable crop
production and soil resiliency. Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(2), 520-542.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz301
Jusoh, M. L., Manaf, L. A., & Latiff, P. A. (2013). Composting of rice straw with effective
microorganisms (EM) and its influence on compost quality. Iranian Journal of
Environmental Health Sciences & Engineering.
Kapoor, T., Navinya, C., Anurag, G., Lokhande, P., Rathi, S., Gael, A., . . . Phuleria, H. C.
(2023). Reassessing the availability of crop residue as a bioenergy resource in India: A

183

field-survey based study. Journal of Environmental Management, 341.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118055
Kaniapan, S., Pasupuleti, J., Nesan, K. P., Abubackar, H. N., Umar, H. A., Oladosu, T. L., . . .
Rene, E. R. (2022). A Review of the Sustainable Utilization of Rice Residues for
Bioenergy Conversion Using Different Valorization Techniques, Their Challenges, and
Techno-Economic Assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(6), 3427.
Kanwal, S. (2022, February 14). Agriculture in India - statistics & facts. Retrieved from Statista:
https://www.statista.com/topics/4868/agricultural-sector-in-india/#topicHeader__wrapper
Karnchanawong, S., & Nissaikla, S. (2014). Effects of microbial inoculation on composting of
household organic waste using passive aeration bin. International Journal of Recycling of
Organic waste in Agriculture, 113-119.
Kaur, A. (2017). Crop Residue in Punjab Agriculture - Status and Constraints. Journal of Krishi
Vigyan, 22.
Kaur, M., & Kaur, P. (2018). Diversification and Specialization of Punjab in Growing Various
Crops: A District Level Approach. Economic Affairs, 963-972.
Khan, A. A., Garsa, K., Jindal, P., & Devara, P. (2023). Effects of stubble burning and
firecrackers on the air quality of Delhi. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11635-6
Kim Ho, T. T., Tra, V. T., Le, T. H., Nguyen, N.-K.-Q., Tran, C.-S., Nguyen, P.-T., . . . Bui, X.T. (2022). Compost to improve sustainable soil cultivation and crop productivity. Case
Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering.
184

Koul, B., Yakoob, M., & Shah, M. (2022). Agricultural waste management strategies for
environmental sustainability. Environmental Research, 206.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112285Li
Kranz, C., McLaughlin, R., Johnson, A., Miller, G., & Heitman, J. (2020). The effects of
compost incorporation on soil physical properties in urban soils - A concise review.
Journal of Environmental Management. doi::10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110209
Kuchimanchi, B. R., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Steenstra, F., Thomas, R., & Oosting, S. (2023). The
impact of intensive farming systems on groundwater availability in dryland
environments: A watershed level study from Telangana, India. Current research in
Environmental Sustainability.
Kumar, N., Chhokar, R., Meena, R., Kharub, A., Gill, S., Tripathi, S., . . . Singh, G. (2022).
Challenges and opportunities in productivity and sustainability of rice cultivation system:
a critical review in Indian perspective. Cereal Research Communications, 573-601.
Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Laxmi Joshi. (2015). The extent and Management of Crop Stubble.
Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of Agricultural Residue Burning (pp. 13–
34).
Kuppusamy, S., Thavamani, P., Megharaj, M., Venkateswarlu, K., & Naidu, R. (2016).
Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of applying biochar to soil: Current
knowledge and future research directions. Environment International, 1-12.

185

Lam, P., Sokhansanj, S., Bi, X., Mani, S., Lim, C., Womac, A., . . . Nayaran, S. (2007). Physical
characteristics of wet and dry wheat straw and switchgrass - bulk and specific density.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Lan, R., Eastham, S., Liu, T., Norford, L., & Barett, S. (2022). Air quality impacts of crop
residue burning in India and mitigation alternatives. Nature Communications.
Larson, W. (1979). Crop residues: energy production or erosion control. Journal of soil water
conservation, 34.
Lentz, E., CCA, & Lindsey, L. (2016 -17). Nutrient value of Wheat straw. Agronomic Crops
Network. https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/nutrient-value-wheat-straw.
Li, J., Shan, Y., Tian, G., & Hao, X. (2020, October). Labor cost, government intervention, and
corporate innovation: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101668\
Liang, J., Lin, Y., Li, T., & Mo, F. (2017). Microbial consortium OEMI cultivation for higher
lignocellulose degradation and chlorophenol removal. RSC Advances, 39011-39017.
doi:10.1039/C7RA04703G

Lohan, S. K., Jat, H., Yadav, A. K., Sidhu, H. S., Jat, M. L., Choudhary, M., . . . Sharma, P. C.
(2018). Burning issues of Rice residue management in north-west states of India.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 693–706.
Long, M., Li, M., Yu, C., Ding, Y., Li, W., Zhang, H., . . . Wen, X. (2023). Effects of Straw
Returning Method on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Growth of Winter
186

Wheat in Rainfed Area of the Loess Plateau. Journal of Social Science and Plant
Nutrition.
Mandal, K., Misra, A., Hati, K., Bandyopadhyay, K., Ghosh, P., & Mohanty, M. (2004). Rice
Residue-Management Options and Effects on Soil Properties and Crop Productivity.
Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 22, 224-231.
Mandpe, A., & Kumar, S. (2020). Composting: A Sustainable Route for Processing of
Biodegradable Wastes in India. In Organic Waste Composting through Nexus Thinking.
Springer. doi:0.1007/978-3-030-36283-6_3
Minimum Support Price for various crops. (n.d.). Retrieved from Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2003184
Minimum Support Price-2021-22 (MSP). (n.d.). Retrieved from Press Information Bureau:
https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/Merged-MSP.pdf
Mirmohamadsadeghi, S., & Karimi, K. (2020). Recovery of silica from rice straw and husk.
Resource Recovery from Wastes, 411-433.
Moharana, P., Biswas, D., Ghosh, A., Sarkar, A., Bhattacharya, R., & Meena. (2020). Effects of
crop residues compost on the fractions and forms of organic carbon and nitrogen in
subtropical Indian conditions. Soil Research, p. 58.
NABARD. (n.d.). Retrieved from State Focus Paper 2021 - 2022:
https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/2004213858SFP_Punjab.pdf

187

Nordahl, S., Preble, C. V., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2023). Greenhouse Gas and Air
Pollutant Emissions from Composting. Environmental Science & Technology.
doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c05846
Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Package of practices for crops of Punjab. (n.d.). Retrieved from Punjab Agricultural University
(PAU): https://www.pau.edu/content/ccil/pf/pp_rabi.pdf
Package of Practices for the crops of Punjab. (n.d.). Retrieved from Punjab Agricultural
University (PAU): https://www.pau.edu/content/ccil/pf/pp_kharif.pdf
Pang, W., Hou, D., Nowar, E., Chen, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, G., . . . Wang, S. (2020). The
influence on carbon, nitrogen recycling, and greenhouse gas emissions under different
C/N ratios by black soldier fly. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 42767–
42777.
Pergola, M., Persiani, A., Palese, A., Meo, V., Pastore, V., D'Adamo, C., & Celano, G. (2018).
Composting: The way for sustainable agriculture. Applied Soil Ecology, 744-750.
Porichha, G. K., Hu, Y., Rao, K. T., & Xu, C. C. (2021). Crop Residue Management in India:
Stubble Burning vs. Other Utilizations including Bioenergy. Energies, 14.
Ravindra, K., Singh, T., & Mor, S. (2019). Emissions of air pollutants from primary crop residue
burning in India and their mitigation strategies for cleaner emissions. Journal of cleaner
production, pp. 261–273.

188

Ray, S., Sood, A., Das, G., Panigraphy, S., Sharma, P., & Parihar, J. (2005). Use of GIS and
remote sensing for crop diversification - a case study for Punjab state. Journal of the
Indian Society of Remote Sensing, p. 33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990034
Sangeet, & Rajkumar. (2016). Crop Residue Generation and Management in Punjab State. Indian
Journal of Economics and Development, pp. 477–483.
Sharma, P. K., & Mishra, B. (2001). Effect of burning Rice and wheat crop residues: Loss of N,
P, K, and S from soil and changes in the nutrient availability. Journal of the Indian
Society of Soil Sciences, pp. 425–429.
Shergill, H. (2005). Wheat and Rice Cultivation and the Question of Optimal Cropping Pattern
for Punjab. Journal of Punjab Studies, pp. 239–250.
Shukla, S. K., & Warsi, A. (2000). Effect of sulphur and micronutrients on growth, nutrient
content and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural
Research, 203-205.
Sidhu, B., & Beri, V. (2005). Experience with managing rice residues in intensive rice-wheat
cropping system in Punjab. Conservation agriculture: Status and prospects, 55-63.
Sidhu, B., Rupela, O., Beri, V., & Joshi, P. (1998). Sustainability Implications of Burning Rice
and Wheat Straw in Punjab.
Singh, A., & Zaffar, H. (2017, November 8). Why Do Farmers Burn the Crop Residue in
Punjab? THE CITIZEN. Retrieved from
https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/2/12192/Why-Do-FarmersBurn-the-Crop-Residue-in-Punjab?infinitescroll=1
189

Singh, D., Singh, J., & Kumar, S. (2015). Economic viability of Agro Machinery service centers
established by the primary agricultural co-operative societies in Punjab. Indian Journal of
Economics Development, pp. 743–750.
Singh, G., & Singh, J. (2006). Green Revolution and Economic Plight of Agricultural Labor in
Punjab. The Indian Journal of Labor Economics, pp. 874–854.
Singh, N., & Kohli, D. S. (2005). The Green Revolution in Punjab, India: The Economics of
Technological Change. Journal of Punjab Studies, pp. 285–306.
Singh, R. P., Dhaliwal, H., Humphreys, E., Sidhu, H., Singh, M., Singh, Y., & Blackwell, J.
(2008). Economic assessment of the Happy Seeder for rice-wheat systems in Punjab,
India. In 52nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource
Economics (AARES 2008).
Singh, S. (2017). Farm Machinery Rental Services: Case Studies from Punjab. In S. Singh,
Institutional Innovations of Delivery of Farm Services in India (pp. 33–70). New Delhi:
Springer, New Delhi.
Singh, S. (2022). Labor Absorption in Punjab Agriculture: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis. Panjab
University Research Journal (Arts).
Singh, S., & Kingra, H. (2013). Custom Hiring Services of Farm Machinery in Punjab: Impact
and Policies. Agricultural and Food Sciences, Economics.
Singh, S., & Ranguwal, S. (2023). Generation and management of crop residues in Punjab.
Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy, 267-276.

190

Singh, T., Biswal, A., Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Singh, V., & Mor, S. (2020). A high-resolution
emission inventory of air pollutants from primary crop residue burning over Northern
India based on VIIRS thermal anomalies. Environmental Pollution.
Singh, Y., Singh, B., Ladha, J., Khind, C., Khera, T., & Bueno, C. (2004). Effects of Residue
Decomposition on Productivity and Soil Fertility in Rice-Wheat Rotation. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, pp. 854–864.
Social cost of greenhouse gas emissions. (n.d.). Retrieved from Government of Canada:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/scienceresearch-data/social-cost-ghg.html
State Action Plan on Climate Change. (n.d.). Retrieved from Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change: https://moef.gov.in/moef/division/environment-divisions/climatechangecc-2/state-action-plan-on-climate-change/index.html
State Focus Paper. (n.d.). Retrieved from NABARD:
https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/2004213858SFP_Punjab.pdf
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT PUNJAB (SAP) 2015. (n.d.). Retrieved from Government of
Punjab(India):
https://finance.punjab.gov.in/uploads/21may2022/b1beecb481a47be868cd75c983e0d96c.
pdf
The Essential Role of the Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio in Composting. (2023). Compost Magazine.
Retrieved from https://www.compostmagazine.com/compost-carbon-nitrogen-ratio/.

191

Tejada, M., Garcia, C., Gonzalez, J., & Hernandez, T. (2006). Use of Organic Amendments as a
Strategy for Saline Soil Remediation: Influence on the Physical, Chemical and Biological
Properties of Soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1413-1421. doi:
10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.10.017

Toor, M., Bhullar, A., & Kaur, I. (2007). Agriculture-Led Diversification and Labor Use in
Punjab: Potentials and Constraints. Indian Journal of Labor Economics.
Top 21 Benefits of Jute and Jute Bags. (2022). Retrieved from ECOSACKS: https://www.ecosacks.com/post/advantages-of-jute-bags
Tripathi, S. C., Mongia, A., Sharma, R. K., Kharub, S. A., & Chhokar, R. S. (2005). Wheat
productivity of different sowing times in various agroclimatic zones of India. Journal of
Agriculture, pp. 191 - 201
Verma, R., Badole, W., Deewan, P., & Meena, V. S. (2014). Carbon and weight loss during
composting of wheat straw by different methods. Annals of Biology, 354-357.
Wang, X., Yang, Z., Xian, L., Huang, G., Xiao, W., & Han, L. (2020). The composition
characteristics of different crop straw types and their multivariate analysis and
comparison. Waste Management, 87-97.
Waste and compost volume/weight conversion and process weight reduction. (2022, April).
Retrieved from The Highland Council: https://highlandcompost.scot/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Volume-Weight-Conversion-Factors.pdf

192

Woignier, T., Clastre, F., Fernandes, P., Rangon, L., Soler, A., & Lesueur - jannoyer, M. (2016).
Compost addition reduces porosity and chlordecone transfer in soil microstructure.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 98-108.
Yin, S., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, Z., Xiao, Y., Tani, H., & Sun, Z. (2019). Exploring the
effects of crop residue burning on local haze pollution in Northeast China using ground
and satellite data. Atmospheric Environment, pp. 189–201.
Zhang, H., Dawei, H., Jianmin, C., Xingam, Y., Shu, X., Ji, M., . . . Zhisheng, A. (2011). Particle
size distribution and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons emissions from agricultural crop
residue burning. Environmental science & technology, 5477-5482.
Zhang, A., Cheng, G., Hussain, Q., Zhang, M., Feng, H., Dyck, M., . . . Wang, X. (2017).
Contrasting effects of straw and straw–derived biochar application on net global warming
potential in the Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Research, 205, 45-54.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.006.

193

Appendix A
Total crop area and production of rice and wheat in various districts
1. Year (2019-20)
Area (acres)

Production (tons)

Yield (tons/acre)

No.

District

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

447251

464548

598000

852000

1.337057

1.834041

2

Barnala

281694

281694

525000

599000

1.863724

2.126421

3

Bathinda

442309

632576

764000

1387000

1.727299

2.192622

4

Faridkot

286636

286636

436000

646000

1.521093

2.253729

5

Fatehgarh

212506

210035

366000

374000

1.722304

1.780656

6

Fazilka

471961

509026

775000

1016000

1.642085

1.995969

7

Ferozepur

281694

462077

307000

957000

1.089835

2.071083

8

Gurdaspur

429954

457135

637000

772000

1.481554

1.688779

9

Hoshiarpur

192738

350882

312000

609000

1.618778

1.735626

10

Jalandhar

432425

427483

713000

870000

1.648841

2.035169

11

Kapurthala

296520

269339

496000

507000

1.672737

1.882386

12

Ludhiana

639989

617750

1211000

1275000

1.89222

2.063942

13

Mansa

294049

422541

489000

922000

1.662988

2.182037

14

Moga

447251

434896

826000

942000

1.846838

2.166035

15

SMS

469490

528794

637000

1168000

1.356791

2.2088

16

SBSN

148260

190267

251000

391000

1.692972

2.055007

17

Pathankot

69188

98840

86000

158000

1.24299

1.598543

18

Patiala

580685

578214

928000

1116000

1.598113

1.930081

194

19

Rupnagar

98840

170499

144000

299000

1.4569

1.753676

20

SASN

71659

123550

105000

226000

1.465273

1.829219

21

Sangrur

714119

719061

1362000

1678000

1.907245

2.333599

22

Tarn Taran

454664

464548

707000

855000

1.554994

1.840499

Average

7763882

8700391

12675000

17619000

1.63256

2.025081

Revised from- https://data.desagri.gov.in/website/crops-apy-report-web.

2. Year (2020-2021)
Agricultural Area

Agricultural

(acres)

Production(t)

Yield (t/acre)

No.

District

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

456393.7

467019

617000

900000

1.351903

1.927116

2

Barnala

284906.3

280952.7

602000

546000

2.112975

1.943388

3

Bathinda

437861.2

631587.6

822000

1266000

1.877307

2.004473

4

Faridkot

287130.2

286636

477000

588000

1.661267

2.051382

5

Fatehgarh

215224.1

210282.1

414000

422000

1.923576

2.006828

6

Fazilka

286883.1

512732.5

380000

984000

1.324581

1.919129

7

Ferozepur

466030.6

484563.1

823000

967000

1.765978

1.995612

8

Gurdaspur

431683.7

458617.6

680000

840000

1.575227

1.831591

9

Hoshiarpur

196197.4

350634.9

330000

588000

1.681979

1.676958

10

Jalandhar

432672.1

426000.4

797000

845000

1.842042

1.983566

11

Kapurthala

290836.7

259949.2

511000

486000

1.757

1.869596

12

Ludhiana

639000.6

617008.7

1264000

1241000

1.978089

2.011317

13

Mansa

299979.4

424023.6

578000

852000

1.926799

2.009322

14

Moga

451945.9

437367

892000

911000

1.973688

2.082919

195

15

SMS

458123.4

531759.2

809000

1087000

1.7659

2.044158

16

SBSN

152954.9

191996.7

270000

384000

1.765226

2.000034

17

Pathankot

70670.6

103782

105000

182000

1.485766

1.753676

18

Patiala

578955.3

577472.7

1048000

1162000

1.810157

2.012216

19

Rupanagar

99581.3

169757.7

180000

310000

1.807568

1.826132

20

SASN

68446.7

119843.5

101000

212000

1.475601

1.768974

21

Sangrur

718566.8

719061

1531000

1532000

2.13063

2.130556

22

Tarn Taran

457382.1

462077

761000

880000

1.663817

1.904444

Average

7781426

8723124

13992000

17185000

1.798128

1.970051

Revised from- https://www.indistatdistricts.com/.

3. Year (2021-2022)
Agricultural area

Agricultural

(acres)

Production (t)

Yield (t/acre)

No.

Districts

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

452193

467760.3

659000

843000

1.457342

1.802205

2

Barnala

286883.1

283670.8

551000

525000

1.920643

1.850737

3

Bathinda

445768.4

644189.7

829000

1149000

1.85971

1.783636

4

Faridkot

285894.7

285400.5

503000

529000

1.759389

1.853536

5

Fatehgarh S.

215718.3

210776.3

412000

290000

1.909898

1.375866

6

Fazilka

279470.1

504331.1

355000

873000

1.270261

1.731006

7

Ferozepur

464053.8

464053.8

827000

821000

1.782121

1.769191

8

Gurdaspur

431436.6

454911.1

671000

777000

1.555269

1.708026

9

Hoshiarpur

189525.7

351376.2

291000

515000

1.535412

1.465666

196

10

Jalandhar

431683.7

428224.3

747000

732000

1.730434

1.709385

11

Kapurthala

294543.2

271810

503000

439000

1.707729

1.615099

12

Ludhiana

639247.7

603418.2

1246000

1044000

1.949166

1.730143

13

Mansa

303191.7

426247.5

561000

768000

1.850315

1.80177

14

Moga

448980.7

439590.9

861000

778000

1.917677

1.769827

15

SMS

453181.4

541643.2

766000

992000

1.690272

1.831464

16

SBSN

150483.9

191008.3

275000

299000

1.827438

1.565377

17

Pathankot

68199.6

97357.4

97000

144000

1.422296

1.479086

18

Patiala

577472.7

576978.5

1008000

907000

1.745537

1.571982

19

Rupanagar

99087.1

169510.6

169000

248000

1.70557

1.463035

20

SASN

79566.2

123797.1

113000

186000

1.420201

1.502458

21

Sangrur

589827.7

590074.8

1195000

989000

2.026015

1.676059

22

Tarn Taran

449722

458370.5

724000

796000

1.609883

1.736586

Average

7767341.4

8713981.5

13642000

14871000

1.756328

1.706568

Revised from- https://www.indistatdistricts.com/.

197

Appendix B
Volume of crop residues generated
2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

No.

District

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

1

Amritsar

5.532649

7.856922

5.594081

8.255652

6.030382

7.720539

2

Barnala

7.711963

9.10946

8.743346

8.325357

7.947488

7.928446

3

Bathinda

7.147445

9.393062

7.768168

8.587041

7.695352

7.640991

4

Faridkot

6.294178

9.654843

6.874209

8.787999

7.28023

7.940436

5

Fatehgarh

7.126776

7.628222

7.959626

8.597131

7.903027

5.894129

6

Fazilka

6.794834

8.550611

5.481026

8.221436

5.256253

7.415525

7

Ferozepur

4.509662

8.872398

7.307497

8.549083

7.374294

7.579111

8

Gurdaspur

6.130568

7.234629

6.518182

7.846428

6.435596

7.317082

9

Hoshiarpur

6.698391

7.435319

6.959915

7.183988

6.353428

6.278824

10

Jalandhar

6.82279

8.718541

7.622241

8.497479

7.160415

7.322902

11

Kapurthala

6.921671

8.06403

7.270344

8.009238

7.066465

6.918987

12

Ludhiana

7.829876

8.841803

8.185195

8.616362

8.065515

7.411831

13

Mansa

6.88133

9.347715

7.972961

8.607816

7.656474

7.718676

14

Moga

7.642087

9.279165

8.166983

8.923101

7.935216

7.581835

15

SMS

5.614309

9.462366

7.307171

8.757052

6.994231

7.845882

16

SBSN

7.005401

8.803527

7.304384

8.568028

7.561812

6.705982

17

Pathankot

5.143407

6.848063

6.147999

7.512643

5.885362

6.336318

18

Patiala

6.61288

8.268353

7.490305

8.620215

7.222912

6.734279

19

Rupanagar

6.028552

7.512643

7.479593

7.823041

7.057532

6.267556

20

SASN

6.063199

7.836265

6.105934

7.578178

5.876694

6.436442

198

21

Sangrur

7.892049

9.996999

8.8164

9.127177

8.383512

7.180136

22

Tarn Taran

6.43446

7.884587

6.884759

8.158527

6.661587

7.439433

6.755419

8.675328

7.44053

8.439581

7.267565

7.310835

Average

199

Appendix C
End use of Rice-wheat crop residues by a few districts of Punjab in 1998
End use in different districts (% of total residue produced by
farmers)
Districts

Fodder

Incorp

Burned

Sold

Misc

RS

WS

RS

WS

RS

WS

RS

WS

RS

WS

Amritsar

18.2

39.9

0.0

0.0

49.4

54.2

19.6

5.9

9.4

0.0

Bathinda

0.0

41.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

33.4

0.0

25.5

0.0

0.0

Faridkot

0.4

54.6

0.0

0.0

97.6

40.1

0.8

5.3

1.3

0.0

Fatehgarh S.

8.1

28.4

0.0

0.0

78.0

45.2

12.3

26.4

1.6

0.0

Ferozepur

3.3

25.4

8.8

0.0

68.1

69.2

1.0

0.0

18.8

5.4

Gurdaspur

12.9

49.1

1.7

2.4

62.5

48.5

1.7

0.0

20.6

0.0

Jalandhar

3.2

35.6

0.0

0.0

88.4

64.4

2.8

0.0

4.7

0.0

Kapurthala

5.7

43.5

1.7

0.0

88.0

53.7

0.0

2.8

4.4

0.0

Ludhiana

1.9

54.3

0.0

0.0

94.9

37.5

0.5

6.1

2.7

2.1

Patiala

11.7

38.7

0.0

0.0

81.5

43.6

5.9

15.3

0.9

2.4

Sangrur

0.4

48.0

0.0

0.0

94.8

39.5

1.9

11.6

2.8

0.9

Area surveyed

6.5

42.6

0.9

0.2

81.4

48.2

4.8

8.1

5.8

1.0

(Sidhu et al., 1998)

200

Appendix D
Operational Holdings in Punjab (1995-96 to 2015-16)
1995-96

2010-11

2015-16

Area

Number

Size of

Area

Number

Size of

Area

Number

Size of

(%)

(%)

holding

(%)

(%)

holding

(%)

(%)

holding

(ha)

(ha)

(ha)

Marginal

2.95

18.65

0.6

2.55

15.62

0.61

2.36

14.13

0.60

Small

5.78

16.78

1.31

6.78

18.57

1.38

7.33

18.98

1.40

Semi-

20.08

29.31

2.6

21.56

30.83

2.64

24.87

33.67

2.67

Medium

42.29

27.98

5.74

43.18

28.35

5.74

43.75

27.93

5.67

Large

28.89

7.28

15.05

25.93

6.62

14.75

21.65

5.28

14.85

All classes

100

100

3.79

100

100

3.77

100

100

3.62

medium

(Agricultural Census 2015-16, 2018)

201