Agriculture biomass in India: Part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Agriculture biomass in India: Part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts Dennis Cardoen a,b,c , Piyush Joshi c , Ludo Diels b , Priyangshu M. Sarma c,∗ , Deepak Pant b,∗∗ a

Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium Separation and Conversion Technology, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Mol, Belgium Environmental and Industrial Biotechnology Division, The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 March 2015 Received in revised form 18 May 2015 Accepted 2 June 2015 Keywords: Biomass Post-harvest loss Agro-residue By-products Costs Environmental impact

a b s t r a c t The growing bioeconomy sector aims to reduce the amount of waste generated and to promote the unavoidable waste generated as a resource and achieve higher levels of recycling and safe disposal. Postharvest losses contribute to a substantial proportion of the loss that the agricultural biomass undergoes in India. It is therefore important to make an assessment of this loss and assign a certain cost to it. In this study, we have carried out an assessment of the residues that are generated in the field or on the farm at the time of harvest (for example wheat and rice straw), wastes generated as a result of post-harvest losses. In addition, the by-products from the processing of agricultural produce (for example sugarcane bagasse produced during the production of sugar from sugar cane, or cereal husks produced during milling) are also considered. Finally, certain aspects of the environmental impact and sustainability of the utilization of agricultural residues and by-products are addressed. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Biomass and biowaste are delivering the most efficient and abundant renewable resources forming the basis for a bio-economy (Lin et al., 2013). The production of energy from biomass is part of the bio-economy that is going to be developed in the next decades. In the energy sector, energy crops could be used to produce heat and electricity and could substitute for fossil fuels and therefore help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to achieving environmental goals (Singh et al., 2013).

Abbreviations: AEZ, agro-ecological zone; ASSOCHAM, The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India; BPR, by-product to product ratio; BAT, best available technologies; CIRY, crop-independent residue yield; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FCI, Food Corporation of India; GOI, Government of India; Ha, hectare; HI, harvest index; IPCC, Intergovernmental panel on climate change; KHa, thousand hectares; Kton, thousand metric tons; TNPL, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited; MSP, minimum support price; Mton, Million Metric Tons; NIIST, National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology; PDS, public distribution system; UNCTAD, UN conference on Trade and Development; WPI, wholesale price index; RCR, residue-to-crop ratio. ∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +91 11 24682144. ∗∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +32 1432 6586. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.M. Sarma), [email protected], [email protected] (D. Pant). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.002 0921-3449/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In developing countries, rapid urbanization and increasing economic growth has led to the increase in the generation of waste, subsequently bringing the issues related to its impacts to the fore. The problem of agricultural waste, industrial or municipal waste, domestic or agro-industrial waste, plastic waste or waste water effluent is serious in terms of their magnitude and potential impacts on air, land and health of people managing these waste streams (ElMekawy et al., 2014). Waste generation in India is showing an increasing trend, which if channelized appropriately can lead to a significant enhancement in conversion of waste to energy. However, to do that effectively, it is imperative to have an idea about the quantities of waste being generated and their existing fate. According to a recent study by ASSOCHAM (2013), India’s postharvest fruit and vegetable losses is over Rs. 2 trillion annually (approx. thirty-four billion US Dollar), owing to inadequate cold storage facilities and lack of proper food processing units. The lack of proper storage facility is responsible for wastage of substantial quantities of fruits and veggies produced in the country which can be prevented to a great extent. In the first part of this study, we reported the estimates about the amounts and availability of biomass residues/wastes generated in the Indian agriculture sector for organized use as an industrial feedstock within the context of the biorefinery concept. The aim of this paper is thus to make an assessment of the post-harvest losses that the biomass undergoes in the Indian con-

144

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

text, the costs associated with it and the environmental impacts of such losses. We continue from the part 1 of this study where we presented the amount of biomass generated with main crop types in India and the residues associated with them. Residues that are generated in the field or on the farm at the time of harvest (for example wheat and rice straw), wastes generated as a result of post-harvest losses, as well by-products from the processing of agricultural produce (for example sugarcane bagasse produced during the production of sugar from sugar cane, or cereal husks produced during milling) are considered. In addition, certain aspects of the environmental impact and sustainability of the utilization of agricultural residues and by-products are addressed. 2. Methodology The results presented are based on data gathered from existing literature. Where relevant and possible, preference has been given to Indian and peer reviewed sources. 2.1. Post-harvest losses Due to inadequacies along the transportation and storage chain from the field to the consumer, a considerable portion of the agricultural produce is lost for consumption. A 2007 report by the Ministry of Food Processing estimated that agricultural produce worth Rs. 580 billion [about fourteen million three hundred thirteen thousand nine hundred nineteen dollars (where \$1 equal to Rs. 40.52)] is wasted each year (Commodity Online, 2007). The exact extent of these losses is largely unknown. Furthermore, due to the fact that these losses occur along many points of the chain and in many different manners (threshing losses, losses during loading and transportation, storage losses due to insects, rodents, rot etc.), it is far from obvious to assess what fraction of the waste generated due to post-harvest losses could be accessible for collection and utilization. A distinction can be made between losses that are incurred at the farm before and during harvest, losses during distribution and transportation, and wastage at the level of the consumer. Some estimates of farm level losses for paddy, wheat and onions are 3.8%, 3.3% and 14%, respectively (Basavaraja et al., 2007; Atibudhi, 1997). Due to its diffuse nature, the waste generated before and during harvest is waste that can be considered nonrecoverable. Conservative estimates for the post-harvest losses incurred during transportation, storage and distribution – i.e., between field and consumer - are listed in Table 1. An estimated 13% of all the agricultural produce under consideration is lost during these stages, amounting to approximately 90 million tons per year of biomass, one third or more than 30 Mton of which can be contributed to sugarcane. This may be an indication of the fact that the sugar cane industry is relatively more aware of post-harvest losses and is less likely to be underestimating the losses. Of all the wasted crops under consideration, the wasted sugar cane may be the most easily collectable. Loss percentages in vegetables and fruits are particularly high. Banana and mango losses constitute about 10 Mton per year. Vegetables together with potatoes and tapioca contribute approximately 20 Mton of waste per year. A sizeable fraction of these fruit and vegetable wastes may be recoverable from the fruit and vegetable markets. For rice and wheat, the GOI has an extensive procurement network and distribution system of rice and wheat called the Public Distribution System (PDS), managed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The FCI manages large buffer stocks of these grains: as of June 2010, the stocks of wheat amounted to 33.5 Mton and those of paddy to 24.3 Mton (Food Corporation of India, 2014). It is well known that due to inadequate storage and stock management, con-

siderable amounts of grains are wasted during storage. Between 1997 and 2007, more than 1.3 Mton of grain decayed in storage (Haq, 2010). Answers to parliamentary questions stated that in the period 2006–2008 about 30 Ktons of grains were damaged (Rajya Sabha, 2007) (Lok Sabha, 2009a,b). As they are part of a large-scale distribution network, such waste might be recoverable. In fact, the government currently spends considerable amounts of money to dispose of these wastes: between 1997 and 2007, the government spent Rs 26 million rupees just to get rid of rotten grain (Haq, 2010). More than recovering the waste however, the obvious priority of the government should be the reduction of spoilage in its storage facilities. Indeed, it could be argued that efforts to organize the utilization of wastes generated from spoilage during government storage might well prove undesirable from a political point of view as long as sufficient measure have not been put in place to prevent the spoilage of food grains in government storage. As far as could be discerned, the fate of waste generated during post-harvest operations in the form of spoiled produce is largely undocumented. It could be assumed that most of it is simply dumped. As such, the impact of post-harvest losses of agricultural produce is felt not just in terms of food security or finances, but likely also has an impact on the environment. Leaching from dumps contaminates groundwater as Indian dumps have no provisions for leachate prevention. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, based on the assumption that the total amount of waste from post-harvest losses is disposed of through unmanaged dumping/landfilling, an estimated emission of 2.8 Mton CH4 /year is arrived at, or approximately 60 Mton CO2 -eq per year. For comparison, it can be noted that the total CO2 emissions of India in 2006 were estimated at 1510 Mton (United Nations Statistics Division-Environment Statistics, 2007). Landfill emissions due to Municipal Solid Waste were approximately 0.4 Mton CH4 in 1999 (Kumar et al., 2004), or 8.4 Mton CO2 -eq. Obviously the assumption leads to an estimation that is likely to be too high, as much of the post-harvest losses will not come just from spoiled food that must be dumped, but also from weight reductions due to moisture content reductions and insect and rodent consumption. A more detailed breakdown of the post-harvest losses would allow for a more accurate number. Waste that is generated at the level of the consumer becomes part of the municipal solid waste. Source separation of waste in urban areas would be an important requisite for allowing food waste utilization. As it stands, most of the urban food waste ends up along with the other municipal waste in illegal dumps or landfills, whose location is commonly selected solely on the basis of availability. The waste is dumped in an uncontrolled manner, and as such the litter, odour, pathogenic vectors, landfill gas and leachates pose significant risks towards public health and the environment (Talyan et al., 2008). 2.2. Utilization or consumption patterns The generation of residues, as discussed in the previous paragraph, tells only part of the story. When trying to assess the availability for new uses of residues, it is critical to know what the existing utilization pattern of the residues is. Indeed, when it comes to Indian agriculture, the idea of residues as “waste” is often sorely mistaken. Although very little is documented, it is clear that there is a very high local use of residues and that these residues are often of critical value to the farmers and to the sustainability of the agricultural system. The most important manner of utilization is as a fodder for livestock. India suffers from large shortages of fodder. One of the consequences of this is that people, particularly women, spend a considerable amount of time looking for and collecting fodder from common lands such as forest and grasslands to make up for the shortage of fodder, often leading to degradation of these com-

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

145

Table 1 Post-harvest losses. Crop

Transport losses (%)

Banana Cabbages etc Chickpea Coconut Cotton seed Eggplant Groundnut Maize Mango Mustard Onion Paddy Pearl millet Pigeon Pea Potato Sorghum Soybean Sugarcane Tapioca Tomato Wheat Total

20 6 3 3 5 6 2 11 11 3 6 0.5 5 3 17 7 5 2 5 10 0.4

Storage losses (%)

Market/ distribution losses (%)

Up to 15

0.7

1.1–5 4–5

4–5

0.5

0.8–5

Total post-harvest losses (%)

Total post-harvest losses (Kton)

20–30 20–30 7 10 10 20–30 10 10 25–40 10 15 5–15 11–15 8.5 15 7.5–15 10 10 15 20–30 8–25 13

5615 2613 415 1066 1202 2170 707 1775 4301 713 1560 9408 945 231 4614 840 965 32789 1256 2514 16399 92097

Sources: Atteri (1994); Basavaraja et al. (2007); Board on Science and Technology for International Development (1978); Chattopadhay (2005); FAO (2010); Goyal (2005); World Bank (2002); Nag et al. (2000); Planning Commission GoI (2008); World Bank (2002).

mons. It has been estimated that crop residues provide 143 Mton of green fodder yearly, whereas the requirement is 222 Mton (Lok Sabha, 2009a,b). Other estimates that highlight the shortage of animal feed report a supply, respectively requirement for green fodder of 126 Mton, respectively 193 Mton, for dry fodder of 365 Mton, respectively 412 Mton and for concentrates (including processing by-products such as brans and oilcakes) of 34 Mton, respectively 47 Mton (NIANP, 2010). Furthermore, there are large parts of the country where liquid fuels are either not easily available or beyond the means of a large part of the population. As a consequence, solid biomass fuels account for over 80% of the total energy consumption in the countryside (Ravindranath and Hall, 1995) and 75% of the households use wood, dung or residues as a fuel (Household Energy Network, 2010). Only 54% of this biomass comes from fuel wood. The result is that a sizeable fraction of agricultural residues ends up being used as a domestic cooking fuel, at very low efficiency (10–14% (Ravindranath and Hall, 1995)), and often with considerable health impacts due to indoor air pollution (Smith, 1993): it has been estimated that 500,000 women and children die each year due to this cause (Household Energy Network, 2010). Table 2 gives an overview of the result of a literature search for data on the utilization of crop residues. It shows the percentage of the total residue generated that is used for a certain purpose. ‘Fertilizer’ use refers to the direct utilization of the residue for maintaining or improving the soil fertility, such as composting. The list of uses is far from comprehensive and as can be seen, there are many blanks. What little data is available in the literature is often conflicting and apparently unreliable. For some residues in particular, there is a high current utilization in the form of domestic fuel. These are chickpea stalks, cotton stalks, groundnut stalks, maize stover, mustard stalks, paddy husk and pigeon pea stalks. For these residues combined, an estimated total of 47 Mton/year is used as a domestic fuel. Considering that improved cooking stoves can lead to a 35% savings in fuel (Household Energy Network, 2010), approximately 17 Mton/year of these residues could be saved from use as a domestic fuel just by implementing such stoves and could thus be freed up for other uses, including conversion to more efficient fuel types such synthesis gas produced by gasification (e.g., the

gasification efficiency of rice husk is around 65% (Jain and Goss, 2000)). Data has been published (or is under review) on district-wise (aggregated) residue utilization from three important agricultural states, Haryana (Chauhan, 2010), West Bengal (Das and Jash, 2009) and Punjab (Chauhan, 2010). The results are summarized in Table 3. The total utilization level is approximately the same across the three states, but with large fluctuations in the utilization as domestic fuel. These figures suggest that as farming intensifies -and as a consequence the mode of farming shifts from a subsistence type of farming to a market-oriented type of farming with a higher disposable income for the rural population- relatively less residues end up being used as domestic fuel (as the population shifts towards using more convenient fuels such as LPG and kerosene). Although the total utilization level is more or less the same across these states, the absolute amount of surplus in e.g., Punjab is relatively higher, thanks to higher yields. It could be anticipated that in the future, as standards of living improve, the use as a domestic fuel of agricultural residues in their raw form will decrease, either through switching to alternative fuels or through utilization of more efficient cooking stoves. Since the types of residues that are mostly used for domestic fuels are often residues which are unfit for use as fodder (e.g., cotton stalk), it could be expected that this will lead to larger surpluses of these kinds of crops in particular. It can be noticed that the direct utilization as a fertilizer (composting etc.) is rather low. Whatever return of nutrients to the soil occurs, happens to a large extent indirectly through the application of dung from livestock in the form of farmyard manure (a mixture of livestock droppings and straw) (Indiaagronet, 2014). The production of urban compost has been fluctuating around 6–7 million tonnes and the area under green manuring is about 7 million/ha” (FAO, 2005). The average use of farmyard manure was about 2 ton/ha, whereas the recommended rate is to the order of 10 ton/ha (FAO, 2005). In the two or three decades leading up to 2005, the utilization of organic material to improve soil fertility has not increased (FAO, 2005). According the FAO, the following trends in utilization were observed (FAO, 2005): (i) Increasing use of cow manure as a source of fuel in rural areas, (ii) Increasing use of crop residues as

146

Table 2 Utilization patterns of residues. Residue

Banana Banana Cabbages etc Chickpea Chickpea Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Eggplant Groundnut Groundnut Groundnut Maize Maize Maize Mango Mango Mango Mango Mustard Mustard Mustard Onion Paddy Paddy Paddy Paddy Pearl Millet Pearl Millet Pearl Millet Pigeon Pea Pigeon Pea Potato Sorghum Sorghum Sorghum Soybean Soybean Soybean Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Tapioca Tapioca Tapioca Tomato Water hyacinth Wheat Wheat Wheat

Leaves, Pseudostems Peels Stem and leaves Stalks Husk Fronds Husk Shell Meal/oilcake Coir pith Stalks Hull/boll shell Gin trash Meal/oilcake Stalks Stalks Shell Meal/oilcake Stover Cobs Corn fiber/grain hull Pruning wood Peels Seed Meal/oilcake Stalks Seedpod Meal/oilcake Stalks Straw Husk Bran De-oiled bran Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Stalks Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Meal/oilcake Tops & leaves Bagasse Depithed bagasse Press mud/filter cake Molasses Peels Fibrous residue/bagasse Stalks/hay Stems Whole Straw Chaff Bran

Animal feed (%)

Fertilizer (%)

Domestic fuel (%)

Thatching (%)

Industrial combustion (%)

Other uses

Other uses (%)

Many

65 0

62 Yes Fibre

50

Yes 100 Fibre 1–46

100 No Yes Yes 65–79 Yes Yes

2

Yes

Yes Yes

Total utilization (%)

80 50 50 50 29 100 50 46 31 100

17 Yes

Yes

84 41 100 80 64

Manufacturing Confectionary, fibre

5–16 Yes

Yes 56 100

Yes

64–74 71 Yes 76

0

Yes No 84–88

Yes 100 77

0 2 Yes

3 19 0

3

Yes

Yes

84

Yes

0–13

2

0

0 2

0

Yes

49–73 0

Furfural production Oil extraction

29

56 5 100 89 80 35 100 84 53 76 84 50 76 88 62 52 67

0

0 30

Paper

8

100 81 55–60

90

90

Yes 7 Yes Yes No

Yes 30 Yes

Yes

71–99 71

Processed

29

0 83 55 100

Sources: Bhattacharya et al. (1999); CGPL and IISc (2010); FAO (2010); Gupta et al. (2004); Hunsigi (2001); Ministry of agriculture GoI (2010); National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (2009); Purohit and Michaelowa (2007); Singh et al. (2007); Singh et al. (2008); Talawar (2004); Tripathi et al. (1998).

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

Crop

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

147

Table 3 Aggregated Residue utilization in Haryana, Punjab and West Bengal. State

Animal feed (%)

Thatching (%)

Fertilizer (%)

Domestic fuel (%)

Industrial use (%)

Total utilization (%)

Surplus (kton/year)

Haryana Punjab W. Bengal

56 68 43

0.3 0.2

2 2 18

8 1

6 NA 6

72 71a 67

8044 11979 9429

Sources: Chauhan (2010); Chauhan (2012); Das and Jash (2009). a Not including industrial utilization.

animal feed, (iii) Too limited application of organic manures, due to the extra cost and time required to grow green-manure crops, handling problems with bulky organic manures and problems in timely preparation of the field when agricultural waste and green manure have to be incorporated and their decomposition awaited. As was mentioned earlier, sugarcane bagasse is an important processing by-product in terms of volume. Efforts have been taken to promote the utilization of sugarcane bagasse as a fuel in sugar mills. Ravindranath reported in 2005 that approximately “44 Mt of sugarcane bagasse is used as fuel in sugar mills, and in small scale crude rural sugar producing units” (Ravindranath et al., 2005), whereas Agnihotri put the number at 50 Mton (Agnihotri et al., 2010). Based on our generation data, this would amount to about 60% of the total generated volume of bagasse. Singh et al. estimated in 2008 that in Punjab, around 55% of all sugar cane bagasse was being utilized in some form or another (Singh et al., 2008). Only a minor fraction of sugar cane bagasse is currently processed to separate the pith from the rest of the bagasse. The pith constitutes approximately 30% of the bagasse and has far superior fuel characteristics compared to the depithed bagasse, which in turn, due to its high fiber content, is suitable for paper production (Agnihotri et al., 2010). Herein lays an opportunity for on the one hand attaining cleaner renewable fuel use and on the other a more sustainable paper production. An example of how this can be done is the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL), the world’s largest bagasse based paper factory with a capacity of 245 Kton per year, consuming about 1 Mton of bagasse per year (TNPL). Out of total paper production in India, 31% is from agricultural residues (rice straw, wheat straw, sugarcane bagasse, sarkande, jute, wild grasses) (National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, 2009). All in all, the utilization of residues as a chemical feedstock is often problematic. A 2006 analysis by the UN conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) concluded that India cannot rely on sugarcane molasses as a reliable feedstock for alcohol, given the crop’s dependence on monsoon and the vagaries of the domestic sugar industry. Similarly, difficulties in procuring oilseeds and lack of infrastructure could obstruct substantial biodiesel production by 2011–2012 (Singh et al., 2010). Very recently, Milhau and Fallot (2013) reported that the experience of India tells us to beware of exhaustion effects that might rapidly appear and negatively affect the viability of biomass-to-energy projects.

cane bagasse, paddy straw, wheat straw and cotton stalks are the residues with major surpluses. As mentioned in the Part 1 of this paper, a comparison was made with the region of Flanders in Belgium. There, from a total of 3.85 Mton of processing by-products per year, 3.21 Mton (83.3%) is used for animal feed, 90 Kton (2.3%) goes to composting, 30 Kton (0.8 %) for energy production and 237 Kton (6.2%) is used for other purposes. This leaves a surplus of 285 Kton (7.4%). Again taking 0.5% of the Indian amount of processing by-products for the purpose of comparison, one arrives at a figure of approximately 300 Kton. Thus, despite the much lower rate of per capita generation of processing by-products (only a fifth of that in Flanders, see Part I, Section 2.3 of this paper), the per capita surplus of processing by-products in India is of comparable magnitude. This indicates that there is a large scope for improving the utilization rate of the currently generated by-products. Due to ongoing intensification of agriculture in a number of states, there is reason to believe that surplus would be growing. Fig. 2 (TERI, 2008) illustrates this trend. Particularly the states of Punjab, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Haryana show growing surpluses, and as such would present themselves as interesting states for establishing innovative biomass utilization initiatives. At the same time, it must be mentioned that in many of these states, declining soil fertility (and consequently stagnating or dropping yields) is becoming a severe problem due to nutrient mining (both macro- and micronutrients) (Indiaagronet, 2014) (Pathak et al., 2010). As argued in the section on Utilization or Consumption patterns, there is a pressing need for an increased return of nutrients to the soil in the form of organic manures, in order to provide the soil with a balanced nutrient supply. It has been estimated that farm residues have the potential of supplying about 7.3 Mton of NPK (Indiaagronet, 2014). It can be argued that the first priority towards improving the sustainability of the food production system should be to stimulate farmers to return their surplus biomass to the field as manure, in order to maintain or repair the fertility of the soil, rather than extracting this biomass from the farm for use as a feedstock in industry. Anaerobic digestion and gasification are alternative methods of using residues or animal dung which can both supply energy (biogas and synthesis gas) and produce a fertilizer (digested slurry and biochar). Both can act as good carbon and nutrient sources.

2.3. Surplus

2.4. Costs

Based on the data on utilization (CGPL and IISc, 2010), the surplus and surplus surface concentration of the residues can be estimated; they are listed in Table 4. It must be noted that residues generated at the level of the consumer (e.g., fruit peels) are not included. An estimated total surplus of around 219 Mton is arrived at, with 158 Mton contributed by farm residues and 60.5 Mton of processing by-products. Fig. 1 shows the relative contributions of the most important residues to the overall amount of surplus residue. Sugar

Availability in terms of surpluses is one requirement, collecting these surpluses and transporting them to the location of processing in an economically viable manner is another important requirement for a sustainable utilization of residues. A number of costs have been calculated based on some basic assumptions and are listed in Table 5. These are the production cost, harvesting cost, the collection cost, the grinding and/or densification cost, the transportation cost and the storage cost. For processing by-products, usually only the production cost,

148

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

Table 4 Residue Surpluses. Crop name

Residue name

Total Utilization %

Surplus (Kton/year)

Surplus surface concentration (ton/ha of original crop/year)

Banana Banana Cabbages etc Chickpea Chickpea Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Eggplant Groundnut Groundnut Groundnut Maize Maize Maize Mango Mango Mango Mango Mustard Mustard Mustard Onion Paddy Paddy Paddy Paddy Pearl Millet Pearl Millet Pearl Millet Pigeon Pea Pigeon Pea Potato Sorghum Sorghum Sorghum Soybean Soybean Soybean Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Tapioca Tapioca Tapioca Tomato Water hyacinth Wheat Wheat Wheat Subtotal Farm Residues Subtotal Processing By-products Total

Leaves. Pseudostems Peels Stem and leaves Stalks Husk Fronds Husk Shell Meal/oilcake Coir pith Stalks Hull/boll shell Gin trash Meal/oilcake Stalks Stalks Shell Meal/oilcake Stover Cobs Corn fiber/grain hull Pruning wood Peels Seed Meal/oilcake Stalks Seedpod Meal/oilcake Stalks Straw Husk Bran De-oiled bran Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Stalks Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Meal/oilcake Tops & leaves Bagasse Depithed bagasse Press mud/filter cake Molasses Stalks/hay Peels Fibrous residue/bagasse Stems Whole Straw Chaff Bran

65 0 NA 80 50 50 50 29 100 50 46 31 NA 100 NA 84 41 100 80 64 NA NA NA NA NA 56 5 100 89 80 35 100 NA 84 53 76 84 50 76 88 62 52 67 NA 100 81 55 NA NA 90 30 NA NA NA 0 83 55 100

23584 393 NA 1303 197 3885 2402 516 0 283 19114 1990 NA 0 NA 2600 817 0 5679 1917 NA NA NA NA NA 5650 1288 0 57 28224 13502 0 NA 1628 1127 497 1652 272 5610 1558 1451 704 3823 NA 0 7787 33199 NA NA 804 1173 NA NA NA 6000 20909 10063 0 158483 60551 219034

37.28 0.62 NA 0.18 0.03 2.00 1.24 0.27 0.00 0.15 2.05 0.21 NA 0.00 NA 0.42 0.13 0.00 0.7 0.24 NA NA NA NA NA 0.86 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.64 0.31 0.00 NA 0.2 0.14 0.06 0.46 0.07 3.3 0.19 0.17 0.08 0.43 NA 0.00 1.62 6.9 NA NA 0.17 4.57 NA NA NA 20 0.76 0.37 0.00

Sources: CGPL and IISc (2010); Singh et al. (2008); Tripathi et al. (1998).

transportation cost and storage cost are incurred. In most of the calculations of these costs, the supply-side approach used in (Tripathi et al., 1998) has been adopted, sometimes in an adapted manner. In Table 5, procurement prices for some residues as mentioned in literature have been included as well. Two scenarios have been considered: one in which all harvest operations are done manually and another in which combine harvesters are applied. Although by far the majority of harvesting in India is still done by manual labor, the use of combine harvesters

is gaining popularity, particularly in states like Punjab. The use of combine harvesters has only been considered in the cases of pigeon pea, chickpea, maize, paddy, soybean and wheat. Combine harvesters leave most of the straw in the field, thus requiring further operations (and thus costs) to collect the straw. With regards to transport, a simple scenario is considered. For farm residues, which mostly have a low bulk density and are spread out over large areas, collection from the field by a tractor and a travelling distance of maximum 30 km towards a collection point

Table 5 Costs. Crop

Leaves, Pseudostems Peels Stem & leaves Stalks Husk Fronds Husk Shell Meal/ Oilcake Coir Pith Stalks Hull/boll Shell Gin trash Meal/oilcake Stalks Stalks Shell Meal/oilcake Stover Cobs Corn fiber/grain Hull Pruning wood Peels Seed Meal/oilcake Stalks Seedpod Meal/oilcake Stalks Straw Husk Bran De-oiled bran Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Stalks Stalks Cobs Husk Stalks Husk Meal/oilcake Tops & leaves Bagasse Depithed bagasse Press mud/filter cake Molasses Stalks/hay Peels Fibrous residue/bagasse Stems whole Straw Chaff Bran

(Rs/ton)

Production cost

Harvesting cost (manual) (Rs/ton)

Collection cost (combine harvester) (Rs/ton)

Collection cost (manual) (Rs/ton)

Transporta-tion costs (Rs/ton)

Total costs (combine harvester) (Rs/ton)

Total costs (manual) (Rs/ton)

172 1261 601 730 5070 393 393 763 7626 841 123 123 123 14963 1504 446 1323 13231 214 214 257 NAa 2731 2731 12386 429 429 12201 4530 242 766 17864 30023 240 240 874 264 2114 259 227 227 1580 556 650 8661 403 132 422 132 1101 751 142 142 2904 0 228 228 15623

290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 290 0 0 0

NA NA NA 943 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 270 NA NA NA NA NA NA 458 NA NA NA 291 NA NA NA NA NA NA 324 NA NA NA NA NA 665 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 217 NA NA

47 0 47 47 0 47 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 47 47 0 0 47 47 0 47 0 0 0 47 47 0 47 47 0 0 0 47 47 0 47 0 47 47 47 0 47 0 0 47 0

330 70 330 330 70 330 330 70 70 70 330 70 70 70 330 330 70 70 330 330 70 330 70 70 70 330 330 70 330 330 70 70 70 330 330 70 330 70 330 330 330 70 330 70 70 330 70 70 70 70 330 70 70 330 330 330 330 70

NA NA NA 2913 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2128 NA NA NA 1773 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2119 NA NA NA NA NA 2751 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1686 NA NA

1749 2241 1888 2017 6050 1680 1680 1743 7806 1821 1700 1103 1103 15143 3081 1733 2303 13411 1791 1501 1237 1577a 3711 3711 12566 1716 1716 12381 5817 1529 1746 18844 30203 1527 1527 1854 1841 3094 1546 1514 1514 2560 2133 1630 8841 1980 1112 1292 312 1281 2038 1122 1122 4481 1577 1515 1515 16603

0 0 47 0 0 47 47 47 47 0

Procure-ment cost (Rs/ton)

8000 600

320 250–1100 17500 1000

250–800 1350 12100 700 1700 9170 320

4000?

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

Banana Banana Cabbages etc Chickpea Chickpea Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Coconut Cotton Cotton Cotton Cotton Eggplant Groundnut Groundnut Groundnut Maize Maize Maize Mango Mango Mango Mango Mustard Mustard Mustard Onion Paddy Paddy Paddy Paddy Pearl Millet Pearl millet Pearl millet Pigeon pea Pigeon pea Potato Sorghum Sorghum Sorghum Soybean Soybean Soybean Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Sugarcane Tapioca Tapioca Tapioca Tomato Water hyacinth Wheat Wheat Wheat

Residue

17500 500–1350

3500–6000 320

2500 9000

149

Sources: Coir Board (2008); Damodaran (2008); Kumar et al. (2002); National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (2009); Purohit and Michaelowa (2007); Singh et al. (2008); Singh et al. (2010); The Solvent Extractors’ Association of India (2010); TERI (2008); Thukral (2005); Tripathi et al. (1998); World Bank (2005).

150

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

Fig. 1. Residue wise contribution (Kton) to total biomass surplus.

Fig. 2. State wise comparison between biomass surplus availability between the years 1989–1999 and 2002–2004 (TERI, 2008). For the list of abbreviations of states’ names, see supporting information (SI) in Table 2.

where the residues are to be grinded and/or densified has been assumed. From there on the densified residues are transported by truck up to a maximum distance of 50 km towards the biorefinery. For processing by-products, which in general have a higher density or could be densified at the processing location itself, it has simply been assumed that they are transported by truck up to a maximum distance of 50 km. 2.4.1. Production costs It would be mistaken to think that farmers or processors would be willing to part with agricultural residues or processing by-products without asking a price for them. To estimate the production cost that the residues represent, the supply side approach used in (Tripathi et al., 1998) has been used here in an adapted manner. For farm residues, the production cost of the residue has been assumed to represent 5% of the production cost (or production value if not available) of the crop itself (Eq. (1)): Residue production cost =

Crop production cost × 0.05 · · ·· · · (I RCRi )

(1)

where the sum runs over all farm residues generated from that crop. For processing by-products, the production cost of the byproduct has been assumed to represent 3% of the production cost (or price if not available) of the processed product (e.g., milled rice), this because of the relatively higher value of processed products (Eq. (2)): By-production product cost =

Processed product cost × 0.03 · · ·· · ·(2) (˙i BPRi )

where BPR means the By-product-to-Product Ratio, i.e., the amount of by-product generated per unit amount of processed product produced. The sum runs over all by-products generated during the

production of a certain processed product (e.g., both husk and bran in the case of rice, but not rice bran as that is considered as a byproduct from the production of rice bran oil, a different processed product). For a number of relatively valuable by-products, the value of 3% was adopted to better reflect this value. Oilcakes for example are valuable by-products from vegetable oil production. Based on the average ration of the market price of oil cakes to the market price of oil (The Solvent Extractors’ Association of India, 2010), a percentage of 30% was arrived at. The ratio of soy meal price to soy oil is approximately 40%. Similarly for bran, 70% was taken, based on the ratio of the wholesale price of bran (The Solvent Extractors’ Association of India, 2010) and the wholesale price of milled rice (International Rice Research Institute, 2010), corrected for inflation (Ministry of commerce and industry GoI, 2010). For molasses, the ratio of the price of molasses to that of refined sugar, 25% was adopted (Ministry of commerce and industry GoI, 2010) (Damodaran, 2008). In order to estimate the processed product cost, it has been assumed that for example for vegetable oil production, 70% of that cost comes from the procurement cost of the raw material (oilseed). Therefore, the production cost of the oilseed (or if not available, price) has been considered to be 70% of the production cost of the oil. This allows estimating the production cost of oil. The same value of 70% has been used to estimate the processed product cost for all processed products, except for milled grains and pulses, where 95% has been adopted.

2.4.2. Harvesting cost The harvesting cost for those farm residues that are harvested along with the crop has been taken as zero, since it is included in

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

the production cost of the crop itself. For some crops, such as for example maize and cotton, the crop is harvested separately from the residues and the harvesting cost of the residue should therefore not be considered zero. In the case of the harvesting being done manually, the harvesting cost of the residues can be estimated by dividing the daily wage rate of unskilled labor (taken as 70 Rs. per day (Tripathi et al., 1998) (Labour bureau GoI, 2010)) by the harvesting capacity (0.24 ton/person/day) of the labor per day. This comes to approximately 290 Rs/ton. In the cost of the combine harvester scenario, the harvesting cost is considered zero, since the residues are harvested (but not collected) simultaneously with the seeds. 2.4.3. Collection cost After the harvesting is finished, the residues must be collected at a stacking point at the farm where it can be loaded upon the transportation vehicle. The manual collection cost is determined by dividing the daily wage rate, by the carrying capacity (0.03 ton/trip) and the number of trips of on average 0.1 km made by a person in a day (50 trips/day) (Tripathi et al., 1998). This amounts to 47 Rs/ton. In the scenario where a combine harvester is used, it seems reasonable to assume that the collection will be done by machine as well. To calculate the costs, Singh et al’s formula (Singh et al., 2008) can be used (Eq. (3)): Cost =

Cr 2 + × Ct × R. . .  3

(3)

where Cr is the biomass recovery cost per ha (734 Rs/ha),  is the residue density (ton/ha, calculated as the product of the crop yield and the RCR), Ct , the unit cost of transport to the transport vehicle, is 244.8 Rs/ton/km. R is the maximum radius of the (circular) area from which residue can be taken and put on the tractor until it is fully loaded, and is calculated as (Eq. (4)):



ro =

qc ........ ␲␳

(4)

where qc is the load capacity of the tractor (taken as 1.5 ton). The collection costs for processing by-products has been taken as zero, since they have to be collected anyway (e.g., for disposal). 2.4.4. Grinding and/or densification cost Based on costs for grinding and/or densification mentioned in (Panwar and Rathore, 2009) and (Gupta et al., 2004), we have assumed a uniform cost of 800 Rs/ton. Obviously this is a strong simplification, as different residues will require different processing and thus different costs. 2.4.5. Transportation cost Following (Tripathi et al., 1998), the transportation cost (in Rs/ton) can be expressed as (Eq. (5)) Cost = d ×

(f × Cf + W ) (tc + ts )

(5)

where d is the distance traveled, F is fuel consumption per hour of operation [taken as 4 l/h for a tractor and 7.8 l/h for a truck (World Bank, 2005)], Cf the cost of fuel (taken as 40 Rs/liter of diesel), W the drivers wage (14 Rs/h for one tractor driver (Tripathi et al., 1998) (Labour bureau GoI, 2010) and 50 Rs/h for two drivers in the truck (World Bank, 2005) (Labour bureau GoI, 2010)), tc the carrying capacity of the vehicle (1.5 ton for the tractor and 9 ton for a typical two-axle truck) and ts is the transportation speed in km/h (15 km/h for the tractor and 35 km/h for the truck (Thukral, 2005)). As said, we have assumed a distance of maximum 30 km and tractor as the transportation mode for farm level residues, and max-

151

imum 50 km and truck transport for densified farm residues and processing by-products. Working out these calculations comes to a total of 232 Rs/ton for farm residues and 57 Rs/ton for processing byproducts and densified residues. In a similar attempt, (Singh et al., 2010) calculated approximately 283 Rs/ton, respectively 80 Rs/ton. This indicated that the results may be somewhat of an overestimation, and they have therefore been corrected to 260 and 70 Rs/ton, respectively. It can be noted that the costs due to wages are only 10 to 20% of the costs due to fuel use. 2.4.6. Storage cost Following (Kumar et al., 2002), a simple storage cost of 110 Rs/ton has been assumed. This does not take into account density of the (densified) residue, nor its preservability or the duration of storage, and thus this could probably be much improved upon if more data on these matters were to be included. 2.4.7. Total cost The total cost is calculated as the sum of the production cost, harvesting cost, collection cost, grinding and/or densification cost, transportation cost and storage cost, where applicable. It can be noticed that for most of the residues, the total costs are somewhere between 1000 and 2000 Rs/ton. Husks and especially oilcakes have relatively higher costs, as do some residues from vegetables. 2.5. Environmental impacts As was mentioned earlier, the continued extraction of residues, as opposed to their return to the soil, is an important factor in the decline of soil fertility. Chemical fertilizer use, particularly when used unwisely, leads to nutrient imbalances in the soil (Pathak et al., 2010). Furthermore, much of the easily available nutrients -particularly nitrogen- in chemical fertilizers such as urea are easily leached out of the soil and contaminate water bodies. The loss of nitrogen from urea, a commonly used fertilizer in India, can be as high as 60–80% (Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 2010). In the very common rice-wheat crop rotation system, loss of N through leaching is estimated to be between 10 and 20 kg N/ha, whereas loss through NH3 volatilization is 10–20 kg N/ha and denitrification is 15–30 kg N/ha (Pathak et al., 2010). In general, loss through leaching, volatilization and denitrification is estimated to be 50% of N input. Leaching of P the soil is probably negligible, due to the soil’s large capacity for binding P. P losses into water bodies do occur however via erosion of the soil. Leaching of K is estimated as 15% of the K input (Pathak et al., 2010). The loss of nitrogen into the atmosphere in the form of the potent greenhouse gas N2 O has an environmental impact as well. N2 O has a global warming potential 310 times larger than that of CO2 . An estimated 1% of the N from fertilizers, crop residues and manure that is applied to the soil is emitted directly as N2 O. Furthermore, 0.75% of the N that is leached from the soil and reaches water bodies is indirectly emitted as N2 O. Further, it is assumed that 10% of the N applied to the soil is lost through emissions in the form of NH3 and NOx and that approximately 1% of this N is later converted into N2 O (IPCC, 2006a). In the assessment of the IPCC, there is no difference between inorganic and organic (from residues) fertilizers in the amount of N2 O emissions per amount of N applied. In that regard, there is no preference to be given to the return of residues in the form of organic manure over the use of synthetic fertilizers. However, given that the losses of N in the case of chemical fertilizers are higher than in the case of organic manure, it can be argued that (in the long term) more N would have to be applied to the soil to get the same (sustainable) yields, and thus there would be also more emission of N2 O.

152

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153

A final environmental impact is connected to agricultural residues due to the burning of residues. Sahai et al. estimated that in 2000, nationwide about 20% of dry crop residue was burnt in the field (Sahai et al., 2007). In the Indo-Gangetic belt where the rice-wheat system is common (particularly the states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh), an estimated 60–80% of rice straw is burned in the field (Pathak et al., 2010). 17 and 19 million tons of rice and wheat straw generated in the rice-wheat cropping system is estimated be burnt (Gupta et al., 2004). As the number of combine harvesters rises, some have expected that these numbers will rise (Gupta et al., 2004). Recently though, there are some indications that straw is increasingly being recovered from fields harvested with combine harvesters. In fact, it appears that some of the combine harvester operators are paid for their services by being given the recovered straw, which is valuable fodder material. The burning of residues has two aspects. One is a loss of nutrients (Gupta et al., 2004). Almost the entire amounts of N, 25% of P and 20% of K present in straw are lost when it is burnt (Pathak et al., 2010). The second aspect is the air pollution that the burning of residues causes. It was found in (Sahai et al., 2007) that in 2000, 21 Mton of wheat straw was burnt in the field, thereby emitting 68, 34435, 541, 14, 33, 15, 11 Kton of CH4 , CO2 , CO, N2 O, NOx , NO and NO2 , respectively (Sahai et al., 2007). For rice and wheat straw combined, the emissions of CH4, CO, N2 O and NOx have been estimated to be about 110, 2306, 2 and 84 Kton/year, respectively. 2.6. Greenhouse gas emissions The IPCC’s Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006b) (IPCC, 2006a) (Kumar et al., 2004) were followed in order to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from food waste dumping. Methane emissions from dumping of solid waste were calculated using the Eq. (6): CH4

 Kton  y

= SWt × MCF × DOC × DOCF × F ×

16 . . .. . . 12

(6)

MSWT is the total amount of waste dumped, MCF is the methane correction factor that corrects for the fraction of the waste that decomposes in anaerobic conditions and was taken as 0.4, the default value for shallow and unmanaged dumps. DOC is the fraction of degradable organic carbon and was taken as 0.15, the default value for food waste. DOCF is the fraction of DOC that is converted to landfill gas, and was taken as the default value 0.77. F is the fraction of methane in landfill gas. A default value of 0.5 was used for F. 3. Conclusions Total postharvest losses of agricultural produce in India are estimated to amount to 92 Mton/year of which 32 Mton/year are due to losses of sugarcane, 16 Mton/year of wheat, 9 Mton/year of rice. Up to an estimated 20% or the majority of surplus agricultural residues (122 Mton/year in total, 17 Mton/year of rice straw and 19 Mton/year of wheat straw) is disposed of through burning in the field, leading to large losses of nutrients and emissions of greenhouse gases. Insufficient amounts of residues are currently finding their way back to the land (whether through direct application, as a compost or a as a manure) leading to soil fertility problems, particularly in areas where agriculture is intensifying and synthetic fertilizers are intensively applied. These are also the areas with the most significant residue surpluses. Manure application should increase five-fold. Future use of residues as an industrial feedstock would be undesirable if it were to lead to a concurrent decrease in the return of carbon and nutrients to the soil. Decentralized residue utilization technologies such as anaerobic digestion and gasifica-

tion can both provide energy and a fertilizer residue in the form of digester slurry or biochar. The total costs associated with obtaining residues for use as an industrial feedstock have been estimated to vary between 1000 and 2000 Rs/ton for most residues. For valuable residues such as oilcakes and brans, the costs vary around 10 000–20 000 Rs/ton. Acknowledgements This research was partly supported by the FP7 project ‘Strengthening Networking on Biomass Research and Biowaste Conversion – Biotechnology for Europe India Integration (SAHYOG)’ funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (FP7-289615) and by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015. 06.002 References Agnihotri, S., Dutt, D., Tyagi, C.H., 2010. Complete characterization of bagasse of early species of saccharum officinerum for pulp and paper making. Bioresources 5, 1197–1214, http://dx.doi.org/10.15376/biores.5.2 1197-1214 ASSOCHAM, 2013. Opportunities in cold chain: Emerging trends and market challenges-2013. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-06/ news/41131971 1 2-lakh-crore-cold-storage-rs-10 Atibudhi, H.N., 1997. An estimation of post-harvest losses of onion and its management in Nawapada district of Orissa. Indian J. Agric. Mark. 11, 26–30. Atteri, 1994. A study on Physical and Economical Losses of Dasheri and Chausa Varieties of Mango in Delhi Market. Bihar J. Agric. Mark. 2, 325–329. Basavaraja, H., Mahajanashetti, S.B., Udagatti, N.C., 2007. Economic analysis of post-harvest losses in food grains in India: a case study of Karnataka. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 20, 117–126. Bhattacharya, S.C., Arul Joe, M., Kandhekar, Z., Abdul Salam, P., Shrestha, R.M., 1999. Greenhouse-gas emission mitigation from the use of agricultural residues: the case of rice husk. Energy 24, 43–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0360-5442(98) 66-8 Board on Science and Technology for International Development, 1978. Postharvest Food Losses in Developing Countries. National Academies, US National Research Council. CGPL and IISc, 2010. Biomass Resource Atlas of India [WWW Document]. URL http://lab.cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/atlas/Default.aspx (accessed 9.26.14). Chattopadhay, 2005. Postharvest Technology for Rice in India: a Changing Scenario, in: Toriyama, K., Heong, K.L., Hardy, B. (Eds.), Rice Is Life Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. Presented at the World rice research conference, Int. Rice Res. Inst., Tokyo and Tsukuba, pp. 294–296. Chauhan, S., 2012. District wise agriculture biomass resource assessment for power generation: A case study from an Indian state, Punjab. Biomass Bioenergy 37, 205–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.011 Chauhan, S., 2010. Biomass resources assessment for power generation: A case study from Haryana state, India. Biomass Bioenergy 34, 1300–1308. Coir Board, 2008. Global coir trade [WWW Document]. URL http://www.coirboard. gov.in/resources.htm (accessed 9.26.14.). Commodity Online, 2007. How much food does India waste? [WWW Document]. Rediff. URL http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/16food.htm Damodaran, H., 2008. Rising molasses prices hit liquor, chemical firms. The Hindu. Das, S., Jash, T., 2009. District-level biomass resource assessment: A case study of an Indian State West Bengal. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 137–143, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.05.001 ElMekawy, A., Srikanth, S., Bajracharya, S., Hegab, H.M., Sigh Nigam, P., Singh, A., Venkata Mohan, S., Pant, D., 2014. Food and agricultural wastes as substrates for bioelectrochemical system (BES): The synchronized recovery of sustainable energy and waste treatment. Food Res. Int., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. foodres.2014.11.045, In press. FAO, 2005. Fertilizer use by crop in India. FAO, Rome. FAO, 2010. FAOSTAT [WWW Document]. URL http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed 7.26.10.). Food Corporation of India, 2014. Food grains Stock in Central Pool (As on 1st day of the month) for last ten years (2004-2013) [WWW Document]. URL http:// fciweb.nic.in/upload/Stock/12pdf (accessed 9.26.14). Goyal, S.K., 2005. Potential in agribusiness – fruit and vegetable processing industry in India. J. Int. Farm. Manage. 3, 15–29. Gupta, P.K., Sahai, S., Singh, N., Dixit, C.K., Singh, D.P., Sharma, C., Tiwari, M.K., Gupta, R.K., Garg, S.C., 2004. Residue burning in rice-wheat cropping system: Causes and implications. Curr. Sci. 87, 1713–1717.

D. Cardoen et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101 (2015) 143–153 Haq, Z., 2010. India’s mountains of shame. Hindustan Times. Household Energy Network, 2010. Improved Cookstove: HEDON Household Energy Network [WWW Document]. URL http://www.hedon.info/ ImprovedCookStove (accessed 9.26.14). Hunsigi, G., 2001. Sugarcane In Agriculture And Industry. Prism Books, Bangalore, India. Indiaagronet, 2014. Soil Management, Soil management jobs, Soil testing [WWW Document]. URL http://www.indiaagronet.com/indiaagronet/soil management/Soil mgmt.htm (accessed 9.26.14.). Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 2010. Handbook of agriculture. New Delhi. International Rice Research Institute, 2010. Wholesale price of milled rice, selected countries, 1961-2006 [WWW Document]. URL http://beta.irri.org/solutions/ index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=250 (accessed 8.20.10.). IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture and other land use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan. IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 5: Waste. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan. Jain, A.K., Goss, J.R., 2000. Determination of reactor scaling factors for throatless rice husk gasifier. Biomass Bioenergy 18, 249–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0961-9534(99) 83-5 Kumar, A., Purohit, P., Rana, S., Kandpal, T.C., 2002. An approach to the estimation of the value of agricultural residues used as biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 22, 195–203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01) 70-8 Kumar, S., Gaikwad, S.A., Shekdar, A.V., Kshirsagar, P.S., Singh, R.N., 2004. Estimation method for national methane emission from solid waste landfills. Atmos. Environ. 38, 3481–3487, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02. 057 Labour bureau GoI, 2010. Consumer price index [WWW Document]. URL http:// labourbureau.nic.in/indtab.pdf (accessed 8.9.10.). Lin, C.S.K., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Solhy, A., Clark, James H., Koutinas, A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., Thankappan, S., Zahouily, M., Brocklesby, R., Luque, R., 2013. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 426–464. Lok Sabha, Parliament of India, 2009. Lok Sabha Questions. Unstarred Question No. 3065. 08/12/2009 [WWW Document]. URL http://164.100.47.132/lssnew/ psearch/qsearch15.aspx (accessed 9.26.14a.). Lok Sabha, Parliament of India, 2009. Lok Sabha Questions. Unstarred Question No. 726. 24/11/2009. [WWW Document]. URL http://164.100.47.132/lssnew/ psearch/qsearch15.aspx (accessed 9.26.14b.). Milhau, A., Fallot, A., 2013. Assessing the potentials of agricultural residues for energy: What the CDM experience of India tells us about their availability. Energy Policy 58, 391–402. Ministry of agriculture GoI, 2010. Agricultural statistics at a glance [WWW Document]. URL http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/At Glance 2008htm (accessed 9.17.10.). Ministry of commerce and industry GoI, 2010. Wholesale price index (WPI) database [WWW Document]. URL http://eaindustry.nic.in/home.asp (accessed 8.3.10.). Nag, S.K., Nahatkar, S.B., Sharma, H.O., 2000. Post-harvest losses of chickpea as perceived by the producers of Sehore District of Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Mark. 43, 12–16. National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, 2009. Study on availability of Indian biomass resources for exploitation a report based on a nationwide survey. Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council, New Delhi. NIANP, 2010. National Institute for Animal Nutrition and Physiology [WWW Document]. URL http://www.nianp.res.in/ (accessed 8.3.10.). Panwar, N.L., Rathore, N.S., 2009. Potential of surplus biomass gasifier based power generation: A case study of an Indian state Rajasthan. Mitig. Adapt. Strategy Global Change 14, 711–720, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9192-7

153

Pathak, H., Mohanty, S., Jain, N., Bhatia, A., 2010. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium budgets in Indian agriculture. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 86, 287–299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-009-9292-5 Planning Commission GoI, 2008. Eleventh five year plan, 2007-2012. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Purohit, P., Michaelowa, A., 2007. CDM potential of bagasse cogeneration in India. Energy Policy 35, 4779–4798, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.029 Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India, 2007. Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2779, 27/04/2007 [WWW Document]. URL http://164.100.47.5/qsearch/qsearch.aspx (accessed 9.26.14.). Ravindranath, N.H., Hall, D.O., 1995. Biomass, Energy, And Environment: A Developing Country Perspective From India. Oxford University Press. Ravindranath, N.H., Somashekar, H.I., Nagaraja, M.S., Sudha, P., Sangeetha, G., Bhattacharya, S.C., Abdul Salam, P., 2005. Assessment of sustainable non-plantation biomass resources potential for energy in India. Biomass Bioenergy Assess. Sustainable Energy Potential Non-plantation Biomass Resour. Sel. Asian Countries 29, 178–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. biombioe.2005.03.005 Sahai, S., Sharma, C., Singh, D.P., Dixit, C.K., Singh, N., Sharma, P., Singh, K., Bhatt, S., Ghude, S., Gupta, V., Gupta, R.K., Tiwari, M.K., Garg, S.C., Mitra, A.P., Gupta, P.K., 2007. A study for development of emission factors for trace gases and carbonaceous particulate species from in situ burning of wheat straw in agricultural fields in india. Atmos. Environ. 41, 9173–9186, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.054 Singh, A., Olsen, S.I., Pant, D., 2013. Importance of life cycle assessment of renewable energy sources. In: Singh, A., Olsen, S.I., Pant, D. (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Sources. Springer, London, pp. 1–11. Singh, J., Panesar, B.S., Sharma, S.K., 2010. A mathematical model for transporting the biomass to biomass based power plant. Biomass Bioenergy 34, 483–488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.12.012 Singh, J., Panesar, B.S., Sharma, S.K., 2008. Energy potential through agricultural biomass using geographical information system – a case study of Punjab. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 301–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.10. 003 Singh, S.P., Asthana, R.K., Singh, A.P., 2007. Prospects of sugarcane milling waste utilization for hydrogen production in India. Energy Policy 35, 4164–4168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.02.017 Smith, K.R., 1993. Fuel Combustion, Air Pollution Exposure, and Health: The Situation in Developing Countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 18, 529–566, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.18.110193.002525 Talawar, S., 2004. Peanut in India: History, Production, and Utilization (No. 5), Peanut in Local and Global Food Systems Series Report. University of Georgia. Talyan, V., Dahiya, R.P., Sreekrishnan, T.R., 2008. State of municipal solid in Delhi, the capital of India. Waste Manage. 28, 1276–1287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2007.05.017 TERI, 2008. Evaluation of Biomass for Conversion to Liquid Biofuels in India. (No. 2008RA04). The Energy and Resources Institute, Delhi. The Solvent Extractors’ Association of India, 2010. Annual average price for 1997 to 2009 registered for Mumbai market [WWW Document]. URL http://seaofindia. com/cdn/gallery/1356pdf (accessed 8.4.10.). Thukral, K.L., 2005. Enhancing The Quality Of Trucking Services In India. Asian Institute of Transport Development and the Asian Development Bank. Tripathi, A.K., Iyer, P.V.R., Kandpal, T.C., Singh, K.K., 1998. Assessment of availability and costs of some agricultural residues used as feedstocks for biomass gasification and briquetting in India. Energy Convers. Manage. 39, 1611–1618, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(98) 30-2 United Nations Statistics Division-Environment Statistics, 2007. Environmental Indicators: Greenhouse gas emissions [WWW Document]. URL http://unstats. un.org/unsd/environment/air co2 emissions.htm (accessed 8.14.10.). World Bank, 2005. India – Road transport service efficiency study (No. 34,220). The World Bank. World Bank, 2002. Post-harvest Management (No. 4(3)), India grains. World Bank.