IntechOpen

Home > Books > Agricultural Waste - New Insights

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

In Situ and Ex Situ Agricultural Waste Management System

Written By

Mohd Muzamil, Sehreen Rasool and Ummyiah H. Masoodi

Submitted: 26 August 2022 Reviewed: 22 September 2022 Published: 31 October 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.108239

Agricultural Waste IntechOpen
Agricultural Waste New Insights Edited by Fiaz Ahmad

From the Edited Volume

Agricultural Waste - New Insights

Edited by Fiaz Ahmad and Muhammad Sultan

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

200 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

The transformation of agricultural wastes, either in situ or ex situ manner can help to ensure nutrient recycling, energy generation, preparation of animal feed, medicines, packaging material, substrate for mushroom cultivation, biofuel production and product formulations. The in situ methods of waste management are prioritized as the problems of collection and transportation from the source can be avoided. The in situ methods are slow and require land and labour. The conversion of agricultural waste into fuel and useful value-added products is gaining traction and demands utilization of appropriate technology. In this context, the technological dependence on ex situ methods is higher than in situ methods. The selection of the particular method depends on the type of waste, process employed and final product required. The remedial measures can lead towards a sustainable future in terms of Safeguarding of human health, protection of soil, conservation of aquatic ecosystem and beneficial soil microbes and pave the way towards a cleaner, healthier and eco-friendly environment and ambience.

Keywords

  • agricultural waste
  • in situ
  • ex situ
  • mitigation
  • environment

1. Introduction

The rise in the world population to 7.9 billion in 2021 and the prediction that it will surpass 9 billion mark by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100 [1] has prompted the scientific community to involve advanced breeding methods, integrated managemental approaches and technological interventions to enhance the productivity and production of major cereal, vegetable, fruit and root crops and dairy animals [2]. The push resulted in an increase in the global production of maize (Zea mays L.), wheat (Triticum aestivaum) and rice (Oryza sativa) to 757 Mt, 1137 Mt and 757 Mt from 216 Mha, 197 Mha and 165 Mha, respectively [3, 4]. There has been sharp increase in the dairy animals, vegetables, fruit and root crops in the same period. However, the increase in the yield coincided with generation of large quantities of agricultural wastes. Taking an example of India, which benefitted immensely from the green revolution of the 1960s in enhancing the production and productivity of major crops and generates more than 3000 million tonnes of organic waste [5] with 686 Mt gross crop residues [6]. Globally, the agricultural sector is expected to contribute 4 billion tonnes of biomass/waste by 2050 [7]. The waste generated from the agricultural sector and agro-industries is rich in nutrients and cannot be left unprocessed or untreated [8]. However, the management and disposal are cumbersome [9] owing to its large volume and immeasurable quantity [10]. Earlier, the focus was more towards production and productivity, thereby the agricultural wastes were neglected and discarded in sanitary landfills, decaying, burned or dumped in aquatic waterbodies.

The agricultural waste is classified into different categories depending on the areas from which it is generated, Figure 1 [11]. Categorized agricultural (biomass) residues into primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary residues are produced in the process of plantation of food crops, secondary residues are released as by-products in the processing of food crops. The tertiary resides are generated when the biomass-based products are consumed by the human or animals. The traditional system of agricultural waste management is unsustainable owing to its hazardous consequences on human health [12], environment [13], soil microbes [14], water bodies [15] and global warming [13]. Several physical, chemical, biological and technological methods were employed to ensure the efficient agricultural waste management; however, most of them are infested with low degradation rates, labour intensive, costly and abysmal for environment [16]. All the events have converged and forced the policymakers to find the sustainable solution for the agricultural waste management.

Figure 1.

Classification of agricultural waste [7].

Advertisement

2. Sustainable agriculture

The agricultural wastes can serve as the basic input for bio-economy with thrust towards health security, transformation of wastes into value-added products, livelihood security of farmers, job opportunities for youth and sustainability. As the world is shifting towards sustainable agriculture, agricultural waste management is being prioritized owing to the hazardous consequences on environment, health and economy [17] and prospective applications in the development of value-added products and services [8]. The proper waste management is one of the pillars of sustainable agriculture envisaged in sustainable development goals (SDG) of the United Nations. A number of methods were employed to transform the agricultural waste into useful products. These methods can be placed under two broad headings: in situ and ex situ waste management, Figure 2. The two methods can be clubbed together under the 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) of integrated waste management system, Figure 3. Zaman and Lehmann [18] highlighted six wave innovation theory that took the world towards waste to wealth (energy) technologies, The sixth wave is related to zero waste in administration and manufacturing, emissions, product life and toxic use [20]. The agricultural waste management is not the prerogative of farmers (waste producers) only, but there are multiple stakeholders that can play a meaningful role in its transformation. In fact, the policymakers are framing legislation and pushing hard to use the wastes for income augmentation, alternative energy option and basic input for bioeconomy.

Figure 2.

Agricultural waste management functions [18, 19].

Figure 3.

Integrated waste management system.

2.1 In situ agricultural waste management

The term ‘in situ’ refers to the management of the agricultural waste at the point of generation or production site. The method is prioritized as the cost involved in collection and transportation can be avoided. The in situ method is usually used for the nutrient recycling, bolstering of nutrient composition of the soil, soil and water conservation and animal feed. It includes

2.1.1 Burning

The use of the harvesters and combines often results in the generation of loose straws and stubbles. This waste along with the waste generated from unit agricultural operations from seedbed preparation to post-harvest processing is often burned in the open field to clear the land in shortest possible time. It is also believed to be an effective method of controlling the pest infestation from previous crop and weed control. There is a wide perception that the ash content improves the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil in the short term. The burning of the waste is preferred in areas where there is a technological vacuum or lack of alternatives or awareness, Figure 4. However, in the long run, there are dangerous consequences that have invited global concerns with respect to visibility [21], health [22], global climate change [23], release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [24] polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans [11] and serious traffic accidents [25]. The pollutants released during biomass burning can produce significant changes in blood parameters as indicated by lymphocytosis, eosinophilia and neutrophilia in sheep [26] oxidative stress [27], as well as kidney [28] and liver dysfunctions in buffaloes [29]. Burning also releases considerable amounts of toxicants, which function as endocrine disruptors and affect the integrity of reproductive function in mammals and ultimately contribute to infertility [30].

Figure 4.

Pros and cons of burning agricultural waste.

In spite of the global condemnations, the agricultural waste burning is still prevalent in many developing countries. The emergence of Asian Brown Cloud (ABC) over South-East Asia is perceived as the direct consequence of burning the agricultural waste in the neighbouring countries. In order to avoid the burning of left-out stubbles and loose straw, the technocrats and scientific community have involved zero till drills and happy seeders to sow the seeds directly in the combined harvested fields. It has also helped to conserve more than 30% of the energy invested in seedbed preparation (tillage). This implies that there will be no compulsion to clear the field for the sowing of the next crop. It can help to curb the menace of burning agricultural fields on a large scale.

2.1.2 Incorporation

The agricultural wastes are lignocellulosic, with cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin as basic ingredients. In fact, cellulose accounts for 30–50% of the total biomass and can be used for microbial transformation [31]. The agricultural waste generated on the field can be mixed with the soil and allowed to decay and degrade in presence of soil microbes. The microbial growth produces cellulose, endoglucanase and cellobiohydrolase enzymes to reduce the complex structure of cellulose into monomers. The decayed humus increases the water absorption capacity and bolsters the soil fertility status, directly or indirectly influencing the productivity of the crop [12]. However, the incorporation often hinders the movement of agricultural machinery as the straw gets accumulated at the furrow openers and seed tubes of seed-sowing machinery. Also, it is difficult to mix the loose straw and stubbles owing to their flexibility, mechanical strength and resilience [32]. The lack of viable cost-effective technology for the economic nutrient recycling has rendered the system unsustainable [33]. The waste must be subjected to particle-side reduction to increase its surface area. The small particles can be easily mixed with the soil and the higher surface area can provide feasible conditions for the soil microbes to degrade the waste in short duration. It is well documented that the particle size in the range of 1.27–7.62 cm can be helpful in the conversion of agricultural waste into nutrient-rich humus. In certain situations, the fungal or bacterial consortium is added to enhance the degradation rate of the agricultural waste. Muzamil et al. [12] developed a tractor-powered straw chopper with an ability to spray recommended dose of microbial culture to prepare the compost in shortest possible time. The paddy straw chopper was able to reduce 63% of the particles lower than 5 cm in size, Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Size reduction and spraying microbial culture―Image reproduced from Ref. [12].

2.1.3 Mulching

The ability to conserve the soil fertility and judicious application of water is perceived as the backbone to achieve the sustainability of the agricultural system. This is more significant for the areas where the atmospheric conditions are harsh. The agricultural waste is spread between the rows and plants to conserve the soil, preserve the soil moisture and control the weed growth. As the plants are biodegradable, they get dissolved in the soil at the later phase and contribute to the soil fertility status. The current trend is to use plastic mulching with different colours to check the impact on pest infestation and productivity of crops. These plastic mulches are laid with the help of manual, engine-operated, tractor-drawn and self-propelled mulchers with an ability to spread drip irrigation channels below the mulched layer.

2.1.4 Hay conditioning

The agricultural grass is harvested by means of mowers at a height of 3–10 cm from the ground. The mowers can be engine-operated, tractor operated or self-propelled. The harvested grass is spread uniformly over the surface by means of tractor-operated tedders. These tedders are used to turn the grass in order to ensure faster curing (drying). The dried grass is collected in the form of windrows using tractor-operated rakes. The windrow of grass is then compressed into high-density bales to decrease its volume and increase its weight. The bales are then transported and stored for future use. The process of mowing, tedding, raking and baling are the sub-constituents of ‘hay conditioning’.

2.1.5 Feed for ruminants

The harvested field often serves as the green pastures for ruminants. The animals are allowed to eat the agricultural wastes and the extract serves as the manure for the next crop. However, the trampling of the field by the ruminants is considered the potential source of sub-soiling. Sub-soiling is the process of hardening of soil surface at some depth, restricting the movement of water, runoff and washing off the upper soil fertile layer. The hard surface is known as plough sole or hard pan. The hard pan is often destroyed by means of sub-soiler (45–100 cm or even more) or chisel plough (25–35 cm). Sub-soiler possesses a single standard of large depth while chisel plough contains many standards of small depth. It is usually recommended to use a sub-soiler or chisel plough after 4–5 years of agricultural activities.

2.2 Ex situ agricultural waste management

Ex situ management differs from the in situ management in that the agricultural waste is collected and processed at separate facility. The cost of collection, transportation, storage and processing differentiates it from in situ agricultural waste management. Ex situ agricultural waste management can have many applications:

2.2.1 Energy generation and briquetting

The agricultural waste possesses huge volumes and is usually flexible [32]. The loose biomass with 100–200 kgm−3 density is compressed and transformed into densified blocks of 1200–1300 kgm−3 density briquettes. The biomass densification demands high pressure, provided with the help of piston-ram and screw-press machines. Moreover, the preparation of briquettes can be either binderless (no external additive is added and pressure is sufficient to bond) or with binder (external binders such as sodium bentonite, sand and molasses is added). In binderless process, high temperature (200°C) and pressure (1400 MPa) break the bonds and turn the cellulose into a fluid-like binding agent.

These briquettes are used in dairy processing units for animal feeding and in industries for the generation of energy. The energy can be in the form of steam (boiler), electricity or heat generation.

2.2.2 Silage for dairy animals

The process involves the conversion of agricultural wastes into silage (feed) for dairy animals and poultry. It includes cutting the harvested fodder (crop), compacting, storing and fermenting under an aerobic conditions in a silo. The agricultural wastes are usually low in nutrients and are mixed with agro-industrial by-products, such as rice bran, corn meal and coconut cake, to form complete feed (CF) for ruminants and poultry. The transformation into silage helps to maintain the feed nutrients in the forage for a long time. It is better than hay conditioning as it requires less space, fields can be prepared early and overcome the atmospheric constraints such as rain, snow and hailstorm. Moreover, the high-quality silage feed can be provided to the dairy animals and poultry around the year.

2.2.3 Soil conditioners

The wastes are collected from the field either manually or mechanically and converted into compost [34] and vermicompost [35].

2.2.3.1 Composting

The most common method of composting is bin-based and windrow-based composting. In bin-based method, a rectangular bin is used. The agricultural waste is mixed with 3–4 days-old cow dung and allowed to undergo degradation. The materials are mixed regularly to mix the water and microbes uniformly. This type of method is used for small-scale composting. At large scale, windrow composting is preferred in which the wastes are placed in long rows in the form of a windrow and 3–4 days old cow dung is mixed along with fungal consortium (Aspergillus awamori and Trichoderma viridae) to bolster the degradation process. The materials are mixed at regular intervals with the help of tractor operated compost turner-cum-mixer to distribute the microbes and moisture uniformly for rapid degradation of the agricultural waste [34].

2.2.3.2 Vermicomposting

The vermicomposting method is different from composting as it involves earthworms instead of bacteria or fungi in composting to degrade the agricultural waste. The involvement of earthworms is prioritized as it modifies the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil, resulting in quality manure production [36]. It is prepared either in rectangular bins [15] or smart vermicomposting bins [35] depending upon the application and quantity of waste. The fertility status of the vermicompost can help to cater to the needs of crop plants in order to promote the growth activity and serve as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers [37]. It plays an essential role in the accretion of essential nutrients [38], enhancement of physio-chemical and biological properties [39, 40], improvement in porosity, aeration, drainage, solubility of the nutrients, water holding capacity [41, 42] and bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the soil [43]. In fact, the utilization of vermicompost-based organic agriculture can usher a revolution in terms of consumer health and environmental protection [44].

2.2.4 Mushroom cultivation

The mushroom cultivation requires substrates for the fungus to grow and transform into an edible mushroom. The lignocellulosic agricultural wastes are used as substrates and mediums for the microbes. These substrates are subjected to size reduction with the help of a chaff cutter or chopper. It is a case of nutrient recycling, where the nutrients in the agricultural wastes are extracted and utilized for the production of mushrooms. It is an ecologically sustainable and economically viable method of agricultural waste management [45, 46]. Moreover, the mushrooms prepared from banana stalks [47]; paddy straw [48], coffee husk [49] and agro-industrial waste [50] serve as essential ingredients to fight heart ailments and diabetes. The substrates are chopped, mixed with other ingredients and then placed in polythene bags of 5 kg or 10 kg before the addition of spawn (seeds). The spawn (seed) is added in two ways:

  1. Spawn mixed with ingredients uniformly and filled in bags.

  2. Spawn added in layers at the outer circumference of the polyethene bags.

In the first case, the spawn seeds are added at the time of mixing and then filled in polythene bags. There is a machine that fills one bag at one time. In the second case, the ingredients and spawn are added in layers. However, the spawn is placed at the outer circumference in layered structure. Usually, small holes are made in the polythene to allow the spawn seeds to germinate and emerge easily.

2.2.5 Packaging material

The agricultural waste, such as paddy straw, is also used as packing material for fruits and vegetables [51]. The farms and orchards are located at a far distance from the markets. Therefore, the fruits and vegetables are packed in cardboard or wooden boxes to transport them without any damage. The paddy waste is used for packing the perishable products due to its flexible and cushion characteristics. The packaging material can be made from tomato plants [52], starch from rice, wheat, potato peels and other agricultural wastes.

2.2.6 Bioconversion into efficient gases

Agricultural biomass can be transformed into solid (biochar and compost/vermicompost), liquid (bioethanol and biodiesel) or gaseous (producer gas, biogas and methane) or electricity through different technological interventions. The conversion of biomass into energy in anaerobic conditions with the active involvement of microorganisms is gaining traction [53]. The degradation of the agricultural biomass is accompanied by the liberation of methane and carbon dioxide, known as biogas. Biogas contains methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, nitrogen and carbon monoxide with a calorific value of 4500 kCalm−3. Biogas can be used for the generation of heat, electricity and engine operation. There are four processes involved in the preparation of biogas: hydrolysis, acetogenesis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis, Table 1 Hydrolysis involves the breakdown of complex molecules into monomers. At the end of hydrolysis, acetic acid (CH3COOH) is formed. The acetic acid is reduced to acids, either propionic acid or butyric acid. These acids are acted upon by methanogens and converted into biogas (CH4 + CO2). However, the type and composition of agricultural biomass [55], pH, density and degradation period [56] influence the quality and quantity of biogas, Table 2.

ProcessChemical reactionEnd product
HydrolysisCellulose + H2O
Proteins + H2O		Sugars
Amino acids
AcidogenesisC6H12O6 → 3CH3COOH
C6H12O6+2H2 → 3CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O		Acetic acid
Propionic acid
AcetogenesisCH3CH2COO− + 3H2O → CH3COO− + HCO3− + H+ + 3H2
CH3CH2COO− + 2H2O → 2CH3COO− + H+ + 2H2
4H2 + 2HCO3− + H+ → CH3COO− + 4H2O		Acetate
Hydrogen
Methanogenesis4CH3COOH → 4CO2 + 4CH4
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
4CH3OH + 6H2 → CH4 + 2H2O		Methane
Carbon dioxide
Water

Table 1.

Chemical reactions involved in the preparation of biogas from biomass [54].

SubstrateBiogas potential nm3/mg fresh matterOperationsBiogas requirementReference
Cow manure63.3 ± 7.5Lighting0.127 m3 per person[57]
Poultry litter241.6 ± 21.3Cooking0.227 m3 per person[58]
Agricultural waste (Straws, cobs and stalks)124.4 ± 4.9Power generation0.425 m3 per hp for engine operation[58]
Vegetable, fruit and legume waste158.1 ± 18.7Slurry as organic fertilizer-[59]
Oil press residues301.0 ± 9.3--[60, 61]

Table 2.

Biogas production and requirements from different substrates and activities.

Biogas is prepared in biogas plants, which may be either fixed type or floating type. In fixed type biogas plant, the degradation chamber and drum are fixed. The output of the biogas plant is obtained from the top of the biogas plant. The degraded slurry is collected from the bottom. In floating type biogas plant, the floating drum is placed over the top of degradation chamber. When the biogas starts pushing the floating drum, it moves upwards. The slurry is obtained in a similar manner as that of fixed type biogas plant. The biogas collected can be used for lighting, cooking and engine operation as fuel. The generation of the biogas from agricultural wastes can help to lower the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. As per one estimate, the households utilizing biogas produce 50% lower greenhouse gas emissions than non-biogas households [62].

2.2.7 Pyrolysis and gasification

It is the process of burning the agricultural biomass (waste) at 350–700°C in controlled conditions to turn it into enriched products. The pyrolysis process converts the biomass into solid (char), liquid (bio-oil) and gaseous (fuel gas) mixture depending on the type of process, Figure 6. Biochar contains carbon and is an essential ingredient to increase the nutrient composition of the soil. When the temperature exceeds more than 700°C, it reduces the biomass into hydrogen and carbon monoxide-based gaseous fuel. This gas is known as producer gas with individual constituents as 18–22% carbon monoxide, 15–20% hydrogen, 1–5% methane, 8–12% carbon dioxide and 45–55% nitrogen, Table 3. The calorific value of producer gas is 4.2–5.0 MJ/Nm3 with conversion efficiency of 80%. There are four types of gasifiers, depending on the type of substrate and application. The efficiency of the burning of producer gas is 80%, higher than biogas (60%) and liquified petroleum gas (60%). The quality of the gas produced depends on the type of substrate, temperature, bed height and gasifying agent. Moreover, hydrogen is also emerging as a potential energy source. Ahmad et al. [65] reported that gasification is the most efficient technique for the production of hydrogen gas from biomass.

Figure 6.

Products formed by different methods of pyrolysis [63].

Type of reactionChemical interactionReference
Oxidation reactionC + O2 → CO2
C + 1/2 O2 → CO		[64]
BoudouardC + CO2 → 2CO
Water gasC + H2O → CO + H2
MethanationC + 2H2 → CH4
Water gas shiftCO + 2H2O → CO2 + H2

Table 3.

Chemical reactions involved in gasification.

2.2.8 Renewable energy sources

The world is under tremendous pressure to seek alternate sources of fuel after the emergence of greenhouse gases led to global warming, increase in energy consumption [66] and growing concerns for health and environment from fossil fuels. There are four generations of biofuel production depending on the type of biomass, methods and technological procedure adoption, Figure 7. Earlier, the biofuels were manufactured from started based food materials such as corn, sugarcane, wheat, sorghum and millet. However, the controversy over food crops vs. non-food crops for biofuel production has rendered the system untenable. In the second generation, lignocellulosic biomass was utilized with the prediction that 442 billion litres of bioethanol (Table 4) can be produced from rice, corn, sugarcane and wheat straw [73]. Third generation exploited the potential of algae to produce biofuels. Fourth generation relies heavily on genetically engineered feedstock for the production of biofuels. The agricultural wastes [67] can be effectively used in the production of biofuels.

Figure 7.

Four generations of biofuel production.

BiofuelSubstrateReference
BioethanolAgricultural wastes and crop wastes[67, 68, 69]
BioethanolVegetable waste (potato, carrot and onion peel)[70]
BioethanolBanana stem[71]
BioethanolAgro-industrial waste[72]

Table 4.

Agricultural wastes used for bioethanol production.

Biodiesel is prepared from biomass/vegetable oils through the process of transesterification and utilized as the substitute for conventional diesel in automobiles. Biodiesel is also known as free fatty acid alkyl ester. The vegetable oils are mainly composed of fatty acids of glycerol known as triglycerides. When the triglyceride molecule reacts with methanol, it produces fatty acid methyl ester (biodiesel) and glycerol. In general, transesterification is the reaction of fat or oil with the alcohol to produce esters and glycerine. Currently, biodiesel is mixed with conventional diesel in different proportions to assess its efficacy for various operations. The proportion of B5 signifies that 5% is biodiesel and 95% is conventional diesel fuel. Similarly, there are other proportions such as B10, B15 and B85. The involvement of biodiesel lowers the emissions of almost all the pollutants from the automobiles with the exception of nitrogen oxide (NO2).

2.2.9 Product formations

A number of products can be formed from agricultural wastes such as dishes and plates from bagasse (sugarcane) by-product; antioxidants (pineapple waste [74], orange peel) [75]; pharmaceutical products (fruit and vegetable peel) [76]; antibiotic oxytetracycline (corn cobs, sawdust and rice hulls) [77] and enzyme production [78]. The agricultural wastes can also be used to prepare indigenous fermented products such as Indonesian Oncom [79] and Indonesian and Malaysian tempeh [80].

Currently, a number of studies are diverted to involve the technical procedures, technological interventions and methodological processes of agricultural waste management, Table 5. All the methods are tested for technical feasibility, economic viability and commercial scalability to make it affordable to the main stakeholder―the farmer.

Finished productMethodReference
Aquatic and terrestrial Dal weed into vermicompostMechanical interface and technological intervention[15, 32, 35, 36]
Paddy straw stubble into compostMechanical interface and microbial inoculum[12, 20, 34, 81]
Utilization of biomass as fuelProcedural methodology[25]
Waste to value-added products—[26]
Waste for mushroom productionTechnological intervention and standard method[45, 47]
Waste for production of biogas, producer gas, hydrogen and electricityHydrolysis and digestion[53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 64, 65]
Waste for biofuel productionAcid hydrolysis and fermentation[67, 68, 70, 73]
Preparation of medicines and antioxidants from wastesStandard procedures[74, 75, 77]

Table 5.

Current methods used for agricultural waste management.

Advertisement

3. Conclusion

The agricultural wastes are burgeoning at a rapid rate and demand appropriate in situ and ex situ managemental strategy, depending on the type of substrate, area of generation, quantity and final product required. On certain occasions, the waste can be chopped and incorporated into the soil for nutrient recycling and easy movement of agricultural machinery [81]. The incorporated layer protects the soil from erosion, conserves the moisture and provides humus for the growth of the plants. The in situ methods are usually slow and time-consuming. However, at times, it becomes difficult to manage the agricultural waste at the source of its generation. In such cases, it is better to collect, transport and transform it into briquettes for energy generation, feeding material for ruminants and poultry, biofuel production, conversion into biogas and producer gas for household and industrial units. It can be also used for composting, vermicomposting-based entrepreneurship enterprises or packaging material for perishable agricultural products. The conversion of agricultural wastes is imperative to protect human health, environment and arrest global climate change. The ‘waste to wealth’ can ensure income augmentation of the farmers and sustainability of the agricultural system.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate the help rendered by the authorities at SKUAST-K that finally led to the completion of the herculean task.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

All the authors contributed equally to the preparation of the manuscript and have unanimously decided to publish it. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest whatsoever.

References

  1. 1. Koops SHA, Leeuwen CJ. The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2017;19:385-418
  2. 2. Tripathi RP, Peeyush S, Surendra S. Soil physical response to multi-year rice-wheat production in India. International Journal of Soil Science. 2006;1:91-107
  3. 3. FAOStat. FAO Stat. Rome: FAO; 2021
  4. 4. Erenstein O, Jaleta, M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prassana BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Security. 2022;14:1295-1319. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7
  5. 5. Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi RC. Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities- A review. Waste Management. 2008;28:459-467
  6. 6. Hiloidhari M, Das D, Baruah DC. Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;32:504-512
  7. 7. Duque-Acevedo M, Belmonte-Urena L, Cortes-Garcia FJ, Camacho-Ferre F. Agricultural waste: Review of the evolution, approaches and perspectives on alternative uses. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020;22:e00902. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00902
  8. 8. Sadh PK, Duhan S, Duhan JS. Agro-industrial wastes and their utilization using solid state fermentation: A review. Bioresources and Bioprocess. 2018;5(1)
  9. 9. Rodriguez-Couto S. Exploitation of biological wastes for the production of value-added products under solid-state fermentation conditions. Biotechnology Journal. 2008;3:859-870
  10. 10. Wang B, Dong F, Chen M, Zhu J, Tan J, Fu X, et al. Advances in recycling and utilization of agricultural wastes in China: Based on environmental risk, crucial pathways, influencing factors, policy mechanism. The tenth international conference on waste management and technology (ICWMT). Procedia Environmental Sciences. 2016;31:12-17
  11. 11. Li A, Antizar-Ladislao B, Khraisheh M. Bioconversion of municipal solid waste to glucose for bio-ethanol production. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. 2007;30:189-196
  12. 12. Muzamil M, Mani I, Kumar A, Shukla L. An engineering intervention to prevent paddy straw burning through in situ microbial degradation. Journal of Institution of Engineers. 2021;102:11-17
  13. 13. Kaab A, Sharifi M, Mobli H, Pelesaraei A, N. and Chau, K. Combines life cycle assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and environmental impacts of sugarcane production. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;664:1005-1019
  14. 14. Gupta PK, Sahai S, Singh N, Dixit CK, Singh DP, Sharma C. Residue burning in rice-wheat cropping system: Causes and implications. Current Science. 2004;87(12):1713-1715
  15. 15. Kumar S. Aquatic weeds problems and management in India. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2011;43(3-4):118-138
  16. 16. Najar IAK. Vermicomposting of invasive species Azolla pinnata with Eisenia foetida. An International Quartely Journal of Life Science. 2010;5(2):239-241
  17. 17. Dhar H, Kumar S, Kumar R. A review on organic waste to energy systems in India. Bioresource Technology. 2017;245:1229-1237
  18. 18. Zaman AU, Lehmann S. Urban growth and waste management optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City, Culture and Society. 2011;2:177-187
  19. 19. USDA-NRCS. Agricultural waste management systems. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. 2011;651(9):31
  20. 20. Pietzsch N, Ribeiro JLD, Medeiros JF. Benefits, challenges and critical factors of success for zero waste: A systematic literature review. Waste Management. 2017;67:324-353
  21. 21. Penner JE, Dickinson RE, Oneill CA. Effects of aerosol from biomass burning on the global radiation budget. Science. 1992;256:1432-1434
  22. 22. Gadde B, Bonnet S, Menke C, Garivait S. Air pollutant emissions from rice straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environmental Pollution. 2009;157:1554-1558
  23. 23. Lemieux PM, Lutesb CC, Santoiannib DA. Emissions of organic air toxics from open burning. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 2004;30:1-32
  24. 24. Korenaga T, Liu X, Huang Z. The influence of moisture content on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons emission during rice straw burning. Chemosphere - Global Change Science. 2001;3:117-122
  25. 25. Chou CS, Lin SH, Lu WC. Preparation and characterization of solid biomass fuel made from rice straw and rice bran. Fuel Processing Technology. 2009;90:980-987
  26. 26. Ahmed WM, Abou Mossallam AA, Hanfiand EM, Shalaby SI. Observations on fertility and mutagenicity of Egyptian ewes exposed to products of rice straw combustion with special reference to the effect of flunixine meglumine. Journal of the Egyptian Veterinary Medical Association. 2003;63:195-212
  27. 27. Rivero DH, Soares SR, Filho GL, Godleski JJ, Antonangelo L, Dolhnikoff M, et al. Acute cardiopulmonary alterations induced by fine particulate matter of São Paulo, Brazil. Toxicological Sciences. 2005;85(2):898-905
  28. 28. Uboh FE, Akpanabiatu MI, Eteng M, Eyong EU. Exposure to gasoline and kerosene vapours: A risk factor for nephrotoxicity in rats. Internet Journal of Toxicology. 2010;7:2
  29. 29. Massaguer A, Perez-Del-pulgar S, Engel P, Serratosa J, Bosch J, Pizcueta P. Concanavalin-A-induced liver injury is severely impaired in mice deficient in P-selectin. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 2002;72:262-270
  30. 30. Smith TL, Merry ST, Harris DL, Ford JJ, Ike J, Archibong AE, et al. Species specific testicular and hepatic microsomal metabolism of benzopyrene, an ubiquitous toxicant and endocrine disruptor. Toxicology In Vitro. 2007;21:753-758
  31. 31. Koul B, Yakoob M, Shah MP. Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environmental Research. 2022;206:112285
  32. 32. Muzamil M, Mani I, Kumar A, Lande S. Influence of moisture content, loading rate and internode position on the mechanical properties of paddy and wheat straw. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2016;7(2):280-285
  33. 33. Jeyabal A, Kuppuswamy G. Recycling of organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. European Journal of Agronomy. 2001;15(3):153-170
  34. 34. Muzamil M, Mani I, Shukla L, Lande S. Efficiency of pusa compost inoculant along with windrow turner for rapid degradation of paddy straw. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2014;8(1):569-576
  35. 35. Kumar A, Muzamil M, Dixit J. A smart vermicomposting bin for rapid degradation of Dal lake aquatic weed into fortified vermicompost. International Journal of recycling of organic waste in Agriculture. 2022;12(2). DOI: 10.30486/ijrowa.2022.1955835.1445
  36. 36. Molina MJ, Soriano MD, Ingelmo F, Linares J. Stabilisation of sewage sludge and vinasse bio-wastes by vermicomposting with rabbit manure using Eisenia fetida. Bioresource Technology. 2013;137:88-97
  37. 37. Chauhan HK, Singh K. Potancy of Vermiwash with Neem plant parts on the Infestation of Earias vittella (Fabricius) and Productivity of Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) (L.) Moench. Asian Journal of Research and Pharmaceutical Science. 2015;5(1):36-40
  38. 38. Gandhi A, Sundari SU. Effect of vermicompost prepared from aquatic weeds on growth and yield of eggplant (Solanum smelongena L.). Journal of Biofertilizer and Biopesticide. 2012;3(5):1-4
  39. 39. Ansari AA, Jaikishun S. Vermicomposting of sugarcane bagasse and rice straw and its impact on the cultivation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. in Guyana, South America. Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2011;7(2):225-234
  40. 40. Chauhan HK, Singh K. Effect of tertiary combinations of animal dung with agrowastes on the growth and development of earthworm Eisenia fetida during organic waste management. International Journal of Recycling Organic Agriculture. 2013;2:11
  41. 41. Ismail SA. The Earthworm Book. Mapusa: Other India Press; 2005. p. 101
  42. 42. Edwards CA, Subler S, Arancon N. Quality criteria for vermicomposts. In: Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Sherman RL, editors. Vermiculture Technology: Earthworms, Organic Waste and Environmental Management. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. pp. 287-301
  43. 43. Hemalatha B. Vermicomposting of fruit waste and industrial sludge. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology. 2012;3(2):60-63
  44. 44. Kaplan M. The National Master Plan for Agricultural Development in Suriname. Final Report. Kaplan Planners Ltd. Regional and Environmental Planning; 2016. pp. 255. https://www.share4dev.info/kb/documents/5426.pdf
  45. 45. Randive SD. Cultivation and study of growth of oyster mushroom on different agricultural waste substrate and its nutrient analysis. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2012;3:1938-1949
  46. 46. Chiu SW, Moore D. Threats to biodiversity caused by the traditional mushroom cultivation in China. In: Moore D. Nauta MM, Evans SE, Rotheroe M. editors. Fungal conservation: Issues and Solutions, British Mycological Society Symposia, Chapter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. pp. 111-119
  47. 47. Siqueira F, Martos E, Silva R, Dias E. Cultivation of Pleurotus sajor-caju on banana stalk and bahia grass-based substrates. Horticultura Brasileira. 2011;29:199-204
  48. 48. Akinyele JB, Fakoya S, Adetuyi CF. Anti-growth factors associated with Pleurotus ostreatus in a submerged liquid fermentation. Malaysian Journal of Microbiology. 2012;8:135-140
  49. 49. Murthy PS, Manonmani HK. Bioconversion of coffee industry wastes with white rot fungus Pleurotus florida. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2008;2:145-150
  50. 50. Babu PD, Subhasree RS. Valuing the suitable agro-industrial wastes for cultivation of P. platypus and P. eous. Advances in Biology Research. 2010;4:207-210
  51. 51. Valdés A, Mellinas AC, Ramos M, Garrigos MC, Jiménez A. Natural additives and agricultural wastes in biopolymer formulations for food packaging. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2014;2:6
  52. 52. Van Crevel R. Bio-based food packaging in sustainable development. Challenges and opportunities to utilize biomass residues from agriculture and forestry as a feedstock for bio-based food packaging. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2001. pp. 1-70
  53. 53. Liu Y, Zhu Y, Jia H, Yong X, Zhang L, Zhou J, et al. Effects of different biofilm carriers on biogas production during anaerobic digestion of corn straw. Bioresource Technology. 2017;244:445-451
  54. 54. Nwokolo N, Mukumba P, Obileke K, Enebe M. Waste to energy: A focus on the impact of substrate type in biogas production. PRO. 2020;8:1224
  55. 55. Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;45:540-555
  56. 56. Li K, Liu R, Cui S, Yu Q, Ma R. Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures with corn stover or apple pulp for enhanced biogas production. Renewable Energy. 2018;118:335-342
  57. 57. Ghmire PC. SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in Asia and Africa. Renewable Energy. 2013;49:90-94
  58. 58. Roubík H, Mazancová J, Banout J, Verner V. Addressing problems at small-scale biogas plants: A case study from central Vietnam. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;112:2784-2792
  59. 59. Rodolfo S, Anh LH, Konrad K. Feasibility assessment of anaerobic digestion technologies for household wastes in Vietnam. Journal of Vietnam Environment. 2016;7:1-8
  60. 60. Bozzetto S, Pezzaglia M, Rossi L, Pecorino B. Considerazioni sul Potenziale del “Biogas Fatto Bene” Italiano Ottenuto Dalla Digestione Anaerobica di Matrici Agricole. Metodologia di Stima e Analisi dei Dati del Position Paper del Consorzio Italiano Biogas; Italian. Lodi, Italy: Consorzio Italiano Biogas (CIB); 2016
  61. 61. Valli L, Rossi L, Fabbri C, Sibilla F, Gattoni P, Dale BE, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions of electricity and biomethane produced using the BiogasdonerightTM system: Four case studies from Italy. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 2017;11:847-860
  62. 62. Zhang X, Luo L, Skitmore M. Household carbon emission research: An analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;103:873-883
  63. 63. Lee SY, Sankaran R, Chew KW. Waste to bioenergy: A review on the recent conversion technologies. BMC Energy. 2019;1:4
  64. 64. Ghani WAW, Moghadam RA, Salleh MAM, Alias AB. Air gasification of agricultural waste in a fluidized bed gasifier: Hydrogen production performance. Energies. 2009;2(2):258-268
  65. 65. Ahmad AA, Zawawi NA, Kasim FH, Inayat A, Khasri A. Assessing the gasification performance of biomass: A review on biomass gasification process conditions, optimization and economic evaluation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;53:1333-1347
  66. 66. Bilgen S, Kaygusuz K, Sari A. Renewable energy for a clean and sustainable future. Energy Sources. 2004;26(12):1119-1129
  67. 67. Saini JK, Saini R, Tewari L. Lignocellulosic agriculture wastes as biomass feedstocks for second-generation bioethanol production: Concepts and recent developments. Biotech. 2014;3
  68. 68. Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli T, Yusaf T. Potential of bioethanol production from agricultural wastes in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2009;13:1418-1427
  69. 69. Kabel MA, Bos G, Zeevalking J, Voragen AGJ, Schols HA. Effect of pretreatment severity on xylan solubility and enzymatic breakdown of the .remaining cellulose from wheat straw. Bioresource Technology. 2007;98(10):2034-2042
  70. 70. Mushimiyimana I, Tallapragada P. Bioethanol production from agro wastes by acid hydrolysis and fermentation process. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 2016;75:383-388
  71. 71. Ingale S, Joshi SJ, Gupte A. Production of bioethanol using agricultural waste: Banana pseudo stem. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2014;45(3):885-892
  72. 72. Maiti S, Sarma SJ, Brar SK, Le-Bihan Y, Drogui P, Buelna G, Verma M. Agro-industrial wastes as feed stock for sustainable bio-production of butanol by Clostridium beijerinckii. Food Bioproducts Processing. 2016;98:217-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2016.01.002
  73. 73. Kim S, Dale BE. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2004;26(4):361-375
  74. 74. Rashad MM, Mahmoud AE, Ali MM, Nooman MU, Al-Kashef AS. Antioxidant and anticancer agents produced from pineapple waste by solid state fermentation. International Journal of Toxicology and Pharmacology Research. 2015;7(6):287-296
  75. 75. Hegazy AE, Ibrahium MI. Antioxidant activities of orange peel extracts. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2012;18:684-688
  76. 76. Parashar S, Sharma H, Garg M. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of fruits and vegetable peels: A review. Journal of Pharmcogenetics Phytochemistry. 2014;3:160-164
  77. 77. Yang SS, Swei WJ. Cultural condition and oxytetracycline production by Streptomyces rimosus in solid state fermentation of corn cob. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 1996;12:43-46
  78. 78. Kalogeris E, Christakopoulos P, Katapodis P, Alexiou A, Vlachou S, Kekos D, et al. Production and characterization of cellulolytic enzymes from the thermophilic fungus. Thermoascus aurantiacus under solid state cultivation of agricultural wastes. Process Biochemistry. 2003;38:1099-1104
  79. 79. Beuchat LR. Oncom (fermented peanut presscake). In: Reddy NR, Pierson MD, Salunkhe DK, editors. Legume-based Fermented Foods. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1986. pp. 135-144
  80. 80. Mak ML. Tempeh production from soyabean milk wastes and soybeans by various Rhizopus strains. B.Sc. Hons thesis, Singapore: Singapore National University; 1986
  81. 81. Muzamil M, Mani I, De D, Lande S. Influence of operational parameters of windrow turner for mass production of compost. International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences. 2013;9(1):19-28

Written By

Mohd Muzamil, Sehreen Rasool and Ummyiah H. Masoodi

Submitted: 26 August 2022 Reviewed: 22 September 2022 Published: 31 October 2022

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 4 Nutrient Supplying Potential of Crop Residues in I...

By Arjun Singh, Saroj Choudhary, Rajendra Prasad Meen...

93 downloads

Chapter 5 Agro-Industrial Waste Management: The Circular and...

By Cosmas Chikezie Ogbu and Stephen Nnaemeka Okey

488 downloads

Chapter 6 Crop Residue Burning in India: Potential Solutions

By Kawaljeet Kaur and Preetpal Singh

176 downloads