I feel so very strongly , since biochar provides such a form of carbon that contributes handsomely towards passive pool or non-labile pool of soil organic carbon coupled with residence of carbon in soil fro a minimum period of 50 years ..or so..

Burning crop residue would not be recommended on organic farms as it wastes vital carbon. The ability to compost the residual with manure and any ashes from wood used for cooking would be favored. Many practitioners of organic agriculture fortify the compost with rock phosphate and some soil silt or clay will improve the retention of the soil carbon. Burning can lead to lower soil carbon levels and in organic agriculture, the goal is to improve soil carbon as to improve crop and animal nutrition. 

Thanks for your reply, some farmers burn the rice husk they believe in this method they can fix carbon into the soil

Some people using tower to burn residual to reduce co2 emitted into atmosphere 

Maize stover can have 40% carbon content. When this is burned it goes rapidly into the atmosphere making greenhouse gas issues worse. When composted the high carbon material can be conserved for long-term soil benefit instead of short term atmospheric liberation. If nitrogen is limited more carbon will be lost in the decay process to facilitate its fermentation. The inclusion of manure in the stover allows greater retaining of the carbon material as it provides limited nitrogen. In addition to manure, its combination with silt and clay in the compost mixture will help preserve carbonaceous material. If the stover materials are combined with manure and amended compost can give 20% retaining of the carbon content giving the ability to retain up to 2,000 kg C per hectare in the organic amendment. This material would dwarf the no-till carbon advantage with is slightly over 300 kg C per hectare according to Puget and Lal. Our ability to convert carbonaceous residue can be up to 70% with low-temperature pyrolysis treatment. While no-till conversion is estimated to counteract about 10% of the global current greenhouse gas emissions the use of composting and biochar conversion would potential completely mitigate current emission levels. Greater emphasis on carbon sequestration is the solution to our current greenhouse gas elevation. The increase of soil carbon levels can increase soil water relations and nutrient availability being a single focus which seems to float most of the agronomic and horticultural boats. 

ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) significantly reduce the competition between plants and microbs on N available, so decomposition rate reduces and leading to fix more carbon naturally in the soil and prevent to release into the atmosphere.

How we can promote and trigger ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) into the soil? and how we can measure EEM rate and activity in the soil? is there any special equipment?

Burning crop residues goes against the principles of organic farming. It is better to leave the crop residues as a mulch on the soil, or possibly to compost it so that it can enhance fertility of the soil. Burning the crop residues causes carbon emissions which in turn contribute to global warming.

How we can promote and trigger ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) into the soil? and how we can measure EEM rate and activity in the soil? is there any special equipment?

Is burning crop residual recommend for organic and sustainable agriculture production?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_burning_crop_residual_recommend_for_organic_and_sustainable_agriculture_production?view=595b98dacbd5c2ccf741bb25 [accessed Jul 4, 2017].

When the agricultural system is directed toward increasing living cover and mulch and when the living and crop covers are of mixed perennial species the activity of mycorrhizal fungi increases. In areas where mycorrhizal populations are decimated as in areas which are flooded for prolonged periods or desert areas the introduction of mycorrhizae by inoculation is a real alternative. Mycorrhizal products based on Glomus species are available for farm and garden use. 

Burning crop residues , we never consider as a part of organic farming , and never be sustainable. There could be two options to use crop residues most effectively to my mind. One is the inoculation of extra microbial decomposers to facilitate the fast microbial decomposition and second , is the conversion of these residues into biochar ( however the environmental impact of biochar while pyrolysis is least studied) to supply the much stable carbon source to the soil..

Thanks Dr Anoop for your reply, so you would recommend to restore C into the soil we should use biochar rather than using living mulch , cover crop or residue, right?

I feel so very strongly , since biochar provides such a form of carbon that contributes handsomely towards passive pool or non-labile pool of soil organic carbon coupled with residence of carbon in soil fro a minimum period of 50 years ..or so..

Please find enclosed an interesting work..

Crop Residues: Agriculture's Largest Harvest: Crop residues incorporate more than half of the world's agricultural phytomass..BioScience (1999) 49 (4): 299-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1313613

Plant parts used for food and fiber, and crops grown for animal feed, do not produce most of the phytomass harvested annually by the world's agriculture—crop residues do. More than half of all absolutely dry matter in the global harvest is in cereal and legume straws; in tops, stalks, leaves, and shoots of tuber, oil, sugar, and vegetable crops; and in prunings and litter of fruit and nut trees. Consequently, it would not be inappropriate to define agriculture as an endeavor producing mostly inedible phytomass.

Unfortunately, we cannot either accurately quantify this enormous harvest or satisfactorily account for its fate, which may help to explain why so little attention has been paid to crop residues: The latest US agricultural encyclopedia has no entry for either crop residues or straw (Arntzen 1994), and the only comprehensive interdisciplinary overview of cereal straw was published nearly a generation ago (Staniforth 1979). Nevertheless, there is no doubt that a large part of the residual harvest is handled inappropriately, weakening the world's food-production capacity and contributing to undesirable biospheric change. Such malpractice is particularly common in low-income countries, where inadequate amounts of residues are recycled while unacceptably large amounts of straws and stalks are burned, either in the fields or as household fuel.

In this article, I deal with each of these major concerns. I begin by quantifying the world's crop residue production; next, I review the variety of off-field uses of residues; and finally, I explain the agroecosystem benefits of recycling this phytomass and the negative impacts of burning straws and stalks, a traditional practice that I suggest should give way to better approaches to crop residue management.Crop residues should be seen not as wastes but as providers of essential environmental services, assuring the perpetuation of productive agroecosystems..PDF enclosed for further reading..

Please find enclsoed an interesting article...entitled The Economic Causes Of Crop Residue Burning in Western Indo-Gangetic Plains by Ridhima Guptay

Abstract: Biomass burning of agricultural eld residue (stalks and stubble) during wheat and rice harvesting periods, in the Indo-Gangetic plains, has led to substantial emission of trace g ases and particles.This paper seeks to uncover the factors that explain on eld residue burning of rice residues in Indian Punjab. The results suggest that the use ofa Combine Harvester is the single most important determinant of the decision to burn rice residues. The decision to use the combine harvester in turn is determined by the rice variety sown by a farmer. Coarse rice growers are more likely to use a Combine Harvester. Other factors which were considered important like size of livestock and technical ability of the farmer do not seem to have an impact on the decision to burn rice residues. These results have important implication for mitigation policies to reduce residue burning in this region. Source ; PDF enclosed 

Crop residue burning is not recommend as such for organic and sustainable agriculture production systems. Rather, crop residue management (Crop residue recycling by incorporation/retention) could be a better option for nutrient recycling over crop residue burning to sustain the crop productivity and soil health in intensive production systems across the globe.

A nice study on crop residue removal (CRR), crop residue incorporation (CRI), and crop residue burning (CRB) has been carried out under rice-wheat cropping system (RWCS) in North India [Reference: Paul, J., Choudhary, A.K., Suri, V.K., Sharma, A.K., Kumar, V. and Shobhna. 2014. Bio-resource nutrient recycling and its relationship with biofertility indicators of soil health and nutrient dynamics in rice–wheat cropping system. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 45 (7): 912-924].

This study clearly indicates the merits of crop residue incorporation/retention over crop residue burning in RWCS which is equally applicable for organic and conventional farming for sustainable agriculture production systems. 

Thanks for your respond, what is difference between using biochar and burning resdual both methods sounds burning residual

There is a distinct difference , burning crop residues in open cannot be compared with biochar production techniques.However , having said that, there is still a conspicuous difference of opinion about the environmental implications of biochar production and application in field...

Low temperature 300 to 400 C pyrolysis gives up to 75% conservation of the carbon content without the generation of high residual alkalinity this is the way to ensure the best investment of carbon for soil transformation. It will also make the unwanted soil pH change a non issue for its application. The biggest trade off is the amount of capture of energy production is restricted to 25 to 33% of the total capture using low temperature pyrolysis. In open burning of crop residues the loss of carbon is over 90%. In the case of compost the conserved carbon can be more than several times that of returning openly burnt ash.  The combination of multiple cationic minerals to anionic organic matter and anionic mineral clay is a way of bioengineering a organo mineral complex which has greatly increased residue nature and improves the chemical, physical and biological properties of soil.  

Open burning will contribute to global warming, and this is significant considering the area of land to the greenhouse gases emitted.

the only options remain to (1) allow for degradation of the residues on the farmland (this provides added benefits of mulching, and erosion reduction besides the nutrients it provides); and (2) convert the residues to biochar as earlier pointed out. However, the kind of equipment used in pyrolysis determines if they will also be contributors to greenhouse gases (GHGs). I have witnessed the use of a local reactor which consumes coal and releases GHGs, an electric reactor will also consume a lot of electrical energy (time, and gases used in generating electricity are a lot of resources) which turns to heat energy. It's such a complex cycle.

It is recommended that reactors that are most energy efficient be used in pyrolysis and production of biochar.

Dr. Adebisi has nicely described options and I agree with him that we should not burn residue. It should be either allowed to degrade in soil or convert to biochar.

Crop and animal residues and manures are valuable for protecting the health and productivity of soils. Nievertheless, they also can harbor contagion in the form of weed seeds, pathogen bacteria and fungi and parasitic nematodes. When these materials are appropriately composted the problematic pestilence is eliminated and the persistence of the humic materials enhanced. Compost can improve both the yield of important food crops but also the nutrition for plants, animals and ourselves. Yields with compost equal or exact those top yield for fertilizer and biochar. Dr. Abebisi selected two option burning and biocharring the use of composting should not be neglected and has advantages compared to application of raw residues and manures. One very important one is the reduction of issues related to waste management. The great advantage is not only is the waste diminished but offensive issues such as aroma and pestilence are reduced while the value of the remnant material is improved. Humic substances from composting are well know to have numerous beneficial qualities as growth regulators and greatly increase the water holding potential of amended soil and even the aeration of clay bound soil conditions. Terra Preta the Indian Black Soil which acculumated on infertile oxisols up to 3 meter of rich black top soil which can be continously cultivated with high productivity was the result of recycling of community waste with the addition of ashes and char but also the food and manure.  Biochar is important but does not eliminate the value and need for recycling through composting. 

Quality response Paul. Indian black soils have started expressing multiple nutrient deficiencies in both annual as well as perennial crops. How do you compare crop residue burning with jhuming/slash n burn adopted in shifting cultivation..

Crop residue burning is not a healthy practice for soil.This will significantly generate different Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH) which are volatile organic compounds that forms photochemical oxidants on reacting with NOx under the action of sunlight. This leads to form photochemical smog that have serious ill effects on health contributing to lung problems and all. Also as Mr. Navaraj said this will also destroys many useful insects of us..

Burning crop residual is not a good option for organic or sustainable agriculture. The better option is to produce compost (with these residues) which is highly recommended for this kind of farming system. Also, burning crop residues can negatively affect the quality of the soil (even if it is usually possible to see the effect after three years) by reducing the number of micro-organisms active in the process of soil formation.

The Terra do Preta of Brazil are an area the size of France based on oxisols and ultisols which are amended over a long term with char and organic material. These are man made. The black soils of India are vertisols and retain a black color but have a series of macro and micro deficiencies they are not the result of man's additions. . They do not have the history of char and organic matter additions like the Terra do Preta soils do. The Indian black vertisols maybe be black but in there case they are not necessarily rich or have good structure. A modified oxisol is high in carbon and nutrient and also has excellent structure. In the African villages I visited they had modified soils rich in ash char and carbon and were very fertile in areas where the base soil was impoverished. 

Changes in soil physical properties and organic carbon status at the topsoil horizon of a vertisol of central India after 28 years of continuous cropping, fertilization and manuring

. Author links open the author workspace.Kuntal M.Hatia. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspaceOpens the author workspaceOpens the author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.AnandSwarupb. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.A.K.Dwivedic. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.A.K.Misraa. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspace. Author links open the author workspace.K.K.Bandyopadhyaya. Numbers and letters correspond to the affiliation list. Click to expose these in author workspacea

Indian Institute of Soil Science, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal 462038, Madhya Pradesh, India

b

Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India

c

J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpur 482004, Madhya Pradesh, India

Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.017Get rights and content

Abstract

Balanced application of inorganic fertilizer and organic amendments greatly influence the accumulation of organic matter in soil and also influence the soil physical environment. An investigation was carried out to study the long-term impact of fertilizer and manure application in a soybean–wheat–maize (fodder) crop rotation on soil organic carbon status and physical properties of a vertisol (Typic Haplustert or Pellic Vertisols) in sub-humid sub-tropical India. Five treatments namely, control (no fertilizer and manure), 100% of the optimum rate for nitrogen (100% N), 50% of the optimum rate for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (50% NPK), 100% of the optimum rate for NPK (100% NPK) and 100% NPK + farmyard manure at 15 Mg ha−1 (100% NPK + FYM) from a long-term fertilizer experiment continuing at Jabalpur, India, were chosen for this study. Soil samples were collected from the topsoil horizon (0–15 cm) of all the four replications of the selected five treatments in April 2000 after 28 crop cycles and analyzed for physical and chemical properties. The results showed that the soil organic carbon (SOC) content in 100% NPK and 100% NPK + FYM treatments increased, respectively, by 22.5 and 56.3% over the initial level (1.14 kg m−2). The electrical conductivity, SOC content, aggregation, water retention, microporosity and available water capacity of the soil were increased while the bulk density was reduced significantly with the 100% NPK + FYM treatment over all other treatments. However, the use of imbalanced (100% N) and suboptimal rate of inorganic fertilizer (50% NPK) as compared to the unfertilized control showed no significant effect on the physical properties of the soil. The study indicates that application of balanced rate of fertilizers in combination with organic manure could sequester soil organic carbon in the surface layer, improve the soil physical environment and sustain higher crop productivity under this intensive cropping system.

Keywords

Long-term fertilizer experiment

Aggregate stability

Bulk density

Porosity

Soybean–wheat–fodder maize rotation

Vertisols

Many of the black vertisols in India are less than 1% soil organic matter way to low to maximize them. These soils need to have improved organic matter to improve their percolation, aeration and nutrient provision capacity. This abstract shows a synthetic fertilizer programs alone does not increase soil organic matter needed for better fertility and soil structure. The use of organic amendment and nutrient can. 

The vertisols are highly calcareous and quite alkaline as such they can show micronutrient deficiencies such as iron, zinc, and manganese. Because of the poor structure the crops should employ raised beds and they should respond to mulching. Care is needed not to work these soils when they are wet. Working to get a neural soil reaction and improving the limitation of soil organic matter should be very effective for this soil type. These soils while having physical limitations can be quite fertile when managed appropriately. 

In humid tropical forests a traditional agricuture technique has been slash and burn. Burning will open up spaces for crop development and will lime the soil through the alkaline nature of ashes. In the acid infertile tropics liming should be able to replace the function of the burning. Lime is well available throughout the whole and is not a limted global resource in any sense. Liming improves the nutrition which can provided from the soil and improvecs crop yield and quality. Compared to biochar technology slash and burn is quite wasteful. When composting is employed and minerals are recharged in depleted soils agricultural situations which are gross emitters of greenhouse gas can be transformed into negative emission or carbon sequestration. Soil is a much bigger reservoir than our atmosphere and its depletion around the world is an opportunity to work with emission reduction to resolve the greenhouse gase issues and climate change which it drives. 

Not at all, more explanation given above and being scientists its very dangerous to burn the residues and lethal for Sol, Environment etc.

As it use of crop residue application in soil doesn't support to soil quality improvement but these residue can be used after proper composting. Burning of crop residue is not a permanent solutions.

The burning is not combatible with organic farming. The typical solution is to use a biomass destroyer, to cut branches in small pieces and to incorporate all this to the soil. Many argue that this require a big quantity of nitrogen to satisfy the decomposers and it is not possible from economic view.

No burning of crop residue may not be allowed in organic and sustainable agricultural production. It may not be economically and environmentally sound. 

Burning of crop residues in both organic and inorganic fertilised agriculture is not encouraged because soil N , P, S will be oxidized and volatilised causing serious depletion of soil nutrients.Besides,the heat will kill the soil organisms which are important in soil fertility.

Such  deliberate crop residue burning is almost synonymous to slash and burn cultivation, popularly called shifting cultivation ,  followed in many humid tropics...kind of pre-disposing factor to soil degradation...

Residue burning on the agricutural field badly effect the soil fertility and surrounding enviroment and continuous yearly burning on same field reduces soil nutrient upto 50%. It also produces a huge amount of harmful gasses which pollute the enviroment (i.e.green house CH4,CO,N2O and other hydrocarbon)green house . The heat generated raises the soil temperature and kill the many beneficial microbes which are responsible for conversion and solublization of nutrients in soil. Threrefore, Crop residue burning is not recommended on agricutural fieldl

Residue burning in fields not only destroy Organic matter in the soil, but also led to loss of many essential nutrients such as nitrogen,

phosphorus, sulphur, potassium and micronutrients along with the huge damage of beneficial organisms and microbes in the soil. Thus, reduce the overall fertility of the soil.

There are many studies in literature highlighting adverse impact of residue burning on soil fertility and crop productivity.

Burning has its issues related to the loss of organic matter. For acid soils the ashes can be an effective liming agent. In addition the elimination of residues harboring pathogens has some usefulness. The production of perennial grass seed have utilized burning to eliminate contagion.

Crop residue is one of the most important factors for healthy and productive soils which can provide a protective layer for soil erosion by wind or water, can increase the organic matter and water holding capacity of the soil, and can provide “feed and forage for earth worms. When crop residue is burned all of those benefits are lost, and resultant pollution cause great environmental problem.

Residue burning led to drastic decrease in beneficial microbial population in soil , so the nutrient availability also get affected due to disturbance of vital biological processes in soil.