humiphos - phosphate rich organic manure

VISION OF MODERN

AGRICULTURE

To have ample quantity of food

Adoption of Chemical Agriculture Technologies

MATERIALISTIC APPROACH OF DEVELOPMENT

FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS FROM OUTWARDS AND NEGLECTING NEEDS OF

FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS BY EXPLOITING RESOURCES ,

MANY TIMES

MODERN AGRICULTURE

NEGLECTING NEEDS OF OTHER LIVING BEINGS

MANY TIMES OVERPOWERING NATURE

EVER INCREASING NEEDS CONVERTED INTO EVER INCREASING DEMANDS

BIRTH OF CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE

BIRTH OF CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE

CHEMICAL FERTILISERS

DRIP & SPRINKLER

IRRIGATION SYSTEM

USE OF POISONOUS PESTCIDES ,

FUNGICIDES , HERBICIDES etc

HIGH YIELDING SEED VARIETIES ,

USE OF ARTIFICIAL

HORMONES , CYTOKININS etc

Soil became hard , saline ,

alkaline and in some cases

actually dead

Better water management ,

however , failed in chemical

agriculture system due to saturation of salts over the

period

More resistant varieties of pests and predators ,

pollution of water , air and soil.Residues in

produce.

Naturally resistant varieties of seeds

having good taste , nutritive value are becoming extinct.

Biodiversity of nature is in danger.

LOSS OF SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURE

What is the solution ?

� अ�नात ्जायते मनः| - We are what we eat.

� Positive , inclusive approach.

� Management of natural resources - without wasting � Management of natural resources - without wasting them.

� Better quantity as well as quality – healthy , residue free , nutritious – produce

� Management of vital life energies which control all actions in crop , soil , microbes , pests and diseases etc .

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM

TECHNOLOGY FOR VITAL LIFE ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE

CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM OF

AGRICULTURE

� Beautiful blend of principles of Vedas , Upanishadas and Yog Shastra.

� Believes that Imbalance in nutrition / pest disease resistance due to imbalance in vital life energies.

� Provides solar / lunar / cosmic energy stored in herbs to balance vital life energies.

LACK OF VITAL ENERGIES IS THE CAUSE OF IMBALANCE IN PLANT HEALTH THUS CAUSING NUTRITION IMBALANCE AS WELL AS PROTECTION

IMBALANCE

Sanjeevan System:Impact of Vital Energy Management

IMPACT OF RESTORED BALANCE

Sanjeevan system identified specific problems in Agriculture –

� Lowest nutrient use efficiency – 60 to 70% nutrients-N , P , K , Si , micro nutrients are wasted.

� Delay in Nutrient uptake.

� Lack of pest disease resistance .

Sanjeevan Solutions to these problems-

� to enhance nutrient use efficiency.

� to fulfill nutrition requirement dynamically.

� to manage pest disease attack.

100% ORGANIC , HERBAL IN ORIGIN100% ORGANIC , HERBAL IN ORIGIN

FOR LIFE ENERGY IN AGRICULTURE

PROBLEMS OF PHOSPHATE

70 to 80 % P OF CHEMICAL P FERTILISERS IS WASTED

DUE TO FIXATION

LIMITED STORES OF ROCK PHOSPHATE – WORLD OVER

1,80,000 MILLION TONS ROCK PHOSPHATE

DUE TO FIXATIONROCK PHOSPHATE

SUFFICIENT ONLY UPTO

2060

HAVE TO USE PHOSPHATE WITHOUT WASTING IT DUE TO FIXATION

Why phosphate gets fixed in soil?

� pH of soil

� Organic matter content in soil.

� Salts in soil – Ca , Mg , Na , Al , Fe , Zn , Cu salts.

� Porosity , aeration in soil.

� Clay content in soil.

� RESEARCH PROJECT FUNDED BY DEPT. OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY , GOVT. OF INDIA – 1995-1998

� BREAKTHROUGH IN PREPARATION OF PHOSPHOCOMPOST -FOR SOLUBILISATION OF P IN SHORT DURATION.

VLEPL UNIVERSITY

PIONEERING RESEARCH IN VLEPL TO AVOID

FIXATION OF P

� RESEARCH WAS FELICITED BY DST AS -

‘EXCELLENT RESEARCH’

VLEPL RESEARCH

UNIVERSITYRESEARCH

TOTAL P 8% 4-5%

AVAILABLE P 6% 2%

DURATION 1 MONTH 3 MONTS

Effect of Samved Humiphos on Onion , Spinach ,

Maize , Soya bean , Cabbage

Treatment Onion Spinach Cabbage Maize Soya bean

Control 53.100 7.745 134.00 10.02 7.850

Super phosphate

54.400 8.653 154.00 12.175 9.370

D.A.P. 55.76 8.799 162.8 12.400 10.230

Samved 68.250 9.766 162.8 13.178 12.240

Production q/40 R

SamvedHumiphos

68.250 9.766 162.8 13.178 12.240

Crop SSP DAP

Onion +20 +18

+ More production in Humiphos than

SSP and DAP

Spinach +5.71 0

Cabbage +12 +10

Maize +6.6 +20.51

Soya bean +30.5 +22

Difference in production in % with compared to Humiphos / 40 R

SSP DAP Samved Humiphos

Crop % F.P. U.P.in kg

W.M.in Rs.

% F.P. U.P.in kg

W.M.in Rs.

% F.P. U.P.in kg

W.M.in Rs.

Spinach 55 8.8 220 66 30.36 580.74 1.4 0.14 5.60

Cabbage 23.5 4.8 102 16 7.36 136 1.7 0.07 0.28Cabbage 23.5 4.8 102 16 7.36 136 1.7 0.07 0.28

Soya bean

82 13.17 329.50 61.1 28.11 519 2.3 0.23 9.20

onion 82 13.17 329.50 72.2 33.22 613.60 0.25 10.00

% F.P. - % fixed phosphateU.P - unused P2O5W.M - wasted money

SAMVED HUMIPHOS

�PHOSPHATE RICH ORGANIC MANURE

�AVOIDS FIXATION OF �AVOIDS FIXATION OF PHOSPHATE IN SOIL

�SUBSTITUTE FOR CHEMICAL PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER

ROLE OF PHOSPHATE IN PLANT NUTRITION

BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF ALL CELLS

� CAUSES PROFUSE WHITE ROOT DEVELOPMENT

� PLAYS MAJOR ROLE IN PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

� ENHANCES K UPTAKE

ENERGY NUTRIENT – PHOSPHATE IS PART OF ADP & � ENERGY NUTRIENT – PHOSPHATE IS PART OF ADP &

ATP MOLECULES.

� ENHANCES MATURITY OF PLANT.

� ENHANCES SIZE , WEIGHT OF YIELD

� MAKES STEMS & STALKS STRONGER

ROLE OF PHOSPHATE IN PLANT PROTECTION

FIXATION OF P

IMBALANCE IN N : P UPTAKE.

BLOCKING OF Ca , Mg , Zn , Fe IONS IN PHOSPHATIC

SALTS

MORE UPTAKE OF N THAN P MAKES LEAVES SUCCULENT.

LOW UPTAKE OF THESE MICRO NUTRIENTS

PLANT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE TO PEST &

DISEASE ATTACK

PLANT BECOMES SUSCEPTIBLE TO PESTS & DISEASES –

� PESTS - SUCKING & CHEWING PESTS

� FUNGUS – DOWNEY MILDEW , FUSARIUM , � FUNGUS – DOWNEY MILDEW , FUSARIUM , PHYTOPTHORA

� VIRUS – LEAF CURL , LEAF MOSAIC VIRUS

SOURCES OF PHOSPHATE

� ROCK PHOSPHATE

� CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS LIKE DAP , SSP , 12:61:0

� PHOSPHATE RICH ORGANIC MANURES (PROM)

LIKE SAMVED HUMIPHOS

CONTENTS & ATTRIBUTES OF SAMVED

HUMIPHOS

� TOTAL PHOSPHATE – 10.4%

� SILICA – 8% TO 10%

� Ca – 6% - 7%

� ORGANIC CARBON – 8%

� C:N RATIO - 7 TO 8

Organic Compost (>40%)

Rock Phosphate (>40%)

Proprietary Herbaladditives

� C:N RATIO - 7 TO 8

� YIELD DECIDING ORGANIC PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER

� BALANCES N, K UPTAKE OF PLANT

� PEST DISEASE RESISTANCE

� SUBSTITUTE FOR CHEMICAL PHOSPHATE

additives

SANJEEVAN CONCEPT FOR P UPTAKE

ENERGY OF PRITHVI

ENERGY OF TEJ, AKASH Binding Ca,Mg ions with

humic acid and protecting P from fixation

ENERGY OF AKASH AND JAL

UPTAKE OF P BY ROOTS

PRITHVI

Phosphate solubilization, Silica

and Calcium availability

AKASH AND JAL

Phosphate Uptake By Plant

SOCON

CUL PHOS

CUL SIL

CUL

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM

CUL K

CUL N

CUL WATER

CUL MIC

CUL HM

SYSTEM FOR P-

SOLUBILISATION

Table 1: Initial soil properties of experimental site at

the start of experiment 2010-11

Soil Properties Value Soil Properties Value

Texture Clay Available N (kg ha-1) 195

Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.28 Available P (kg ha-1) 14.10

Hydraulic conductivity 5.41 Available K (kg ha-1) 299Hydraulic conductivity

(mmhr-1)

5.41 Available K (kg ha-1) 299

pH 8.16 Available S (kg ha-1) 11.83

EC (dSm -1) 0.30 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.68

Organic Carbon ( g kg-1) 5.07 Available Fe (mg kg-1) 14.22

Calcium Carbonate (%) 8.25 Available Mn (mg kg-1) 5.67

CEC (c mol (p+) kg-1) 46 Available Cu (mg kg-1) 1.53

Table 2: Yield of cotton as influenced by various

treatments

Treatments

Seed

Cotton

(q /ha)

Cotton

stalk

(q /ha)

No. of

bolls-1

plant

Weight

boll-1

gm

T1- RDF through straight fertilizer

(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)9.09 30.67 20.70 4.46

T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal

and N & K through urea and MOP9.90 33.99 22.92* 4.84

T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at

basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and N & K 11.48* 39.25* 26.41* 5.73*

basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and N & K

through urea and MOP

T4-50 % P through Humiphos and 50 % P

through SSP and N & K through urea

and MOP

9.21 31.69 22.00 4.29


basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and 50 % P


and MOP

8.3 28.32 19.30 3.43

SE (m) +

-0.49 1.73 0.53 0.168

CD at 5% 1.51 5.33 1.64 0.52

YIELD OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (PKV,

AKOLA)

25

30

35

40

Control

0

5

10

15

20

Seed cotton (q/ha) Cotton stalk (q/ha) No. of bolls/plant Boll weight (g)

Control

Humiphos

Table 3: Soil chemical properties and nutrient content after

harvest of Cotton as influenced by various treatments

TreatmentspH EC OC

gm kg-1

Nkg ha-1

Pkg ha-1

Kkg ha-1


(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)

8.21 0.37 5.65 210 18.34 323


and N & K through urea and MOP

8.09* 0.33* 5.92* 223* 21.94* 338*

T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 %

at basal and 20% at 45 DAS) and N

8.06* 0.32* 5.98* 228* 21.62* 335*

& K through urea and MOP



and MOP

8.14* 0.35 5.72 203 16.88 323


basal and 20 % at 45 DAS) and 50 % P


and MOP

8.11* 0.34* 5.69 201 16.67 320

SE (m) + - 0.016 0009 0.034 3.00 0.29 2.11

CD at 5 % 0.051 0.028 0.105 9.26 0.89 6.51

Initial value 8.16 0.30 5.07 195 14.10 299

SOIL ORGANIC CARBON AFTER

HARVEST

5.8

5.9

6

6.1

OC gm/kg

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

T1-RDF T2-100% HP BASAL

T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

SOIL N AFTER HARVEST

210

215

220

225

230

235

N kg/ha

185

190

195

200

205

210


T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

SOIL P AFTER HARVEST

15

20

25

P kg/ha

0

5

10


T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

SOIL K AFTER HARVEST

325

330

335

340K kg/ha

310

315

320

325


T3-100% HP SPLIT

50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

Table 4: Soil nutrient content after harvest of Cotton as

influenced by various treatments

TreatmentsS

mg kg -1Zn

mg kg -

1

Femg kg -1

Mnmg kg -1

Cumg kg -1


(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)

12.92 0.76 15.67 7.04 2.51

T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal and N & K


14.56* 0.89* 19.37* 9.63* 3.65*

T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20% 14.47* 0.87* 19.02* 9.43* 3.65*T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20%

at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea and MOP

14.47* 0.87* 19.02* 9.43* 3.65*


through SSP and N & K through urea and MOP

12.74 0.81* 16.67 7.53* 2.72*

T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and 20 %

at 45 DAS) and 50 % P through SSP and N & K


12.67 0.80 16.55 7.44* 2.68*

SE (m) + - 0.408 0.014 0.39 0.022 0.027

CD at 5 % 1.26 0.043 1.22 0.07 0.08

Initial value 11.83 0.68 14.22 5.67 1.53

Soil nutrient content after harvest

15

20

25 S mg/kg

Zn mg/kg

Fe mg/kg

0

5

10


T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50%HP BASAL

T5-50%HP SPLIT

Table 5: Soil microbial count at grand growth stage of

Cotton as influenced by various treatments

TreatmentsBacteria

x 107

Fungix 10 4

Actinomycetsx 10 6

T1- RDF through straight fertilizer (80:40:40 kg

N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)15 13 11

T2-100 % P through Humiphos at basal and N &

K through urea and MOP 24* 21* 16

T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and

20% at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea & MOP25* 23* 18*

20% at 45 DAS) and N & K through urea & MOP25* 23* 18*

T4-50 % P through Humiphos and 50 % P through

SSP and N & K through urea & MOP 22* 16 12

T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 % at basal and

20 % at 45 DAS) and 50 % P through SSP and N


20 14 13

SE (m) + - 1.66 1.76 1.64

CD at 5 % 5.11 5.43 5.07

Soil microbial count

15

20

25

30BACTERIA x 10⁷

FUNGI x 10⁴

ACTENOMYCETSx10⁶

0

5

10

15


T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

Table 6: Uptake of nutrients by Cotton as influenced by

various treatments

TreatmentsN

Kg /ha

P

kg /ha

K

Kg/ha

S

Kg/ha

Zn

gm/

ha

Fe

gm/ha

Mn

gm /ha

Cu

gm/ ha


(80:40:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O

kg ha-1)

30.9 14.2 32.6 11.8 216 1004 172 115

T2-100 % P through Humiphos at

basal and N & K through urea

and MOP

36.5* 17.5* 37.5* 15.0* 251* 1174* 226* 135*

T3-100 % P through Humiphos42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4* 304* 1391* 294* 161*

T3-100 % P through Humiphos

(80 % at basal and 20% at 45

DAS) and N & K through

urea and MOP

42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4* 304* 1391* 294* 161*

T4-50 % P through Humiphos and

50 % through SSP and N & K


30.0 13.8 30.8 10.6 214 1008 163 111

T5-50 % P through Humiphos (80 %

at basal and 20 % at 45 DAS)

and 50 % P through SSP and N


25.3 13.3 31.7 10.3 182 876 134 96

SE (m) + - 0.99 0.72 1.06 0.70 5.23 25.93 6.55 4.26

CD at 5 % 3.07 2.24 3.28 2.06 16.12 79.9 20.18 13.14

Uptake of nutrients

25

30

35

40

45

50N kg/ha

P kg/ha

K kg/ha

S kg/ha

0

5

10

15

20

T1- RDF T2-100% HP BASAL

T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50%HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

Uptake of micro-nutrients

800

1000

1200

1400

1600Fe gm/ha

Zn gm/ha

Cu gm/ha

Mn gm/ha

0

200

400

600

800


T3-100% HP SPLIT

T4-50% HP BASAL

T5-50% HP SPLIT

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS IN COTTON

(PKV, AKOLA)

Treatments

Available nutrients kg ha-1 Nutrients uptake kg ha-1

N P K S

mg kg-

1

N P K S

mg

kg-1


(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1

210 18.3 323 12.9 30.9 14.2 32.6 11.8


and N & K through urea and MOP

223* 21.9* 338* 14.6* 36.5* 17.5* 37.5* 15.0*



228* 21.6* 335* 14.5* 42.6* 21.8* 45.9* 20.4*





and MOP

203 16.9 323 12.7 30.0 13.8 30.8 10.6




and MOP

201 16.7 320 12.7 25.3 13.3 31.7 10.3

SE (m) +

-

3.00 0.29 2.11 0.41 0.99 0.72 1.06 0.70

CD at 5% 9.26 0.89 6.51 1.26 3.07 2.24 3.28 2.16

Initial value 195 14.1 299 11.8 - - - -

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS ON COTTON

(PKV, AKOLA)

Treatments

Soil microbial count, CFUg-1

Bacteria

(x 107 )

Fungi

(x 104 )

Actinom

ycetes

(x 106 )


(80:40:40 kg N,P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1)15 13 11


and N & K through urea and MOP24* 21* 16

T -100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at T3-100 % P through Humiphos (80 % at



25* 23* 18*



and MOP

22* 16 12




and MOP

20 14 13

SE (m) +

-1.66 1.76 1.64

CD at 5% 5.11 5.43 5.07

SOIL NUTRIENTS STATUS, UPTAKE OF NUTRIENTS AND

MICROBIAL COUNT HARVEST OF COTTON AS

INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (PKV, AKOLA)

250

300

0

50

100

150

200

Control

Humiphos

EFFECT OF SAMVED HUMIPHOS ON POTATO

(UAS , DHARWAD)

TreatmentsNo. of

tubers

/plant

Tuber

yield/pl

gm

Tuber

Yield

t/ha

Havest

IndexB:C

Total PO4

Uptake

Kg/ha

T1-Recommended dose of fertilizer through

Urea, SSP and MOP (Check) 5.50 185 11.15 0.55 2.15 12.65

T2- Recommended dose of fertilizer through

Urea, DAP and MOP 5.65 190 11.35 0.58 2.31 12.21

T3-100% P through Humiphos and RDF for

N & K7.13 255* 15.65* 0.75* 3.05 19.85

T4-75% P through Humiphos and 25% P 6.90 230* 14.90* 0.70* 2.87 17.77

4

through DAP + RDF for N & K6.90 230* 14.90* 0.70* 2.87 17.77

T5-75% P through Humiphos and 25% P

through SSP + RDF for N & K6.54 223* 14.10* 0.67* 2.63 16.61


through DAP + RDF for N & K6.15 205* 13.70* 0.63* 2.41 15.11


through SSP + RDF for N & K5.8 193 12.35 0.60 2.23 13.77

T8-50% P through Humiphos + RDF for

N & K5.10 175 10.15 0.52 1.98 11.50

SE +- 0.71 4.49 0.49 0.02 - -

CD at 5% 2.06 13.63 1.49 0.06 - -

CV % 8.32 9.75 1.86 0.06 - -

YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES OF POTATO AS

INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (UAS , DHARWAD)

20

25

Urea, SSP, MOP

Urea, DAP, MOP

Humiphos+N,K

0

5

10

15

No. of tubers/plant Tuber yield (t/Ha) P uptake (Kg/Ha)

YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES OF POTATO AS

INFLUENCED BY HUMIPHOS (UAS, DHARWAD)

200

250

Urea, SSP, MOP

Urea, DAP, MOP

0

50

100

150

No. of tubers/Plant Tuber yield/Plant (g) Tuber yield (T/ha) Total P uptake (kg/ha)

Urea, DAP, MOP

Humiphos+N,K

COMPARISION OF HUMIPHOS WITH CHEMICAL

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS

Description Single Super Phosphate D.A.P. Humiphos

Bag Weight 50 Kg 50 Kg 40 Kg

Price Rs.400/- Rs.1300/- Rs.510/-

Percentage of P 16 % 46 % 10%

Total Phosphate in 50 kg

bag8 Kg 23 Kg 4 Kg

Phosphate Fixation 80 % 75 % 0 %

Available Phosphate 1.60 Kg 5.75 Kg 4 Kg

Cost of Available

Phosphate per kgRs.200.0/- Rs.-226.08 Rs.127.5/-

VISUAL OBSERVATIONS � PROFUSE WHITE ROOT DEVELOPMENT

� GERMINATION OF SEEDS IS TRIGGERED

� STEMS , STALKS BECOME STRONG , GIRTH OF STEM IS INCREASED

� LEAVES ARE DARK GREEN

� EXTRA VEGETATIVE GROWTH IS AVOIDED

� YIELD IS INCREASED NEARLY BY 20-25%

� LOWER PEST AND DISEASE INCIDENCE

Nearly no Incidence of Downy mildew in plot

treated with Humiphos due to uptake of P

Incidence of Downy mildew in Grapes in plot

not treated with Humiphos

NON VISUAL EFFECTS

� IMPROVES AVAILABLE PHOSPHORUS TO PLANTS AND MAINTAINS AVAILABILITY

� IMPROVES USEFUL MICROBIAL COUNT IN THE SOIL

� IMPROVES SOIL CONDITIONS – TEXTURE, MOISTURE CONTENT, PLOUGHING ABILITY , pH etc.

� ESSENTIAL MINERALS LIKE Cu, Mg, Zn AND Fe ARE PROVIDED IN POTENTISED FORM TO ENSURE EFFICIENT USE IN PLANTS

CHALLENGES FACED - SUBSIDY

Product 2013-14 Sale in

India((Million Ton) *

Total Phosphate Available for Plants after

fixation (Million Ton)

Sale Price (Per Ton)

Subsidy(Per Ton)**

Total Price (per Ton)

Total Subsidy Outflow

(Rs. Million)

DAP 6.92 0.83 23,000.00 12,000.00 35,000.00 83,040.00

* For 2013-14 Annual Sale – GSFC Analysts Meet - http://bit.ly/1wN8nRK**for subsidy on DAP : http://www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/agriculture/agri_nutrientmgt_priceoffertilizers.html

HUMIPHOS Reqdfor Replacement of

DAP 8.00 0.83 18,750.00 - 18,750.00 -

• As per above data, subsidy of Rs. 83000 Million is spent every year on sale of Di-ammonium Phosphate

CHALLENGES FACED

� Average Requirement of HUMIPHOS per year per District - 0.012 Million Tonnes

� Huge quantity of raw material required to fulfill demand for phosphatic fertilizers (i.e. Organic manure and rock for phosphatic fertilizers (i.e. Organic manure and rock phosphate)

How to fulfill requirement of organic manure?

� Organic manure not scarce, but scattered

� Ray of Hope – Municipal Solid Waste compost

MSW DISPOSAL IN INDIA

– A STUDY� Municipal solid waste is a mixture of vegetables and non

vegetable wastes in cooked and uncooked stages, leftovers, packaging materials , papers , plastics , rags and other fabrics, dust, ash and a variety of combustible and non - combustible matter.combustible and non - combustible matter.

� India generates about 50 million tons of municipal solid wastes (MSW) every year from cities (CPCB, 2000).

� Ever - increasing population directly influences the quality and quantity of Municipal Solid waste generated around the surrounding areas

MSW DISPOSAL IN INDIA

– A STUDY� Improper and unscientific techniques adopted for MSW

disposal are economically non - viable and socially unacceptable

� Selection of proper disposal method is necessary� Selection of proper disposal method is necessary

� Common practices used in MSW disposal: Open dump, landfill, sanitary landfill, composting, incineration, biogas production

� A major hurdle in biological processing of MSW: high levels of heavy metals

USE OF SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FOR USE OF SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FOR

REDUCING HEAVY METAL LEVELSREDUCING HEAVY METAL LEVELS

Use of Prana shakti or vital power in herbs Use of Prana shakti or vital power in herbs for reducing heavy metal content in MSW

SANJEEVAN TREATMENT FOR REDUCING

HEAVY METAL CONTENT IN MSW

ELEMENTS

THRESH HOLD LEVELS AS PER F.C.O.(mg/kg)

2012 2013

UN-TREATED (mg/kg)

TREATED (mg/kg)

UN-TREATED (mg/kg)

TREATED (mg/kg)

NICKEL 50 153.37 31.86 48 35NICKEL 50 153.37 31.86 48 35

LEAD 100 145.63 70.18 43 <5

CHROMIUM 50 45.3 45.3 89 69

CADMIUM 5 2.89 2.44 7.76 4.69

MERCURY 0.15 0.74 0.30 <0.5 <0.5

COMPARISON BETWEEN UNTREATED SAMPLE AND

TREATED SAMPLE(FOR METAL CONTENT MORE THAN 30 MG/KG)

120

140

160

180


UNTREATED (2012)

0

20

40

60

80

100

NICKEL LEAD CHROMIUM

UNTREATED (2012)

TREATED (2012)

UNTREATED (2013)

TREATED (2013)

COMPARISON BETWEEN UNTREATED SAMPLE AND TREATED

SAMPLE (FOR METAL CONTENT LESS THAN 10 MG/KG)

6

7

8

9


UNTREATED (2012)

0

1

2

3

4

5

CADMIUM MERCURY

UNTREATED (2012)

TREATED(2012)

UNTREATED(2013)

TREATED(2013)

SANJEEVAN SYSTEM FOR MANAGEMENT

OF MSW WASTE

TREATED TO

ORGANIC N, P, K - RICH FERTILIZER

MSW COMPOST

TREATED TO REDUCE HEAVY METAL

RESIDUES

BENEFITS TO GOVERNMENTBENEFITS TO GOVERNMENT

1. Enhanced quantity and quality of agricultural output.

2. Efficient utilization of waste materials after composting of city waste.composting of city waste.

3. Complying to WTO objectives to greater extent.

4. Complying to vision 2030 of IISS

……… and many more benefits.

FUTURE RESEARCH

� Limited stocks of high grade rock phosphate and organic matter poses a great problem in front of us.

� To find solution for this problem , we need to answer certain questions-

� Can we use low grade rock phosphate ( total P = 10%), which is available abundantly even in India , to 10%), which is available abundantly even in India , to make phosphatic fertilizers?

� Can we avoid organic matter completely and still get excellent results?

� Can P in rock phosphate be solubillised without using organic matter and chemical treatment (H2SO4) ?

Sanjeevan way to sustainable

agriculture………

humiphos - phosphate rich organic manure

Environment

agriculture management

chemical agriculture

vital life energy management

soil ca

vision of modern agriculture

lack of vital energies

p of chemical p fertilisers

nutrition imbalance