Crop Residue Management in India: Stubble Burning vs. Other Utilizations including Bioenergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent studies, various reports reveal that stubble burning of crop residues in India generates nearly 150 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), more than 9 million tons of carbon monoxide (CO), a quarter-million tons of sulphur oxides (SOX), 1 million tons of particulate matter and more than half a million tons of black carbon. These contribute directly to environmental pollution, as well as the haze in the Indian capital, New Delhi, and the diminishing glaciers of the Himalayas. Although stubble burning crop residue is a crime under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Air and Pollution Control Act (APCA) of 1981, a lack of implementation of these government acts has been witnessed across the country. Instead of burning, crop residues can be utilized in various alternative ways, including use as cattle feed, compost with manure, rural roofing, bioenergy, beverage production, packaging materials, wood, paper, and bioethanol, etc. This review article aims to present the current status of stubble-burning practices for disposal of crop residues in India and discuss several alternative methods for valorization of crop residues. Overall, this review article offers a solid understanding of the negative impacts of mismanagement of the crop residues via stubble burning in India and the other more promising management approaches including use for bioenergy, which, if widely employed, could not only reduce the environmental impacts of crop residue management, but generate additional value for the agricultural sector globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".