The Impact of Stubble Burning on Air Quality and Anaerobic Biogas Plants as a Viable Solution – An Opportunity Analysis for Punjab, India

IJEP 42(10): 1167-1177 : Vol. 42 Issue. 10 (October 2022)

Ritvik Rai1, Kanishk Chaudhary2 and Uma S. Dubey3*

1. BITS Pilani, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Biological Sciences, Rajasthan – 333 031, India
2. BITS Pilani, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rajasthan – 333 031, India
3. BITS Pilani, Department of Biological Sciences, Rajasthan – 333 031, India


Stubble burning and its resultant pollutants have adversely affected the environment and posed serious health hazards. It is very important to understand the situation from the farmer’s perspective and from the perspective of conserving the environment. In the present study, a critical analysis of stubble burning and its effects on the neighbouring city of Delhi has been done with the help of satellite imagery and simultaneously analysing the air quality index. The effect of pollutant dispersion on neighbouring areas has been studied at the time point when stubble burning takes place and over the following time intervals in the adjoining area. Furthermore, this study conducts an economic analysis of biogas plant establishment, biogas and biofertilizer generation from stubble and its sale. Thus, this study provides an opportunity analysis on how the stubble can be put to better use to produce utilizable cooking gas and fertilisers, which can directly benefit farmers, besides being economically and environmentally rewarding. The paper concludes with policy-related suggestions including setting up of corporative societies including the farmers as participants.


Satellite imagery, Stubble burning, Sustainable agriculture, Pollution, Biogas, Anaerobic digestion, Farmers


  1. Dennis, A., et al. 2002. Air pollutant emissions associated with forest, grassland and agricultural burning in Texas. Atmos. Env., 36(23):3779-3792.
  2. Ramadas, S., T.M.K. Kumar and G.P. Singh. 2020. Wheat production in India: Trends and prospects. In Recent advances in grain crops research. Ed F. Shah, et al. IntechOpen.
  3. Directorate of Rice Development. 2014. Status paper on rice. Available at: http://drdpat.bih.
  4. Bhuvaneshwari, S., H. Hettiarachchi and J. Meegoda. 2019. Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health. 16(5): 832.
  5. Ministry of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare. 2019. Review of the scheme “Promotion of agricultural mechanisation for in-situ management of crop residue in states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and NCT of Delhi. Available at: %20OF%20THE%20COMMITTEEFINAL(CORRE CTED).pdf.
  6. Punera, B., et al. 2018. Rice residue burning in Punjab: Situation and solution. Indian J. Eco. Develop., 14(1): 133.
  7. Saini, D. K., V.K. Singh and A. Kumar. 2018. Stubble burning: Either farmers to be punished or technology need to be improved? Biomolecule Reports. Int. eNewsletter (BR/09/18/04).
  8. Ahmed, T., B. Ahmad and W. Ahmad. 2015. Why do farmers burn rice residue? Examining farmers’ choices in Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy. 47: 448–458.
  9. NAAS. 2017. Innovative viable solution to rice residue burning in rice-wheat cropping system through concurrent use of super straw management system-fitted combines and turbo happy seeder. Policy brief no. 2, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi. Available at: https://marlo.cgiar. org/data/studies/CCAFS//CCAFS_study/Crop_Burn ing_Policy_Brief_-Final-24-10-2017.pdf.
  10. Keil, A., et al. 2020. Changing agricultural stubble burning practices in the Indo-Gangetic plains: Is the happy seeder a profitable alternative? Int. J. Agric. Sustainability. 19(2): 128–151.
  11. Vadrevu, K. and K. Lasko. 2018. Intercomparison of MODIS AQUA and VIIRS I-band fires and emissions in an agricultural landscape- Implications for air pollution research. Remote Sensing. 10(7): 978.
  12. Nisa, Z. U., S. Atif and M.F. Khokhar. 2019. Identification of dust transport patterns and sources by using MODIS: A technique developed to discriminate dust and clouds. Int. J. Env. Poll., 66(1/2/3): 80.
  13. Giglio, L., et al. 2015. MCD64A1 MODIS/Terra+ Aqua burned area monthly L3 global 500m SIN grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC.
  14. ORNL DAAC. 2018. MODIS and VIIRS land products global subsetting and visualization tool. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Accessed on April 10, 2021. Subset obtained for MCD64A1 product at 28.6139,77.2090.
  15. Hutchison, K. D., et al. 2008. Distinguishing aerosols from clouds in global, multispectral satellite data with automated cloud classification algorithms. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 25(4): 501–518.
  16. NASA Suomi-NPP Land Science Team. 2016. NPP/VIIRS atmospherically corrected surface reflectance 6-Min L2 Swath 375m, 750m NRT [Data set]. NASA LANCE MODIS at the MODAPS.
  17. Sarkar, M. 2020. Air quality data in India (extended version 7). Available at: neomatrix369/airquality-data-in-india-extended/version/7.
  18. Li, F., et al. 2018. Comparison of fire radioative power estimates from VIIRS and MODIS observations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123(9): 4545–4563.
  19. Kumar, S., et al. 2019. Estimating loss of ecosystem services due to paddy straw burning in north-west India. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability. 17(2): 146–157.
  20. Directorate of Information and Public Relations Punjab. 2019. Farmers to get compensation of Rs. 2500 per acre for not burning paddy straw. Available at: Ffarmers-get-compensation-rs-2500-acre-not-burningpaddy-straw.
  21. Satpathy, P. and C. Pradhan. 2020. Biogas as an alternative to stubble burning in India. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery.
  22. Mussoline, W., et al. 2013. The anaerobic digestion of rice straw: A review. Critical Reviews Env. Sci. Tech., 43(9): 895–915.
  23. Achinas, S. and G.J.W. Euverink. 2016. Theoretical analysis of biogas potential prediction from agricultural waste. Resour. Efficient Tech., 2(3): 143-147.
  24. Ngan, N. V. C., et al. 2019. Anaerobic digestion of rice straw for biogas production. Sustainable Rice Straw Manage., 65-92.
  25. Wang, X., et al. 2014. Effects of temperature and carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: Focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLoSONE 9(5): e97265.
  26. Rahman, K., D. Fulford, D. and L. Melville. 2017. Evaluating the potential of rice straw as a codigestion feedstock for biogas production in Bangladesh. J. Adv. Catalysis Sci. Tech., 4(1): 8-14.
  27. Indian Oil, BPCL and HPCL. 2018. Expression of interest (EOI) for production and supply of compressed biogas (CBG) under SATAT. Available at: FINAL-46978-4fd490.pdf.
  28. Teferra, D.M. and W. Wubu. 2019. Biogas for clean energy. Anaerobic Digestion. 3: 1-20.
  29. Kumar, S., et al. 2015. Biogas slurry: Source of nutrients for eco-friendly agriculture. Int. J. Extensive Res., 2: 42-46.
  30. Department of Fertilizers. 2015. Urea pricing policy section. Available at: https://fert.nic. in/urea-pricing-policy-section.
  31. Singh, K. J. and S.S. Sooch. 2004. Comparative study of economics of different models of family size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India. Energy Conversion Manage., 45(9-10): 1329–1341.
  32. Banas Dairy. 2020. Banas biogas plant. Swachh Bharat Mission. Available at: https://swachhbharat
  33. Vyas, B. M. 2001. Institutional structure to sustain small holder dairy marketing- The Amul model. Small holder dairy production and marketing- Opportunities and constraints, 342. Proceedings of South–South workshop held at NDDB Anand, India.
  34. Shukla, J. B., et al. 2007. Modelling the removal of gaseous pollutants and particulate matters from the atmosphere of a city by rain: Effect of cloud density. Env. Model. Assess., 13(2): 255–263.
  35. Alomia-Hinojosa, V., et al. 2018. Exploring farmer perceptions of agricultural innovations for maize-legume intensification in the mid hills region of Nepal. Int. J. Agric., 16(1): 74–93.
  36. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. 2016. Agriculture census 2015-16. Available at:
  37. Scheffran, J., and T. BenDor. 2009. Bioenergy and land use: A spatial-agent dynamic model of energy crop production in Illinois. Int. J. Env. Poll., 39(1-2): 4-27.
  38. Milder, J. C., et al. 2008. Biofuels and ecoagri-culture: Can bioenergy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? Int. J. Agric. Sustainability. 6(2): 105–121.
  39. Singh, B., et al. 2020. Decentralised biomass for biogas production. Evaluation and potential assessment in Punjab (India). Energy Rep., 6: 1702–1714.
  40. Lukehurst, C. T., P. Frost, P. and T. Al Seadi. 2010. Utilisation of digestate from biogas plants as biofertiliser. IEA Bioenergy. 1-36.
  41. Adhikari, P., et al. 2017. System of crop intensification for more productive, resource-conserving, climate-resilient and sustainable agriculture: Experience with diverse crops in varying agro-ecologies. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability. 16(1): 1–28.
  42. Ahmad, M., et al. 2014. Integrated use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, biogas slurry and chemical nitrogen for sustainable production of maize under salt-affected conditions. Pakistan J. Botany. 46(1): 375-382.
  43. Directorate of Information and Public Relations Punjab. 2018. Bio-CNG and bio-ethanol to be manufactured from paddy straw. Available at: bio-cng-and-bio-ethanol-be-manufacturedpaddy-straw.
  44. Timonen, K., et al. 2019. LCA of anaerobic digestion: Emission allocation for energy and digestate. J. Cleaner Prod., 235: 1567-1579.
  45. Kaur, G., Y.S. Brar and D. Kothari. 2014. Estimation of large animals dung for power generation – A case study of district Bathinda, Punjab. IOSR J. Electrical Electronics Eng., 9(5): 50–55.
  46. Dhawan, V. and Kashish. 2016. Transforming livestock economy in India with special reference to Punjab: A review. Eco. Affairs. 61(2): 259.