Production and Promotion of Organic and Bio Fertilisers with special focus on Improving Economic viability of Gaushalas

Choose Report Type

Publication Date

Sat, 03/18/2023 - 14:13

Report Upload

Download (2.76 MB)

What to whats new

vertical

Agriculture & Allied Sectors

PDF Text

www.niti.gov.in
PRODUCTION AND PROMOTION OF
ORGANIC AND BIO FERTILISERS WITH
SPECIAL FOCUS ON IMPROVING ECONOMIC
VIABILITY OF GAUSHALAS
The Task Force Report
March, 2023 March, 2023
Production and Promotion of
Organic and Bio fertilisers with
Special Focus on Improving
Economic Viability of Gaushalas iiiThe Task Force Report
Preface
The NITI Aayog received representations from Gaushalas, civil society, political representatives,
and experts on cattle wealth of indigenous breeds, to suggest policy intervention and
mechanisms for sustaining Gaushalas, creating market avenues for by product and waste of
cattle, enable gaushalas to generate income, encourage use of various products made from
cow urine and cow dung, integrate Gaushalas with healthy farming and create shelter for
abandoned cattle. The Aayog also took cognisance of increasing number of stray cattle both
in urban as well as rural areas which was becoming menace in many ways. Representatives
of farming community also raised concern from time to time about the damage caused by
the stray cattle to their crops and rising severity of the problem.
To address these concerns and issues a taskforce was constituted in NITI Aayog to take
holistic view of the entire issue and to suggest measures to make gaushalas economically
viable and to address problem of stray and abandoned cattle. The Taskforce comprise experts
from Academia, Research Institutions, Representatives of the Union Government from the
concern Ministries/Department, Representatives from Gaushalas, Farmers’ Association and
stakeholders/experts from related fields. The terms of references of the Taskforce were put
on NITI Aayog’s website to receive comments and suggestions from the public.
The Taskforce noted that cattle are integral component of the traditional farming system in
India which sustained farming for centuries without external inputs. However, with the progress
of green revolution and modern technology of agriculture, the traditional system of farming
has been largely replaced by the system based on use of industrial inputs and agro chemicals.
Of late, realization has been growing to reduce or replace agro chemicals, serving as plant
nutrients and plant protection, for economic, health, environment and sustainability reasons.
Accordingly, there is a trend towards natural farming and organic farming where inorganic
fertilizer and agro chemicals are replaced by livestock manure, plant based products, bio inputs,
and products made from cow urine and cow dung. The Taskforce felt that Gaushalas can be
of great help in promoting natural farming and organic farming. Thus, complementarity can
be built to promote Gaushalas and natural farming.
Taskforce members visited a few Gaushalas and interacted with their managements to
understand the situation, operation, facilities, livestock upkeep, infrastructure and condition
of Gaushalas. The Taskforce was taken to units manufacturing various products like PROM,
Bio CNG, and products from cow urine and cow dung. Discussions were held with Gaushslas
to understand the challenges faced by them in upkeep of animals and recycling of wastes.
These visits provided very useful insights to develop recommendations for self-sustainable
Gaushala models.
In order to understand and analyse costs and economic viability of gaushalas, NITI Aayog
entrusted a research study to National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New ivThe Task Force Report
Delhi. The study covered an in-depth analysis of operating costs, the recovery of fixed costs,
additional expenses and risks associated with gaushalas with operational Bio-CNG plant and
PROM plant etc. The Taskforce used the parameters and findings from this analysis in preparing
some of the Recommendations.
I thank all the members of the Task force for their valuable suggestions and inputs in preparing
this report. Special thanks to Dr. Neelam Patel, Sr. Adviser Agriculture, NITI Aayog and Member
Secretary of the Task Force, for her multiple contributions to accomplish the task assigned to
the Taskforce. Dr. Patel arranged various meetings, visits of Taskforce members to gaushalas,
and interactions with various stakeholders. She, alongwith her team consisting of Dr. Tanu Sethi,
Senior Associate and Dr. Adeeth Cariappa, Young Professional in Agriculture Vertical, compiled
material for the report and prepared the draft report. I acknowledge their contribution and
thank them again.
It is our hope that the report will be useful in guiding interventions for improving financial and
economic viability of Gaushalas and channelizing potential of stray, abandoned and uneconomic
cattle wealth for promoting natural and sustainable farming.
Ramesh Chand vThe Task Force Report
Table of Contents
Preface iii
Abbreviations vii
1. Constitution of the Task Force 1
2. Gaushalas of India: Overview and Background 3
3. Status of Organic and Bio fertiliser Production in the Country 11
4. Production & Promotion of Organic Fertiliser with special focus on
Improving Economic Viability of Gaushalas 19
5. Public Private Partnership Models for Gaushalas 33
6. Assessment of the Existing Standards of Organic and Biofertilisers 41
7. Recommendations and Way Forward 45 List of Figures
List of Tables
Figure 1 : Population of bovines (cattle + buffaloes) and cattle in India 1951-2019 4
Figure 2 : Percent of farmers and area covered with use of organic and bio
fertilisers in India 6
Figure 3 : Share of agricultural holdings and cropped area that are treated
with one or more chemical fertilisers 7
Figure 4 : Nutrient use per hectare of cropped area (1996-97 to 2016-17) 7
Figure 5 : Production of Organic Fertilisers 13
Figure 6 : Production of Biofertiliser 14
Figure 7 : Different products for value addition in gaushalas 20
Figure 8 : Flowchart for installation of Rooftop solar PV system in Haryana 32
Table 1 : Land required for gaushala and fodder cultivation according to
the herd size 21
Table 2 : Technical and supportive manpower required 22
Table 3 : Expenditure incurred under different heads in 10 Gaushalas of Haryana 22
Table 4 : Yearly cost and income from different products of a gaushala with
100 cows 23
Table 5 : Production, manufacturing costs, selling price and revenue from
different products (Aug. 2021 to Nov. 2021) 24
Table 6 : CBG/biogas business models 27
Table 7 : Cost and returns of installing solar rooftops in gaushalas under
Social Sector customer category 28 viiThe Task Force Report
Abbreviations
AIFAgriculture Infrastructure Fund
AWBIAnimal Welfare Board of India
CAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate
CBGCompressed Bio Gas
CISS
Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme
CSECentre for Science and Environment
CSRCorporate Social Responsibility
DAPDi Ammonium Phosphate
DSTDepartment of Science and Technology
FCOFertiliser Control Order
FIAPOFederation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations
GOBARGalvanising Organic Bio Agro Resource
ICARIndian Council for Agricultural Research
ICRIERIndian Council for Research on International Economic Relations
IPBES
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services
KSBPotassium Solubilizing Bacteria
MDAMarket Development Assistance
MNREMinistry of New and Renewable Energy
NBFCNon-Banking Financial Corporations
NCONFNational Centre for Organic and Natural Farming
NDDBNational Dairy Development Board
PCAPrevention of Cruelty to Animals
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
PPPPublic Private Partnership
PROMPhosphate Rich Organic Manure
PSBPhosphate Solubilizing Bacteria
RCPRRegistration of Cattle Premises Rules
USPUnique Selling Proposition
ZSBZinc Solubilizing Bacteria 1The Task Force Report
Constitution of the
Task Force
1
The finance minister in the Budget speech of 2020 announced that the Government “shall
encourage balanced use of all kinds of fertilisers including the traditional organic and other
innovative fertilisers.” This is a necessary step for improving fertiliser use efficiency, restoring
and raising soil fertility and long-term sustainability of agriculture.
A slew of measures and support have been extended to agriculture over the years to raise
income of the farmers and to promote sustainable agriculture for supply of adequate, safe
and nutritious food to our population. Organic waste and biomass produced from crops
and livestock present an opportunity to supplement farm incomes and ensure sustainable
agriculture. Biomass, by-products and waste generated by livestock can be utilised to produce
organic/bio fertilisers and bio-energy to reap large benefits. By-products of cow, like dung and
urine, are known for several usages including Ayurveda medicines and other formulations since
ancient times. Thus, channelizing livestock by products and waste has the potential to improve
profitability of livestock, and can help to ease the burden on the state exchequer spent on
subsidies and imports of inorganic fertilisers besides improving soil fertility.
NITI Aayog received several representations, from various Gaushalas and Institutions involved
in the upkeep and maintenance of cattle, to suggest suitable mechanism for improving
economic viability of Gaushalas by making productive use of by-products of cattle, capacity
enhancement of Gaushalas and government policy support to run these Institutions.
Therefore, an initiative was taken by the NITI Aayog to examine and suggest the possibilities for
effective utilization, production, processing, quality standards, infrastructure and marketing of
products developed from cattle waste especially in Gaushalas and scope for income generation
by Gaushalas. Accordingly, a task force was constituted by NITI Aayog vide OM no Q-11/2/2021-
Agri under the chairmanship of Prof. Ramesh Chand, Member, NITI Aayog. The composition
of the task force is as under:
Sl. No.Name and DesignationRole
1. Prof. Ramesh Chand, Member, NITI AayogChairman
2. Dr. Yogesh Suri, Senior Adviser, NITI AayogMember
3. Smt. Rajni Taneja, Deputy Secretary (INM), MoA&FW Member
4. Prof. Virendra Kumar Vijay, Professor, CRDT, IIT DelhiMember
5.
Dr SK Dutta, Joint Commissioner (NLM), Ministry of Fisheries, Animal
Husbandry and Dairying
Member
6. Dr. Gagnesh Sharma, Director I/c, National Centre of Organic Farming Member
7. Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Fertilisers Member 2The Task Force Report
Sl. No.Name and DesignationRole
8. Shri Y. Baramatikar, Joint CEO, KVICMember
9. Shri S.R Meena, Sci. D, Ministry of New and Renewable EnergyMember
10. Shri Shankar Chaudhary, Chairman, Banas Dairy, GujaratMember
11.Dr. Y.V. Singh, Principal Scientist, Div. of Microbiology, IARI Member
12.
Shri Shashwat Asawa, Project Coordinator, Shri Mataji Gaushala,
Barsana
Member
13
Shri Rakesh Mishra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural
Gas
Member
14. Shri Ken Raghvan, Social Worker, Goseva GramvikasCo-opted
15. Shri Dinesh D Kulkarni, Organization Secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Sangh Co-opted
16. Prof. Makarand M. Ghangrekar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur Co-opted
17.Dr. Neelam Patel, Senior Adviser (Agri), NITI Aayog
Member
Secretary
The Terms of Reference of the task force were:
i. To assess the status of bio fertiliser production and consumption in the country and
briefly present its implications.
ii. To assess existing standards for bio fertilisers and organic fertilisers in the Organic
Fertiliser Control Order of the Government of India and suggest changes to expand it.
iii. To devise innovative ways and policy to promote cow economy
1
and use of cow
manure as bio-fertiliser and bio-energy, especially produced by gaushalas, to convert
cattle into economic assets.
iv. To suggest the measures/policy initiatives for encouraging the commercial production,
packaging, marketing & distribution of bio fertilisers including development of Brand/s
and address difficulties in marketing & certification of bio fertilisers.
v. To explore Public Private Partnership model with various stakeholders including
gaushalas, Dairy cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organisations for production of
enriched solid and liquid bio fertilisers.
vi. To suggest mechanism and policy support for encouraging the commercial production,
packaging, marketing, and distribution and use of bio fertilisers to create level playing
field with inorganic fertilisers.
The task force also invited comments/suggestions/success stories from stakeholders related
to the task. A webpage was created on NITI Website for the same in November 2021.
The Task Force held its meetings on 6
th
October 2021 and 9
th
June 2022.
1 Cow dung and cattle dung are synonymous and interchangeably used in the report 3The Task Force Report
2
Gaushalas of India:
Overview and
Background
According to the Bureau of Indian Standards a gaushala is a protective shelter, abode, or
sanctuary for cows, set up to improve their health and life, sell pure milk and cow products,
conserve germplasm, and stop animal cruelty (BIS, 1987). By offering care and shelter, these
gaushalas perform the critical function of preventing the suffering of cattle. Gaushalas are
also known by names like pinjrapole, kanji house, gauvatika etc., and are spread throughout
the country.
The origin of gaushalas can be traced to the Vedic period, when the emphasis was on
protection, preservation and development of cows (FIAPO, 2019). There were also social
movements like the Gaurakshini Sabha (Cow Protection Society) of Punjab in 1882 which aimed
at protecting the holy cow. This soon spread in the Northern part of India and eventually to
the entire country. At present there are above 5000 gaushalas in India, out of which, 1837
are recognised under the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) (FIAPO, 2019). AWBI is the
statutory body of the ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’ 1960 (PCA). Gaushalas receive
financial support and management advice from the AWBI. Under the PCA 1960, Gaushalas fall
under the purview of the Registration of Cattle Premises Rules (RCPR). Specifically, Gaushalas
uphold the provisions of the PCA by helping avoid the unnecessary pain and suffering related
to the slaughter and abandonment of cattle.
WHY ARE GAUSHALAS REQUIRED?
According to the 20
th
Livestock census, the total cattle population in India is around 19 crores
(Figure 1), of which around 25% (4.7 crores) are male. These male cattle, when not used or
usable for draught power, old and unproductive indigenous cows are the potential candidates
for admission in Gaushalas. As dairying became increasingly intensified in the past three
decades; since 1991-92, total milk production and per capita availability increased at an annual
rate of 4.45% and 2.85% respectively
2
. Total cattle population in the country increased by
0.8% during 2012-2019 while it decreased by about 4% during 2007-12
3
. The main reason for
the decline was the replacement of male cattle by machinery for draught purpose and lack
of interest in upkeep of cattle by the farmers once they pass their milking stage and turn
uneconomical to feed (Bijla and Singh, 2019). Farmers often abandon such cattle and they
either keep roaming or land in Gaushalas. In the 10 districts of Haryana, out of the total cattle
housed in gaushalas, 89% were unproductive (Bijla and Singh, 2019). The disowned indigenous
cattle can be seen moving freely in rural and urban areas, and on roadsides, often feeding
2 https://www.nddb.coop/information/stats/milkprodindia
3 https://www.nddb.coop/information/stats/pop 4The Task Force Report
in garbage dumps. Some of them end up at the slaughterhouses. The population of stray
cattle in the country is estimated at 53 lakhs
4
. According to the Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways, stray animals caused 1604 road accidents in India, with the highest being in Gujarat
(220), followed by Jharkhand (214) and Haryana (211)
5
.
Many of the states in India have banned cattle exports making it even harder to manage the
huge population of old, unproductive cows and male cattle. Farmer testimonies from Haryana
suggest that the newborn male calves are also sent to gaushalas by some farmers (they pay
gaushalas to house their male calves) or abandoned near mandis (markets).
198.7
302.3
155.3
192.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1951 1956 1961 1966 1972 1977 19821 9871 9921 9972 0032 0072 0122 019
Population in millions
Total BovineCattle
Source: Livestock Census (various issues)
Figure 1: Population of bovines (cattle + buffaloes) and cattle in India 1951-2019
TYPES OF GAUSHALAS
Based on the management regimes, Gaushalas can be classified into four types (FIAPO, 2019):
1. Government run gaushalas: Many municipal bodies round up stray cattle, sick and injured animals and keep them till their owners claim them. They are released to their owners after imposing a small fine. More often, this does not happen and the ‘spent’ animals from dairies spend the rest of their lives in gaushalas. These Gaushalas house cows, male cattle, and in some cases also buffaloes. The local government bears the financial burden of these gaushalas. In some cases, the day- to- day operations of the gaushala are transferred to an external organization based on a tender system.
2. Privately run gaushalas for animal rescue: These gaushalas house rescued bovines (mainly cows, especially indigenous cows) transported for illegal slaughter. These gaushalas also host helpline numbers for rescue of injured animals. They house more
4 https://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/Livestock%20%205_0.pdf
5 https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/Road_Accidents_in_India_2016.pdf 5The Task Force Report
animals than the space/ facility they have resulting in crowding, pressure on bedding
area, grazing area, poor feeding, care and medicine.
3. Privately run gaushalas for conservation of native breeds: These are conservation
centers for indigenous cattle. They follow progressive management practices, have
sustainable infrastructure, grow nutritious fodder, and use cow dung, urine and
panchgavya. These gaushalas only house limited animals based on their capacity.
Few have turned into resource, information and capacity building centers for other
gaushalas. These gaushalas train farmers on vermicomposting, biogas, bio fertiliser
and organic fertiliser etc. As a result of the increased abandonment of unproductive
dairy animals and stray cattle, these gaushalas are under continuous pressure from
the local government and public to accept more animals.
4. Gaushalas run by religious institutions: These are run by religious institutions and
accept abandoned and unproductive animals from farmers. The sale of milk is the
main source of revenue for these gaushalas and therefore operates similar to dairy
farms. Some of such gaushalas also prepare and sell products made be from cow
dung and urine. Their traditional management practices resist change in the way
animals are treated, and also in running gaushalas.
FUNDING OF GAUSHALAS
Major sources of income for gaushalas are donations by general public, business entities and a
few corporates, government grants and the sale of milk. Some studies show that in Haryana,
74% of the income of gaushalas came from private donations, 7% from government grants
and 20% from the sale of milk (Singh et al., 2021). In Telangana, 83% came from donations
and 14% from selling milk and milk products (Sivaram et al., 2021). All over India, 81% of the
gaushalas were running as private bodies with no support from the state and funding were
mainly received for adoption of animals, fodder, medicines, infrastructure and expansion of
gaushalas (FIAPO, 2019). Major expenses of gaushalas were towards feed and fodder followed
by veterinary and medical expenses (Bijla & Singh, 2019; Singh et al., 2021; Sivaram et al., 2021).
Are they profitable? Are they financially sustainable?
Most of the gaushalas in India depend heavily on donations and there is a need for internal
income generation to be financially sustainable in the long run. Evidences from different studies
suggest that some of the gaushalas are profitable or financially viable in the short run (revenues
cover only the working expenses) but are vulnerable in the long run. For instance, operating
expenses constituted 70% of the incomes of Gaushalas in Haryana, while total expenses
accounted for 97% of their income (Bijla & Singh, 2019). Out of the 14 gaushalas studied in
Telangana, 12 gaushalas had negative net incomes and 4 could not even meet the operating
expenses (Sivaram et al., 2021). A study on the long term sustainability of gaushalas observed
that sustainability is directly associated with diversification of its sources of income (Sivaram
et al., 2021). This means, if the gaushalas have multiple sources of income, it is highly likely
that they will cover all the costs and become even profitable in the long run. 6The Task Force Report
Options to make Gaushalas Economically Viable
For the long-term financial sustainability of gaushalas, there is a need to find alternative
business models for them. In an investigative report, the Federation of Indian Animal Protection
Organisations (FIAPO) offers different revenue models with expected costs and benefits. These
include manufacturing and sale of organic fertilisers such as manure/compost, fuel/biogas and
bio fertilisers by the gaushalas and being the input suppliers for bio pesticide/bio fertiliser,
paper and pharmaceutical industries (FIAPO, 2019). Also, (Yadav and Vij, 2010) argue that
the Gaushalas can be turned into active cattle improvement and conservation centres through
in-situ conservation of indigenous breeds and progeny testing of large number of bulls. The
use of organic fertilisers and bio fertilisers is quite low in India. Less than 1% of the cropped
area is treated with any bio fertiliser and less than a quarter of the cropped area is treated
with organic fertilisers (Figure 2). There is huge potential for manufacturing and selling organic
and bio fertilisers in the country. This will reduce huge burden of subsidy being given on
inorganic fertilisers.
Source: Input Survey, 2016-17
Figure 2: Percent of farmers and area covered with use of organic and bio fertilisers in India 7The Task Force Report
Gaushalas can become major supplier of inputs for promoting natural farming in the country
through concerted efforts of the government, private players and entrepreneurs. Natural
farming, as a chemical-free farming system, is being promoted to check adverse effect of
agro chemicals on human health, reverse the environmental ill effects (like soil degradation,
ground water depletion, loss of biodiversity etc.) caused primarily because of overuse of
chemical fertilisers and pesticides after onset of green revolution in India (see Figures 3 and
4 which depicts increased use of chemical fertilisers in India).
Source: Input Survey, 1996-97 to 2016-17 ( https://inputsurvey.dacnet.nic.in/)
Figure 3: Share of agricultural holdings and cropped area that are treated with one or more
chemical fertilisers
Source: Input Survey, 1996-97 to 2016-17 ( https://inputsurvey.dacnet.nic.in/)
Figure 4: Nutrient use per hectare of cropped area (1996-97 to 2016-17) 8The Task Force Report
Natural farming is already being practiced in 11 states on 6.5 lakh hectares
6
. Livestock,
specifically indigenous cattle and buffaloes, are an integral part of natural farming. Natural
inputs like Beejamrit and Jivamrit; natural insecticides like Neemastra, Brahmastra, Agniastra
and Dashaparni are produced from cow dung or cow urine or both
7
. With proper information
and trainings, a new input segment along the line of “Natural Inputs” can be developed
through preparation, packing, branding and distribution across India. This untapped potential
of gaushalas could be an opportunity for meeting nutritional requirement of crops and for
protection against pests and diseases. Some gaushalas are already in the business of producing
other innovative products like agarbattis, idols, and paints using cow dung and urine which
could also earn some revenue for the gaushalas.
Beside low or lack of income, gaushalas also face many more challenges like inadequate space
to house animals, poor veterinary facilities, low availability of feed and fodder, high incidence
of reproductive disorders in cows, labour shortage for livestock upkeep and shrinking grazing
lands. Some of these will be taken care of by default if the gaushalas become financially sound
but most of these challenges require institutional support. The challenges and the financial
sustainability of gaushalas are not mutually exclusive. Thus, sustaining gaushalas requires
financial and other support from the governments at the Centre and States, corporate players,
general public and other stakeholders.
REFERENCES
1. Arya, S., Swain, R. K., Nayak, H. K., & Pati, A. K. (2020). Circadian variations in foraging
and resting/standing activity patterns of stray street cattle of urban Sambalpur,
Odisha, India. Biological Rhythm Research, 51(7), 1053–1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0929101.2019.1573461
2. Bijla, S., & Singh, A. (2019). Economic study of gaushalas in Haryana: Functioning and
profitability. Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 72(1), Article 1. https://epubs.icar.gov.in/
index.php/IJDS/article/view/83551
3. FIAPO. (2019). Gau Gaatha: Tale of the Cow [Nationwide Investigation of Gaushalas].
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations. https://www.fiapo.org/fiaporg/
reports-materials/
4. Sharma, A., Schuetze, C., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2020). The Management of Cow Shelters
(Gaushalas) in India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare.
Animals  : An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 10(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani10020211
5. Singh, A., Chandel, B. S., Chauhan, A. K., Kamboj, M. L., & Bijla, S. (Eds.). (2021).
Sustainability of gaushalas: Do size and patronage matter? Agricultural Economics
Research Review. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.320440
6 https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/components/
7 https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/components/ 9The Task Force Report
6. Sivaram, M., Rohith, S., Pradeep, R., & Subash, S. (2021). Economic Sustainability
Analysis of Gaushalas in select Districts of Telangana State. Indian Journal of Dairy
Science, 74(6), Article 6. https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJDS/article/view/111513
7. Yadav, D. K., & Vij, P. K. (2010). Inventorization of Gaushala resources and their use
in breed improvement and conservation programmes. The Indian Journal of Animal
Sciences, 80(4), Article 4. https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJAnS/article/view/101 11The Task Force Report
Status of Organic and
Bio fertiliser Production
in the country
3Organic and bio fertilisers are promising agriculture inputs. In the backdrop of ‘Atma Nirbhar
Bharat’, it is envisaged to bring 14-million-hectare land (i.e., approx. 10% of total area under
cultivation) under organic farming till year 2025
8
.
BACKGROUND
India is the second highest producer and consumer of chemical fertilisers in the world. Per
hectare fertiliser consumption in the country has increased by 75 percent during the last two
decades and reached a level of 161 kg per hectare of gross cropped area in the year 2020–21.
More than half of the chemical fertilisers consumed in India are in the form of urea. As the
cost of chemical fertilisers is continuously rising, the total subsidy on chemical fertilisers is
steeply growing every year. In 2020-21, the annual subsidy bill was `1,31,230 crores, which
is more than 10 times the subsidy bill of `12,908 crores in 2001–2002. The subsidy bill has
grown sharply since 2019-20, due to rising international prices of imported fertiliser and raw
materials required for manufacturing fertilisers etc.
The increasing use of chemical fertilisers has affected the environment. According to the United
Nations-backed Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES), the nutrient run-off from farms laced with synthetic fertiliser has adversely
affected land ecosystems. Also, the ammonia emissions from agricultural activities can combine
with pollution from vehicle exhausts to create dangerous particulates in the air and exacerbate
respiratory diseases. Fertiliser use also constitute significant share in greenhouse gases emitted
in crop production. Promoting organic and bio fertilisers and replacing chemical fertilisers with
them is an eco-friendly intervention that will reduce environmental pollution and has a scope
to reduce the cost of cultivation.
Over the years, the Government of India has taken up many initiatives to increase the farmers’
income and supply safe and nutritious food through sustainable agriculture. The schemes such
as Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North
Eastern Region, etc., are initiated to promote application of organic fertilisers.
Effective utilisation of livestock by-products offers great opportunity for sustainable agriculture
as, dung and urine are eco-friendly source of plant nutrition to enrich & restore soil nutrients,
conserve the micro-fauna of soil and act as a natural surface purifier. Dung manure contains
basic elements critical to plant health i.e., nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)
and several micro nutrients. Also, humus in dung manure act as a soil amender and preserves
8 https://aioi.org.in/centre-targets-14-million-hectares-of-land-under-organic-farming/#:~:text=HYDERA -
BAD%3A%20The%20centre%20is%20planning,that%20presently%20area%20under%20organic 12The Task Force Report
moisture in the soil. In 1970-71, dung manure accounted for about 43 percent of the total
value of manure and fertilisers used in agriculture. This declined drastically to 23 percent in
1980–81 and to about 13 percent during the 1990s
9
.
STATUS OF ORGANIC AND BIO FERTILISERS IN INDIA
In India, organic fertilisers and biofertilisers are regulated by the Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic
or Mixed) (Control) Order (FCO), 1985, under the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’
Welfare. Beside chemical fertilisers, 11 biofertilisers and 10 organic fertilisers are also approved
under FCO for use in India as of now.
The current area under organic farming in the country is estimated to reach 38.09 lakh hectares
which includes 6.19 lakh hectares under Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY), 1.23 lakh
hectares under Namami Gange Programme, 4.09 lakh hectares under BPKP (Natural Farming),
and 26.57 lakh hectares under National Program for Organic Production (NPOP) (MoA&FW,
PIB release 2021)
10
. The Government of India has a target to bring additional about 10 lakh
hectares area under organic farming in the next 3 years that will require the usage of bio
fertilisers and other organic inputs.
ORGANIC FERTILISERS: PRODUCTION
Organic fertilisers are substances made up of one or more unprocessed material(s) of a
biological nature (plant/animal) and may include unprocessed mineral materials that have
been altered through microbiological decomposition process” (Fertilisers Control Order, 1985).
Organic fertilisers are composted/fermented products made from organic wastes (city waste,
agro waste, crop residue, livestock waste, food processing industry waste etc.). Organic
fertilisers specified under FCO, 1985, is classified in following categories:
i. City Compost,
ii. Vermi compost,
iii. Phosphate Rich Organic Manure (PROM),
iv. Organic Manure,
v. Bio-enriched Organic Manure,
vi. Bone meal (raw/ steamed),
vii. Potash derived from Rhodophytes,
viii. F
ermented Organic Manure and
ix. Liquid Fermented organic manure.
Realizing the need and rising preference of consumers for organic produce there is a lot of
emphasis on replacing use of chemical fertilisers with organic and biofertilisers. Production of
9 https://www.icrisat.org/PDF/Economiccontributionoflivestocksubsector.pdf
10 https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1778909 13The Task Force Report
organic fertiliser increased from 28 million metric tonnes in year 2016-17 to 61 million tonnes in
year 2019-20 (Figure 5). The list of major categories treated as organic fertiliser is presented
in Figure 6.
Source: MoA&FW and CSE 2022 report on status of bio fertiliser and organic fertiliser
Figure 5: Production of Organic Fertilisers
BIOFERTILISERS: PRODUCTION
It is important to point out that Bio fertilisers are different than organic fertilisers. Bio fertilisers are defined as the product containing carrier–based (solid or liquid) living microorganisms which are agriculturally useful in terms of nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilisation or nutrient mobilization, to increase the productivity of the soil and/or crop (FCO, 1985). Upon application to seed and/or soil, these microbial preparations multiply rapidly around emerging crop roots and fix/mobilize nutrients from air and soil, from unavailable form to available form. Also, the nutrient solubilizers (as P, K or Zn solubilizers) transform insoluble nutrients present in soil to soluble form for easy uptake by crop plants. The
average dose of mixed bio fertiliser application is 6 lit/ha for liquid formulations and 12
kg/ha for solid carrier–based, for fixation/ solubilisation of 20-25 kg nutrients/ha (chemical
fertiliser application equivalent).
At present, in India, the market for bio fertilisers is around `1200 crores which is likely to rise to
around `2,000 crores in the coming few years due to growing awareness and demand. During
2019-20, India produced 79,446 metric tonnes of solid carrier-based biofertilisers and 30,106
KL of liquid biofertilisers from a total of 537 biofertilisers production units (371 solid carrier
based biofertilisers units and 166 liquid biofertilisers units) spread across the country. During
2018-19 and 2020-21, biofertilisers (liquid base and carrier base) production has increased from
96 million metric tonnes to 235 million metric tonnes (Figure 6). 14The Task Force Report
Source: MoA&FW and CSE 2022 report on status of biofertiliser and organic fertiliser (in 000 tonnes)
Figure 6: Production of Biofertiliser
Biofertilisers (solid/liquid/lyophilised) are available in four different forms viz. Nitrogen fixers
(Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Gluconacetobacter species), P-solubilisers (Wide range
of bacteria, fungi and Mycorrhiza), K-solubilisers (Bacillus mucilaginosus, B. edaphicus and B.
circulanscan, Frateuriaaurentia etc) and Zinc solubilisers and other micronutrient solubilisers
(various bacteria).
Market Assistance for Organic/Biofertilisers
The subsidy schemes to support biofertiliser and organic fertiliser manufacturers and
laboratory infrastructure include the Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS), the Soil Health
Management Scheme, the Policy on Promotion of City Compost, and the New National Biogas
and Organic Manure Programme (NNBOMP). A small sum of `18.9 crore has been released in
the last 17 years for compost and biofertiliser production units under CISS. Only `8.67 crore
has been released for biofertiliser units and biofertiliser and organic fertiliser testing laboratories
under the Soil Health Management Scheme between 2014-15 and 2018-19. Market development
assistance of ` 85.8 crore has been provided for city compost since 2016–17 to January 2021.
Challenges
Absence of level-playing field for manufacturers of biofertilisers and organic fertilisers
as well as for farmers willing to use non-chemical fertiliser options because of the
heavy subsidies on chemical fertilisers.
Limited Research and Development in the field of organic and bio fertilisers.
Lack of regional resource centres for supply of authentic and efficient microbial strains
and lack of awareness on part of biofertiliser units for proper preservation, sub-
culturing, storage, procurement of authentic strains suitable for the local environmental
conditions. 15The Task Force Report
Lack of availability of options for enriched organic fertilisers with essential
nutrients for agricultural use.
Lack of advancement in the testing equipment and testing protocols.
Limited quality testing facility and trained personnel.
Absence of economically viable mass production systems, which could
lower the selling cost of the biofertilisers.
Inadequate funds spent on the promotion of biofertilisers and organic
fertilisers. Total funds spent remain small despite being allocated as part of
multiple schemes (PKVY, MOVCDNER, NFSM, NMOOP, RKVY etc.) aimed
at farmers
.
Lack of suitable infrastructure. Infrastructure support funds provided
under schemes like “Capital Investment Subsidy scheme” and “Soil
Health Management” have not seen much uptake in states and remained
underutilised. Also, market development assistance for promoting city
compost has been discontinued, which can severely limit the uptake of
municipal solid organic waste as a source for organic manure.
Lack of extension and awareness on the use and benefits of organic and
biofertilisers amongst the farming community
.
Production of Organic/Bio fertiliser in Gaushalas
As indicated in Chapter 1, gaushalas produce large scale cow dung and cow urine which is
source of organic and bio fertiliser. The Gaushalas offer vast potential for production of organic
and bio fertiliser, including bio-pesticides. Two important measures for initiating the product
development at a scalable level are:
1. Selection of gaushalas: State-wise selection of gaushalas should be taken up preferably
by the State Government for the production of organic fertiliser and biofertilisers
including bio-pesticides.
2. Competence assessment: Competence assessment of gaushalas, which could take up
production of bio fertilisers.
There should be a systematic process of approval/certification for gaushalas interested in
manufacturing of organic/bio fertilisers.
a. Gaushala selection: Gaushalas will have to certify their livestock and to be supported
initially by certification agencies with special concession. This needs some modifications
in PGS (Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) for India programme)/NPOP (National
Programme for Organic Production) standards. The sourcing of fodder, feed and
medicines need to be from organic source only.
b. Quality of Organic fertilisers: The quality standards for biofertilisers and organic
fertilisers are defined under FCO 1985. The manufacturers are required to adhere to 16The Task Force Report
the standards and limits mentioned in the fertiliser control order and the product
should be duly tested by certified testing facilities.
Future Prospects
During the last 10 years, organic and bio-input sectors have grown rapidly and are growing at
10-15 percent CAGR. Although, farmers are well aware about the benefits of bio and organic
fertilisers, they are not using large amounts of bio and organic fertilisers because of the
additional cost and relatively cheaper availability of chemical fertilisers.
The provision of Marketing Development Assistance (MDA) can boost the organic and
biofertiliser sector and help facilitate the availability of bio and organic fertilisers at affordable
prices.
Some reforms that can encourage fertilizers manufacturers are as follows:
Digitization of the whole process of manufacturing, licence to sale authorization to
dealer, Memorandum of Intimation as well as stock records and maintenance, timely
sampling by inspector etc. as per FCO with time bound consultation with the States.
Development and deployment of Bio/Organic Fertilisers Information Management and
Tracking System.
Improvement of efficiency of different formulations of organic and bio fertiliser.
Sensitisation and capacity enhancement of fertiliser inspectors and analysts in the
area of organic and Bio fertilisers.
NABL accreditation of quality testing laboratories for organic and bio fertilisers.
Sampling intensity in number and time should conform to statistical requirements.
Adequate infrastructure and quality testing facilities for manufacturing Organic/Bio
fertiliser. PPP mode testing facilities can be established as common facilities for a
group of biofertiliser and organic fertiliser units.
Issuance of license/renewal of license for production of biofertiliser/organic fertilisers
units is to be based on proper monitoring of licensee firms for compliance of requisite
equipment, plant and machinery, manpower, in-house quality testing facility, quality
of the final products as per FCO, 1985.
Testing/analysis of biofertiliser microbes (upto strain/variant level) and their efficiency
character using/application of molecular biological tools like polymerase chain
reaction (PCR)-coupled approaches, enzymatic complex detection approaches etc.
for increasing the credibility of quality testing laboratories. ICAR and DST Institutes
to be utilised.
Upgradation of the quality testing laboratories with molecular biology analysis facilities
(equipments, chemicals etc).
Amendment of FCO, 1985 specifications and guidelines in line with above points and
to encourage production and commercialization of latest formulations. 17The Task Force Report
Use the existing public extension network (Krishi Vigyan Kendras, Pashu Vigyan
Kendras, etc.) and modern digital extension tools to increase farmers’ awareness
regarding organic and bio fertilisers to increase the demand for bio and organic
fertilisers.
Revamping of Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS). NCOF have submitted
proposal of revamped Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS). Revamping of
CISS Scheme through NABARD will help in up gradation of biofertiliser production
units, establishment of Fruit vegetable/ Animal waste/ Stubble composting unit and
Gaushalas composting units including micro-level village enterprises. It is estimated
that this proposal will increase the production of organic and bio fertilisers through
establishment of around 100 organic input units during the next 05 years.
Encouraging production of organic manure (slurry) through use of agro-biomass waste
for production of CBG through the method of anaerobic digestion as recently started
by a paddy stubble processing plant in Punjab by Verbio Ag–a biofuel company
based in Germany. 19The Task Force Report
Production & Promotion
of Organic Fertiliser
with special focus on
Improving Economic
Viability of Gaushalas
4
INTRODUCTION
According to the 20
th
livestock census, the total bovine population in India is around 30
crores out of which around 64% are cattle. One cow on an average produces 5-6 litres of
urine and 10-12 kilograms of dung. Approximately 150-180 crore litres of cow urine and 3
million tonnes of cow dung are produced daily in the country. Very small proportion of this
is utilised. Proper utilization of cow dung and cow urine into manure, pesticides, medicines
and other daily products can generate employment for millions of people and help protect
the soils from use of agro-chemicals. The waste produced in gaushalas (cow dung and urine)
can be a very good source for manufacturing inputs for organic and natural farming.
Increasing awareness about ill effects of chemicals and pesticides all over the world indicates
that people prefer buying organic food products, and in future, higher prices of agricultural
produce can be earned with organically produced materials. While input cost is less in organic
farming, the produce fetches higher price.
Gaushalas, in particular cows, were set up throughout India to provide shelter, feed and care
to abandoned cattle. Many gaushalas serve their purpose well; some have grown in size and
diversified and have become institutions in their own right. The management committees
of some gaushalas render services selflessly and the local communities support them. But
of late, the number of stray and abandoned cattle has risen to a level which is beyond the
space and resources available with existing Gaushalas for their upkeep and sustenance. The
central and state governments are now strengthening the existing gaushalas and helping set
up many more. Most gaushalas depend on voluntary donations (charity) while some gaushalas
also receive financial support from state governments in some states. These resources are not
sufficient for proper care and feeding of cows in gaushalas. Second, gaushalas are not able to
provide shelter and sustenance to all abandoned cattle in the country whose number is rising.
URGENCY OF DEALING WITH ABANDONED CATTLE
As already mentioned the number of abandoned cattle is increasing with each passing day.
These abandoned cattle are turning out to be a big menace in both urban as well as rural
areas in particular for agriculture sector. They cause lot of damage to crops resulting in huge
loss to producer farmers. In many areas farmers are incurring huge cost in terms of putting
fences around their fields to prevent entry of unwanted animals. In other cases, crops have 20The Task Force Report
to be constantly guarded from such animals through constant watch and ward during day
and night. In some areas farmers are shifting to crops which are not grazed by animals. There
are also reports of farmers keeping their fields fallow rather than risking their crops to be
damaged by abandoned animals, invariably cattle.
Gaushalas are the shelters for abandoned cattle but their capacity is not adequate to keep
vast and growing number of abandoned cattle. Second, financial means of Gaushalas are highly
inadequate and they need to generate funds from their resources like cow dung, cow urine,
milk etc. that are regular and dependable. Gaushalas are also constrained by the low availability
of feed and fodder, high cost of concentrates, insufficient and erratic government grants, high
incidence of reproductive disorders of cows, and lack of space. However, if gaushalas are
equipped to generate their own resources, then most of them can be self-sustainable beside
being employment generating entities.
Below are some of the value-added products which are manufactured and marketed by a few
gaushalas, though at a very low scale.
Figure 7: Different products for value addition in gaushalas 21The Task Force Report
Gaushalas produce a large amount of cow dung. The best-known use of cow dung is
preparation/ production of organic manure/ compost for soil nutrition. Some gaushalas use
cow dung to produce biogas along with enriched compost, vermicompost, organic paints, and
decorative items like lamps (diya), etc. There are also reports of use of cowdung for making
environment friendly bricks and briquettes used as fuel. Such non-agricultural uses though
commercially more attractive divert the use of cowdung from its use as manure to maintain
soil fertility which is very crucial for sustainable agri-food production. Some Gaushalas are
producrng Phosphate Rich Organic Manure (PROM) from cow dung/ biogas slurry. PROM
production technology (cold processing method) is available in India, and some enterprises
already produce granular PROM. PROM production unit(s) may be established near the
Gaushalas to reduce the transportation cost of cow dung to the PROM production unit (s)
and generate employment. PROM can be a part of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ since it can effectively
replace chemical fertilisers like di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) which is mostly imported in
India and a huge amount of subsidy is given on DAP fertilisers. Similar subsidy need to be
extended for production/ marketing of PROM.
MANAGEMENT, COSTS AND MAINTENANCE OF GAUSHALAS
Proper housing is a vital feature in animal rearing. In addition to good breeding, feeding, and
disease control, it helps in raising the production capabilities of animals (Bureau of Indian
Standards, 1987). Good housing is important for the good health and comfort of animals. It
also protects animals from inclement weather.
According to the Animal Sciences Division of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), the land required for gaushalas and fodder cultivation for different sizes is given in
Table 1 and Technical and Supportive manpower requirement is indicated in Table 2.
Table 1: Land required for gaushala and fodder cultivation according to the herd size
No. of animals to be housed in
gaushala
Land required for gaushala
Land required for fodder
cultivation
100 cows1.00 acre15 acres
500 cows4.50 acres75 acres
1000 cows7.50 acres150 acres
Source: ICAR (2016)
Detailed layout of gaushala premises like floor space for animals, feeding and watering space, fence-line feed barriers, handling yard, veterinary dispensary, storage, office, quarters, etc. are
available with Bureau of Indian Standards (1987) and ICAR (2016). 22The Task Force Report
Table 2: Technical and supportive manpower required
Name of staff position
Number of positions required at different sizes of gaushalas
100 cows 500 cows1000 cows
Gaushala Manager-cum-Veterinary
officer
-11
Veterinary stock assistants-cum
supervisors
123
Technicians for mechanical,
plumbing and electrical works etc.
-12
Office clerk-cum-farm record
Keeper
112
Unskilled workers83050
Drivers112
Source: (ICAR, 2016)
COSTS INVOLVED IN GAUSHALAS
Feed and fodder expenses had the highest share in total costs. It was around 51% in Haryana
and 82% of total cost in Telangana. The average number of animals housed in 10 gaushalas
of Haryana was 2,236 (Bijla and Singh, 2019) and 705 in 14 gaushalas of Telangana (Sivaram
et al., 2021). According to the standards mentioned above, the minimum area of a gaushala
for these many animals is around 15 acres in Haryana and 6 acres in Telangana. However, the
actual area under gaushalas of Haryana was 8.15 acres (46% lesser than recommended) and
the average area under fodder was 9.42 acres (i.e., about 4% of recommended). Expenditure
incurred under various heads in 10 Gaushalas in Haryana is reported in Table 3.
Table 3: Expenditure incurred under different heads in 10 Gaushalas of Haryana
Cost headExpenditure (lakh/year)/Gaushala
Total fixed cost61.75
Green fodder60.91
Dry fodder38.19
Concentrates20.53
Labour costs25.32
Veterinary expenses2.43
Miscellaneous26.03
Total variable costs173.45
Total costs235.21
Source: (Bijla and Singh, 2019) 23The Task Force Report
A more worrying factor is that the gaushalas in India do not have their own source of income.
Donations accounted for 75 percent and 82 percent of the total income in Haryana and
Telangana, respectively (Bijla & Singh, 2019; Sivaram et al., 2021). A study based on sample
of 179 gaushalas across 15 states and union territories, found that 73 percent of the gaushalas
solicited support from individuals, and 50 percent did not have a sustainable revenue model
(FIAPO, 2019). There is a need to look for other sources of income like using cow dung and
urine for the gaushalas. Cost and returns from some of such products are detailed in Table 4.
Table 4: Yearly cost and income from different products of a gaushala with 100 cows
(in Rs.)
ProductFixed Cost
Maintenance
cost
Income Net income
Compost manure1500 2400 36,000 33,600
Fuel and biogas (15-20
cubic meter capacity)
5,00,000 50,000 4,38,000
-1,12,000
(net profit from
2
nd
year)
Organic Pesticide from
cow urine
750 38,760 2,40,000 2,00,490
Cow urine for medicinal
purposes
5,700 21,600 15,900
Cow urine for floor
cleaners
19,000 36,000 1,80,000 1,25,000
Source: Adapted from (FIAPO, 2019)
The maintenance costs can be covered to some extent by using roof tops of cowshed for solar
power, production of biogas for kitchen, Bio-CNG for vehicles, slurry and organic fertiliser to
replace chemical fertilisers. Thus, if the gaushalas are properly supported by the government
or the private sector or in PPP mode, the investors can be benefited and the gaushalas can
turn Atmanirbhar entities.
CASE STUDIES
The Taskforce visited some Gaushalas and conducted three case studies to get more and
first-hand information about the activities, expenditure and income of Gaushalas.
Case Study 1: Kamdhenu Gaushala Seva Sadan, Haryana
The Kamdhenu Gaushala Seva Sadan Pinjore, Panchkula Dist. Haryana was set up in the year
2006. It is managed by a society named “Kamdhenu Gaushala Seva Sadan Pinjore”. The
gaushala is spread over 6 acres of land and houses about 1100 cattle. Prior to August 2021, the
major sources of income were the sale of desi-cow milk/ghee, donations from trust members/
general public and donation in kind of fodder/infrastructure from philanthropic donors. The
sources of income and costs incurred after August 2021 are displayed in (Table 5). The gaushala
produced and marketed six value added products made from cow dung and cow urine and
earned a total of `10,70,800 during August-November, 2021. 24The Task Force Report
Table 5: Production, manufacturing costs, selling price and revenue from different products
(Aug. 2021 to Nov. 2021)
Sl.
No
Product Production, manufacturing costs and selling price
Revenue
(in Rs.)
1.
Natural
Disinfectant/
Phenyl
Approx. 4000 litres of Gautattva Phenyl sold to
various buyers
Manufacturing cost Rs. 25/- per Litre
Selling rice Rs. 37.5/- per Litre
50000
2.
PROM/ Bio
Manure/ Organic
manure
316 PROM bags of 50 Kg each
Manufacturing cost Rs. 550/- per bag (excluding
transportation/ dealer/ commission etc.)
Selling price Rs. 900/- per bag
110600
3.Cow Dung Gamla
2000 cow dung pots (gamlas) of various sizes
Manufacturing cost Rs. 5 (small size), Rs. 6
(medium size) and Rs. 7 (large size)
Selling price Rs. 10 (small size), Rs. 15 (medium
size) and Rs. 20 (large size)
Sold about 200 Nos. cow dung gamla along with
Tulsi sapling to various devotees. Input cost Rs. 10
and selling price Rs. 101
Order is pending for 10,000 gamlas from the
Forest Department
18000
20200
90000
4.Gobar Bricks
Sold about 500 Nos. cow dung bricks to various
devotees. Input cost Rs. 10 and selling price Rs. 101
45500
5.
Khadi Prakritik
Paint
Sold about 400 Litre cow dung prakritik paint.
Input cost Rs. 50/Litre
Selling price Rs. 110/Litre
24000
6.
Panchgavya
Products
(Diya, Dhoop,
Aggarbatti, Soap,
Hand-wash,
Shampoo etc.
Diyas:
Qty. manufactured approx. 80000 diya
Input cost Rs. 1.50/Diya
Selling price Rs. 6.50/Diya
Dhoop:
Qty. manufactured approx. 3600 Dhoop Pkt.
Input cost Rs. 15/Pkt.
Selling price Rs. 50/Pkt.
Aggarbatti:
Qty. manufactured approx. 500 Dhoop Pkt.
Input Cost Rs. 15/Pkt.
Selling Price Rs. 50/Pkt.
400000
126000
17500 25The Task Force Report
Sl.
No
Product Production, manufacturing costs and selling price
Revenue
(in Rs.)
Soap:
Qty. manufactured approx. 2400 soaps.
Input cost Rs. 15/soap.
Selling price Rs. 50/soap.
Hand-wash:
Qty. manufactured approx. 1000 Hand-wash.
Input cost Rs. 25/Hand-wash box.
Selling price Rs. 60/Hand-wash box.
Shampoo:
Qty. manufactured approx. Hand-wash bottle.
Input cost Rs. 30/bottle.
Selling price Rs. 80/bottle.
84000
35000
50000
Total earning during the period Aug 2021 to Nov 202110,70,800
Case Study 2: Shri Mataji Gaushala, Uttar Pradesh
Shri Mataji Gaushala, Barsana, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh shelters over 50,000 cows,
mostly abandoned male cattle. They run a successful pilot project on production of cow dung
based organic compost fertiliser (200 tons a day capacity). They have appropriate machinery,
testing labs, qualified volunteers who run the operation and manufacture products conforming
to the Fertiliser Control Order. They run a bio-gas Turbine using the bio-gas produced as a
by-product in the organic fertiliser plant. The electricity thus produced is fed to the Grid. The
Bio-Gas Plant & Turbine etc. were supported through the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE). The activities of the Shri Mataji Gaushala at Barsana include:
1. Production of A2 Milk
2. Indigenous cow breed improvement
3. Ayurvedic Hospital/ Pharmacy (Panchgavya based)
4. Cattle feed management & storage, etc.
The main constraint they face is the marketing of organic fertiliser produced in their compost
plant.
Case study 3: Shri Vraj Kamad Surabhi Van Avam Shodh Sansthan, Rajasthan
(also known as Shri Jhadkhor Gaudham)
Shri Jhadkhor Gaudham, along with other associated gaushalas running under same supervision
provides shelters to over 10,000 Indian breed cows, including thousands of mostly abandoned
male cattle. Shri Jhadkhor Gaudham has an organic fertiliser plant capable of producing 100 MT
per day of Phosphate Rich Organic Manure (PROM). PROM produced by co-composting high 26The Task Force Report
grade rock phosphate of very fine size with cow dung based organic fertiliser is an efficient
way of adding phosphorous to soil as an alternative to chemical fertilisers (Sekhar et al., 2008).
The gaudham also has a plant to manufacture cow urine based disinfectant. Unfortunately, the
PROM manufacturing plant is in disuse due to lack of funds for marketing and also due to
lack of mass awareness among the users regarding this alternative product. The disinfectant
plant is also not being used due to lack of funds for marketing and relevant purchase orders.
The buyer they had tied up with has backed out. As a result, the accumulated debt burden
on the gaushala is about ` 4.5 crores. The gaushala has requested for considering a policy
framework through which pasturing/grazing rights could be allotted to their cattle in the
adjoining forest lands in the Aravalis. Shri Jadkhor Gaudham is also successfully carrying out
work on conservation, protection and improvements in top notch breed of indigenous cows and
bulls viz Gir, Sahiwal, Tharparkar, Rathi, Kankrej, Haryanvi etc. It has also a running small biogas
plant, a small dairy unit producing A2 cow milk and a small Ayurvedic Medicine manufacturing
centre primarily manufacturing medicines and products based on panchgavya. The gaudham
has applied to the forest department and Rajasthan State Government for relevant permission
and therefore requested for considering a policy framework through which pasturing/grazing
rights could be allotted to their cattle in the adjoining forest lands in the Aravalis Compressed
biogas (CBG)/biogas business models
Biogas and Bio-CNG produced from cattle dung can be an important source of income for
Gaushalas. Table 6 displays biogas/CBG models run by dairy cooperatives, National Dairy
Development Board (NDDB), private companies, gaushalas, gram panchayat and state
government departments. It can be observed that the plants go to great lengths to source
feedstock for their biogas plants. Banaskantha Bio-CNG plant in Gujarat, managed by the dairy
cooperative union of the district, collects cow dung from 254 households owning more than 5
bovines each from 12 villages. They use a mobile application (App) to record the quantity of
cow dung collected every day. The cooperative pays `1/kg of cow dung. In the cluster model
of NDDB, 368 women dairy farmers having 2-3 cattle are provided with flexi biogas plants
of 2 cum. Bharat Biogas Energy Ltd. CBG plant in Gujarat collects cow dung from around
700 families across 400 villages. They pay farmers `0.75–1.0 / kg of cow dung. Similarly, the
community biogas plant in Hisar collects cow dung from farmers of Nayagaon village and
pays 10 paisa per kg of cattle dung. Only two plants collect cow dung from gaushalas which
is an easy place to pick up cow dung in large quantities.
The biogas generated from the feedstock is used for different purposes in various forms. The
purified gas is used in 100 vehicles through a gas station by the Banaskantha plant; biogas
supplied through a network of overhead pipes is used by the households for cooking purposes
in Anand and Hisar; purified methane/CBG is supplied to an Ayurveda factory in Haridwar;
and Bio CNG is supplied to AMUL Dairy in Gujarat. The slurry from the plant is either sold
directly to farmers in bulk quantities or converted into various products. For instance, the slurry
is directly sold to farmers at `1000-1500/tanker. The solid part of the slurry is converted to
vermicompost and PROM by adding rock phosphate, biofertilisers, and biopesticides and sold
to farmers. The liquid part is reused for treatment. 27The Task Force Report
Table 6: CBG/biogas business models
Name
Capacity of
plant
Feedstock
capacity
Type and source of
feedstock
CostsSource of funding
Banaskantha
BioCNG plant,
Gujarat
800 kg/day
40 tons/
day
Type: Cow dung and
potato waste
Source: 254 households
across 12 villages
` 8 crores
(excluding land cost)
Banaskantha District Co-operative Milk
Producers’ Union Ltd
Zakariyapura cluster
model, Anand
Gujarat, A pilot
project by NDDB
Biogas
2000 kg/day
Type: Cow dung and
biodegradable waste
Source: 368 women
dairy farmers
` 1.23 crores
National Dairy Development Board
(NDDB)
Bharat Biogas
Energy Limited,
Umreth, Gujarat
(CBG)
5400 kg/day
140 ton/
day
Type: Cow dung, press
mud, potato waste and
water hyacinth
Source: 700
households, sugar mill,
wafers’ plant and pond
` 21 crores
(excluding land Cost)
Central Financial Assistance of 2.32 Cr
under MNRE and Self-financing
Haridwar BioCNG
project, Uttarakhand
400 kg/day
20 ton/
day
Type: Cow dung
Source: Gaushalas
` 3.0 crores
(excluding land cost)
CSR-ONGC and Self-financing
Community Biogas
plant Hisar, Haryana
320 kg/day8 ton/day
Type: Cow dung
Source: farmers of
Nayagaon village
` 75 Lakh
Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen)
Gram Panchayat Fund, MGNREGA,
MPLAD Fund and State Govt. Fund
CBG project at
Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh
2500 kg/day
90 ton /
day
Type: cattle dung,
press mud and
municipal solid waste
Source: Gaushalas and
sugar industries
` 22 croresCSR Fund
Source: Adapted from SBM (https://sbm.gov.in/gbdw20/images/Fund/Different_models_of_CBGBiogasPlants.pdf) 28The Task Force Report
SOLAR ROOFTOPS IN GAUSHALAS AND SOLAR TREES IN FODDER
FARMS
Prime Minister of India, Sh. Narendra Modi has set a target of producing 100 GW of solar
power by 2022 and desires India to be a frontrunner in the International Solar Alliance for
clean energy. Large businesses in collaboration with state governments are working on it.
Another feasible alternative is harnessing solar power in gaushalas and the associated fodder
farms. Cost structure and returns from installing rooftop solar panels in gaushalas and solar
trees in fodder farms is presented below. It is based on the assumption that solar panels will
be installed on 50% of rooftop area, used for sheltering 100 cows on one Acre land.
Gujarat: Average solar irradiation in Gujarat state is 1266.52 W/sq.m. 1 kWp solar rooftop
plant will generate on an average over the year 5.0 kWh of electricity per day (considering
5.5 sunshine hours).
Haryana: Average solar irradiation in Haryana state is 1156.39 W / sq.m. 1 kWp solar rooftop
plant will generate on an average over the year 4.6 kWh of electricity per day (considering
5.5 sunshine hours).
Table 7: Cost and returns of installing solar rooftops in gaushalas under Social Sector
customer category
GujaratHaryana
Size of Power Plant202.3 kW202.3 kW
Cost of the Plant without subsidy
@ MNRE current Benchmark Cost
(without GST) of ` 35,886 / kW
` 72,59,738` 72,59,738
Total Electricity Generation from Solar Plant
Annual3,03,450 kWh2,79,174 kWh
Life-Time (25 years)75,86,250 kWh69,79,350 kWh
Financial savings
Tariff @ Rs.8/ kWh (for top slab of traffic)–No increase assumed over 25 years
Monthly` 2,02,300` 1,86,116
Annually` 24,27,600` 22,33,392
Life-Time (25 years)` 6,06,90,000` 5,58,34,800
Break-even point (year at which
returns cover all the costs)
3 years4 years
Lifetime net profits` 5,34,30,262` 4,85,75,062
Carbon dioxide emissions
mitigated
6,221 tonnes5,723 tonnes
This installation will be equivalent
to planting
9,953 Teak trees over the life
time
9,157 Teak trees over the life
time
Source: Calculations taken from the National Portal for Solar Rooftop (Grid-Connected Rooftop), Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy (https: //solarrooftop.gov.in/rooftop_ calculator) 29The Task Force Report
The maximum size of power plant that can be installed in 1 acre of gaushala for 100 animals
(assuming 50% of the area – 0.5 acre–is fitted with rooftop solar panels) is 202.3 kW. Cost of
the Plant without subsidy at the MNRE current Benchmark Cost (without GST) of `35,886 /
kW are around `73 lakhs. The annual financial saving would be equal to around `24 lakhs and
`22 lakhs respectively in Gujarat and Haryana respectively. The respective break-even point at
this rate of annual returns (assuming none of the electricity generated is consumed) is 3 and
4 years in Gujarat and Haryana. The lifetime (25 years) earnings would be around `6 crores.
In India, as discussed before, the gaushalas are overcrowded and the land requirement is huge
(both for gaushalas and fodder cultivation). If the gaushalas get more land through government
or by themselves, the huge area under these gaushalas opens up the possibility of earning
through grid connected rooftop solar panels. Along with the financial benefits, this mitigates
carbon dioxide emissions of around 6,000 tonnes reducing the carbon footprint of gaushalas.
Solar trees in fodder farms
A study conducted by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations
(ICRIER) based on global survey of solar trees found that it is being practised in countries
like Japan, China and Germany (Gulati et al., 2016). The Delhi government in 2018 announced
Mukhyamantri Kisan Aay Badhotri Yojana which aimed at increasing farmers’ income by setting
up solar trees in their agriculture land11. Estimation is that, 500 solar trees can be installed
in one acre of land at the height of about 10-12 feet (which ensures enough sunlight for the
crops) such that even tractors can move around. Under the scheme, the farmers would be
paid `1 lakh per acre a year, it would increase by 6% annually. Once allowed, the farmer has
to assure that the agricultural land put under solar trees will not be converted to other uses
for 25 years. Also, the farmers would get 1,000 units of energy each year per acre of land
they rent out.
Similar model of solar trees can be adopted by the gaushalas. 15 acres of land is required for
fodder cultivation to sufficiently feed 100 animals (Table 1). According to Delhi government
estimates, 6 acres of land is required to set up a 1 MW solar plant, which will generate over
1.2 million units of electricity annually. The gaushalas can think of setting up at least one plant,
which will also be a continuous source of income.
Challenges for setting up alternative business models along with rooftop solar
panels and solar trees
1. Land: The gaushalas are overcrowded and they own very less area for fodder
cultivation. Thus, there is a pressing need to make more land available to gaushalas.
Government land or any uncultivated waste land or hills not suitable for cultivation
or any grazing lands could be some options apart from purchasing new land.
2. Labour: Maintaining hundreds of animals, preparation of vermicompost/manure/bio
fertilisers and other models are extremely labour intensive. There is a huge requirement
of both unskilled and skilled labour (like veterinarians) in gaushalas. Training needs
11 https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-govt-gets-farmers-consent-to-set-up-solar-power-
plant-in-9-villages-101611173588188.html 30The Task Force Report
of these workers could be taken care by KVKs/PVKs or National Skill Development
Corporation (NSDC).
3. Capital: All the product groups suggested to generate income for Gaushalas like
biofuels, biofertilisers, solar panels and solar trees require huge upfront capital
investment. Large businesses or CSR funding or any form of PPP or low interest EMIs
are some of the options apart from government funding for all these business models.
4. Management: To maintain and oversee the various business models suggested in the
document, a skilled manager and a few staff to maintain books and other requirements
are necessary. Either the owners of the gaushalas should be well equipped to manage
the day to day operations and accounts, or a manager should be hired for the same
(like paid advisers from private sector).
The case studies, CBG models and discussions with various gaushalas highlight that they can
become economically viable by using their waste (cow dung and urine) efficiently. Two major
problems are identified from the case studies and discussions with various stakeholders. Those
are initial capital investment and marketing of the products manufactured by gaushalas. The
initial big push in the form of capital investment is required to make gaushalas profitable
and self-sustainable. Any funding agency, the government, the banks, the NBFCs, the private
limited companies or any start-ups must look at the gaushalas as a business opportunity
which has the potential to grow in coming years. The returns on investment will be high if
the gaushalas are managed professionally under any business/revenue models. The gaushalas
can also cut down their operating costs by adding solar rooftop panels, which is also an
investment opportunity for the government or the private sector. In terms of marketing the
products, the government can use Khadi counters to sell the products like floor cleaners using
their unique selling proposition (USP) which contain non-carcinogenic properties unlike those
available in the market. The gaushalas could also be linked with FPOs/FPCs to produce and
market organic fertilisers. The private players also could use their expertise in branding and
marketing for increasing the revenues for themselves and the gaushalas.
REFERENCES
1. Bijla, S., & Singh, A. (2019). Economic study of gaushalas in Haryana: Functioning and
profitability. Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 72(1), Article 1. https://epubs.icar.gov.in/
index.php/IJDS/article/view/83551
2. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1987). Indian Standard: Recommendations for Gaushala
and other organized milk producers (IS : 11942-1986). Burea of Indian Standards.
https://archive.org/details/gov.in.is.11942.1986
3. FIAPO. (2019). GauGaatha: Tale of the Cow [Nationwide Investigation of Gaushalas].
Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations. https://www.fiapo.org/fiaporg/
reports-materials/
4. Gulati, A., Manchanda, S., &Kacker, R. (2016).Harvesting Solar Power in India! (Working
Paper No. 329). ICRIER. http://icrier.org/pdf/Working_Paper_329.pdf
5. Gupta S P (2002) Special Group on Targeting Ten Million Employment Opportunities
Per Year. Government of India, Planning Commission, New Delhi. 31The Task Force Report
6. Handbook of Agriculture, ICAR Publications, New Delhi
7. Handbook of Animal Husbandry, ICAR Publications, New Delhi
8. ICAR.(2016). Manual on Management of Gaushala.Indian Council of Agricultural
Research. https://icar.gov.in/content/manual-management-gaushala
9. Melkania U and Melkania N P (1989) Agricultural and Environment in India. In: Mohan
I (ed.) New World Environment Series, Environmental Pollution and Management,
Asian Publishing House, New Delhi-110026.
10. Moitra A (2001) Women and Entrepreneurs. Kurukshetra. 49:28-30
11. Nautiyal, C.S. (2000). Biocontrol of plant diseases for agricultural sustainability. In
Biocontrol potential and its exploitation in sustainable agriculture. Edited by R.K.
Upadhyay, K.G. Mukerji, and B.P. Chamola. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York. pp. 9-23.
12. Pati J (2000) Women, Environment and Sustainable Rural Development. Kurukshetra.
48(12): 22-27
13. Sivaram, M., Rohith, S., Pradeep, R., &Subash, S. (2021). Economic Sustainability
Analysis of Gaushalas in select Districts of Telangana State. Indian Journal of Dairy
Science, 74(6), Article 6. https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJDS/article/view/111513
14. United States patent No. 6,410,059 Khanuja, et al. dated June 25, 2002 “Pharmaceutical
composition contains cow urine distillate and antibiotics.”
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Floor space requirements of cattle based on body weights
(FAO standards)
Animal category Age (months) Weight (kg)
Area per animal (m
2
)
Fully covered
shed
Exercise yard
Young stock 1.5-370-1001.51.4
Young stock 3-6100-1752.01.8
Young stock 6-12175-2502.52.1
Young stock 12-18 250-3503.02.3
Bred heifers and
small milking
cows
400-5003.52.5
Milking cows500-6004.03.0
Large milking
cows
>6005.03.5
Source: Adapted from (ICAR, 2016) 32The Task Force Report
Figure 8: Flowchart for installation of Rooftop solar PV system in Haryana 33The Task Force Report
Public Private
Partnership Models for
Gaushalas
5
Previous chapter discussed the possibility of making gaushalas economically viable by adopting
various economic activities like manufacturing organic and bio fertilisers, biogas/bio-CNG,
natural farming inputs, etc. The major requirement for achieving economic viability is the huge
capital investment required to set up biogas/bio-CNG plant and procuring raw materials like
rock phosphate among others. This chapter suggests some public–private partnership (PPP)
models to bring in the initial capital investment to gaushalas. Public sector would need to
play facilitating role in creating the entrepreneurial ecosystem for gaushalas through forming
policies/incentives and reasonable support for setting up the required infrastructure and for
the private players to invest in gaushalas. On the other hand, private companies are expected
to invest in the gaushalas and share the profits with the gaushalas, preferably under a written
contract. Following are some of the models through which the public and private sectors can
come together to achieve the said objectives.
Model I: Medium (100-500 bovines)
Model I: Small gaushalas (<100 bovines)
Remarks: Public support through schemes 34The Task Force Report
Model II: Medium (100-500 bovines)
Remarks: Public support through schemes and private through capital investment and marketing
Model III: Medium (100-500 bovines)
Remarks: Public support through schemes and private through capital investment and marketing 35The Task Force Report
Model IV: Medium (100-500 bovines) (Natural Farming Inputs)
Remarks: Public support through schemes and marketing
Model V: Medium (100-500 bovines) /Large (>500 bovines)
Remarks: Public support through schemes (including purchase of electricity generated) and private through
capital investment and marketing 36The Task Force Report
Model VI: Large (>500 bovines)
Dung + Urine
GridBiogas/BioCNG
Market
ElectricityBioCNG
Slurry
Certification and Branding
Own
vehicles/Market
PROM
Remarks: Public support through schemes and private through capital investment and marketing
Note: Biogas contains about 55-65 % of methane, 35- 44 % of carbon dioxide and traces of other gases, such as
Hydrogen Sulphide, Nitrogen and Ammonia. Biogas, in its raw form, without any purification can be used as clean
cooking fuel like LPG, lighting, motive power and generation of electricity. It can be used in diesel engines to substitute
diesel up to 80% and up to 100% replacement of diesel by using 100% Biogas Engines. Further, Biogas can be
purified and upgraded up to 98% purity of methane content to make it suitable to be used as a green and clean fuel
for transportation or filling in cylinders at high pressure of 250 bar or so and called as Compressed Bio-Gas (CBG).
SUPPORT THROUGH GOVERNMENT SCHEMES
1. ‘SATAT’ (Sustainable Alternative Towards Affordable Transportation)
12
: This scheme
on Compressed Bio Gas (CBG) envisages to target production of 15 million million
tons of CBG by 2023-24, from 5000 Plants. Under SATAT scheme, entrepreneurs
shall set up CBG plants, produce and supply CBG to Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs)
for sale as automotive and industrial fuels. The initiative aims to produce CBG from
waste and bio-mass sources like agricultural residue, cattle dung, sugarcane press
mud, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and sewage treatment plant waste.
2. Energy from Urban, Industrial, Agricultural Wastes/Residues and Municipal Solid
Waste programme of MNRE
13
: The programme offers Central Financial Assistance
(CFA) in the form of capital subsidy and Grants-in-Aid in respect of the following
activities:
12 https://satat.co.in/satat/index.jsp
13 https://mnre.gov.in/waste-to-energy/schemes 37The Task Force Report
®Installation of plants of biogas production from Industrial waste, Sewage Treatment
Plants (STP), urban & agricultural waste/ residue through biomethanation.
®Installation of plants of power generation or production of Bio-CNG/enriched
biogas from biogas produced from Industrial waste, Sewage Treatment Plants,
urban & agricultural waste.
®Installation of biomass gasifier for feeding power into the grid or meeting captive
power and thermal needs of rice mills/other industries and villages.
®Installation of plants of recovery of energy/power from Municipal Solid Waste.
Criteria based on type of waste
®Urban, Industrial and Agricultural Wastes/Residues: The Projects based on
Biomethanation of any Biodegradable Waste like Urban waste (Vegetable &
fruit market/kitchen, Slaughter house, Sewage including livestock wastes like
cattle dung, poultry waste etc.), agricultural waste (paddy straw, agro processing
industries residues/ effluents, green grass etc.), Industrial Waste/Effluents (Agro
processing industry, Paper & Pulp Industry, Milk processing, Sugar Industry etc.
®Biomass Gasifier: Projects using Biomass/Agro-residues for feeding power into
the grid or meeting captive power and thermal needs of rice mills/other industries
and villages
3. Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) of DACFW: AIF provides financial support for
investment in viable projects relating to post-harvest management infrastructure,
community farming assets and projects on hub and spoke mode. All loans under this
financing facility will have an interest subvention of 3 per cent per annum up to a limit
of loan amount of ` 2 crores. This subvention will be available for a maximum period
of 7 years. CBG plants, Biostimulant production units and Organic inputs production
have been included as eligible projects of AIF
14
.
4. Swachh Bharat Kosh
15
: Swachh Bharat Kosh has been set up to attract Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) funds from Corporate Sector and contributions from
individuals and philanthropists in response to the call given by Hon’ble Prime Minister
on 15th August, 2014 to achieve the objective of Clean India (Swachh Bharat) by
the year 2019, the 150th year of the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi through
Swachh Bharat Mission. Donations to the “Swachh Bharat Kosh” , other than the
sums spent for “Corporate Social Responsibility” under sub-section (5) of Section
135 of the Companies Act, 2013 are eligible for 100% deduction under section 80G
of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This is applicable to the assessment year 2015-16 and
subsequent years. Gaushalas can be financed under “other initiatives of improving
sanitation and cleanliness in rural and urban areas including solid and liquid waste
management”.
14 https://agriinfra.dac.gov.in/Home/EligibleProjects
15 http://sbkosh.gov.in/ 38The Task Force Report
5. Galvanising Organic Bio-Agro Resources (GOBAR) dhan
16
: GOBARdhan scheme
is being pursued as a national programme priority under Swachh Bharat Mission
Grameen-Phase II. GOBARdhan aims to support villages in effectively managing their
cattle and biodegradable waste. Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation is
working with the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Ariculture and
Farmers’ Welfare, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Department
of Rural Development, State Governments, public and private sector institutions
and village communities to give this a shape of “Jan Andolan” so that community
collective action on GOBARdhan is achieved.
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation supports every district with technical
assistance and financial support of up to ` 50 lakh per district to achieve safe
management of cattle and biodegradable waste, help villages convert their waste
into wealth, improve environmental sanitation and curb vector-borne diseases.
6. New National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme (NNBOMP) of MNRE
17
: The
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy promotes installation of biogas plants by
implementing Central Sector Schemes under Off-Grid/distributed and decentralised
Renewable Power. The two on going schemes are:
®New National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme (NNBOMP), for Biogas
Plant size ranging from 1 m
3
to 25 m
3
per day.
®Biogas Power Generation (Off-grid) and Thermal energy application Programme
(BPGTP), for setting up biogas plants in the size range of 30 m
3
to 2500 m
3
per
day, for corresponding power generation capacity range of 3 kW to 250 kW
from biogas or raw biogas for thermal energy / cooling applications.
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility for small biogas plant installation under NNBOMP.
®Beneficiary should have their own land/ space about 50-60 m
2
area for installing
small biogas plant.
®Availability of cow dung/ feedstock’s & regular water supply.
®Financial capacity for investing their own share money for biogas.
7. CSR and other sources
8. Other support: MoPNG provides support for CBG projects under SATAT in the form
of assured offtake of CBG @Rs 46/kg (from the period of 1.10.2018 to 31.3.2029) +
applicable taxes by OMCs/GMCs
18
.
Gaushalas can also be supported by adding them into the eligible entity under Capital
Investment Subsidy Scheme for Vegetable and Fruit Market Waste compost, and
16 https://swachhbharatmission.gov.in/SBMCMS/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/brochure/gobardhan.pdf
17 https://biogas.mnre.gov.in/about-the-programmes
18 https://satat.co.in/satat/ 39The Task Force Report
Biofertilisers – Biopesticides Production Units under National Project on Organic
Farming, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India, Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development (AHIDF) and
Dairy processing & Infrastructure Development Fund (DIDF). Also, loans and market
assistance can also be routed through various schemes of Ministry of Micro, Small &
Medium Enterprises. 41The Task Force Report
Assessment of the
Existing Standards of
Organic and Biofertilisers
6
As per Clause 2, sub-clause (aa) of Fertiliser Control Order (FCO), 2006 “Biofertiliser are the
product containing carrier base (solid or liquid) living microorganisms which are agriculturally
useful in terms of nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilisation or nutrient mobilization, to
increase the productivity of the soil and/ or crop”. As per Clause 2, sub-clause (00) of FCO
“Organic Fertilisers are substances made up of one or more unprocessed material(s) of a
biological nature (plant/animal) and may include unprocessed mineral materials that have
been altered through microbiological decomposition process”.
Biofertilisers included in the FCO are:
1. Rhizobium
2. Azotobacter
3. Azospirillum
4. Phosphate Solubilising Bacteria
5. Mycorrhizal Biofertilisers
6. Potassium Mobilising Biofertilisers (KMB)
7. Zinc Solubilising Biofertilisers (ZSB)
8. Acetobacter
9. Carrier based consortia (mixture of any 2 or maximum three microorganisms viz.
Rhizobium or Azotobacter or Azospirillum)
10. Liquid Consortia
11. Phosphate solubilizing fungal Biofertiliser
Specification for various Biofertilisers are given in the Part-A of FCO, 1985 under Schedule III
(Clause 2(h) & (q)].
Organic fertilisers included in the FCO are:
1. City Compost
2. Vermicompost
3. Phosphate Rich Organic Manure (PROM)
4. Organic Manure
5. Bio-enriched Organic Manure
6. Bone meal, raw 42The Task Force Report
7. Bone meal, steamed
8. Potash derived from Rhodophytes
9. Fermented Organic Manure
10. Liquid Fermented Organic Manure
Specification for various Organic fertilisers are given in the Part-A of FCO, 1985 under Schedule
IV (Clause 2(h) & (q)].
Notified Bio and Organic Fertiliser Testing Laboratories
As per clause 2a, sub-clause (1) (1A) & (1B) samples of biofertilisers and organic fertilisers are
tested in following laboratories
1. Regional Centre for Organic and Natural Farming (RCONF), Hapur Road, Near CBI
Academy, Ghaziabad
2. Regional Centre for Organic and Natural Farming, Bengaluru
3. Regional Centre for Organic and Natural Farming, Bhubaneswar
4. Regional Centre for Organic and Natural Farming, Imphal
5. Regional Centre for Organic and Natural Farming, Nagpur
6. Or other notified state Laboratories
Changes required in expanding the scope of FCO, 1985
1. The FCO does not list some of the organic and bio fertilisers prepared from
livestock waste. NITI Aayog conducted a series of stakeholder consultations (which
involved gaushalas, scientists, farmers, Central and State Government officials, dairy
cooperatives and ministries among others) in which following products were deemed
necessary for inclusion in the FCO under relevant categories:
i. Panchagavya
ii. Dasagavya
iii. Sheep and Goat Manure
iv. Poultry Manure
v. Sanjivak
vi. Gokripa Amrut
vii. Amrit Pani
viii. Fermented curd water
ix. Ghanjivamrut
x. Crystallised cow urine
2. In India, Natural farming is promoted as Bharatiya Prakritik Krishi Paddhati Programme
(BPKP) under the centrally sponsored scheme- Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana 43The Task Force Report
(PKVY). Above–mentioned natural farming inputs should be considered for inclusion
in FCO.
3. The manufacturers of organic fertilisers especially PROM, raised concerns regarding
the lack of testing facilities in States which has slowed their marketing prospects.
manufacturers of organic required support to timely test and label PROM products
for agricultural use.
4. The information related to quality certification of Biofertiliser and Organic fertiliser
may be incorporated in the labelling of final products. Special hallmark can be
incorporated to certified organic and bio fertilisers. This exercise of certification may
be undertaken by the Government through third party vendor and would help the
farmers in identifying the safe and certified products. 45The Task Force Report
Recommendations and
Way Forward
7
1. Cow dung is the major produce of Gaushala. It faces several challenges in realizing
its economic value. Gaushalas should be help through capacity development and
other means to generate income from gobar. This should include proper processing
of gobar using biogas plants, value addition, marketing and certification of the cow
dung based organic as well as bio fertilisers.
2. Heavy subsidy on inorganic fertilisers especially on urea discourages use of organic
sources of nutrients, which do not get any subsidy. There is a need for some parity in
support for chemical fertilisers vis-a-vis organic and cow dung and cow urine based
compost, manures, jivamrit, ghanjivamrit and other organic fertiliser formulations. This
will help gaushalas to earn sizeable income from cow dung and cow urine.
3. Gaushalas themselves lack capacity to market compost and other organic fertiliser
produced by them and there is no organised market and buyer for their produce.
Public sector fertiliser distribution agencies like IFFCO, KRIBHCO and such state
level agencies should be mandated to market standardised organic and biofertiliser
produced by Gaushalas.
4. India’s soils are getting depleted of organic matter. If application of organic manure
and such other sources to soil is not increased, the country will face serious
sustainability challenges. Nutrition quality of food produced from the soil poor in
organic matter is also poor. Promoting use of cow dung manure will go a long way to
improve economy of gaushalas, support natural farming and improve sustainability of
agriculture. Therefore, cow dung and cow urine should be encouraged to be applied
as plant nutrient supplement in farming. Also, innovative mechanism need to be put
in place to mandate fertiliser selling and manufacturing agencies to sell inorganic and
organic fertiliser in some ratio.
5. A trend has started to use agri biomass which is generally wasted, like paddy straw
and stubble (parali), for producing compressed bio gas (CBG) using the method of
anaerobic digestion. This process produces much better output when animal dung
is mixed with plant biomass. Adding 20 per cent gobar to the biomass gives best
result. A new scheme, like Sustainable Alternative towards Affordable Transportation
(SATAT) and Galvanizing Organic Bio-Agro Resources (GOBARdhan) schemes should
be launched in Central sector under the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Animal
Husbandry to use agri bio-waste and cattle waste available with gaushalas to produce
CBG and organic manure from the slurry left after producing CBG. Special incentive to
procure gas from such plants should be made and linked with payment of reasonable
price to gaushalas for the cattle manure. 46The Task Force Report
6. Interested gaushalas should be helped through capital assistance and marketing of
cow dung and cow urine-based formulations for application in agriculture. This will
require some viability gap funding. NITI Aayog at the request of the Taskforce got a
study done from National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) to prepare
technical parameters and estimates of investments and benefits and costs of possible
economic activities by gaushalas. The study shows that in gaushalas, the two major
components of variable costs are feed and fodder, which constitute over 91 percent
of the variable expenses. Among the fixed cost components, land constitutes the
dominant expense (if not received through donations) and its share is 99 percent. In
sum, the total cost of running a gaushala of 1,000 cows works out to be Rs. 1,18,182
per day including land, while without land it is around Rs. 82,475. The survey shows
that the income from the sale of products from gaushalas contributes only 30 percent
share, while the rest is contributed by the combined receipts from donations, grants,
and miscellaneous sources. The total income per day for a unit of 1,000 cows is only
Rs. 50,074. This leaves large revenue gaps and renders Gaushalas economically non-
viable.
To cover the revenue gap, gaushalas may be helped to make biogas and value-added
products like vermi-compost, phosphate-rich organic manure (PROM), bio-fertilisers,
bio-pesticides, and other products. Potential partners in the private sector, such as
large corporations, non-profits, and philanthropic organizations can provide financial
and other support to gaushalas (especially power and fertiliser companies).
7. Some Gaushalas are not able to use public land provided to them by the government
for Biogas/Organic fertilizer/Bioenergy etc due to conditions of land use. Provision
should be made to alter the land use system for adopting various enterprise models
by Gaushalas even via Public- Private Partnership (PPP). The facilities shall be audited
by registered Auditors to ensure the fulfilment of the guidelines for livestock’s health
(space, food source, vaccination etc.) as defined by Animal Welfare Board.
8. Total capital cost of bio-CNG plant (25 tonne/day) is about Rs. 2.1 crores and, the total
operating cost plus the cost of procuring cow dung from gaushalas is approximately
Rs 1.51 crore per annum. The gross annual income from the plant (income from biogas
+ income from PROM) works out to be Rs. 1.78 crore. While this may recover the
operating costs, the recovery of fixed costs will take several years and is contingent
on the demand for biogas and PROM, which is currently very low. Special efforts are
required to increase awareness campaigns to popularise these products and tie up
with sales and marketing networks.
9. A portal should be created like Darpan portal of NITI Aayog for online registration of
all Gaushalas. These registered Gaushala will be eligible to get support from animal
welfare board. Animal welfare board may open Pradhan Mantri Pashu Aushadhi
Kendra in these Gaushala to address gaps in the health sector. Also, NDDB may
support gaushalas in marketing of dairy products and sprovision of feed, fodder and
ethno-veterinary practices.
10. The standards prescribed for cow dung based organic fertilisers in the Fertiliser
Control Order of the GoI should be revisited for wider inclusion of cow dung and 47The Task Force Report
cow urine–based products. Existing testing facilities for organic fertiliser including
recommendations thereof should be extended to all existing and new formulations
of products based on cow dung.
11. Specific policy measures and support is required to encourage the commercial
production, packaging, marketing & distribution of cow dung based organic fertilisers
including brand development. Private sector should be attracted to invest in mass
scale production of organic and bio fertiliser, bio pesticides, soil enriching products,
and stimulants for use in agriculture and various types formulations for use in
households.
12. Goal of promoting natural farming in the country should be integrated with cow
economy and the products viz. Jivamrit, Neemastra, Brahmastra, Dashparni ark etc.
should be encouraged in farming practices.
13. Public sector institutions and parastatals should be mandated to market organic and
bio fertilisers produced by Gaushalas. They should also be encouraged to set up cow
dung based organic fertilisers plants.
14. The cow dung based organic fertilisers (in the farm fertiliser mix) would have a huge
impact in fulfilling the constitutional mandate under Article 48 (that the State shall
...,in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting
the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle) by turning our
indigenous cattle into productive assets.
15. Explore the possibility of integrating of the chemical fertilisers with cow dung based
organic fertilisers (similar to ethanol blending in petroleum concept).
16. Gaushalas should be liberally financed for making capital investments and working
expenses at concessional rates of interest. All grants should be linked to the number
of cows (more emphasis should be on dry, rescued or abandoned cattle).
17. Gaushalas should be helped to create additional sources of income by making
investments in Solar plants on its buildings and Solar trees in the land with Gaushalas.
18. Fertilizer Control Order should be reformed as under:
i. It has been observed that a regulatory process for Bio and Organic fertilisers
differs from State to State. There is a need for uniformity in regulatory process
accommodating state specificities across India for registration and marketing of
Bio and Organic fertilisers.
ii. Clause 7 and 8 of the FCO 1985 allows State Governments, by notification in
the Official Gazette, to exempt from the requirement of registration or grant of
authorization letter for any person selling fertiliser to farmers in such areas and
subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification. Dealers/retailers
marketing Organic fertiliser in small packaging, not weighing more than 5 kg (net)
and dealers/retailers having stock of Organic Fertiliser up to 50 ton at a given
time be exempted from obtaining a certificate of registration or authorization
letter under Fertiliser Control Order (FCO) 1985 by State Government.
iii. Licensing and registration requirement for sale of produce of Gaushalas should 48The Task Force Report
be simplified and harmonised across states to allow smooth marketing across
pan India. States should also respect test reports from accredited laboratories
in any State.
iv. Digitalisation of registration process and licensing procedure for manufacturing
organic and bio fertilisers.
19. Suitable Incentive/ Policy Intervention is essential to encourage production and
consumption of organic fertilisers as under:
i. Extension of subsidy/Market Development Assistance (MDA) for biofertiliser in
line with city compost – ` 1500/Ton which was provided till 30th September 2021.
ii. Mandatory 10-20% off-take of bio-fertiliser/organic manure/fertiliser by fertiliser
companies. Example: mandatory off-take of 2 bags of bio-fertiliser or one bag
of enriched Organic-fertiliser (PROM etc.) with one bag of urea.
iii. Gaushalas should be included in the beneficiary list of all the central sector
schemes related to dairying and animal husbandry, waste to wealth and
renewable energy like GOBARdhan, Sustainable Alternative towards Affordable
Transportation (SATAT), Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund
(AHIDF), Rashtriya Gokul Mission (RGM).
iv. Involvements of Gram Panchayat with gaushalas for establishing the bio gas,
BioCNG and organic fertiliser units with convergence of related central sector
programmes.
v. Gaushalas should be allotted or leased unused government land or gau char
bhumi (
गौ चर भूमी) free from all litigation or illegal possession for fodder cultivation.
20. Involvement of Gram Panchayat for providing support to Gaushalas for creation of
fodder bank through MNREGA scheme.
21. State Government’s should favourably consider promotion and use of products
developed from cattle wastes along with allocation of Pastures/Grazing lands for
Gaushalas.
22. Research and Development in efficient management of waste should be encouraged
in ICAR-State Agricultural Universities, Diary Research Institutes and other research
Institutions.
* * * www.niti.gov.in
PRODUCTION AND PROMOTION OF
ORGANIC AND BIO FERTILISERS WITH
SPECIAL FOCUS ON IMPROVING ECONOMIC
VIABILITY OF GAUSHALAS
The Task Force Report
March, 2023