Bitte benutzen Sie diese Kennung, um auf die Ressource zu verweisen: http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-14002
Autor(en): Fendel, Veronika
Kranert, Martin
Maurer, Claudia
Garcés-Sánchez, Gabriela
Huang, Jingjing
Ramakrishna, Girija
Titel: The impact of using co-compost on resource management and resilience of smallholder agriculture in South India
Erscheinungsdatum: 2022
Dokumentart: Zeitschriftenartikel
Seiten: 16
Erschienen in: Environments 9 (2022), No. 143
URI: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-ds-140216
http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/14021
http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-14002
ISSN: 2076-3298
Zusammenfassung: Agriculture is the main source of income in India, with most farmers being smallholders and facing multiple challenges, such as climate change and land degradation. For the sustainable implementation of alternative circular approaches, it is important that agriculture benefits. To assess this, the impact of using co-compost (organic waste and black water consisting of feces and urine) was evaluated through surveys of 120 smallholder farmers in two case studies in South India. All 149 questions related to the overarching research question: what is the impact of using co-compost on closing loops in smallholder agriculture in terms of resource management and resilience. Secondary smallholder resources were found to be well managed and local networks and economies proved to be particularly effective in pandemics, reinforcing the potential for nutrient sources from urban areas. For most farmers, using co-compost improved yields (90%), soil (80%), plant health (93%) and, consequently, profits (67%), as well as water management (53%). Water management was significantly less of a problem for co-compost users (15%) than non-users (42%). In addition, the users of co-compost were able to save resources. Chemical fertilizer use was significantly reduced from 1.42 ± 2.1 to 0.9 ± 1.35 t (acre∙year)-1, with total savings ranging from 37 to 44%. Overall, 67% were able to reduce chemical fertilizer use and 25% were able to reduce chemical spray use. Additionally, 53% reduced water consumption by 30.3% ± 19.92%. The visible benefits could motivate others to try co-composting. The reservations of non-users were due to personal or societal aspects (25%). In addition, the desire of farmers to convert to organic farming and try alternative farming methods, such as using smart technologies, vermicomposting or co-compost, was high (43%) and was positively influenced by the profitable use of alternative circular concepts. Information dissemination was mainly promoted by advertising (60%) and demonstrations (27%), which influenced openness to alternative circular concepts and products. In conclusion, co-composting and co-recycling approaches have a positive impact on the resource management and resilience of smallholder agriculture and thus, contribute to achieving sustainability goals.
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:02 Fakultät Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften

Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Datei Beschreibung GrößeFormat 
environments-09-00143-v3.pdf1,97 MBAdobe PDFÖffnen/Anzeigen


Diese Ressource wurde unter folgender Copyright-Bestimmung veröffentlicht: Lizenz von Creative Commons Creative Commons