Stubble Management Explained: Keeping Crop Residue in the Field or Using It Elsewhere

Crop residue can be managed where it is produced or collected for use elsewhere. Those two choices explain the terms “in-situ” and “ex-situ” that appear repeatedly in reports about preventing paddy-stubble burning. Both approaches depend on arrangements that work within a farmer’s harvesting and planting schedule.

The distinction gained renewed relevance on October 10, when the Commission for Air Quality Management reviewed preparations in Amritsar and Tarn Taran. The commission emphasised timely access to machinery and coordination between farmers, aggregators and industrial users. Its announcement described preparedness and field visits, rather than proving that the season’s burning had already been eliminated.

In-situ: manage material in the same field

A February 2026 government backgrounder describes in-situ management as incorporating residue into the soil or using it as mulch. The material remains part of the field’s management instead of being collected for an outside destination. Crop residues include the stalks, straw and stubble left after harvesting.

The same backgrounder links burning with nutrient losses, damage to soil health and greenhouse-gas emissions. Reusing residues can support productive uses of biomass, which is organic material derived from plants and animals. The precise method still needs to suit the crop and local farming conditions.

Ex-situ: collect material for another use

Ex-situ management moves residues into another process, such as composting, biogas or bioenergy production. Collection is one stage of that process. The material needs a destination where it can actually be used, which makes buyers, transport and handling part of the solution.

In the October 10 review, Amritsar officials described balers collecting paddy straw and links with industries using straw bales in boilers. They also reported a control room and help desk for farmers needing machinery. These examples show the two practical tasks: arranging field operations and connecting collected straw with users.

Why shared machinery matters

The machinery-access approach has a longer policy history. A Cabinet decision in March 2018 approved support for in-situ equipment and machinery banks for custom hiring in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. It included farmer organisations, cooperatives and other groups, alongside support for individual equipment purchases.

The 2018 scheme also provided for demonstrations, training and local selection of equipment suited to farming systems. Those historical provisions help explain why current reviews discuss both machines and farmer support. They should not be treated as a statement of today’s subsidy eligibility or rates; current programme terms need separate checking.

Questions that reveal whether a plan can work

For an in-field arrangement, the useful questions are whether suitable equipment and an operator can arrive when needed. For an off-field arrangement, add who will collect the straw, where it will go and how the costs are shared. A machine count alone cannot answer all of those questions.

The October review illustrates why preventing burning requires an operating chain. Equipment, timing, local assistance and a usable destination for collected material must fit together for farmers to have a practical alternative.

Sources: CAQM: October 10 field review; PIB: circular agriculture backgrounder; Cabinet: 2018 machinery scheme.