ok, so how is a copyright violation 'not urgent'? Joeturner 05:39, 8 February 2013 (PST)

given that nobody has done anything to this page or removed the copyright violation since 2011, I have decided that the chances are that the text is not original and is not opensource. Some of the content appears without citation elsewhere in 2012, some appears to be replicated on http://nabard.org, though it is possible that the text originated from appropedia. The version available at http://mushroomaddiction.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/model-project-report-on-mushroom.html is from 2012, but is an expanded version and includes tables not in this text. It might itself not be the original, but suggests what we had at appropedia was not either.
I am no expert in any kind of mushroom cultivation, which is a shame because the content looks useful. I will attempt to find alternative opensource material we can use. Joeturner 05:58, 8 February 2013 (PST)