OrganicFertilizer TypeProductionandEnivronmentalImpact

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274896698
Organic Fertilizers: Types, Production and

Environmental Impact
Book · July 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 5,793
1 author:
Rajeev Pratap Singh

Banaras Hindu University
65 PUBLICATIONS 1,824 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Agricultural utilization of MSW vermicompost: appraisal of potential effect on plant growth and soil
health View project
The metagenomics of organic waste vermicompost View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rajeev Pratap Singh on 31 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Complimentary Contributor Copy
AGRICULTURE ISSUES AND POLICIES
ORGANIC FERTILIZERS
TYPES, PRODUCTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the Series tab.
Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the e-book tab.

ORGANIC FERTILIZERS
TYPES, PRODUCTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
RAJEEV PRATAP SINGH

EDITOR
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

New York

Copyright © 2012 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‟ use of, or
reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated
and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Organic fertilizers : types, production and environmental impact / editor: Rajeev Pratap Singh.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN: (eBook)
1. Organic fertilizers. I. Singh, Rajeev Pratap.
S654.O725 2012
631.8'6--dc23
2012010687
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

CONTENTS
Foreword A vii
Madhoolika Agrawal
Foreword B ix
Rajiv K. Sinha
Preface xi
Chapter 1 Effects of Organic Inputs in Urban Agriculture and their
Optimization for Poverty Alleviation in Senegal, West-Africa 1
Saliou Niassy and Karamoko Diarra
Chapter 2 Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Biological Parameters
Influencing Soil Quality and Productivity 23
R. Dinesh, V. Srinivasan, A. N. Ganeshamuthry and S. Hamza
Chapter 3 Replenishing Soil Organic Matter with Organic Fertilisers 47
György Füleky and Szilveszter Benedek
Chapter 4 Environmental Impacts of Organic Fertilizers Usage in Agriculture 63
P. S. Chauhan, A. Singh, R. P. Singh and M. H. Ibrahim
Chapter 5 Role of Various Vermicomposting Parameters in Green
Sustainable Approach 85
Richa Kothari, Sarita Verma and V. V. Tyagi
Chapter 6 Valorization of Organic Wastes as Fertilizer: Environmental
Concerns of Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Technologies 97
Carla Lopes, Marta Herva, Carlos García-Diéguez
and Enrique Roca
Chapter 7 Using Organic Fertilizers to Grow Asparagus and
Half High Blueberries 137
P. R. Warman and S. X. Margarit

vi Contents
Chapter 8 A Prospectus for Bio-Organic Fertilizer Based on Microorganisms:

Recent and Future Research in Agricultural Ecosystem 149
Yonghong Wu and Linzhang Yang
Chapter 9 Earthworms Vermicompost: A Nutritive Biofertilizer and Powerful
Biopesticide for Promoting Organic Farming while Protecting
Farm Soils and Mitigating Global Warming 163
Rajiv K. Sinha, Dalsukh Valani, Krunal Chauhan, Brijal K. Soni
and Sunita Agarwal
Chapter 10 The Status of Organic Fertilizer in Malaysia: For Earth‟s Sake 207
Hasnah Md. Jais
Chapter 11 Organic Fertilizers and Their Impact on Agricultural
Production System 217
Jay Prakash Verma and Rajhans Verma
Chapter 12 Wheat Production under Chemical and Organic Amendment System 233
Surendra Suthar and Mohd Kadir
Chapter 13 Organic Fertilizers in Forestry: A Green Technology for
Restoration of Mine Spoils 249
Anuj Kumar Singh and Jamaluddin
Index 261

Foreword A
Madhoolika Agrawal
It gives me enormous pleasure in writing the Foreword of this book edited by Dr R. P.

Singh. As the world population is increasing day by day, there is increasing pressure on
farmers as well as agricultural land to produce more and more to meet the demand. Food
security is an issue of great and growing concern worldwide. Fertilizers play a very
significant role in sustaining the soil fertility as well as increasing the yield of plant. It plays a
very significant role in meeting the growing food demand. As a result of green revolution soil
organic matter of all regions of world is exhausted owing to aggressive use of chemical
agriculture and different agricultural practices. Prolong use of inorganic fertiliser i.e. chemical
fertiliser‟s results in different types of environmental problems such as soil degradation,
contamination of ground water as well as nearby water body etc. Nowadays interest in
organic farming practices are growing worldwide as sustainable agricultural practices. Only
Organic farming can restore the natural fertility of the damaged soil by increasing its soil
organic matter and it also improve crop productivity to feed the growing population. Use of
Organic Fertilizers is increasing all over world.
The book is a very valuable compilation. Government of different countries worldwide
are also encouraging recycling and effective use of „agricultural wastes‟ and other biomass in
farming. I congratulate Dr Singh and the NOVA Science Publishers, USA for bringing such a
progressive volume.
Professor Madhoolika Agrawal

Department Of Botany
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi, India

Foreword B
Rajiv K. Sinha
It gives me immense pleasure in writing the Foreword of this book edited by Dr. Rajeev
Pratap. This is a very important publication at a time when a movement and a revolution on
ORGANIC FARMING is going on throughout the world to develop a sustainable alternative
to the destructive CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE which proved to be a „curse in disguise‟ for
the people and the farmers. It raised food productivity at the cost of the health of environment
and society and also threatened the „food security‟ as the cost of the agrochemicals have been
growing exponentially and much higher doses have to be used than earlier days to maintain
the yield and productivity. Organic Fertilizers developed through modern biotechnological
researches are much more efficient than before and have potentials to replace or significantly
reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.
The book is a valuable compilation. Going through the various chapters all authors
believes that agrochemicals have done great harm to the farm soil and the agricultural
ecosystem. Soil organic matter (SOM) of all regions of world in Europe, America, Africa,
Asia & Australia is depleted due to aggressive chemical agriculture (high tillage & use of
agrochemicals) in the wake of green revolution. Only ORGANIC FERTILIZERS can restore
the natural fertility of the damaged soil by increasing its SOM and also improve crop
productivity to feed the growing population. Use of Organic Fertilizers is increasing all over
world. Govt.is also encouraging recycling and effective use of ‟agricultural wastes‟ and other
biomass in farming. This year in April 2011 Australia organised a special International
Symposium on ‟Organic Matter Management & Compost Use in Horticulture‟ at Adelaide.
Apprehensions that ORGANIC FERTILIZER as COMPOSTS made from ORGANIC
WASTES may contain TOXIC substances and PATHOGENS which may pass into the
human food chain when used in farms is well founded. The CONVENTIONAL
MICROBIAL COMPOSTING SYSTEMS cannot remove them. But the
VERMICOMPOSTING system by waste eater EARTHWORMS can provide a completely
DISINFECTED & DETOXIFIED VERMICOMPOST free of all chemicals & pathogens.
Earthworms bio-accumulate & biodegrade all the toxic substances & kills pathogens in the
medium in which it inhabits. Vermicompost is also 5-7 times more powerful than other bulky
organic fertilizers and can give farm yield significantly higher (20-40 %) over chemical
fertilizers. The view of some authors that use of vermicompost & other organic fertilizers
gives good results after some years of use have some scientific reasons. The physical,
chemical & the biological properties of soil have been badly damaged by years of use of
agrochemicals and it takes some time to restore their natural fertility.

x Foreword B
Another significant aspect of vermicompost is that it also acts as a BIOPESTICIDE

repelling PESTS & suppressing DISEASES. There is significant reduction in the incidence of
pests & diseases on crops applied by vermicompost. All composts show this property but
vermicompost is much more powerful as it contains those „protective microbes‟ (killer
bacteria & fungus) in billions & trillions secreted by the earthworms. Earthworm selectively
kills all pathogenic microbes and promotes the beneficial ones in the soil.
The chapter dwelling on „Anaerobic Digestion‟ of organic wastes to produce Organic
Fertilizers makes very good sense economically & environmentally. It is like „killing three
birds in one shot‟ - salvaging waste more sustainably (diverting from costly landfills &
incineration plants) while producing two valuable products „bio-fuel‟ (methane) & „bio-
fertilizer‟ (digestate). In all other waste management systems (composting, incineration or
landfills) methane escapes as „greenhouse gas‟ inducing global warming. If the „digestate‟ is
further vermi-processed by earthworms the resulting product (vermicompost) will still be
very nutritive organic fertilizer for farms.
In all vermicomposting system, „EARTHWORM BIOMASS‟ comes as a valuable
byproduct which are finding new applications in feed, lubricant, detergent and pharmaceutical
industries produced from the „rich proteins‟ & „bioactive compounds‟ found in them. They
are soon going to provide some „life-saving medicines‟ to the civilization.
Another very important issue today is that global chemical agriculture emits nearly 33 %
of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) inducing „global warming‟. Significantly use of
all composts but more of vermicompost (with more stable carbons in humus) in farms
„sequesters‟ large amount of „atmospheric carbon‟ and bury them back into the soil as SOC
(soil organic carbon) improving soil fertility and also „mitigating global warming‟.
I have discussed several of these aspects of vermiculture in my chapter „Earthworms
Vermicompost: A Nutritive Biofertilizer and Powerful Biopesticide for Promoting Organic
Farming While Protecting Farm Soils & Mitigating Global Warming‟ that I have contributed
for this informative book being edited by Dr. Pratap. I congratulate him and the NOVA
Science Publishers, USA for bringing such enlightened volume.
Dr. Rajiv K. Sinha

Senior Lecturer, Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia
Rajiv.Sinha@griffith.edu.au

PREFACE
At a time when a revolution on organic farming is going on throughout the world to

search a sustainable alternative to the destructive chemical fertilizer, which proved to be a
„curse in disguise‟ for the people and the farmers this book is a very important publication.
Chemical fertilizers raised food productivity at the cost of the health of environment and
society and also threatened the „food security‟ as the cost of the agrochemicals have been
growing exponentially and much higher doses have to be used than earlier days to maintain
the yield and productivity. Organic fertilizers developed through modern biotechnological
researches are much more efficient than before and have potentials to replace or significantly
reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.
Chapter 1 - “Effects of organic inputs in urban agriculture and their optimization for
poverty alleviation in Senegal, West-Africa” by Saliou Niassy and Karamoko Diarra from
Africa gives a very informative report on how the application of „Organic Fertilizers‟ can
reduce „Soil Salinity‟ and improve crop yields. They have also cautioned that some Organic
Fertilizers can be loaded in heavy metals, plant parasitic nematodes, worms and opportunistic
pathogens which can pass into the „human food-chain‟ exposing consumers to high health
risks. The chapter highlights the value of organic fertilizers in soil remediation and
amelioration but they have to be „disinfected‟ and „detoxified‟ before use.
Chapter 2 –“Effect of organic fertilizers on biological parameters influencing soil quality
and productivity” by R. Dinesh and others from India confirms that Organic Fertilizers can
help in counteracting the progressive loss in soil organic matter (SOM) caused by chemical
agriculture and also improve the physico-chemical, biochemical and microbiological
properties thus positively influencing soil quality and plant productivity.
Chapter 3 - “Replenishing soil organic matter (SOM) with organic fertilizers” by György
Füleky and Szilveszter Benedek from Hungary reveals that most European soils have low soil
organic matter (SOM) content and only Organic Fertilisers can increase SOM of soils. SOM
is important for soil fertility, release of nutrients and allowing better retention and availability
to plant roots. They have also discussed about various types of Organic Fertilizers and their
value in farm production.
Chapter 4 - The chapter “Environmental Impacts of Organic Fertilizers Usage in
Agriculture” by P. S. Chauhan and others emphasizes for use of Organic Fertilizer along with
some Inorganic Fertilizers to maintain the Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) Systems in
soil. However, they believe that Organic Fertilizers provide a broad range of nutrients and

xii Rajeev Pratap Singh
beneficial soil microbes that are helpful in maintaining the soil health and promoting plant
growth.
Chapter 5 - “Role of vermicompost and various vermicomposting parameters in green
sustainable approach to organic farming” by Richa Kothari and others presents a strong
scientific evidence for „earthworms vermicompost‟ as the world‟s best Organic Fertilizer to
promote Sustainable Agriculture and Organic Farming. They believe that earthworms
processed wastes gives better end products than other composting systems completely free of
any toxic chemicals or pathogens and that vermicomposting technology is the need of present
world to minimize environmental pollution.
Chapter 6 – “Valorization of organic wastes as bio-fertilizers and bio-fuels by
composting and anaerobic digestion technologies and their environmental concerns” by
Carla Lopes and others from Spain gives a good account of production of Organic Fertilizers
from organic wastes by various Composting Systems and Anaerobic Digestion and emphasize
that the AD system has several economic and environmental advantages over the waste
composting systems. It can recover both – „bio-fertilizer‟ and „bio-fuel‟ from wastes.
Chapter 7 - „Using organic fertilizers to grow asparagus and half-high blueberries‟ by P.
R. Warman and S.X. Margarit from Canada is a disappointing report about the use of some
Organic Fertilizers (composts, compost teas, blood meal, soybean meal, and ground rock
phosphate) on „Asparagus‟ and „Blueberries‟. Composts were made from MSW, dung and
biosolids (sewage sludge). There must be some serious errors in the doses and application of
those Organic Fertilizers. My own experience with all composts has always been positive on
all crops. Biosolids contain high loads of heavy metals and pathogens. That might be another
reason. My studies show that if processed by earthworms the end product is highly nutritive
compost free of all pathogens and chemicals.
Chapter 8 – “A prospectus for bio-organic fertilizer based on microorganisms: recent
and future research in agricultural ecosystem” by Yonghong Wu and Linzhang Yang from
China focuses on a new „Bio-Organic Fertilizer‟ based on microorganisms (BFM) and claims
to be superior than other Organic Fertilizers and can also prevent non-point source pollution
to farm soils that may be caused by composts prepared from wastes contaminated by
inorganic and organic chemicals.
Chapter 9 - “Earthworms Vermicompost: A Nutritive Biofertilizer and Powerful
Biopesticide for Promoting Organic Farming” by Rajiv Sinha and others have discussed
several aspects of vermiculture. According to them vermicompost are scientifically proving to
be a „miracle plant growth promoter and protector‟ rich in NKP, micronutrients, beneficial
soil microbes. According to Rajiv Sinha and others earthworm and its vermicompost can also
„restore damaged soils‟, „promote high food productivity‟ while also improve „soil fertility‟
and „disease-suppressive‟ properties of soils.
Chapter 10 - “The status of use of organic fertilizer in Malaysia: The initiative of
Malayasian government in promoting organic farming” by Hasnah Md. Jais from Malayasia
highlights the status of use of Organic Fertilizers in Malayasia which at present is low but
destined to increase significantly as the Ministry of Agriculture is actively promoting Organic
Farming through their programs of certification under the Standard Organic Malaysia.
Chapter 11 - “Organic fertilizers and their impact on agricultural production system” by
Jay Prakash Verma and Rajhans Verma reveal about some new plant and animal byproducts
or leftover organic waste from primary industry such as „fish emulsion‟, „blood and bone
meal‟, „cottonseed and corn meal‟ as Organic Fertilizers. They also believe that Organic

Preface xiii
Fertilizers interact very positively with Inorganic Fertilizers allowing better and greater
utilization of „nutrients‟ by crops.
Chapter 12 - “Wheat production under chemical and organic amendment system” by
Surendra Suthar and Mohd Kadir gives a very good comparative account of wheat production
under chemical and organic farming systems. In the initial years the production of wheat by
organic fertilizers were low but after 6-7 years it gave better yield than those farms which
have been using agrochemicals for over 40 years.
Chapter 13 - “Organic fertilizers in forestry: A green technology for restoration of mine
spoils.” by Anuj K Singh and Jammaluddin discussed about the problems arising from
mining activities. According to them, mining activity results in loss of essential soil nutrients,
organic matters and microbial population. For restoration of mined out land , it is essential to
establish biodiversity restoration potential of individual plantation species and of
combinations thereof by applying microbial inoculants in combination with mulches and
other suitable amendments. According to Anuj K Singh and Jammaluddin recommends the
application of organic wastes and sewage sludge for soil organic matter development on mine
spoils. Adoption of such a green technology comprised of application of microbial
biofertilizers, organic mulches and organic wastes will definitely provide an environmentally
sustainable approach for restoration of degraded lands without causing any environmental
damage.
The book is a very valuable compilation. Going through the various chapters all authors
believes that agrochemicals have done great harm to the farm soil and the agricultural
ecosystem. Soil organic matter (SOM) of all regions of world in Europe, America, Africa,
Asia and Australia is depleted due to aggressive chemical agriculture (high tillage and use of
agrochemicals) in the wake of green revolution. Only organic fertilizers can restore the
natural fertility of the damaged soil by increasing its SOM and also improve crop productivity
to feed the growing population. Use of Organic Fertilizers is increasing all over world.
Government is also encouraging recycling and effective use of ‟agricultural wastes‟ and other
biomass in farming.
Apprehensions that organic fertilizer as composts made from organic wastes may contain
toxic substances and pathogens which may pass into the human food chain when used in
farms is well founded. The conventional microbial composting systems cannot remove them.
But the vermi-composting system by waste eater earthworms can provide a completely
disinfected and detoxified vermicompost free of all chemicals and pathogens. Earthworms
bio-accumulate and biodegrade all the toxic substances and kills pathogens in the medium in
which it inhabits. Moreover, in the „Thermophilic Composting‟ systems some „beneficial soil
microbes‟ are killed. Vermicompost is also 5-7 times more powerful than other bulky organic
fertilizers and can give farm yield significantly higher (20-40 %) over chemical fertilizers.
The view of some authors that use of vermicompost and other organic fertilizers gives good
results after some years of use have some scientific reasons. The physical, chemical and the
biological properties of soil have been badly damaged by years of use of agrochemicals and it
takes some time to restore their natural fertility.
Another significant aspect of vermicompost is that it also acts as a biopesticide repelling
pests and suppressing diseases. There is significant reduction in the incidence of pests and
diseases on crops applied by vermicompost. All composts show this property but
vermicompost is much more powerful as it contains those „protective microbes‟ (killer
bacteria and fungus) in billions and trillions secreted by the earthworms. Earthworm

xiv Rajeev Pratap Singh
selectively kills all pathogenic microbes and promotes the beneficial ones in the soil. The
chapter dwelling on „Anaerobic Digestion‟ of organic wastes to produce Organic Fertilizers
makes very good sense economically and environmentally. It is like „killing three birds in one
shot‟- salvaging waste more sustainably (diverting from costly landfills and incineration
plants) while producing two valuable products „bio-fuel‟ (methane) and „bio-fertilizer‟
(digestate). In all other waste management systems (composting, incineration or landfills)
methane escapes as „greenhouse gas‟ inducing global warming. If the „digestate‟ is further
vermiprocessed by earthworms the resulting product (vermicompost) will still be very
nutritive organic fertilizer for farms.
In all vermicomposting system, „earthworm biomass‟ comes as a valuable byproduct
which are finding new applications in feed, lubricant, detergent and pharmaceutical industries
produced from the „rich proteins‟ and „bioactive compounds‟ found in them. They are soon
going to provide some „life-saving medicines‟ to the civilization.
Another very important issue today is that global chemical agriculture emits nearly 33 %
of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) inducing „global warming‟. Significantly use of
all composts but more of vermicompost (with more stable carbons in humus) in farms
„sequesters‟ large amount of „atmospheric carbon‟ and bury them back into the soil as SOC
(soil organic carbon) improving soil fertility and also „mitigating global warming‟. The
present book deals with various types of organic fertilizer, its production and its impact on
plant, human being and also the environment.

In: Organic Fertilizers ISBN: 978-1-62081-422-2
Editor: Rajeev Pratap Singh © 2012 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
EFFECTS OF ORGANIC INPUTS IN URBAN

AGRICULTURE AND THEIR OPTIMIZATION FOR
POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN SENEGAL, WEST-AFRICA
Saliou Niassy and Karamoko Diarra*

Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences and Applied Sciences,
Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper was to review the impact of the use of organic manures in
urban agricultural system during a multidisciplinary project conducted in Senegal.
Organic manures and wastewater, which are used to boost soil fertility and productivity
in the Niayes, are characterized by high content in plant nutrient. Such cultural practices
are influenced however by many factors: Niayes agroecosystem is affected by the
incursion of marine water in the ground water that causes subsequent increases in salinity
and poor yield which affect also farmers’ income. To circumvent these constraints,
farmers apply organic manures such as livestock and poultry droppings and groundnut
hulls to balance the salinity and improve yields. Most farmers rely on these types of
manures because they are cheap and enhance soil fertility.
Moreover, we demonstrated that the use of some organic fertilizers can reduce plant
susceptibility to pests. Some organic fertilizers were found to induce fruit shelf life and
therefore allowing market gardeners to sell their vegetables for longer periods in the
market.
On the other hand, there are some other aspects that need to be taken into
consideration: organic fertilizers have adverse repercussions on groundwater and soil
chemistry. Organic fertilizers are loaded in heavy metals, plant parasitic nematodes,
worms and opportunistic pathogens exposing consumers to high health risks.
Considering all these facts, policies should be formulated to protect environmental
and public health. Although wastewater and organic manures increase farmers’ incomes
and contribute significantly to poverty alleviation in Africa, safety measures and political
resolutions should be implemented to prevent ill health. A sensitizing program should be
planned to alert all segments involved in urban agriculture and development.
*Corresponding author email: karamoko.diarra@ucad.edu.sn.

2 Saliou Niassy and Karamoko Diarra
Keywords: Organic fertilizers, urban agriculture, wastewater, health risk, environment

policies
I. INTRODUCTION
Senegal is a West African country in the drought-prone Sahel region. Agriculture
engages a large part of the active population. Urban agriculture in the valley of the Niayes in
Patte d’oie, which is an outlying district of the city of Dakar, has started in 1937. During
those days of colonial regime, this practice became more and more famous after the migration
of the rural populations in the outskirts of major capital cities like Dakar and Bamako due to
lengthy droughts [3, 4].
However, urban agriculture is strongly dependent on climate, especially rainfalls, which
in the Sahel greatly fluctuates reaching up to 500 mm/year. Because of population growth and
land constraints, cities lack adequate wide arable surfaces and clean water has become now a
major problem in the cities [5, 6]. In addition to that urban agricultural farmers were facing
natural issues which include soil salinity due to ground water seepage. In fact, the Niayes
agrozone is located in the coastal area of Senegal. This situation allows the salty water to mix
with borehole water. Therefore, limitations in the excessive use of fresh water tend to
endanger the horticultural activity [5, 7-9]. Hence, farmers rely on organic inputs such as
manures from livestock, poultry and fish [10, 11]. These products are highly valued as they
are easily accessible to growers and are most of the time cheap. Wastewater used in urban
agriculture has high content in organic matter, in addition to impact on the productivity of
cultivated crops [6, 12].
The survey zones include natural ecosystems, where wastewater pipes from households
and old water refinement stations built during the colonial period [13]. Because of water
shortage, surface limitation and poverty, farmers divert these pipelines of waste water for
irrigation in combination with borehole water. As such, salinity and water shortages are also
lessened to some extent the same with organic manures [14]. The situation has been
magnified by erratic rainfall in the Sahel, which has upgraded wastewater as new water
resource for agriculture in many outskirts of major city [15-17].
It is undeniable that the use of wastewater constitutes a realistic alternative against
salinity and it also significantly contributes in sustaining humidity in the soil [6, 15, 18, 19].
The use of organic fertilizers and wastewater in urban agriculture has become a relevant tool
against pests of cultivated crops. The combination of organic fertilizer with other integrated
pest management (IPM) tools such as the use of resistant plant varieties can reduce pest and
disease damage below economical thresholds [20-24].
However, not all types of organic materials applied as fertilizers are safe for humans and
the environment since adverse effects of some organic inputs on the environment and human
health are reported [12, 25]. Organic inputs and wastewater significantly affect soil chemistry
[18]. Studies showed that organic manure and wastewater are potential sources of typhoid and
cholera [26-30]. Our objective in the present study was to investigate the impacts of organic
fertilizers in urban agriculture and its effects on the environment and public health.

Effects of Organic Inputs in Urban Agriculture and their Optimization … 3
II. STUDY AREA

The vegetation in the Niayes is Sahelian savanna type with predominantly grasses and
some rare species of shrubs.
Figure 1. Map of the Niayes in the coastal area of Dakar [13].
The type of soil is sandy and characterized by the temporary or permanent presence of water
in lowland alluvial valleys and along the coastline. These soils are suitable for horticulture
and other agricultural activities [13].
Farmers commonly use manures to grow vegetables lettuce and chemical fertilizers for
the other plants. The monthly average cost of fertilizer application is around USD 50 per plot
of 0.1 ha. For farmers who use wastewater, this input is around USD 25 [13]. According to
researchers and farmer’s testimonies, the use of wastewater reduces fertilizer demand and
supports good productivity of crops [3, 32].
III. THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIC MANUREs AND WASTEWATER USE

IN URBAN AGRICULTURE
1. Impacts of Organic Manures in Crop Productivity
Some constraints interfere with the success of horticultural activities. In that regard, some
inquiries were made in collaboration with farmers to ascertain major issues in crop
productivity the past decades. One of the major problems that local farmers face is the access
to bank loans and credits for production activities. The second problem is the alarming
decrease in soil productivity over the years and this has been reported by many studies [10,
33-37].

The sandy salty soil of the Niayes combined with the high demand of manure affect
directly the amount of input. Erratic rains, probably due to climate change, often disrupt or
cause water shortage in the middle of the crop production seasons. That causes a significant
and immediate raise in salinity [15]. Other problems are related to the importation of
horticultural products from abroad, even though the local production is sufficient for the
country. The agricultural industry suffers of poor mechanization, low quality of products and
the low level of education.
1.1. The Different Types of Organic Manures

Almost all farmers in Senegal use organic fertilizers or manures. They apply them
depending on the type of crop and the season [11, 38]. They often use ovine (sheep), horse,
poultry, peanut hull and cattle manure, used either alone or in combination (Fig. 2). Some
farmers also use fish manure for particular crops. Manure is generally applied before planting.
Most farmers know very little about processing organic manures (composting), therefore the
project organized few workshops to improve farmers knowledge [39, 40].
Figure 2. Rate of application of organic manure by farmers in the Niayes.
The selection of manures depends on the type of crop, the variety and the season. It also
depends on the chemistry of the soil, and the farmers’ previous experience and observations
[11]. Many studies have been conducted in the aim to examine the agronomic potential of
organic manure on diverse crop systems [10, 38, 41-46]. In order to improve farmers’ income
by increased crop productivity, comparison of different organic manures on the development
and outputs of tomato, lettuce, beetroot and sweet potato was carried out in the Niayes
(Figure 3).
Peanut hulls manure: Peanut hulls are used for the manufacturing of livestock feed. It is
known to improve productivity in terms of yield and thought to increase soil fertility. Peanut
hulls use to be available throughout the year; nowadays because of its intensive use in
livestock feed, this type of manure is no longer easy to find, and therefore it has become very
expensive.
Poultry manure: this manure is the most common type of manure because of the common
practice of poultry rearing in the surroundings. Although it is costly, its price is more
affordable than peanut hulls manure. It improves soil fertility and enhances the development
of the roots system and the vigor of the plants that make them less susceptible to diseases and
pest attacks. This manure mineralizes fast in soil and produces a lot of heat. Therefore, it is
not advisable to use it during warm seasons.

Horse dung manure: Horse dung manure is highly valued by farmers. It contributes to
increasing soil fertility, regeneration and maintenance of high quality yields. It averts the
negative effects of salinity. This manure improves the capacity of soil water retention. Horse
dung manure considerably increases crop yield and is long lasting in the soil. As it
rehabilitates the soil, this manure favours invasion of pest weeds. This manure is
recommended for crops like lettuce, tomato and mint.
a b
c d
Figure 3. Study site in Pikine, Dakar: Tomato (a), sweet potato (b), lettuce (c) and beetroot (d)
experimental plots.
Fish manure: it has a broad range of applications compared to the other manure types. It
is also scarce on the market. It enhances plant growth and development of vegetative parts
much faster than other manures. It improves plant resistance to pests such as nematodes and
bollworms, and quality of the fruits (coloration and rate of dry matter). One disadvantage of
this manure is that it promotes diseases during the rainy season. Fish manure is suitable for
crops like lettuce and onion.
Cattle and ovine manure: These manures are commonly used in urban agriculture. Their
effects on soil fertility and the development of plants are not as fast as fish or poultry manure,
but they preserve soil humidity. They are mostly used as starting inputs as they mineralize
slowly.
1.1.1. Content in Soluble Salts in the Organic Manures

The content in soluble salts was high, sometimes reaching 10 mmhos/cm3; the horse and
peanut manure had a threshold value of 4 mmhos / cm3, which is convenient for a tomato
crop. At the same time, the soil samples gave very low rates of total salt. These high rates of

soluble salts could explain the performances of control treatments (without manure) during
experiments.
1.2. Agronomic and Entomological Impacts of Manures
1.2.1. Effect on Plant health

On tomato
Early fructification: As the plant grows and the vigor increases, there is an additional
effect on fruit production. Tomato had the best yields ranging around 20 T/ha. Analysis of
results showed that of among the manures that we applied, horse manure performed better
(Table 1). The reason suggested on that effect was the manure has low and balanced
potassium content and conductivity as compared to other manures (Fig. 4).
Table 1. Agronomic impact of organic manures on the overall yield, damage (tones /ha)
of tomato in the Niayes
Yield Damage Helicoverpa

Manure No. insects/plant Bemisia tabaci
(T/ha) (T/ha) armigera
Control 34.5 10.6 4.0 3.3 11.0
Ovine 25.5 11.2 4.7 5.3 11.0
Horse 36.0 8.7 2.3 3.0 22.0
Fish 31.2 9.1 2.3 2.3 7.3
Poultry 36.2 12.0 3.3 3.7 3.7
Cattle 29.5 11.3 2.8 5.0 25.7
Peanut 34.2 11.9 3.1 3.3 15.0
Poultry and horse manure provided the highest yield; although pest attacks were high, damages were
lower as compared to the other manures. That gives an overview on the differences in performance
between the types of organic manures in urban agriculture.
Effects on sweet potato
Figure 4. Content in Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium of commonly used organic manures in Dakar,
Senegal.

Plant vigor at 2 months after planting: Data showed that horse manure performed best in
all the treatments.
Overall yield: Compared to other manures, the horse manure gave the highest yields.
Effect on lettuce
The vigor after 1 month: The control treatment, ovine and poultry manure gave the best
results; the lowest performance was recorded on fish manure (Fig. 5).
Figure 5. Effects of organic manures on plant vigor (boldness) of tomato, sweet potato and lettuce.
1.2.2. Effects on the Yield

Tomato
On tomato, horse and poultry manures performed better than the others. The application
of fish and cow manures did not result in higher yields. Although the vigor was higher with
the fish manure, the yield was low as compared to the horse treatment. This difference in
yield of 2 to 4 T/ha can be economically important to farmer’s especially during shortage of
vegetable of prices hiking (Fig. 6).
Sweet potato
The application of Horse manure seems to produce better yields however, poultry and
cattle manures performed fairly well as compared to the control (Fig. 6).
Lettuce
On lettuce, Poultry manure was the best manure. Fish and Peanut hull manures did not
perform well. The control treatment was better which means that those manures are not
recommended for lettuce. However, possibility of combination of those manures with other
manures should not be excluded in order to boost soil fertility and productivity (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Impact of organics manures on the yield (T/ha) of different vegetable crops in the Niayes.
1.2.3. Effect on Fruit Size and Dry Matter

Fruit Size of a (weight and caliber): The application of cattle manure, Horse and Poultry
manures induces the best fruit sizes compared to the other manures (Fish and Peanut hull),
with fruit sizes ranging around 100 grammes.
On tomato the Horse manure performed better than the others. This same manure seems
to have a positive impact on the productivity of lettuce and sweet potato. It enhances yield
and plant sturdiness. On the other hand, Ovine and cattle manures (which have high nitrogen
content) seems to enhance higher rates of dry matter on tomato fruits as the other manures
(Fig. 7).
Figure 7. Effects of commonly used organic manures on tomato fruit size (g) and dry matter in the
Niayes.
1.2.4. Survey of the Effect of Organic Manures on Beetroot

Only total yield was studied. Of all manure types applied, ovine and poultry manure
seems to give the highest yields (Fig. 8).
Studies showed that of all manures, fish manure had the highest content in N, P and K
(Fig. 4). Some manures had high content in soluble salts, sometimes 10 mmhos / cm3). Horse
and the peanut hulls manures had moderate content of salt (4 mmhos / cm3).

Figure 8. Effects of organic manures on the yield of beetroot.
Farmers described in detail the impact of the different manures on plant growth in the
Niayes, i.e. improvement of soil productivity, restoration of soil fertility, resistance against
pest attack and diseases, water retention capacity of soil, and lessening of salinity effects on
soil and irrigation. This has been reported in the literature [11, 41-43, 47].
The peanut hulls manure, considered the best fertilizer by most farmers, is not always
available. This manure is uncommon and is produced far away in the central basin in Senegal.
Besides, this manure is used for manufacturing livestock feeds [13]. The reason why this
manure is so valued is its moderate content in potassium; moreover, this type of manure plays
a major role in soil aeration and the improvement of soil capacity of water retention [48, 49].
On the other hand, the availability of Poultry manure and its relatively lower cost would be
related to the origin and this justifies the observed rate of application (51.2%).
From a chemical viewpoint, all manures contain at least a certain basic proportion of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) which is required for plant growth. Some
manures have more nitrogen and phosphorus (fish and poultry manure), others contain less
(Peanut hulls and ovine manure). This variability in chemical content explains the differences
for their applicability [19]. However, excessive use of some manures is likely to affect plant
foliage and reduces crop productivity [10, 50]. It is sometimes recommended to combine
different manures at lower doses [43]. In general, these different manures because of their
considerable contribution in providing mineral elements in soil (1–5% of nitrogen, 0.06–0.4%
of phosphorus, 0.5–1.3% of potassium), can play a significant role in cost reduction of crop
production, with a concomitant reduction in industrial inputs [46, 51, 52]. Besides, it has been
shown that organic manures can really reduce the effect of pest attack [11, 44, 53]. But their
overuse can be a source of water contamination, as we will demonstrate it further in this work
[30].
2. Agronomic Impact of Wastewater
The use of wastewater in agriculture started in some countries due to frequent droughts
[8, 16, 17]. Because of water constraints and other factors related to the excessive cost of tap
water, farmers specialized in this urban agriculture adopted the use of wastewater for
horticulture. Recent studies carried out in the outskirts of Dakar (Senegal), Accra (Ghana) and

Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) [9, 31, 54, 55] showed that use of this resource in agriculture is
unavoidable. Economically, the use of wastewater reduces water demand for irrigation as well
as the costs of organic and mineral inputs. Therefore, many farmers who apply this water
make more profit [3]. In this section, our aim is to look at the wastewater system and its
integration in urban agriculture.
2.1. Description of a Water Refining Station

Generally, water-refining stations cover a surface area of 0.5 ha and are composed of an
upstream primary refining tank, followed by a series of tanks. The first tank constitutes the
first step of refinement and functions like an anaerobic basin. The other small tanks are
optional refining systems with aquatic plants [[5].The one in Castor, Rufisque, for instance,
was constructed in 1994 and is refining water from 82 households that are connected in a
network system. The debit of wastewater from houses is estimated to be 75 m³ / day.
2.2. Agronomic Analyses

Two modes of irrigation are applied depending on crop susceptibility and yield quality
(contamination by pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals). A study of the agronomical effects
of wastewater by comparing two crop varieties, lettuce (Blonde de Paris) and tomato
(Mongal) was conducted. Irrigation modes and water quality were compared in four (4)
treatments: T1 (wastewater with fertilization); T2 (wastewater without fertilization); T3
ESDE - F (clean water with fertilization); T4 (tap water without fertilization) which was the
control treatment.
2.2.1. Interactions between the Treatments and the Agronomic Parameters

On tomato
The number of fruits was more important in the control plots than in the plots where
fertilizers were applied either with wastewater or tap water (p = 0.03). However, the nursery
plants irrigated with wastewater gave a spectacular, development as compared to the ones
irrigated with tap water. There was a total absence of plant disease. Unfortunately, this
exciting observation did not last, after one week, the percentage of plants missing plant for
increased exponentially over 50% in the plots with irrigated wastewater.
Plots irrigated with tap water, showed better features although no significant difference
were found.
The comparison of the dry matter did not reveal any significant differences between the
different treatments. In other words fruits harvested from the different treatments (wastewater
and tap water) had almost the same capacity of conservation (Shelf-life). On the other hand,
treatments had an important impact on the vegetative development (plant longevity at harvest)
(p = 0.02), the overall yield (p <0.0001), the corrected yield (p = 0.007) and on the fruit size
(p = 0.01) (Table 2). Therefore, plots treated with tap water gave better agronomic results.
When tap water was combined with fertilizer, the vegetative development resulted in better
flowering and fructification. The density of plants and the number of surviving plants during
harvest were more important in treatments with tap water as compared to treatments with
wastewater.

Table 2. Interactions between agronomic parameters on lettuce
Means of Irrigation Vigor 2

Blocs Treatments
variables mode months
% Missing plants after 1
22 NS NS NS NS
week
Number of plants at harvest 87.7 NS NS NS NS
Overall yield (tones/ha) 6.83 NS NS NS NS
Corrected yield (tones/ha) 7.41 NS NS NS NS
Bunch Average weight (g) 54.8 NS NS NS NS
Dry-matter (%) 6.71 NS NS HS NS
NS = not significant; HS = highly significant.
Effects on lettuce
There were no significant differences on yields, number of missing plants and number of
plants at harvest (Table 3). This means that, lettuce irrigated with wastewater without
fertilizer performs better than lettuce irrigated with tap water with fertilization. The analysis
of the results demonstrated that T1 and T2 have high dry matter rate than T3 and T4.
However, lettuce watered with wastewater had higher commercial value; a better shelf life
than lettuce treated with tap water.
Table 3. Interactions between agronomic parameters on tomato
Means of Irrigation Vigor 2

Blocs Treatments
variables mode months
% Missing plants after 1
41.4 NS NS NS HS
week
Number of plants at harvest 80 NS NS S S
Overall yield (tones/ha) 8.39 NS NS HS HS
Corrected yield (tones/ha) 10.2 NS NS HS S
Average weight per fruit (g) 19 NS NS S S
Fruit average weight (g) 445 NS NS NS NS
Dry-matter (%) 8.15 NS NS NS NS
S = significant; NS = not significant; HS = highly significant.
The reuse of wastewater for irrigation of lettuce, with fertilization dosed according to soil
content in NPK and organic matter can compete with the use of industrial fertilizers and
therefore add some income to the farmers [11, 23, 56].
Agronomic performance
During the experiment, tomato plants endured stress due to the high content of
wastewater in organic matter and other elements. Additional inquiries and investigations in
the study site revealed that the place was a store for garbage and mud emanating from the
refining station. This high content in organic matter may have influenced the T1 treatments
negatively (wastewater with fertilization) and T2 (wastewater without fertilization) especially

the T3 (tap water with fertilization). That can explain the performance of tap water on tomato.
Although we have to admit that waste water treatment was good but was not adequate for
tomato crop,
The agronomic performance observed during the trials with tomato was relatively low
with a yield ranging between 8–10 T/ ha. T1 and T2 treatments were subjected to soil
chemistry, and the pH was too high for tomato [11, 57, 58]. It is obvious from the study that,
whatever the irrigation mode used, the choice of cultivated vegetable is of paramount
importance for higher productivity.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ORGANIC INPUT
1. Impacts of Organic Input on Soil and Nutrients
Wastewater originating from houses contains plant nutrients and organic carbon in high
quantities [12, 16, 17, 25, 59]. The recycling of these household products and their
contribution to crop production and soil fertility is crucial for the sustainability of urban
agriculture [7, 8, 16, 18, 26, 55]. This aspect was largely covered during the project term [19].
The coming section is a synthesis of our research findings.
Changes were noted in carbon stocks and plant nutrients contents in soil after prolonged
irrigation with wastewater, especially nitrogen as nitrates (N-NO3). The volume of nitrates
increases significantly in the soil, following years of irrigation with wastewater. Obviously
the soil pH is affected considerably. As such the microbial diversity of the soil is seriously
challenged as well as the diversity of soil fauna [7, 20, 21, 33, 53, 60-62].
The use of wastewater in urban agriculture addressed the problem of soil fertility and its
sustainability. The direct impact on soil alkalinisation and salinisation may certainly affect the
balance of organic matter and the nitrogen cycle. Studies showed previously that the seasonal
variability of the wastewater properties cannot allow predicting the effect on soil fertility [18].
It has also been reported that if the C: N ratio in wastewater is higher than 20: 1;
microorganisms will immobilize nitrogen into their biomass.[7, 9, 18].
On soil hydrodynamics, it has been shown that wastewater increases the density of soil
and reduces water infiltration, conductivity and porosity of drainage for the first 15 cm of
soils. When wastewater is heavily loaded with salts it can change the structure of the soil.
This reduction of the pores due to physical mechanisms increases the density of soil and the
connectivity between the pores, affecting plant development. This lack of aeration will later
affect yield the. We already exposed an example of the use of wastewater on two types of
crops. We cannot, therefore, be precise on the consequences of the use of wastewater on the
physical properties of soils. However, the sealing of soil pores by organic matter may increase
the biologic activity mentioned previously that may enhance fertility [18]. Organic matter can
improve the stability of the soil (humic acids).
Prolonged irrigation with wastewater can also cause a persistent hydrophobicity in the
superficial soil layers, to form a crust that may prevent or lessen water infiltration into the soil
and consequently increase of water draining then soil erosion.

Some the components of wastewater are phytotoxic and prevent plant growth. The use of
wastewater can also disturb the cationic balance of elements such as Al, Mn and B that are
crucial for plant growth, or cause other toxic elements to enter the cycle, e.g. arsenic and
cadmium [18, 28, 30]. The consequence of all these reactions is that some elements might
leach into ground water. Some plant nutrients and pollutants may seep down into deep layers
of the earth and contaminate the underground sources of water. This can affect neighbouring
communities.
V. EFFECT OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS AND WASTEWATER

ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The use of wastewater in urban agriculture system in Senegal is not without risk. The
lack of safe drinking water and hygienic refinement are the main sources of diseases such as
diarrhea, typhoid and cholera to communities living in the outskirts of Dakar (Pikine,
Guediawaye, Thiaroye) [29]. In addition to waste water, organic fertilizers are also source of
contaminations.
In this section, we describe related risks that consumers and farmers may be exposed to,
during the process of crop production in an urban agricultural context. Vegetable crops
harvested from the field and sold to the marketplace.
Usually, organic fertilizers and wastewater contain various pathogenic agents such as faecal
coliforms and worms (e.g. the human whipworm Trichuris trichiura, the ancylostomes, and
the threadworm Strongyloides stercoralis). According to WHO guidelines, water
contamination must not go beyond 1000 CF/100 ml per sample [5, 29, 31]. The load in
parasites is way beyond these limits. In general, none of the irrigation water meets these
WHO standards. The parasites loads of waste water are higher than other sources of irrigation
water (e.g. wells). In addition to pathogens (worms and microorganisms), wastewater
contains important proportion of heavy metals that might be harmful to human or pollute the
environment (fig. 9).
Figure 9. The load in heavy metals on vegetables according irrigation mode.

1. Level of Concentrations of Organic Fertilizers in Faecal Coliforms
Organic manures can constitute another source of vegetable contamination (fig. 10).
Unlike what is generally admitted, the highest level of contamination noted is found in the
ovine manure, yet it is Poultry manure that is reputed to be most loaded with faecal coliforms.
Figure 10. Loads of pathogens on tomato and lettuce crops using two modes of irrigation.
2. Bilharziosis Survey
The application of waste water for crop irrigation in the Niayes is a potential source of
bilharziosis for farmers and consumers [9]. Parasitological investigations and medical check-
ups among farmers in the Niayes of Pikine revealed the presence of Schistosoma mansoni.
Since diverse communities from various origins visit frequently the area, we suspected that
there might be a threat of a bilharziosis outbreak.
We first focused our research started on the presence of Planorbis mollusks, which are
hosts of the Bilharziosis parasite.
3. Results of the Survey in the Fields
Data were collected from six locations (aquatic epidemiological systems or

agroecosystems) in Pikine and Pattes d’oie. Sampling sites were mainly areas where
groundwater was mixed with wastewater from neighbouring households. The sampling sites
were also spots whereby buyers wash their vegetables before taking them straight to the
marketplace.
Our survey showed that the physico-chemical conditions (pH, conductivity, salinity etc)
were suitable for the development of the mollusks.
This was confirmed by the presence of Typha sp., which is well-adapted plant in that
area. Four out of the six sites hosted some mollusks (Table 4): Physa acuta, Lymnaea
natalensis, Biomphalaria pfeifferi and Melanoides tuberculata were the main species found.

Table 4. Results from the parasitological study for bilharzioses including inquiries from several health districts and chemists
Sampling Sites GPS Vegetation Water parameter Mollusk Observations

Cyperus; Typha Pool of rain water combined
14°45’659 TDS=158, C=167,3 Physa
1 Paspalum; Phragmites with ground water; fishing
17°24’197 T°=26; Salinity=0 (Physa acuta)
trees and swimming area
Water pool used for
TDS=54; C=534; Biomphalaria
14°45’693 irrigation, mixed with
2 Typha T°=22 Melanoides
17°23’975 wastewater Typha plants
Salinity=0 Lymnaea natalensis
(for traditional mat-making )
Pikine
Melanoides
Pond used for rinsing
14°45’672 TDS=95; C=101,7; (a number of
3 No vegetation vegetables and other plant
17°23’955 T°=26 ; Salinity=0 Melanoides
materials
tuberculata)
TDS=57; C=65; Water pool
14°45’724
4 Cyperus; Typha T°=29 No mollusc (Wastewater mixed with
17°24’367
Salinity=0 ground water) for irrigation
14°44’658 Cyperus; Typha; TDS=34; C=34,7; Borehole with ground water
5 Lymnaea natalensis
17°26’156 Azola; Paspalum T°=25; Salinity=0 for irrigation
Patte
Water from the refining
d’oie 14°44’743 TDS=45; C=47,8;
6 No vegetation Very few molluscs station mixed with
17°246’205 T°=30 ; Salinity=0
wastewater

Among these species, only B. pfeifferi is the known to be an intermediate host of the
intestinal bilharziasis which is caused by S. mansoni. while L. natalensis is the intermediate
host for Fasciola gigantica (causal agent of tropical fascioliasis). A cercarian emission test
revealed showed that no B. pfeifferi was found to be positive to S. mansoni.
To date, Bilharziosis is not a public health problem in the districts in Dakar. We
conducted further investigations in estates surrounding the Niayes. We tried to evidence the
use and prescription of the anthelmintic praziquantel. Results showed that, chemists were
aware of the potential threat, but is Praziquantel is rarely prescribed, no outbreak has been
signaled in Dakar. The prevalence of Bilhaziosis is very high in the Senegal River, mollusks
are very abundant in that regions as well [31]. The source of infestation might be attributed to
Birds or livestock brought from villages to the cities by nomadic peoples might be the disease
carriers.
During our survey we did not find any Bulinus mollusks (a potential host of urinary
Bilharziosis) and the abundance of Biomphalaria and Lymnaea was very low, but this might
be the result of the small-scale survey. Other periodic investigations in these biotopes might
be needed to confirm the presence of other species of mollusks with higher densities. We do
not have any data on the population dynamics between the Northern Senegal and the capital
city Dakar, but testimonies from farmers originating from the northern part of Senegal,
attested frequent visits [31, 63, 64]. Although not frequent, inquiries at the departmental
hospital of Pikine confirmed cases of bilharziosis. Praziquantel was prescribed to patient
complaining about the disease. Officially, Dakar is considered as a bilharziosis-free zone
(National Program against bilharziosis), but our results suggest the need to raise this issue
with the health policy makers.
WHO recommendation on the reuse of wastewater in agriculture is that it should not be
used for irrigation of any raw eaten vegetables. Actually, this recommendation aims at
protecting both farmers and consumers. Our study showed clearly that the methods of
irrigation are crucial for the safety of vegetables. The handling of horticultural products from
the field to the market has been addressed by Ndiaye and collaborators [29]; plant materials
are contaminated before the shipping to the markets for sale. The water used to clean those
vegetables is already teeming with pathogens. The use of bleach and other detergents are
recommended to clean vegetables before consumption. However, some faecal pathogens are
very persistent.
VI. THE POLITICAL DIMENSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the use of organic fertilizers in developing countries is still new practice, we
cannot deny the fact that it has a significant added value in agriculture and poverty alleviation
in many West African countries. Urban agriculture plays an important role in the informal
economies of many developing countries by offering jobs to young valid people [4]. In
Senegal, for instance, urban agriculture contributes up to 40% of the gross national product
(GNP) [2] which is quite significant. The use of organic fertilizers and wastewater in urban
agriculture has certainly some advantages. We have shown in this chapter that organic
manures have high agronomic potential. They also contribute in improving fruit quality in
terms of dry matter and conservation. These benefits are motivating to farmers as they

improve their income without affecting to much the environment. We have demonstrated the
rear effect of organic manures in the sustainability of soil fertility. Moreover, organic
manures contribute to the retention of water and to the conservation of soil biodiversity.
However, wastewater is a potential threat to public health; the load in heavy metals and
sources of disease should be avoided by applying strict hygienic measures to continue using
these resources.
This study call out policy-makers to emphasize on sanitation in the systems urban
agriculture . We have already point out the existence backward water refinement stations
which are also too small for a growing cities and outskirts like in Dakar. Since the use of
wastewater is unavoidable, because it is a source of income, refinement and purification
services should be scattered to ensure high quality of vegetables.
We recommend a politic of sensitization campaigns and workshops to explain procedures
like composting and organic matters recycling to farmers in the suburbs of developing
countries.
REFERENCES
[1] Kane A. L’exploitation maraîchère et fruitière dans la région de Sangalkam. In
Département de géographie, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, vol Université
de Dakar, 1973.
[2] Niang S. Utilisation des eaux usées brutes dans l'agriculture urbaine au Sénégal : bilan
et perspectives. In: Olanrewaju BS, ed. Urban Agriculture in West African/
Contributing to Food Security and Urban Sanitation,vol Ottawa (Ontario), CRDI-ACP-
UE, 1999.
[3] Sangharé M. La contribution du maraîchage à la réduction de la pauvreté dans la
communauté rurale de Léona: l’exemple de la zone de Potou. In Département de
Géographie, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, vol Université Cheikh Anta
Diop de Dakar, 51; 2002.
[4] Zallé D. Stratégies politiques pour l'agriculture urbaine, rôle et responsabilité des
autorités communales : le cas du Mali. In: Olanrewaju BS, ed. Urban Agriculture in
West African/Contributing to Food Security and Urban Sanitation, vol Ottawa
(Ontario), CRDI-ACP-UE, 1999.
[5] Niang Y, Niang S, Niassy S, Dieng Y, Gaye ML, Diarra K. Urban agriculture in
Senegal: Effect of wastewater on the agronomical performance and hygienic quality of
tomato and lettuce. In Dakar, UCAD-CDH, 2010.
[6] Olanrewaju BS. Urban Agriculture in West African/ Contributing to Food Security and
Urban Sanitation. Ottawa (Ontario), CRDI-ACP-UE, 1999.
[7] Farinet J-L, Niang S. Le recyclage des déchets et effluents dans l’agriculture urbaine.
In: Smith OB, Moustier P, Mougeot LJA, Fall A, eds. Développement durable de
l’agriculture urbaine en Afrique francophone: Enjeux, concepts et méthodes, vol
CIRAD-CRDI, 2004.
[8] Faruqui NI, Niang S, Redwood M. Untreated wastewater use in Market gardens: a case
study of Dakar, Senegal. In: Scott CA, Faruqui NI, Raschid-Sally L, eds. Wastewater

use in irrigated agriculture. Confronting the livelihood and environmental realities, vol
CAB International., 113-125; 2004.
[9] Niang S. Epuration et réutilisation des eaux usées domestiques en maraîchage
périurbain à Dakar, Sénégal. African Urban Quarterly 11 (2 and 3): 250-257, 1996.
[10] Kaur K, Kapoor K, Gupta AP. Impact of organic manures with and without mineral
fertilizers on soil chemical and biological properties under tropical conditions. Journal
of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 168(117-122, 2005.
[11] Niassy S, Diarra K, Niang Y, Niang S, Pfeifer H-R. Effect of Organic Fertilizers on the
Susceptibility of Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum: Solanaceae to Helicoverpa
armigera Lepidoptera: Noctuidae in the Niayes Area Senegal. Research Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences 6(6): 708-712, 2010.
[12] Bitton G. Wastewater Microbiology. Florida, Wiley and Sons, 2005.
[13] Niang S, Balde D. Approvisionnement de la ville en légumes frais à partir des espaces
urbains et péri-urbains. Contraintes et bénéfices socio économiques, impacts sur la
santé publique: le cas de Patte d’Oie, (Commune de Dakar, Sénégal). In vol Dakar,
CRDI, 99; 2006.
[14] Thui TT. Projet de développement communautaire et d’environnement urbain à
Rufisque (Sénégal). In Contribution à l’évaluation de la phase I du projet. Enda / Rup,
PRECEUP, vol 50; 1996.
[15] Taffouo VD, Nouck AH, Dibong SD, Amougou A. Effects of salinity stress on
seedlings growth, mineral nutrients and total chlorophyll of some tomato
(Lycopersicum esculentum L.) cultivars. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(33): 5366-
5372, 2010.
[16] Hussain I, Raschid L, Hanjra MA, Marikar F, Van der Hoek W. Wastewater use in
agriculture: Review of Impacts and methodological issues in Valuing Impacts. In
Working paper 37,vol International Water Management Institute, 55; 2002.
[17] Hillel IS, Avener A, Badri F, Eliyahu R, Perez Y. Wastewater irrigation in developing
countries. Health effects and technical solutions. World Bank Technical Paper 51: 325,
1986.
[18] Gueye-Girardet A. Evaluation des pratiques d'irrigation, de fertilisation et d'application
de fertilisation et d'appliaction de pesticides dans l'agriculture periurbaine de Dakar,
Senegal. In Faculté des Géosciences et de l’Environnement, vol Doctorat. Université de
Lausanne, 276; 2010.
[19] Arshad M, Rashid A. Nitrogen uptake and dry matter production by tomato plants
under salt stress. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 4(4): 397-399, 2001.
[20] Feller C. La matiere organic du sol: un indicateur de la fertilite. Application aux zones
sahelienne et soudanienne. Agriculture et Developpement 8, 1995.
[21] Ganry F, Feller C, Harmand J-M, Guibert H. Management of soil organic matter in
semiarid Africa for annual cropping systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61:
105-118, 2001.
[22] Manlay R. Organic matter dynamics in mixed-farming systems of the West African
savanna: A village case study from south Senegal. In Ecole Nationale du Genie Rural,
des Eaux et Forets Centre de Montpellier, vol Doctorat. Montpellier, 2000.
[23] Olaniyi JO, Akanbi WB. Effect of organo mineral and inorganic fertilizers on the yield
quality of fluted pumpkin (Telfaria occidentalis hook. F.). In Society ACS, ed. African
Crop Science Conference Proceedings, vol 8. El Minia, 347-350; 2007.

[24] Beaulieu C, Roy J, Clermont N. Protection contre les maladies vegetales: Role de la
matiere organique, des microorganismes et de la biotehnoligie. In CRESA, ed.
Biotechnologies et maîtrise des intrants agricoles en Afrique centrale, vol Yaoundé -
Cameroun, IRD-IRAD, 2007.
[25] Gerardi HM, Zimmerman CM. Wastewater Pathogens. New Jersey, Wiley and Sons,
2005.
[26] Cissé G, Kientga M, Ouedreogo B, Tanner M. Développement du maraîchage autour
des eaux de barrage à Ouagadougou : quels sont les risques sanitaires à prendre en
compte. Cahiers d’études et de recherches francophones Agricultures 11(1): 31-38,
2002.
[27] Mara D, Cairncross S. Guide pour l’utilisation sans risques des eaux résiduaires et des
excréta en agriculture et aquaculture. In Mesures pour la protection de la santé
publique, vol O.M.S, 205; 1991.
[28] Cointreau S. Déchets de bétail: L’utilisation des Antimicrobiens dans la culture
intensive des animaux et des poissons. In Banque Mondiale, 2008.
[29] Ndiaye ML, Niang S, Pfeifer H-R, Peduzzi R, Tonolla M, Dieng Y. Effect of irragation
water and processing on the microbial quality of lettuces produced and sold on markets
in Dakar (Senegal). In: Sons JW, ed. Irrigation and Drainage, vol Wiley Online
Library, 2010.
[30] Ndiaye ML, Pfeifer H-R, Niang S, Dieng Y, Tonolla M, Peduzzi R. Impacts de
l'utilisaion des eaux polluees en agriculture urbaine sur la qualite de la nappe de Dakar
(Senegal). VertigO – La revue en sciences de l'environnement 10(2): 2010.
[31] Diaw OT, Niassy S, Seye MM, Diarra K, Dieng Y, Niang S, Pfeifer HR. Agriculture
periurbaine a Dakar et Risque de Bilharziose dans les Niayes: Volet sanitaire du Projet
FNS. In: Niassy S, Diarra K, Diaw OT, Niang S, eds. «Utilisation des eaux usées
urbaines dans la région de Dakar au Sénégal. Une Etude pluridisciplinaire visant la
durabilité», vol 2008.
[32] Gningue M. Les cultures maraîchères au Sénégal : Diagnostic en vue d’une approche
raisonnée des itinéraires techniques. In Ecole normale Supérieure d’enseignement
technique et professionnel, vol Mémoire de fin d’étude. Dakar, (U.C.A.D.), 47; 1992.
[33] Djenontin JA, Wennink B, Dagbenongbakin G, Ouinkoun G. Pratiques de gestion de
fertilité dans les exploitations agricoles du Nord-Bénin. In Jamin JY, Seiny BL, Floret
C, eds. Savanes africaines: des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux
défis, vol Garoua, Cameroun. Prasac, N’Djamena, Tchad, Cirad, Montpellier, France.,
2003.
[34] Floret C, Pontanier R, Serpantie G. La jachere en Afrique tropicale. In Dossier MAB,
vol 16. Paris, UNESCO, 1993.
[35] Akande MO, Makinde EA, Taiwo LB, Adediran JA. Effects of Terralyt - Plus on soil
pH, nutrient uptake and dry matter yield of Maize. African Journal of Plant Science
4(3): 32-37, 2010.
[36] Akinola AA, Alene AD, Adeyemo R, Diakalia S, Olanrewaju AS. Economic impacts of
soil fertility management research in West Africa. AFJARE 3(2): 159-175, 2009.
[37] FAO. Soil and nutrient management in sub-saharan Africa in support of the soil fertility
initiative. In Roy RN, Nabhan H, eds. Proceedings of the Expert Consultation,vol
Lusaka, Zambia, FAO, 2001.

[38] Kannan P, Saravanan A, Krishnakumar S, Natarajan SK. Biological Properties of Soil

as Influenced by Different Organic Manures. Research Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Sciences 1(2): 181-183, 2005.
[39] Gueye-Girardet A, Niassy S. Rapport de formation des Maraichers de Pikine et de Patte
d'oie In Dakar, ORT, 2007.
[40] Guene O. Integrated traditional composting within domestic solid waste management -
Data from the field and dissemination tools. In International Symposium on
Environmental Pollution Control and Waste Management, vol Tunis
(EPCOWM’2002), 349-356; 2002.
[41] Ayeni LS, Adetunji MT. Integrated Application of Poultry Manure and Mineral
Fertilizer on Soil Chemical Properties, Nutrient Uptake, Yield and growth components
of maize. Nature and Science 8(1): 60-67, 2010.
[42] Ayoola OT, Adeniyan ON. Influence of poultry manure and NPK fertilizer on yield and
yield components of crops under different cropping systems in south west Nigeria.
African Journal of Biotechnology 5(15): 1386-1392, 2006.
[43] Boateng SA, Zickermann J, Kornahrens M. Poultry Manure Effect on Growth and
Yield of Maize. West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology 9(12-18), 2006.
[44] Ismail AE, Youssef MMA. Influence of some organic manures as soil amendements on
development and reproduction of Rotylenchus reniformis infecting eggplant and
Hirschmanniella oryzae infecting rice. nz. Schadlingskde., Planzenschutz,
Umweltschutz 70(58-61), 1997.
[45] Ramadan MAE, Adam SM. The Effect of Chicken Manure and Mineral Fertilizers on
Distribution of Heavy Metals in Soil and Tomato Organs. Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences 1(3): 226-231, 2007.
[46] Zake J, Tenywa JS, Kabi F. Enhancement of manure utilisation in smallholder cattle
management systems for crop production in Central Uganda. African Crop Science
7(1067-1071), 2005.
[47] Bado BV. Role des legumineuses sur la fertilite es sols ferrugineux tropicaux des zones
guineene et soudanienne du Burkina Faso. In Département des sols et de génie
agroalimentaire, vol Ph.D. Quebec, Universite Laval, 2002.
[48] Bose P, Sanyal D, Majumdar K. Balancing Potassium, Sulfur, and Magnesium for
Tomato and Chili Grown on Red Lateritic Soil. Better Crops 90(3): 22-24, 2006.
[49] Leytem AB, Maguire RO. Environmental Implications of Inositol Phosphates in
Animal Manures. In: Turner BL, Richardson AE, Mullaney EJ, eds. Inositol
Phosphates:Linking agriculture and the environment, vol London, UK, CAB
International, 2007.
[50] Mahajan A, Gupta RD. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) in a Sustainable Rice-
Wheat Cropping System. India, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009.
[51] Roose E. Restauration de la productivité des sols tropicaux. In Actes des JSIRAUF, vol
Hanoi, 2007.
[52] Shoiry J, Vigneux J. Developpement d'une filiere de valorisation des fumiers/lisiers par
la fabrication d'engrais organo-mineraux. In Bureau des audiences publiques sur
l’environnement Secrétariat de la commission sur le développement durable de la
production porcine vol Québec, GSI ENVIRONNEMENT-Sherbrooke, 2003.
[53] Nzila JdD, Watha-Ndoudy N, Ntangou M. Impact de la fertilisation organique et
minerale sur la production des cultures maraicheres (Basella alba et Amaranthus

cruentus) sur les sols sableux de la region de Brazzaville Congo. In CRESA, ed.
Biotechnologies et maîtrise des intrants agricoles en Afrique centrale, vol Yaounde-
Cameroune, IRD-IRAD, 2007.
[54] Keraita B. Oser les eaux usées ? Spore 101(16), 2002.
[55] Koné D, Cissé G, Seignez C, Holliger C. Le lagunage à laitue d’eau (Pistia stratiotes) à
Ouagadougou : une alternative pour l’épuration des eaux usées destinées à l’irrigation.
Cahiers d’études et de recherches francophones Agricultures 11(1): 39 – 43, 2002.
[56] Seck A. Possibilités de production de tomate de contresaison basée sur la fumure
organique pour améliorer et soutenir le niveau de vie des populations rurales en
systèmes culturaux de petite échelle en Gambie (Afrique de l’Ouest) In Gambie,
Concern Universal, 2010.
[57] Nielsen KL, Thorup-Kristensen K. Growing media for organic tomato plantlet
production. In Denmark, Unpublished.
[58] Maynard DN, Hochmuth GJ. Knott's Handbook for vegetable growers. Hoboken, New
Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2007
[59] Lauer WC, Rogers SE, Ray JM. The current status of Denver’s potable water reuse
project. Journal of American Water Works Association 77 (52-59), 1985.
[60] Manlay RJ, Ickowicz A, Masse D, Feller C, Richard D. Spatial carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus budget in a village of the West African savanna-II. Element flows and
functioning of a mixed-farming system. Agricultural Systems 79 (83-107), 2004.
[61] Mvondo Z, Mbassi A, Onguene AN. Infleunce de la teneur en phosphore soluble du sol
sur la colonisation mycothizienne du Niebe: Cas de deux oxisols du sud du cameroun.
In CRESA, ed. Biotechnologies et maîtrise des intrants agricoles en Afrique centrale,
vol Yaounde-Cameroun, IRD-IRAD, 2007.
[62] Blanchard M, Vall E, Chia E. Conduire une expérimentation en Recherche Action en
Partenariat. ISDA 2010.
[63] Diaw OT. Prolifération de mollusques, évolution et extension des trematodoses
humaines et animales dans le bassin du fleuve Sénégal après la construction des
barrages de Diama et de Manantali. Cahiers Agricultures 9(5): 429, 2000.
[64] Diaw OT. Population dynamics of schistosome intermediate hosts snails in the Senegal
river at the focus of Richard-Toll (Delta of the Senegal river): A new malacological
colonisation. In Madsen H, Appleton CC, Chambari M, eds. Medical Malacology in
Africa, vol Harare, Zimbabwe, Danish Bilharziosis Laboratory, 91 - 104; 1999.

Chapter 2
EFFECT OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS ON BIOLOGICAL

PARAMETERS INFLUENCING SOIL QUALITY
AND PRODUCTIVITY
R. Dinesh*1, V. Srinivasan1, A. N. Ganeshamuthry2 and S. Hamza1

1
Indian Institute of Spices Research, Calicut, Kerala, India
2
Indian Institute Horticulture Research, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
ABSTRACT
Intensive agriculture is one of the main activities causes for relatively high fertilizer
and pesticide inputs. Intensive use of soil for years, together with inappropriate
production technologies like continuous soil removal and the widespread use of
pesticides and fertilizers, has created in many cases major problems of pollution and soil
degradation. Thus, the need to minimize environmental impact without reducing yields
makes it imperative to look for best-bet alternatives that achieve a sustainable production.
Studies indicate that the key to sustainable agricultural production and long-term
productivity of agroecosystems are processes that maintain organic matter in the soil.
Apparently, soil application of organic fertilizers is a management strategy that would
help in counteracting the progressive loss in organic matter both in the short and long-
term. The addition of organic fertilizers improves soil physico-chemical, biochemical and
microbiological properties and thus positively influences soil quality and plant
productivity parameters.
Organic amendments can also promote plant health, and it is also possible to obtain
equivalent or even increased yields through organic production. The chapter focuses on
the effects of organic manures on sensitive biological parameters (soil microbial biomass
C, soil respiration, metabolic quotient, enzyme activities) that can be used as potential
indicators for monitoring changes in quality of cropped soils. The responses of these
parameters to organic manuring are discussed due to the fact that soil quality is strongly
influenced by biologically mediated processes (nutrient cycling, nutrient capacity,
aggregate stability) and also because it is important to identify those components that
rapidly respond to changes in soil quality.
*
Corresponding author email: rdinesh2005@gmail.com.

24 R. Dinesh, V. Srinivasan, A. N. Ganeshamuthry et al.
Keywords: Orgainc fertilizer; Soil biochemical parameters, Soil microbial biomass, Soil -
enzymes
1. INTRODUCTION
The regular incorporation and recycling of organic wastes to the soil is the most efficient
method of maintaining optimum levels of soil organic matter. In the traditional agriculture,
followed over generations in India, the use of plant and animal wastes as source of plant
nutrients was the accepted practice. Organic manure in a broad sense includes composts from
rural and urban wastes, crop residues, agro industrial bio wastes and green manures, apart
from the commonly used FYM. The availability of on farm wastes/ by products in the
plantation sector of India is given in Table 1. Farmyard manure made from cattle dung,
excreta of other animals, animal tissues and excretory products, and compost from rural and
urban wastes, crop residues and green manures are collectively termed as bulky organic
manures because of their low contents of major plant nutrients (< 2% N), while materials like
oil cakes, fish meal, animal meal, poultry manures, slaughter house wastes containing
comparatively higher contents of plant nutrients (> 2% N) are termed as concentrated organic
manures.
To be sustainable, organic farming needs to be self-sufficient in nitrogen (N) through the
fixation of atmospheric di-nitrogen (N2) by legumes, recycling of crop residues (green
manures) and the application of animal manure, or compost [1, 2]. Only fixed N represents a
true import of N on to the farm in this situation [3] unless manure is imported. As N is most
often the limiting nutrient in organic systems, the aim has to be to maximize N2 fixation
within the system. Despite this reliance on legumes for N, much remains to be understood
about how to maximize N2 fixation and to find ways to make the most efficient use of it.
Table 1. Availability of on farm wastes/ by-products in plantation sector in India
Crop/ Crop waste Quantity

Coconut (excluding coir pith)* 11.2 million tons
Areca leaves 0.13 million tons
Areca rachis 0.08 million tons
Areca husk 0.22 million tons
Cocoa shed leaves 360.03 t
Cocoa pruning 12056.33 t
Cocoa pod husk 32900 t
Coir pith 7.5 million tons
Coffee husk 0.18 million tons
Tea waste 0.22 million tons
*includes spadices, bunch wastes, sheath, inflorescences and husks Source: [121].

Table 2. Nutrient concentration of shade trees and other byproducts in plantations*
Nutrient concentration
Common Name Botanical Name N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn Zn Cu Mo
(g kg-1) (mg kg-1)
Ebony leaf Diospyrose ebenum J. König 15.1 1.8 21.6 5.2 3.0 268 303 47 2 0.43
Ben teak (Nandi) leaf Lagerstroemia microcarpa Wight 11.1 1.9 15.9 11 4.4 189 123 10 10 0.66
Jack leaf Artocarpus integrifolia L. f. 8.3 1.3 11.8 8.3 2.3 202 148 22 30 0.76
Pink or red cedar leaf Aerocarpus fraxinifolius L. 8.5 1.5 12.1 8.4 1.6 439 73 38 20 0.70
Indian Gooseberry (Aonla) Phyllanthus emblica L. 9.0 1.2 12.9 9.7 4.0 148 62 10 20 0.82
Dragon's Eye leaf Dimocarpus longan Lour. 5.0 1.4 17.4 8.5 1.8 418 47 25 20 0.70
Beleric myrobolon leaf Terminalia bellarica Roxb. 6.0 1.2 8.4 8.8 2.5 337 791 17 30 0.77
Sambul leaf Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels 11 1.2 15.8 .9.4 3.5 375 265 16 2 0.86
Chocolate tree leaf Theobroma cacao L 8.7 0.7 11 10 2.6 573 257 24 10 1.1
Chempaka Merah leaf Michelia champaca L 16 1.8 23 13 3.2 202 193 32 10 1.9
Malabar tallow or Piney
Vateria indica L 6.4 2.0 9.2 5.9 2.1 244 152 21 10 0.32
warmish leaf
Silver oak leaf Grevillea robusta Cunn. 15.4 0.4 8.1 18 1.7 725 412 16 11 -
Indian coral tree leaf Erythrina indica L. 24 2.3 20 9.0 3.0 370 160 22 28 -
Kikar or Kareyam leaf Garuga pinnata Roxb 15 2.3 18 7.9 2.2 346 44 19 34 -
Gliricidia leaf Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud. 28 2.2 22 9 2.9 976 121 30 19 -
Elettaria cardamomum (L.)
Cardamom leaf 10.1 0.7 15 19 4.1 411 586 18 11 -
Maton.)
Black Pepper leaf Piper nigrum L. 18 1.3 16 31 4.1 102 237 20 15 -
Coffee leaf Coffee arabica L. 25 1.2 17 29 3.7 110 45 20 12 -
Coffee pulp Coffee arabica L. 28 2.3 27 5.6 1.6 272 35 13 36 -
Arecanut (Betel palm) leaf Areca catechu L. 23 1.5 8 9.1 2.3 364 112 19 92 -
Arecanut leaf sheath Areca catechu L. 20 0.8 11 7.0 1.9 325 175 15 77 -
Ficus (Indian fig) fruit Ficus indica (L.) Miller 25 2.2 25 9.6 38 123 22 23 16 -
Coconut leaf Cocos nucifera L. 8.2 1.0 5.0 6.1 2.5 112 26 16 10 -
Coconut husk Cocos nucifera L. 3.1 0.3 4.6 1.5 0.6 58 36 4 3 -
*Approximately 8-14 tons ha-1 in mixed cropping system.

2. ORGANIC MANURES
Organic manures are essentially derived from either plant or animal by-products. The
plant by-products are mainly cottonseed meal, fruit pomaces, leaf compost soybean meal,
wood ash etc while the animal by-products includes the likes of blood meal, feather meal, fish
meal and fish emulsion, leather meal etc. Many of these products are far too expensive to
justify their use in other than very specialized horticultural applications. However, certain
agrowastes obtained from shade trees provide ample scope for use as organic amendment.
These wastes have good nutritive value (Table 2) and can be used as an input during
composting.
One of the most common types of prepackaged alternative soil amendments is the
manure- or compost-based blended fertilizer. Several of these products have national
distribution, and many more enjoy a loyal regional following. Such products are typically
analyzed at 2 to 5% for each nutrient. Dried compost is used as a bulking agent, source of
nutrients, and organic matter. It is blended with several of the materials including rock
minerals and plant and animal by-products. Nearly all products of this class sell for prices
about three times greater than their conventional fertilizer value, but may be quite effective in
farm situations. However, farmers with access to other sources of manure or compost can
realize substantial savings by relying on local manure resources. The nutritive value of
different organic compost/manures used for crop production is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Nutritive value of different organic compost/manures
Organic N P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu Mo
(g kg-1) -1
(mg kg )
Neem cake 30 1.0 15 10 3.2 2.3 2085 65 17 10 2.5
Cotton cake 35 2.9 13 4.0 3.9 1.5 169 14 37 9 1.6
Mustard cake 22 2.1 12 6.0 2.1 1.5 1062 27 21 18 2.0
Groundnut cake 68 3.6 12 2.0 3.3 2.1 667 37 48 16 5.4
Gingelly cake 60 3.9 11 10 5.0 1.9 1262 50 64 25 11.0
Castor cake 58 11 9.2 3.6 2.4 - 197 22 36 13 -
Farmyard
5 2.5 3.0 11 5.5 1.8 2745 466 59 29 11.0
manure
Goat manure 31 1.8 13 18 7.0 1.5 1874 711 120 67 12.0
Poultry manure 30 2.3 17 23 6.0 3.1 2411 234 194 40 10.0
Leaf compost 10 1.0 16 21 3.1 2.1 656 177 12 11 6.0
Vermi compost 20 8.0 12 33 11 8.6 6130 221 44 36 1.6
Coir compost 12 0.6 12 5.0 4.2 1.0 950 50 16 6.0 1.0
Source: [122].
3. BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF SOIL QUALITY

Identification of biological indicators of soil quality is reported as critically important [4]
because soil quality is strongly influenced by microbiological mediated processes (nutrient

Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Biological Parameters Influencing Soil Quality… 27
cycling, nutrient capacity, aggregate stability). Of particular importance is to identify those

components that rapidly respond to changes in soil quality. Biological indicators of soil
quality that are commonly measured include soil organic matter (SOM), soil respiration,
microbial biomass (total bacteria and fungi,) and mineralizable nitrogen. SOM plays a key
role in soil function, determining soil quality, water holding capacity and susceptibility of soil
to degradation [5].
In addition, SOM may serve as a source or sink to atmospheric CO2 and an increase in
the soil C content is indicated by a higher microbial biomass and elevated respiration [6].
It is also the principal reserve of nutrients such as N in the soil and some tropical soils
may contain large quantities of mineral N in the top 2 m depth [7].
Table 4. Proposed minimum data set (MDS) of physical, chemical, and biological
indicators for screening soil quality
Indicator Function and Rationale for Measurement

a. Relationship to soil condition and function
b. Rationale for measurement
Biological
a. Describes microbial catalytic potential and repository for carbon
Microbial and nitrogen.
biomass C and N b. Provides an early warning of management effects on organic
matter.
Potentially a. Describes soil productivity and nitrogen supplying potential.
mineralizable N b. Provides an estimate of biomass.
a. Defines a level of microbial activity.
Soil respiration
b. Provides an estimate of biomass activity.
Chemical
Soil organic
a, b. Defines soil fertility and stability.
matter (OM)
pH a, b. Defines biological and chemical activity thresholds.
EC a, b. Defines plant and microbial activity thresholds.
Extractable N, a. Describes plant-available nutrients and potential for N loss.
P, and K b. Indicates productivity and environmental quality.
Physical
a. Indicates how well water and chemicals are retained and
Soil texture transported.
b. Provides an estimate of soil erosion and variability.
a. Indicates productivity potential.
Soil depth and rooting
b. Evens out landscape and geographic variability.
Infiltration and soil a. Describes the potential for leaching, productivity, and erosion.
bulk density (SBD) b. SBD needed to adjust soil analyses to volumetric basis.
a. Describes water retention, transport, and erosion.
Water holding capacity b. Available water is used to calculate soil bulk density and organic
matter.
Sources: Derived from Doran et al. [123] and Larson and Pierce [8].

It is frequently postulated that basic soil quality indicators should reflect criteria which
are relevant to existing soil data bases [4]. Based on these propositions a list of basic soil
properties that should be indicative of soil quality was established (Table 4). This list has
been included in the MDS by Larson and Pierce [8], and expanded with biological aspects of
soil quality, namely microbial biomass C and N, and soil respiration [4]. Such a data set may
vary from location to location depending on how the land is used, such as for rangeland,
wetland, or agricultural land. The relative importance of indicators within a data set is likely
to change as land use changes. Comparisons between data sets are usually restricted to sites
having similar conditions. Larson and Pierce [8] referred to the difficulty of properly
estimating soil properties and soil quality. Therefore, they proposed the use of a minimum set
of quantitative data (MDS) regarding the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of
soil that were easy to measure (Table 4). As such, factors that control changes in soil quality
can be investigated and changes over time can be explained.
3.1. Significance of Soil Biological Indicators
Although the MDS for soil quality assessment includes all physical, chemical,
biological/biochemical properties, many approaches seek more or less complex combinations
of physical, chemical and biochemical properties that jointly evaluate the three basic
functions defining sustainable soil quality [9], these qualities are production (the capacity to
yield healthy, abundant crops), filtration (the capacity of the soil to remove any pollutant from
waters that pass through it) and degradation (the capacity of the soil to function properly as
part of a mature, self-sustaining ecosystem). The physical and chemical indicators are of
paramount in soil quality assessment, however, it has been emphasized that biological
indicators are more sensitive to changes than other indicators (chemical and physical ones)
and could describe the soil quality in a broader picture [10]. The biological and biochemical
properties are the most sensitive to environmental stress, play the greatest role in degradation
and provide valid estimates on soil quality because they are more sensitive and tend to react
most rapidly to changes in the external environment [11]. In this chapter we will examine the
effects of various organic manures used either alone or in combinations on sensitive soil
biological parameters since biologically mediated processes in soils play a key role in the
mineralization of organic C and in nutrient cycling. Moreover, changes in the size and activity
of the soil microbial biomass occur more rapidly in response to changes in environmental
conditions, land use and management than most physical and chemical parameters [12].
The biological indicators of soil quality specified in the MDS (Table 4) include microbial
biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N and soil respiration. However, there are other
biological parameters which are sensitive indicators and also provide short-term changes in
quality due to management. While they can be studied at various levels, the most relevant are
those involved in transformation of organic matter [13]. The biochemical parameters include
variables directly related to microbial activity (microbial biomass C, soil respiration etc.), and
the activities of extracellular hydrolytic enzymes involved in the C, N, S and P cycles in soil.
These soil biochemical and microbiological parameters are considered as potential indicators
of management impacts on soil quality [14] especially under different agricultural
management practices because soil microbial biomass and enzyme activities respond much
more quickly to the changes in soil management practices as compared to total SOM [15].

According to Visser and Parkinson [16], the biochemical properties of the soil can be
studied at three different levels: microbial populations, biotic communities, and the properties
involved in organic matter and nutrient cycles. In spite of the ecological interest of the first
two levels, their immediate relevance to soil quality evaluation is doubtful; much more
relevant is the characterization of the soil properties involved in the transformation of organic
matter. The biochemical properties corresponding to this third level can be divided in two
groups [17] viz., the general parameters and the specific parameters. The general biochemical
parameters most commonly used to estimate the changes in soil quality include carbon
associated with microbial biomass, dehydrogenase activity and N mineralization capacity,
while the most commonly used specific parameters include phosphatase (acid or alkaline), ß-
glucosidase and urease activities [14]. Despite the general agreement about which properties
should be investigated, the results obtained by different investigators in relation to changes in
soil quality generated by land use are not very consistent, with increases, decreases and even
no change reported for soils under similar soil management systems [14]. The lack of
consistency among the results may be due to the fact that most studies of the effect of
agricultural use on soil biochemical properties have included analysis of no more than five or
six soils and only three or four biochemical properties [18]. In this chapter we will focus on
few important and sensitive biological parameters that reflect both long-term and short-term
changes in soil quality due to nutrient additions.
4. EFFECTS OF ORGANIC MANURES ON BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

OF SOIL QUALITY
While an array of biological parameters are available, our concern here is on those
parameters commonly included as sensitive indicators of soil use and management viz., soil
microbial biomass, soil respiration, metabolic quotient and enzymatic activity. The soil
microbial biomass represents the size of the entire microbial community, basal respiration
provides a measure of the decomposition of organic C within soils by those capable and
active microorganisms, metabolic quotient indicates substrate mineralized per unit of
microbial biomass carbon and enzyme activities play an important role in nutrient cycling.
4.1. Soil Microbial Biomass
The term soil microbial biomass (SMB), i.e. the living part of SOM, is used to describe
the total mass of microorganisms present in a soil [19]. The importance of the SMB in soil
functioning is well recognized and SMB has long been suggested to be a significantly more
sensitive indicator of changing soil conditions than the total SOM content [20] (Powlson and
Jenkinson, 1976). The size of the SMB pool is routinely measured and expressed as carbon
contained in the SMB (SMBC), and less frequently as nitrogen contained in SMB (SMBN)
[21].
SMB can act as a significant source or sink for soil carbon and nutrients and potentially
influence the amounts of organic C and N retained within SOM. The amount of C in the soil
microbial biomass mostly accounts for 1-3% of the total soil organic C, and its turnover time

is less than one year [22]. Soil microbial biomass is related to several factors, such as organic
C and N limitation, differences in plant species, soil texture, soil moisture and temperature
and more importantly residue and nutrient management.
SMB has also been shown to contribute to soil structure and soil stabilization and
correlate positively with grain yield in organic, but not in conventional farming [23]. Among
nutrient management regimes adopted for crop production, those with high organic matter
inputs and available SOM tend to have higher SMB content because they are preferred energy
sources for microorganisms [24].
Thus the addition of readily decomposable C sources such as glucose or sucrose to the
soil results in a rapid rise in microbial growth and activity. Allen and Schlesinger [25]
performed an assay of C limitation to SMB in intact cores of mineral soil collected from three
North Carolina loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forests. They observed that SMB in the mineral
soil increased when C was added.
A study on comparison of soil quality under conventional, organic, and integrated apple
orchards found that increased SMB was associated with improved soil biological quality
under integrated management involving organic manures when compared to conventional
management [26]. The effects have been more conspicuous in the long-term. For instance, a
17-year long-term fertilization study on maize showed that SMBC and SMBN levels were
higher in the cattle manure plus NPK fertilizer and straw plus NPK fertilizer treatments
compared to the inorganic NPK treatments.
Other long-term experiments [27, 28] also indicated that the addition of organic materials
such as manure or straw, either alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers, was more
effective in increasing SOM than the application of NPK fertilizer alone. Similarly, a variety
of soil carbon management practices, including cover crops, compost and manure
amendments, and several different crop rotations positively influenced SMBC and SMBN
which were on an average 25 and 32% higher, respectively, in soils from alternative fields
than in soils from conventionally managed fields [29]. A study by Kang et al. [30] suggests
that application of organic residues like FYM, wheat straw, rice straw, green manure
(Sesbania aculeata) etc increased SMBC and SMBN compared to plots with conventional
nutrient management in wheat based cropping systems.
Composted municipal wastes have also been found to enhance SMB. In an incubation
experiment, Perucci [31] and Perucci and Giusquiani [32] reported an increase of SMBC after
the addition of municipal solid-waste (MSW) compost to soil. At field scale, Perucci [33] and
Giusquiani et al. [34] reported increases of SMBC in soil after the annual addition of 10, 30
and 90 t ha-1 of MSW compost. However, Albiach et al. [35] found non-significant effects of
organic manure additions on SMBC. Their long-term experiment involved annual application
of five organic amendments (24 t ha-1 of MSW compost, sewage sludge, and ovine manure,
2.4 t ha-1 of vermicompost, and 100 t ha-1 of a commercial humic acids solution).
The SMBC levels did show large differences but reached no statistical significance owing
to a very high variability of the data. Contrarily, in a experiment on long-term (26 years)
application of manure and fertilizers in maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)–
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) cropping system, SMBC and SMBN increased significantly in
plots amended with manure and optimum fertilizer application due to readily metabolizable C
and N in organic manure, in addition to increased root biomass and root exudates due to
greater crop growth [36]. Observations taken from the same experiment once again suggested

that combined NPK fertilizer plus manure application (100% NPK + manure) enhanced
SMBC levels due to increased inputs of readily metabolisable C and N in organic manure
[37]. Likewise, in a field study, long-term application of compost to soil under continuous
rice growing in a rice–rice–fallow sequence resulted in the stimulation of SMBC. Mean
seasonal SMBC content was highest in plots receiving both compost and inorganic fertilizer
and lowest in unamended control plots.
SMBC content followed the order compost + inorganic fertilizer > inorganic fertilizer >
compost > control [38]. This indicated that integrated use of chemical fertilizers and organic
matter results in the production of more SMBC compared to their single application.
Apparently, low rate of chemical fertilizer in combination with organic manures has been
found to strongly influence SMBC. In a study on seven fertilization practices characterized by
different quantities and application times of green manure, FYM and rice straw in
combination with low amount of chemical fertilizers, it was observed that at all sampling
times, organic amendments with low amount of chemical fertilizer enhanced SMBC, SMBN
and SMBP more than recommended amount of chemical fertilization only and an unfertilized
control. Higher quantities of FYM resulted in stronger effects than all other organic
amendments. The strongest increase of microbial biomass, activity, carbon and nutrient
availability was generally found in the treatment with the most diverse resources and highest
amount of organic amendments.
In addition to direct stimulating effects on SMB by substrates from organic manures,
indirect positive effects could be due to changes in soil microbial community composition or
changes in soil physico-chemical environment. SMB increase has also been attributed to extra
plant growth achieved by long-term balanced fertilization (NPK + S or NPK + FYM), which
would stimulate more below ground flux of C fixed by photosynthesis [39]. However, it is
difficult to clarify the effects of organic amendment type due to complex interactive
influences by long-term quantity effects and other indirect factors as mentioned above [40].
The long-term positive effects of organic manures on SMB reported here are consistent with
numerous reports [27, 41, 42].
Besides, green manures and other organic manures like FYM, poultry manure, compost
etc, cover cropping has also been found to markedly influence SMB. Long-term experiments
(12 years) on the effect of leguminous cover crops like Atylosia scarabaeoides (L.) Benth.,
Centrosema pubescens Benth., and Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth., grown in the
interspaces of a 19-yr old coconut plantation indicated significantly greater levels of SMBC,
SMBN and SMBP (Tables 5 and 6) at all depths [43, 44] due to greater accumulation of
substrates like organic C, carbohydrates, dissolved organic-C and -N etc, which accumulate
through leaching from fresh litter, plant residue decomposition and as well as humified
organic matter and the plant rhizosphere.
Regular incorporation of cover crops, therefore, provided a steady supply of substrates to
support the microbial community thus confirming the observation that when different
treatments from the same site or soils under similar conditions are compared, the microbial
biomass might be related to the steady-state substrate availability [45]. Positive effects of
cover cropping on SMBC have been reported by many workers [46, 47].

Table 5. Microbial characteristics of soils (0-30 cm) under leguminous cover cropsa
Control Calopogonium Pueraria Centrosema Atylosia

Microbial biomass C
232 e 365 d 492 a 412 c 465 b
(mg kg-1)
Microbial biomass N
17.1 c 34.4 b 44.6 a 36.3 b 41.2 a
(mg kg-1)
N flush (mg kg-1) 5.4 c 10.3 b 12.4 a 9.6 b 12.5 a
Soil respiration (µg CO2-
3.5 d 15.3 c 28.6 a 17.8 c 23.7 b
C g-1 per day)
qCO2 (mg CO2-C g-1
15.1 d 42.0 c 58.2 a 43.2 c 51.0 b
biomass C per day)
Dehydrogenase
123 c 222 b 270 a 230 b 270 a
(nmol TPF g-1 h-1)
Catalase (nmol H2O2
0.9 d 1.7 b 2.1 a 1.8 b 2.2 a
consumed g-1 h-1)
a
Means followed by the same letter within a row are not significantly different at P < 0.05 level.
Source: [43]
Table 6. Microbial biomass-C (SMBC), -N (SMBN) and -P (SMBP) and soil

respiration in the mineral layers of soils of a coconut plantation amended
with leguminous cover crops
SMBC SMBN SMBP Soil respiration (mg CO2 kg-

(mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) 1 -1
d )
P. phaseoloides
0-10 463aA 47.2aA 16.2aA 21.8aA
10-20 460aA 48.3aA 16.4aA 22.1aA
20-30 442aB 48.0aA 14.6aAB 15.9aB
30-40 402aC 33.6aB 12.4aB 14.5aB
40-50 364aD 29.2aB 11.2aB 11.6aC
A. scarabaeoides
0-10 460aA 48.3aA 16.6aA 22.5aA
10-20 446bB 48.0aA 15.6aA 21.0aA
20-30 440aB 37.4bB 12.2abB 16.3aB
30-40 386bC 34.0aB 12.1aB 12.3abC
40-50 349bC 24.6abC 9.8abC 11.2abC
C. pubescens
0-10 362bA 32.6bA 10.8bA 15.6bA
10-20 364cA 28.2bAB 11.2bA 14.6bA
20-30 346bB 27.4cB 10.0bAB 11.1bB
30-40 319cC 24.3bB 8.9bB 8.9bB
40-50 318cC 20.6bC 7.4bB 8.9bB
Control
0-10 173cA 18.6cA 6.8cAA 6.8cA
10-20 161dA 19.2cA 6.8cAA 6.6cA
20-30 160cAB 17.4dAB 5.2cB 4.9cB
30-40 150dB 16.2cB 5.0cB 3.6cBC
40-50 121dC 13.2cC 5.0cB 2.7cC
Within each horizon, column means followed by the same lower case letter are not significant at P<
0.05.
Within each site, column means followed by the same upper case letter are not significant at P< 0.05
Source: [44].

Studies on short-term effects of nutrient management on SMB are few. Since SMB is
among the most labile pools of organic matter and is an important reservoir of plant nutrients,
it can therefore, have important implications for nutrient bioavailability even in the short-
term. Tejada et al. [48] reported that application of different green manures originating from
residues of Trifolium pratense, L. (TP), Brassica napus, L. (BN), and the mixture of TP + BN
to soil under maize increased SMBC significantly. These results are in agreement with those
of Fontaine et al. [49] and Stark et al. [50] who found that SMB responds rapidly, in terms of
activity, after the addition of different green manures to soil. This increase can be attributed to
the incorporation of easily degradable materials, which stimulate the autochthonous microbial
activity and to the incorporation of exogenous microorganisms [51]. Similarly, in an
organic tomato experiment involving application of organic substrates with different C and N
availability [composted cotton gin trash (CGT), animal manure (AM) and rye/vetch green
manure (RV)], either in the presence or absence of wheat–straw mulch, results obtained for
two years showed that SMB and microbial activity were generally higher in organically than
conventionally managed soils with CGT being most effective. The CGT additions increased
SMBC and activity by 103–151% and 88–170% over a period of two years, respectively.
Straw mulching further enhanced SMBC [52].
Organic manures applied in combination with biofertilizers have been found to
profoundly influence SMBC, SMBN and SMBP even in the short-term. In a field experiment
conducted on turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) involving organic nutrient management (ONM
consisting of FYM, neem cake (NC), ash, vermicompost, azosprillum and phosphobacteria),
chemical nutrient management (CNM consisting of urea, rock phosphate and muriate of
potash) and integrated nutrient management (INM involving FYM, NC and inorganic
fertilizers as in CNM), the findings (Table 7) revealed that SMBC levels in ONM and INM
were greater by 31% and 29%, respectively, compared to CNM and 45% and 50%
respectively compared to control [53].
Table. 7. Microbial properties of soils under various nutrient management regimes

of turmeric
CNM a INM b ONM c Control

Microbial biomass C ( g g-1) 378c 491ab 498a 367d
Microbial biomass N ( g g-1) 36a 30b 29bc 30b
-1
Microbial biomass P ( g g ) 14ab 15a 15a 13bc
Soil respiration ( g CO2-C g-1day-1) 25bc 29a 28ab 19d
qCO2 (mg CO2-C (g biomass C)-1 day-1) 72ab 63c 60cd 76a
a
CNM- Chemical nutrient management; b INM- Integrated nutrient management;
c
ONM- Organic nutrient management
In each row, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
Source: [53].
Similarly, they also found that plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in
combination with inorganic NPK fertilization positively influenced SMB in soils under ginger
(Zingiber officinale Rosc.). The mean SMBC level was greater by 60%, mean SMBN level by
83.5% and mean SMBP by 22% compared to NPK alone treatments. They attributed this to a

direct (microbial growth in these by products) and indirect (improvement of plant growth)
effect. Apparently, the supply of readily metabolisable C in the organic manures is likely to
have been the most influential factor contributing to marked enhancement in the levels of
SMBC and SMBP in ONM and INM treatments.
In general, most of the studies suggest that chemical fertilization alone does not augur
well for SMB accumulation, the impact being apparent in plots continuously fertilized with
inorganic N fertilizers. This is possibly because long-term inorganic fertilization without any
organic fertilizers reduced organic carbon, which is the energy source for soil microorganisms
or probably because chemical fertilization caused soil acidification. Wallenstein et al. [54]
suggested that pH and the associated soil chemical changes that occur as pH changes may be
important factors controlling soil microbial communities. Overall, it is apparent that both
short-term and long-term organic fertilization increased SMB [55, 56], while inorganic
fertilizers had relatively less effect on SMB than organic fertilizers [53, 57, 58].
4.2. Soil Respiration
Soil respiration (SR) is a measure of the net CO2 efflux from the soil surface and is one of
the most frequently used indicators for measuring soil organism's activity, soil fertility and
soil aeration [59]. SR originates from the metabolic activity of roots (autotrophic respiration),
microorganisms (bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi), and soil meso- and macrofauna
(heterotrophic respiration). Only under certain circumstances (carbonate soils), significant
amounts of CO2 can abiotically evolve through weathering of carbonates like CaCO3 [60]. SR
results from the degradation of organic matter, with the formation of CO2 occurring in the last
step of carbon mineralization. When soil is disturbed, a change in SR can be observed due to
more rapid growth and higher mineralization of the microorganisms [61]. This respiration is
characterized by several phases including an increase, exponential acceleration, delay,
stationary and a decline phase. SR (CO2 evolution) from a soil is thus a measure of the total
soil biological activity, including microbial activity [62]. With globally 68–120 Pg C y–1, SR
represents the second largest C flux between ecosystems and the atmosphere [63]. This is
more than 10 times the current rate of fossil-fuel combustion and indicates that each year
~10% of the atmosphere’s CO2 cycles through the soil. Thus, even a small change in SR
could significantly intensify—or mitigate—current atmospheric increases of CO2, with
potential feedbacks to climate change. Despite this global significance as well as considerable
scientific commitment to its study over the last decades, there is still limited understanding of
the factors controlling temporal and across-ecosystem variability of SR [60]. SR
measurements are included in most soil monitoring programs and have been found to
discriminate between different soil types and land uses within the Dutch Soil Monitoring
Programme [64, 65].
Several factors affect soil CO2 emission and the return of stored soil organic C to the
atmosphere, including soil temperature, soil moisture, vegetation type, substrate quantity and
quality, microbial biomass and activity, land use and management [66, 67, 68, 69]. Properties
such as root biomass and porosity [70] and man-made factors such as tillage and residue
management [71] also strongly affect SR. One of the many anthropogenic factors exerting a
strong influence on soil microorganisms is nutrient application to soils through organic or
inorganic sources.

While increases of SR after inorganic N additions have been demonstrated [72, 73],
majority of the findings indicate that inorganic N addition decreased microbial respiration
[66, 74, 75, 76], and all inorganic N forms [(NH4NO3, (NH2)2CO (urea), KNO3, NH4Cl,
(NH4)2SO4, Ca(NO3)2] led to a net reduction in microbial respiration, and the magnitude of
the observed response (up to 60 % reduction) was consistent across all soils and negatively
correlated with N concentration [77]. They observed that decreases in SR were mainly a
direct result of the increase in soil N availability, rather than indirect effects caused by the
form of N added. However, organic manures have been found to positively influence SR
depending on the quantity, type and application time of organic amendments.
In two different long-term organic fertilization regimes at an arable site on a nutrient-
poor, sandy soil, Kautz et al. [78] found that SR was highest in the treatments with straw/
green manure. However, FYM application and fertilization with mineral N did not result in
increased SR. Findings of Zhao et al. [42] further stress the positive effects of straw manure.
After 25 years cropping and fertilization, they found that straw manure combined with
chemical fertilizer (S + NP) had higher levels of potential SR than FYM + NP treatment. In
contrast, Liu et al. [40] found that higher quantities of FYM resulted in stronger effects than
green manure or rice straw and they further stated that the most diverse resources and highest
amount of organic amendments resulted in strongest increase of SMB and SR. Instead of
FYM on its own, FYM with added NPK had a significantly greater effect, increasing the SR
by 52% in a direct seeding mulch-based cropping system [79]. Tejada et al. [48] reported that
SR in organically managed plots depends on the chemical composition of the organic matter
applied to the soil. Long-term cover cropping has also been found to positively influence SR
rates (Tables 5 and 6) depending on the crop species employed as soil cover [43, 44, 80, 81].
Organic manuring and tillage have also been found to markedly influence SR. Wang et al.
[82] found that long-term tillage (16 yrs) had a significant effect on SR, particularly in the 0–
5 and 5–10 cm soil depths, where no tillage with straw cover treatment significantly improved
SR by at least 12% compared to traditional tillage with straw removal. Likewise, an 8-year-
period study involving conservational (no-till with residue retention) (CAM) versus
traditional agricultural management (moldboard plowing without residue retention) (TAM),
revealed that SR rates were significantly higher under CAM than those under TAM [83].
CAM significantly increased SR in both the bulk soil and the fine sand fraction, which
suggested that the accumulated SOC in the sand fractions under CAM had a high
decomposition potential.
Although it is known that soil functioning changes only after some years of organic
farming, SR rates have been found to be influenced even in the short-term (< 1 yr). A study
on the effects of contrasting nutrient management regimes in soils under turmeric (Table 7)
revealed that SR in treatments involving organic manures plus biofertilizers (FYM, neem
cake, ash, vermicompost, azosprillum and phosphobacteria) was markedly greater relative to
soils applied with only chemical fertilizers [53]. They attributed this to greater levels of SOC
which has been found to account for 75% and 81% of the variations in CO2 production in the
non-pre-incubated and pre-incubated soils, respectively [84]. They also suggested that SR is
dependent on the replenishment of the labile substrate from the bulk organic C pool. This
indicated that in the soil amended with organic manures and biofertilizers the organic
substrates are mineralized more rapidly and that the greater microbial biomass derived from
these treatments would have been able to degrade a greater quantity of substrates [51].

Overall, it seems likely that in all soils, irrespective of the type of organic manures used,
SR rates are dependent on the labile organic matter/ dissolved organic matter (DOM) pools
and other factors such as temperature, moisture etc. Bengtson and Bengtsson [85] found that
SR was not correlated to the concentration of DOC, but was tightly associated with its
production rate. Contrarily, Laik et al. [86] found that the correlation between DOC of the
surface soil layer and SR was significant suggesting that biodegradation of DOM can be
quantified by CO2 evolution [87]. However, Boström et al. [88] identified older microbially
derived carbon as the main contributor to SR at soil depths below 20 cm. Earlier, Alvarez et
al. [89] also found that basal respiration was associated with carbon availability in the light
fraction and carbon in SMB. Laik et al. [86] observed that highest microbial growth led to a
corresponding increase in SR and as the degree of decomposition decreased with time there
was stability cum maturity phase of microbial growth which ultimately led to declining rate of
SR. These findings suggest that the positive effects organic manure additions on SMB
(autotrophs and heterotrophs) is quite important in enhancing CO2 evolution from the soil.
4.3. Metabolic Quotient
Metabolic quotient (qCO2) is the respiration per unit of microbial biomass and is
probably the most straightforward index used in the literature [10]. Physiologically, this index
describes the substrate mineralized per unit of microbial biomass carbon. The qCO2 has been
widely used for the quantification of environmental effects on the microbial community in
soils and has a great and as yet unrealised potential for improving our understanding of the
development of microbial communities in the ecosystem that they inhabit [90]. In addition,
this ratio has been widely used as a good indicator of the alterations that take place in soil due
to heavy metal contamination, deforestation, temperature or changes in soil management
practices [10]. Moreover, the qCO2 could be affected by a shift in the composition of the
microbial population for instance the fungal to bacterial biomass ratio [91, 92]. Therefore, the
qCO2 can be a sensitive parameter for detecting negative effects of chemicals on microbial
activity and/or be predictive of changes in the composition of the soil microflora [93].
Anderson and Domsch [93] observed a decrease in qCO2 in soils under monoculture
comparing to those under continuous crop rotations, suggesting that richness of organic C
from different cultures benefits respiration. This indicated that qCO2 is a good bioindicator
for substrate quality and reflects the efficiency of the use of SOC by microorganisms [94].
However, the index has also been criticized for its insensitivity to certain disturbances and to
the ecosystem's development whenever stress increases along successional gradients [91].
Soil ecosystems at or near the steady-state, display qCO2 (or specific respiration) values
equivalent to the maintenance energy requirements of soil microorganisms. Contrarily, soil
disturbance and stress cause a decrease in microbial efficiency and enhance the qCO2 because
the microbial population needs to spend more energy on maintenance limiting the
incorporation of added substrate into the cell components. According to Schjonning et al. [95]
the decrease of qCO2 indicates: (i) a more efficient microbial community and (ii) a better use
of the available organic substrates. In ecological terms, however, a high qCO2 reflects a high
maintenance carbon demand, and if the soil system cannot replenish the carbon which is lost
through respiration, microbial biomass must decline [90].

Moreover, Mäder et al. [23] supposed that the decrease of the qCO2 was related to a
significant increase of microbial diversity in organically managed soil because a diverse
microbial community is able to better transform C from organic debris into biomass. This
corroborates well with the findings of Lagomarsino et al. [96] who found that qCO2
significantly decreased in organic manure amended soil under pea and durum wheat
indicating a decrease of the microbial community maintenance energy requirement in these
soils. This is well supported by the findings of Melero et al. [97] who obtained higher qCO2
values under inorganically fertilized soils than organically fertilized soils under a vegetable
crop rotation. These results indicated that in inorganic plots, a lower microbial community
respired at a greater rate. They attributed the low qCO2 values in organic fertilized soils to the
protector effect of organic matter on microbial biomass. According to Fliebbach and Mader
[98], organic management system benefits soil microbial biomass because microorganisms
use the available C more efficiently as indicated by a lower qCO2 and suggests better
conditions within the SOM which may contribute to nutrient mineralization and temporary
storage of potentially leachable elements.
In general, inorganic fertilizer additions are capable of either reducing or enhancing a
soil’s qCO2, depending on soil management. In a short-term study, Dinesh et al. [53] found
greater qCO2 levels in plots exclusively treated with inorganic fertilizers and lower values in
treatments involving organic manures (Table 7). Greater qCO2 levels in inorganically
fertilized soils indicated decreased substrate use efficiency i.e. more substrate is catabolized
to CO2 and less substrate is incorporated into the microbial biomass, which suggested that the
conversion of total carbon into microbial carbon is less efficient as reported by Frazão et al.
[99] in soils of varying land use. Contrarily, the decreases of qCO2 in organically manured
soils suggested less adverse environmental conditions and relatively higher use efficiency of
the organic resources.
Likewise, in a study involving different combinations of inorganic and organic sources of
nutrients to rice and wheat, high qCO2 values were observed in treatments with green manure
alone relative to the NPK treatment under aerobic condition indicating that during C
mineralization of organic matter, microbes divert more C to respiration than to new microbial
biomass, causing more C loss [100]. Likewise, Liu et al. [40] observed high qCO2 levels in
treatments with FYM relative to chemical fertilizers in a subtropical paddy field. It is also
pertinent to note that not only the amount of TOC added to the soil but also the quality of
organic matter added may affect qCO2. The results do suggest the inconsistency of qCO2 as a
reliable indicator of nutrient management effects on soils quality. Results of a 12 year
experiment involving conventionally tilled plots (CT) and natural fallows (NF) amended
annually with FYM and FYM combined with an NPK chemical fertilizer indicated no
difference in qCO2 between the various treatments [79]. Bilgo et al. [101], too, found that the
qCO2 in a tropical sandy soil under different short-term fallows did not differ, even when
perennial grasses were introduced. Nevertheless, the absence of differences between qCO2 in
some studies lends credence to the findings of Alvarez et al. [89] and Wardle and Ghani [91]
who found that qCO2 was not a consistent indicator of different types of soil management or
effect of soil disturbance. It was quite well related to stress (independent of disturbance), e.g.
stress owing to the pH value [102] or heavy metal-induced stress in soil [19, 103].

4.4. Soil Enzyme Activity
Soil enzymes perform key biochemical functions in the overall process of organic matter
decomposition in the soil system and are important in catalysing several important reactions
necessary for the life processes of micro-organisms in soils and the stabilisation of soil
structure, the decomposition of organic wastes, organic matter formation and nutrient cycling
[104]. In practice, the biochemical reactions are brought about largely through the catalytic
contribution of enzymes and variable substrates that serve as energy sources for micro-
organisms [105].
Despite the short life-cycle of microorganisms, however, most enzymes continue to
contribute to the metabolic capacity of the soil. Enzymes can be excreted by living cells or
released by disintegrating cells to become free enzymes. In soil, free enzymes become
adsorbed on organic and mineral constituents or complexed with humic substances or both.
These enzymes may include amylase, arylsulphatases, β-glucosidase, cellulase, chitinase,
dehydrogenase, phosphatase, protease and urease released from plants, animals, organic
compounds and micro-organisms and soils. When soil is sampled to compare management
impacts on soil functions, it provides a snapshot of the soil ecosystem as it exists at the time
of sampling. Thus, while changes in enzymatic activities may be correlated with simultaneous
changes in the soil microbial population, the shifts in activities are just as apt to reflect long-
term fluctuations in microbial biomass and not necessarily the current population level [106].
As said earlier, changes in some soil properties (total C, N etc) may occur very slowly or
may only occur when the soil undergoes drastic changes. Such properties are not suitable for
estimating soil quality, and properties that respond rapidly to environmental stress must be
used. Soil biological and biochemical properties do respond rapidly and include properties
that are directly related to the number and activity of the soil microbiota (microbial biomass,
basal respiration, etc.) as well as properties associated with the decomposition of organic
compounds present in soils and the release of nutrients, i.e., the activity of hydrolytic
enzymes. Since soil enzyme-catalyzed biochemical reactions are the rate limiting steps of
organic matter decomposition and since enzymatic activity is highly sensitive to external
agents and is relatively inexpensive and easy to determine, measurement of the activity of
numerous hydrolytic enzymes has been widely used in recent years to study the effect of
changes in soil use on processes that affect the cycling of bio-elements: C, N, P and S [18].
The effects of application of mineral and organic fertilizers have been reported to both
positive and negative on soil enzyme activity. Increase in enzyme activity due to
incorporation of organic amendments and microorganisms [53, 107), and decrease in activity,
particularly when poor quality manure is used have been reported [108, 109]. The effects of
application of municipal solid waste (MSW) compost, cow manure (MA), mineral fertilizer
(MIN) or NPK and NH4NO3 on soil enzyme activities at harvest of barley were measured
after nine years. Oxidoreductase enzymes, such as dehydrogenase and catalase, were higher
in the MSW treatment and MA treatments than in the unamended soil, indicating an increase
in the microbial metabolism in the soil as a result of the mineralization of biodegradable C
fractions contained in the amendments. The addition of MSW and MA caused different
responses in the activity of hydrolase enzymes. Phosphatase activity decreased with MSW
and MA, to less than those in the mineral fertilization and the control treatments. Urease
activity decreased due to MSW application possibly due to heavy metals contained in the
MSW. However, β-glucosidase and protease-BAA increased in all the organic treatments due

to microbial stimulation by the organic C [110]. In a study on systems that included a

conventional cropping, organic cropping, integrated crop–livestock, plantation forestry, and
succession from an abandoned agricultural field [111], results revealed that the activities of β-
glucosidase, exoglucanase, phenol oxidase, peroxidase, and β-glucosaminidase, were up to 3-
fold greater under integrated crop–livestock than soils under the other systems. However, soil
β-glucosidase activity in the integrated crop–livestock system was significantly lower than the
other systems and appeared to reflect the inhibitory role of soluble phenolics on this enzyme.
Enzymes are also activated to varying degrees due to short-term incorporation of
nutrients to soils. Incorporation of poultry manure, FYM, sesbania and gliricidia into soils of
a rice-rice system indicated that in soils freshly amended and soils previously amended with
organic manures there was a slight inhibition of acid phosphatase, but significant activation of
urease, amidase, alkaline phosphatase, dehydrogenase and L-glutaminase. A significant and
positive relationship of enzyme activity with organic C and total N suggested that the addition
of organic manure to soils increased C turnover, N availability and microbial activity which
in turn led to greater enzyme synthesis and accumulation in the soil matrix [112]. In a field
experiment on turmeric [53] involving inorganic fertilization (CNM), organic manuring
(ONM) and a combination of both (INM), the activities of dehydrogenase, catalase and
hydrolytic enzymes involved in C, N, P, and S cycles in ONM and INM were significantly
greater compared to CNM (Table 8). According to Liang et al. [113], the incorporation of
organic amendments to soil stimulate enzyme activity because the added material may
contain intra- and extra-cellular enzymes and may also stimulate microbial activity in the soil.
Positive correlation was found between enzyme activity and dissolved organic C suggesting a
relationship between the availability of labile and easily mineralisable organic matter and the
activity of microbial populations.
Growing leguminous crops as soil cover and incorporating them into the soil would also
have a variety of effects on soil microbial activity, enzyme synthesis and accumulation [114].
In a study on the long-term (12 yrs) effects of leguminous cover crops like Atylosia
scarabaeoides, Centrosema pubescens, Calopogonium mucunoides and Pueraria
phaseoloides on important enzyme activities in the organic (fresh litter layer, F and fermented
+ humus layer, F + H) and mineral (0–10 and 10–20 cm) layers of soils of a 19-year-old
coconut plantation, the organic layers (fresh litter layer, and fermented + humus layer) of the
CC site exhibited a 4-fold increase in L-asparaginase, and L-glutaminase activities and a 10-
fold increase in β-glucosaminidase activity compared to the mineral layer (Table 9).
Likewise, the enzyme activities s exhibited a 1.5–2.0-fold increase in various layers of the
mineral layers (0–10 and 10–20 cm) relative to control [44]. Positive effects of cover crop on
activities of enzyme involved in C, N, P and S cycles in surface soils were also observed [43].
The long-term effect of organic manures on enzyme activities is probably a combined
effect of a higher degree of stabilization of enzyme to humic substances, and an increase in
microbial biomass with increased soil C concentration [42]. Since SOM is one of the
important soil properties that may considerably influence the activities of soil enzymes, any
factor that enhances SOM content in soils could enhance soil enzyme activities. Besides, the
rate and type of organic amendment incorporated into the soils, the quality can also affect the
composition and relative abundance of soil enzymes [115]. Their results suggested that the
alteration in soil enzyme activities was regulated by organic matter decomposed from straw
and manure and the application of fertilizer nutrients with manure or straw improved the
organic matter status of soils, which in turn enhanced the enzyme activities.

Table 8. Enzyme activities in soils under various nutrient management regimes of

turmeric
CNM INM ONM Control

Dehydrogenase (nmol TPF g-1soil h-1) 187c 233ab 241a 183cd
Catalase (mmol H2O2 consumed g-1 h-1) 1.2c 2.4a 2.3ab 0.9d
Acid phosphatase ( mol p-nitrophenol g-1 h-1) 10.3c 14.3ab 14.4a 7.4d
Phosphodiesterase ( mol p-nitrophenol g-1 h-1) 2.11c 3.31ab 3.37a 2.07cd
Arylsulphatase ( mol p-nitrophenol g-1 h-1) 0.32c 0.49a 0.40ab 0.30cd
ß-glucosidase ( mol p-nitrophenol g-1 h-1) 3.69c 4.43ab 4.56a 3.13cd
BAA-protease (μmol NH3-N g−1 h−1) 7.24bc 7.51ab 7.63a 6.32d
Casein-protease (μmol tyrosine g−1 h−1) 1.72c 2.56a 2.38ab 1.46cd
Urease (μmol NH3-N g−1 h−1) 6.21c 8.43a 7.89ab 5.06d
CM cellulase (μmol glucose g−1 h−1) 0.50c 0.67ab 0.71a 0.43cd
Invertase (μmol glucose g−1 h−1) 8.21c 11.57a 10.28ab 5.09d
a
CNM- Chemical nutrient management; b INM- Integrated nutrient management;
c
ONM- Organic nutrient management
In each row, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05
Source: [53].
Table 9. Enzyme activities in soils (0-30 cm) in soils under leguminous cover cropsa
Control Calopogonium Pueraria Centrosema Atylosia

Phosphomonoesterase
7.3 d 12.5 c 14.9 a 12.8 c 13.6 b
(µmol p-nitrophenol g-1 h-1)
Phosphodiesterase
1.39 c 2.97 b 3.25 a 2.97 b 3.12 a
Arylsulfatase (µmol p-nitrophenol g-1
0.34 d 0.45 c 0.51 b 0.42 c 0.56 a
h-1)
β-Glucosidase
1.67 d 3.34 b 4.45 a 3.11 c 4.34 a
Casein-protease (µmol tyrosine g-1 h-1) 1.14 d 2.35 c 2.52 a 2.33 c 2.41 b
BAA-protease (µmol NH3-N g-1 h-1) 4.28 c 6.71 b 7.78 a 6.78 b 7.78a
Urease (µmol NH3-N g-1 h-1) 4.62 d 7.83 c 8.24 a 7.78 c 8.14 b
CM-cellulase (µmol glucose g-1 h-1) 0.21 d 0.45 c 0.57 a 0.44 c 0.51 b
Invertase (µmol glucose g-1 h-1) 5.09 d 8.98 c 11.57 a 10.81 b 11.28 a
a Means followed by the same letter within a row are not significantly different at P < 0.05 level.
Source: [43].
Extracellular urease activity has been shown associated with clay-organic matter
complexes [107]. Grego et al. [116] reported that alkaline-phosphatase was the most
satisfactory choice for determining the relative activity and mass of microbial population in
soils. Zhao et al. [42] found that the activity of alkaline-phosphatase was positively correlated
with SOC, available-P and microbial biomass carbon. Contrarily, negative correlation
between alkaline-phosphatase and soil available-P has also been reported [117].
Organic manuring is known to promote sustainability of agricultural soils and most of the
studies suggested that nutrient management involving organic manures seem to have greatest
effects on enzyme activities compared to control. As reported by Flieβbach et al. [118],
microbial activity is generally enhanced in soil under organic management, as compared to
integrated or conventional management, emphasizing the important role of biogeochemical
cycles. In contrast, conventional management, which is known to affect soil quality, seems to

have equal or possibly slightly greater effects on enzyme activities than control [119]. This
could be explained by the fact that soils with a history of agrochemical use, as conventionally
managed soils, have a great intrinsic agrochemical degradation capacity because of their
microbial adaptations [120]. Hence, although organic management is recommended to
preserve soil sustainability, it appears at the same time to have the greatest effect on enzyme
activities [119]. They found that phenol oxidase was the only enzyme to be an attractive
potential indicator of soil quality compared to cellulase, fluoresceine diacetate hydrolase, β-
galactosidase, β-glucosidase, phenol oxidase, arylamidase, acid and alkaline
phosphomonoesterases, phosphodiesterase, phosphotriesterase and arylsulfatase in a field
experiment investigating the effects of pest management strategies (i.e. none, organic,
conventional and integrated) on enzyme activities in relation to soil properties. However,
Lagomarsino et al. [96] successfully used soil microbial biomass and enzymatic activities to
detect short-term changes in soil and reported that the activities of dehydrogenase, chitinase,
acid–phosphatase, arylsulfatase and β-glucosidase were significantly high under organic
management and concluded that β-glucosidase was the most suitable indicator to predict
organic C accumulation in soil under organic management in a Mediterranean environment
implying that the application of a sensitive C cycling enzyme activity such as β-glucosidase
should improve the soil quality assessments for functions where soil metabolic activity or C-
cycle enzyme activity play a role [106].
CONCLUSION
Agricultural inputs especially inorganic, organic and biofertilizers affect the quality of
soil. In this context, it is a challenge to develop appropriate strategies for sustainable land use
and integrated crop productivity. During the 20th century, conventional agricultural
management used synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to improve crop productivity. This
intensive use of agrochemicals has reduced biodiversity, increased irreversible erosion of soil
and depleted SOM and greatly impacted surface and groundwater quality. Hence, over the
last decades, organic management has been introduced in order to preserve soil sustainability
by allowing the maintenance and even the increase of soil quality through the use of FYM,
partial or complete omission of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Although organic
management is known to provide benefits for the soil environment, it cannot completely
replace conventional management, which is often the only solution under intensive crop
production. As a viable alternative, nutrient management involving restricted use of chemical
fertilizers by substituting a part of the inorganic fertilizers with locally available good quality
organic manures, biofertilizers, effective microorganisms and plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria has been found to be encouraging. Among the various parameters reflecting soil
quality, we focused on sensitive biological parameters like soil microbial biomass, soil
respiration, metabolic quotient and enzyme activities. All these parameters have been found
to be significantly affected by organic manures and could be used to measure soil quality
changes both in the long-term and short-term. Besides, published literature on nutrient
management indicates that the influence of organic manures on soil biological quality is more
beneficial when applied along with optimum quantities of chemical fertilizer.

REFERENCES
[1] P. M. Berry, R. Sylvester-Bradley, L. Phillips, D. J. Hatch, S. Cuttle, F. Raynes and P.
Gosling, Soil Use Manage. 15, 137, (2002).
[2] M. Shepherd, Soil Use Manage. 18, 248 (2002).
[3] S. Cuttle, M. Shepherd and G. Goodlass, 2004 at http://www.organicsoilfertility.co.uk.
[4] J.W. Doran and T. B. Parkin, Defining and assessing soil quality (1994). J. W. Doran,
D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek and B. A. Stewart, “Defining soil quality for a
sustainable environment”, SSSA- Special Publication 35, Soil Science Society of
America (Madison, WI), pp 3-21.
[5] C. Feller, J. Balesdent, B. Nicolardot and C. Cerri, Approaching functional soil organic
matter pools through particle-size fractionation: Examples for tropical soils (2001). R.
Lal, K. M. Kimble and R. F. Follet, “Assessment methods for soil carbon”, Adv. Soil
Sci. pp 53-67.
[6] G. Sparling, R. L. Parfitt, A. E. Hewitt and L. A. Schipper, J. Environ. Qual. 32, 760
(2003).
[7] J. L. Havlin, J. D. Beaton, S. L. Tisdale and W. L. Nelson, Soil fertility and nutrient
management: An introduction to nutrient management. Pearson/ Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ (2005)
[8] W. E. Larson and F. J. Pierce, The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable
management (1994). J. W. Doran, D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek and B. A. Stewart,
“Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment”, SSSA- Special Publication 35,
Soil Science Society of America (Madison, WI), pp. 37-51.
[9] C. Pankhurst and B. M. Doube, and V. V. S. R. Gupta, Biological indicators of soil
health. CAB International, Wallingford (1997).
[10] F. Bastida, A. Zsolnay, T. Hernández and C. García, Geoderma 147, 159 (2008).
[11] C. García, T. Hernandez, J. A. Pascual, J. L. Moreno and M. Ros, Microbial activity in
soils of SE Spain exposed to degradation processes. Strategies for their rehabilitation
(2000). C. García and T. Hernandez, ‘Research and Perspectives of Soil Enzymology in
Spain’, Consejo Superìor de Investìgacìones Cìentificas (Madrid, Spain), pp. 93–143.
[12] G. P. Sparling, Aust. J. Soil Res. 39, 195 (1992).
[13] M. C. Leirós, C. Trasar-Cepeda, S. Seoane and F. Gil-Sotres, Soil Biol. Biochem. 32,
733 (2000).
[14] F. Gil-Sotres, C. Trasar-Cepeda, M. C. Leirós and S. Seoane, Soil Biol. Biochem. 37,
877 (2005).
[15] R. García-Ruiz, V. Ochoa, M. Belén Hinojosa and J. A. Carreira, Soil Biol. Biochem.
40, 2137 (2008).
[16] S. Visser and D. Parkinson, Am. J. Alternative Agr. 7, 33 (1992).
[17] P. Nannipieri, L. Landi and L. Badalucco, Agronomia 29, 312 (1995).
[18] C. Trasar-Cepeda, M. C. Leirós, S. Seoane and F. Gil-Sotres, Appl. Soil Ecol. 39, 133
(2008).
[19] P. C. Brookes, Biol. Fertil. Soils 19, 269 (1995).
[20] D. S. Powlson and D. S. Jenkinson, Soil Biol. Biochem. 8: 179–188.
[21] K. Broos, L. M. Macdonald, M. S. J. Warne, D. A. Heemsbergen, M. B. Barnes, M.
Bell M and M. J. McLaughlin, Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2693 (2007).

[22] O. Dilly, H. P. Blume and J. C. Munch, Biogeochem. 65, 319 (2003).

[23] P. Mäder, A. Flieβbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst P. Fried and U. Niggli, Science 296, 1694
(2002).
[24] D. Landgraf and S. Klose, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 165, 9 (2002).
[25] A. S. Allen and W. H. Schlesinger, Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 581 (2004).
[26] J. D. Glover, J. P. Reganold and P. K. Andrews, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 80, 29 (2000).
[27] S. Monaco, D. J. Hatch, D. Sacco, C. Bertora and C. Grignani, Soil Biol. Biochem. 40,
608 (2008).
[28] T. J. Purakayastha, L. Rudrappa, D. Singh, A. Swarup and S. Bhadraray, Geoderma
144, 370 (2008).
[29] S. S. Andrews, J. P. Mitchell, R. Mancinelli, D. L. Karlen, T. K. Hartz, W. R.
Horwarth, G. S. Pettygrove, K. M. Scow and D. S. Munk, Agron. J. 94, 12 (2002).
[30] G. S. Kang, V. Beri, B. S. Sidhu and O.P. Rupela, Biol. Fertil. Soils 41, 389 (2005).
[31] P. Perucci, Biol. Fertil. Soils 10, 221 (1990).
[32] P. Perucci and P. L. Giusquiani, Zentralbl. Mikrobiol. 145, 615 (1990).
[33] P. Perucci, Biol. Fertil. Soils 14, 54 (1992).
[34] P. L. Giusquiani, G. Gigliotti and D. Businelli, Biol. Fertil. Soils 17, 257 (1994).
[35] R. Albiach, R. Canet, F. Pomares and F. Ingelmo, Bioresource Technol. 75, 43 (2000).
[36] K. Manjaiah and D. Singh, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 86, 155 (2001).
[37] R. Ebhin Masto, P. K. Chhonkar, D. Singh and A. K. Patra, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 118,
130 (2007).
[38] D. R. Nayak, Y. J. Babu and T. K. Adhya, Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1897 (2007).
[39] A. Mandal, A. K. Patra, D. Singh, A. Swarup and R. Ebhin Masto, Bioresour. Technol.
98, 3585 (2007).
[40] M. Liu, F. Hu, X. Chen, Q. Huang, J. Jiao, B. Zhang and H. Li, Appl. Soil Ecol. 42,166
(2009).
[41] K. Birkhofer, T. M. Bezemer, J. Bloem, M. Bonkowski, S. Christensen, D. Dubois, F.
Ekelund, A. Fließach, L. Gunst, K. Hedlund, P. Mäder, J. Mikola, C. Robin, H. Setälä,
F. Tatin-Froux, W. H. Van der Putten and S. Scheu, Biol. Biochem. 40, 2297 (2008).
[42] Y. Zhao, P. Wang, J. Li, Y. Chen, X. Ying and S. Liu, Eur. J. Agron. 31, 36 (2009).
[43] R. Dinesh, M. A. Suryanarayana, S. Ghoshal Chaudhuri, T. E. Sheeja, Soil Till. Res. 77,
69 (2004).
[44] R. Dinesh, S. Ghoshal Chaudhuri, T. E. Sheeja, and K. N. Shiva, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.
172, 288 (2009).
[45] S. M. Shen, P. C. Brookes and D. S. Powlson, Pedosphere 7, 297 (1997).
[46] L. M. Zibilske and D. J. Makus, Geoderma 149, 379 (2009).
[47] Y. Tian, J. Liu, X. Wang and L. Gao, Sci. Hortic. 27, 198 (2011).
[48] M. Tejada, J. L. Gonzalez, A. M. Garcia-Martinez and J. Parrado, Bioresour. Technol.
99, 1758 (2008).
[49] S. Fontaine, A. Mariotti and L. Abbadie, Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 837 (2003).
[50] C. Stark, L. M. Condron, A. Stewart, H. J. Di and M. O’Callaghan, Appl. Soil Ecol. 35,
79 (2007).
[51] M. Tejada, C. Garcia, J. L. Gonzalez and M. T. Hernandez, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 900
(2006).
[52] C. Tu, J. B. Ristaino and S. Hu, Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 247 (2006).

[53] R. Dinesh, V. Srinivasan, S. Hamza and A. Manjusha, Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4697
(2010).
[54] M. D. Wallenstein, S. McNulty, I. J. Fernandez, J. Boggs, W. H. Schlesinger, Forest
Ecol. Manage. 222, 459 (2006).
[55] R. Ebhin Masto, P. K. Chhonkar, D. Singh and A. K. Patra, Soil Biol. Biochem. 38,
1577 (2006).
[56] S. Melero, E. Madejón, J. F. Herencia and J. C. Ruiz, Eur. J. Agron. 26, 327 (2007).
[57] H. Chu, X. Lin, T. Fujii, S. Morimoto, K. Yagi, J. Hu and J. Zhang. Soil Biol. Biochem.
39, 2971 (2007).
[58] N. Nakhro and M. S. Dkhar, J. Agron. 9, 102 (2010).
[59] J. W. Neilson and I. L. Pepper, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 428 (1990).
[60] M. Reichstein and C. Beer, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 171, 344 (2008).
[61] J. S. Singh and S. R. Gupta, Botanical Rev. 43, 449 (1977).
[62] K. Alef and P. Nannipieri, Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry.
Third edition, Academic press, San Diego (1995).
[63] D. Schimel, D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud and T. Wigley. CO2
and the carbon cycle (1996). J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N.
Harris, A. Kattenberg, K. Maskell, ‘Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate
Change’. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 65–86.
[64] J. Bloem and A. M. Breure, Microbial indicators (2003). B. A. Markert, A. M. Breure
and H. G. Zechmeister, “Bioindicators and Biomonitors”, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 259–
282.
[65] C. Mulder, D. De Zwart, H. J. Van Wijnen, A. J. Schouten and A. M. Breure, Funct.
Ecol. 17, 516 (2003).
[66] R. D. Bowden, E. Davidson, K. Savage, C. Arabia and P. Steudler, Forest Ecol.
Manage. 196, 43 (2004).
[67] J. W. Raich and A. Tufekcioglu, Biogeochem. 48, 71 (2000).
[68] M. C. Fisk and T. J. Fahey, Biogeochem.53, 201 (2001).
[69] W. Ding, L. Meng, Y. Yin, Z. Cai and X. Zheng, Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 669 (2007).
[70] P. J. Hanson, N. T. Edwards, C. T. Garten Jr. and J. A. Andrews, Biogeochem. 48, 115
(2000).
[71] R. W. Gesch, D. C. Reicosky, R. A. Gilbert and D. R. Morris, Soil Till. Res. 92, 156
(2007).
[72] A. Gallardo and W. H. Schlesinger, Soil Biol. Biochem. 26, 1409 (1994).
[73] M. C. Moscatelli, A. Lagomarsino, P. De Angelis and S. Grego, Forest Ecol. Manage.
255, 447 (2008).
[74] C.M. Thirukkumaran and D. Parkinson, Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 59 (2000).
[75] J. M. Craine, C. Morrow and N. Fierer, Ecology 88, 2105 (2007).
[76] K. Treseder, Ecol. Lett. 11, 1111 (2008).
[77] K. S. Ramirez, J. M. Craine and N. Fierer, Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 2336-2338 (2010).
[78] T. Kautz, S. Wirth and F. Ellmer, Eur. J. Soil Biol. 40, 87 (2004).
[79] B. Rabary, S. Sall, P. Letourmy, O. Husson, E. Ralambofetra, N. Moussa and J.-L.
Chotte, Appl. Soil Ecol. 39, 236-243 (2008).
[80] R. Dinesh, M. A. Suryanarayana, S. G. Chaudhuri, T. E. Sheeja and K. N. Shiva, Eur. J.
Soil Biol. 42, 147 (2006).

[81] J. C. Franchini, C. C. Crispino, R. A. Souza, E. Torres and M. Hungria, Soil Till. Res.
92: 18 (2007).
[82] Q. Wang, Y. Bai, H. Gao, J. He, H. Chen, R. C. Chesney, N. J. Kuhn and H. Li,
Geoderma 144, 502 (2008).
[83] S. Qin, C. Hu, X. He, W. Dong, J. Cui and Y. Wang, Appl. Soil Ecol. 45, 152 (2010).
[84] W. J. Wang, R. C. Dalal, P. W. Moody and C. J. Smith, Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 273
(2003).
[85] P. Bengtson and G. Bengtsson, Ecol. Lett. 10, 783 (2007).
[86] R. Laik, K. Kumar, D. K. Das and O. P. Chaturvedi, Appl. Soil Ecol. 42, 71 (2009).
[87] K. PDF (592 K)Kalbitz, J. Schmerwitz, D. Schwesig and E. Matzner, Geoderma 113,
273 (2003).
[88] B. Boström, D. Comstedt and A. Ekblad, Oecologia 153, 89 (2007).
[89] C. R. Alvarez, R. Alvarez, M. S. Grigera and R. S. Lavado, Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 767
(1998).
[90] T.-H. Anderson and K. H. Domsch, Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 2039 (2010).
[91] D. A. Wardle and A. Ghani, Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 1601 (1995).
[92] S. Heinze, R. Rauber and R. G. Joergensen, Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 405 (2010).
[93] T.-H. Anderson and K. H. Domsch, Soil Biol. Biochem. 22, 251 (1990).
[94] J. D. Knoepp, D. C. Coleman, D. A. Crossley Jr. and J. S. Clark, Forest Ecol. Manage.
138, 357 (2000).
[95] P. Schjonning, S. Elmholt, L. J. Munkholm and K. Debosz, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 88,
195 (2002).
[96] A. Lagomarsino, M. C. Moscatelli, A. Di Tizio, R. Mancinelli, S. Grego and S.
Marinari, Ecol. Indic. 9, 518 (2009).
[97] S. Melero, E. Madejón, J. C. Ruiz, J. F. Herencia and J. C. Ruiz, Agron. J. 100, 611
(2008).
[98] A. Fließbach and P. Mader, Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 757 (2000).
[99] L. A. Frazão, M. C. Piccolo, B. J. Feigl, C. C. Cerri and C. E. P. Cerri, Agr. Ecosyst.
Environ. 135, 161 (2010).
[100] A. Tirol-Padre, J. K. Ladha, A. P. Regmi, A. L. Bhandari and K. Inubushi, Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 71, 442 (2007).
[101] A. Bilgo, D. Masse, S. Sall, G. Serpantié, J.-L. Chotte and V. Hien, Biol. Fertil. Soils
43, 313 (2006).
[102] D. A. Wardle, Funct. Ecol. 7, 346 (1993).
[103] L. Landi, G. Renella, J. L. Moreno, L. Falchini and P. Nannipieri, Biol. Fertil. Soils 32,
8 (2000).
[104] R. P. Dick, J. A. Sandor and N. S. Eash, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 50, 123 (1994).
[105] S. Kiss, M. Dragan-Bularda and D. Radulescu (1978). Soil polysaccharidases: activity
and agricultural importance (1978). R. G. Burns, “Soil Enzymes”, Academic Press
(London), pp. 117-147.
[106] D. E. Stott, S. S. Andrews, M. A. Liebig, B. J. Wienhold and D. L. Karlen, Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 74, 107 (2009).
[107] E. Kandeler, M. Stemmer and E. M. Klimanek, Soil Biol. Biochem. 31, 261 (1999).
[108] C. García, T. Hernández, F. Costa, B. Ceccanti and C. Ciardi, Canadian J. Soil Sci. 72,
243 (1992).
[109] L. A. Schipper and G. P. Sparling, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 300 (2000).

[110] J. C. García-Gil, C. Plaza, P. Soler-Rovira and A. Polo, Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 1907
(2000).
[111] L. Tian, E. Dell and W. Shi, Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 426 (2010).
[112] R. Dinesh, R. P. Dubey, A. N. Ganeshamurthy and G. Shyam Prasad, Organic
manuring in rice-based cropping system: Effects on soil microbial biomass and selected
enzyme activities. Curr. Sci. India 79, 1716 (2000).
[113] Y. Liang, M. Nikolic, Y. Peng, W. Chen and Y. Jiang, Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 1185
(2005).
[114] R. Dinesh, M. A. Suryanarayana, G. Shyam Prasad, A. K. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Nair
and T. V. R. S. Sharma, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162, 57 (1999).
[115] W. Shi, E. Dell, D. Bowman and K. Iyyemperumal, Plant Soil 288, 285 (2006).
[116] S. Grego, A. Benedetti, S. Dellórco, G. Rossi, S. Marinari and L. Badalucco, Fresenius
Environ. Bull. 5, 282 (1996).
[117] E. Madejón, P. Burgos, R. López and F. Cabrera, Biol. Fertil. Soils 34, 144 (2001).
[118] A. Flieβbach, H. R. Oberholze, L. Gunst, and P. Mäder, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 18, 273
(2007).
[119] C. Floch, Y. Capowiez and S. Criquet, Soil Biol.Biochem. 41, 61 (2009).
[120] L. Merini, V. Cuadrado, C. G. Flocco and A. M. Giulietti, Chemosphere, 68, 259
(2007).
[121] C. C. Biddappa, A. K. Upadhyay, M. R. Hegde and C. Palaniswami J. Plantation Crops
24, 71 (1996).
[122] S. Hamza and V. Srinivasan, Planter’s chronicle, 99, 4 (2003).
[123] J. W. Doran, M. Sarrantonio and M. Liebig, Soil health and sustainability (1996). D. L.
Sparks, Adv. Agron. Vol. 56. Academic Press (San Diego) pp. 1–54.

Chapter 3
REPLENISHING SOIL ORGANIC MATTER WITH

ORGANIC FERTILISERS
György Füleky* and Szilveszter Benedek

Szent István University, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry,
Gödöllő, Hungary
ABSTRACT
Soil organic matter (SOM) is an important component of soil fertility, its positive
effects can be summarized in the following points: (A) The release of nutrients and
improvement of soil structure; (B) The increase of cation exchange capacity, allowing
better retention of nitrogen, potassium, calcium and magnesium; (C) Providing the
chelation of several micronutrients resulting in better availability; (D) Buffering of soil,
limiting rapid changes in pH or salt content. However, cultivation of soil causes the
decrease of SOM. Therefore, in sustainable agriculture management practices for
replenishing organic matter levels of soils are required. Also in the soil protection
strategy given by European Union high importance to this topic, since most of the
European soils have a low SOM content. Application of organic fertilisers is one of the
most important ways for increasing organic matter levels of soils. Present review gives an
overview about the different types of organic fertilisers, such as animal manure and
compost. In the next part results of long-term field experiments are presented regarding
the effect of fertilisation on SOM. These results conclude that amount of organic matter
in soil depends on the input of organic material and its rate of decomposition. The rate at
which existing SOM decreases also depends on soil texture and climate. Therefore a
special focus is given to the components of organic fertilisers and their short- and long-
term effects. This is strongly influenced by their C and N content and C/N ratio. To get a
better understanding about their effects, also different pools of SOM should be
distinguished.
Keywords: Soil; Organic matter; Carbon; Organic fertilizer
*
Corresponding author’s email: Fuleky.Gyorgy@mkk.szie.hu.

48 György Füleky and Szilveszter Benedek
1. SOIL ORGANIC MATTER IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

1.1. Origin of Soil Organic Matter
Perceptions about the importance and role of organic matter in soil (SOM) in relation to
soil fertility are long considered. The close relation between soil organic matter content and
its fertility is universally accepted (Smith et al. [1]; Melero et al. [2]), its importance in
sustainable agricultural management systems is reported by Füleky and Benedek [3]. At
present, one way to progress the understanding of the role of SOM in soil fertility is to
monitor changes in organic matter levels in soil. Therefore this paper considers the aspects of
organic fertilisation related to the importance of SOM using data from long-term field
experiments. SOM plays a central role in nutrient availability, soil stability and the flux of
trace greenhouse gases between land surface and the atmosphere. It represents a major pool of
carbon within the biosphere and can act as both a source and a sink for C and nutrients (Post
et al. [4]). Wolf and Snyder [5] describe detailed the composition of soil organic matter: SOM
consist of a wide variety of plant and animal tissues in various stages of decomposition, from
those slightly decayed to others no longer recognizable. The decaying materials, coming from
many sources that can be quite different in composition and appearance, result in a rather
similar complex known as humus. The energy released from organic matter also benefits
larger organisms (mites, earthworms and insects) that intimately mix the fine rock fragments
with organic matter, greatly hastening the decomposition of the rocks and speeding soil
information. Organic matter aids soil productivity in several ways [5]: The breakdown of
organic matter, which releases a number of elements present in organic forms, and largely
unavailable to plants, to inorganic forms which are readily absorbed by plants; the nurturing
of both symbiotic and free-living organisms that convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2), which is
not available to plants, into readily available forms of ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-)
nitrogen; the aggregates formed greatly improve soil structure and lessen soil bulk density.
Improved soil structure markedly improves crop production by improving water infiltration,
increasing air porosity, providing an ideal environment for beneficial microorganisms and
plant root, aiding good tillage and reducing erosion; increases cation exchange capacity
(CEC), allowing better retention of ammonium nitrogen, potassium, calcium and magnesium;
provides chelation of several micronutrients, which helps keep them available; helps keep
phosphorus available, particularly at both high and low pH values; Buffers soil, limiting rapid
changes in pH or salt content that can occur with addition of various chemicals; decreases
dispersion of soil by raindrops or irrigation and thus lessens surface crusts and compaction;
Lessens changes in soil temperatures, which could interfere with nutrient availability and
plant survival.
Soil organic matter consists of two major types of compounds, unhumified substances
and the humified remains of plant and animal tissues. The humified material, which
represents the most active fraction of humus, consists of a series of highly acidic, yellow- to
black-colored, high-molecular-weight polyelectrolytes referred to by such names as humic
acid and fulvic acid. The following fractions, based on solubility characteristics, are
subsequently obtained: humic acid, soluble in alkali, insoluble in acid; fulvic acid, soluble in
alkali, soluble in acid; hymatomelanic acid, alcohol-soluble part of humic acid; and humin,
insoluble in alkali (Stevenson [6]). Some further characteristics of humus molecules are

Replenishing Soil Organic Matter with Organic Fertilisers 49
shown in Table 1. Soil organic matter can be calculated from soils organic carbon (Corg, or
SOC) content, by multiplying with 1.724.
Table 1. Some characteristic features of humus materials (Stefanovits et al. [7])
Properties Fulvic acids Humic acids Humins

Mass of molecules 2000 5000-100000 300000
C (%) 40-50 55-60 55-60
N (%) <4 4 >4
O (%) 45-48 33-36 32-34
Acidity
900-1400 600-850 500-600
meq 100g-1
The concept of humus formation is described by Flaig [8]: Lignin, freed of its linkage
with cellulose during decomposition of plant residues, it subjected to oxidative splitting with
the formation of primary structural units (derivatives and phenylpropane). The side-chains of
the lignin-building units are oxidized, demethylation occurs, and the resulting polyphenols are
converted to quinines by polyphenoloxidase enzymes. Quinones arising from lignin (as well
as from other sources) react with N-containing compounds to form dark-colored polymers.
The decomposition and turnover of organic substances in soil is done by the soil loving
organisms.
Table 2. Calculation of total C in European topsoils (0-30 cm)

(adapted from Powlson et al. [9])
% of area of Europe with this SOM

% SOM in top 30 cm of soil % C in top 30 cm of soil*
content
1 0.58 28.48
2 1.16 10.72
3 1.74 20.87
4 2.32 18.51
5 2.90 10.17
8 4.64 3.84
10 5.80 2.08
14 8.12 3.24
30 17.40 3.87
Table 3. Organic matter contents of surface soils from a variety of locations,

under various plant cover and in various climate (Miller and Donahue [10])
Soil and site description Organic Matter Content (%)

Santa Barbara, California, 480 mm rainfall
Mollisol (loam) pH 7.3 7.85
Mollisol (very fine sandy loam) pH 7.8 11.3
Aridisol (silt loam) pH 7.9 6.23
Michigan-Indiana soils, cultivated, 750-1000 mm rainfall
Mollisol (sand) 2.9% clay, pH 6.6, imperfectly drained 6.15
Alfisol (sand) 3.4% clay, pH 7.5, well drained 1.81
Mollisol (loam) 19.8% clay, pH 6.6, imperfectly drained 8.24

In Table 2 calculation of total C in European topsoils, while in Table 3 organic matter

contents of different topsoils from the USA is shown. The results demonstrated in Table 3
indicates, that the highest SOM level is to detect in case of the sandy Mollisol and that SOM
is higher in case of the not cultivated soil.
1.2. Driving Forces for the loss of SOM
Organic matter content of soils is related to soil development and cultivation (Figure 1).
Forest soils have a higher SOM content than arable lands, because there is a continuous
turnover of organic substances to humus and no soil cultivation, which could release the
oxidation of organic carbon. In arable land SOM is oxidised through soil cultivation, so in
this case soils have lower humus content. If changing arable land to grassland, soil is not
ploughed, there is no oxidation of the humus molecules, resulting in higher SOM content. In
relation to grassland, Franzluebbers and Stuedemann [11] describes that cattle grazing of
pastures can be considered rehabilitation of degraded crop land since they will be restoring
soil quality and cutting greenhouse gases by keeping carbon in the soil as organic matter.
Figure 1. SOM is the function of soil development and cultivation (Füleky and Benedek [12]).
1.3. Strategy for Soil Protection
The organic fraction of soil plays a very important role not only for soil fertility, but also
for soil structure, buffering and water retention capacity and is crucial for soil biodiversity.
Because of that the European Union introduced the Strategy on Soil Protection (Commission
of the European Communities [13]) including flowing statements: SOM plays a major role in

the carbon cycle of the soil. Indeed, soil is at the same time an emitter of greenhouse gases
and also a major store of carbon. The global soil carbon pool contains 1500 Gt of soil and
inorganic carbon. Furthermore, carbon sequestration in agricultural soils achieved by some
land management practices has a potential to contribute to climate change mitigation. Some
sources estimate this to be around 2 Gt of carbon annually. As a part of the Climate Change
Programme, the potential of soils for carbon sequestration was estimated to be equivalent to
1,5-1,7% of the EU’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the first commitment period of the
Kyoto protocol. At the same time, climate change will likely increase the risk of threats due to
more extreme weather events such as floods and heavy rainfall as well as increased
temperature. This has several consequences for soil biodiversity as well as for suitability and
possibility to produce certain crops.
Main human-induced driving forces for the loss of SOM are: conversion of grassland to
arable land; drainage of wetlands; poor crop rotation and plant residue management such as
burning crops residues; accelerated mineralization due to management practices such as
continued tillage and deforestation. Around 45% of soils in Europe have a low or very low
organic matter content (meaning 0-2% organic carbon) and 45% have a medium content
(meaning 2-6% organic carbon). Besides climatic reasons, unsustainable practices of human
activities are the most relevant driving forces. Comprehensive and comparable data for EU-25
on SOM content are not available, but models exist to estimate it. Such estimations reveal that
the problem of soils with very low and low SOM exists in particular in the Southern
countries, where 74% of the soil has less than 3-4% organic matter, but also in parts of
France, United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden. Consequences of decline of SOM for soil
fertility and soil ecosystems are significant: release of greenhouse gases; negative effects on
biodiversity, including soil biodiversity; reduced water infiltration due to changes in soil
structure, hence higher flood risk; reduced absorption of pollutants and increased water and
air pollution; increased erosion with the effects stated above such as loss of fertile soils,
disrupted nutrient cycles, damage to infrastructures due to excessive sediment load, diffuse
pollution of surface water, negative effects on aquatic ecosystems and thereby biodiversity
(Commission of the European Communities [13]).
2. ORGANIC FERTILISERS
Naturally-occurring organic fertilisers include manure and slurry. Processed organic
fertilisers include compost, blood meal and humic acids. Other examples are natural enzyme
digested proteins, fish meal and feather meal. Decomposing crop residues (green manure)
from prior years can be another source of fertility. Although the density of nutrients in
organic material is comparatively modest, they have many advantages. The majority of
nitrogen supplying organic fertilisers contains insoluble nitrogen and act as a slow-release
fertiliser. By their nature, organic fertilisers increase physical and biological nutrient storage
mechanisms in soils, mitigating risks of over-fertilisation. Organic fertiliser’s nutrient
content, solubility, and nutrient release rates are typically much lower than mineral
(inorganic) fertilisers. Organic fertilisers also re-emphasize the role of humus and other
organic components of soil, which are believed to play several important roles: Mobilizing
existing soil nutrients, so that good growth is achieved with lower nutrient densities;

Releasing nutrients at a slower, more consistent rate, helping to avoid a boom-and-bust

pattern; Helping to retain soil moisture, reducing the stress due to temporary moisture stress;
improving the soil structure; helping to prevent top soil erosion (Tisadale et al. [14]).
Organic fertilisers also have the advantage of avoiding certain problems associated with
the regular heavy use of artificial fertilisers: the necessity of reapplying artificial fertilisers
regularly to maintain fertility; extensive run off of soluble nitrogen and phosphorus, leading
to eutrophication of water bodies. Besides the advantages also following disadvantages of
organic fertilisers should be described: as a dilute source of nutrients when compared to
inorganic fertilisers, transporting large amount of fertiliser incurs higher costs, especially with
slurry and manure. The composition of organic fertilisers tends to be more complex and
variable than a standardized inorganic product. Improperly-processed organic fertilisers may
contain pathogens from plant or animal matter that are harmful to humans or plants. However,
proper composting should remove them. More labour is needed to compost organic fertiliser,
increasing labour costs (Tisdale et al. [14]).
Figure 2 gives an overview about the amount of fractions, which are available for humus
reproduction and which will be decomposed in the soil in case of several organic fertilisers.
These data indicate that compost and manure have the highest humus reproduction capacity.
On the other hand, decomposed organic matter has also several advantages by increasing soil
biological activity and nutrient availability. As even detectable on Figure 2, there exist
various organic fertilisers, however in this chapter only the most important manure and
compost will be introduced going into details.
Figure 2. Fractions available for humus reproduction and decomposition in some organic fertilisers
(data adopted from Reinhold [15]).
2.1. Farmyard Manure (FYM)
Variations in composition of animal manures are the result of differences among kinds of
animals and the kinds and amounts of feeds they consume.

Table 4. Typical composition of selected animal manures (dry-weight basis)

(Miller and Donahue [10])
Constituent Beef/ Dairy (%) Poultry (%) Swine (%) Sheep (%)
N 2-8 5-8 3-5 3-5
P 0.2-1 1-2 0.5-1 0.4-0.8
K 1-3 1-2 1-2 2-3
Mg 1-1.5 2-3 0.08 0.2
Na 1-3 1-2 0.05 0.058
Total soluble salts 6-15 2-5 1-2 1-2
In comparison with chemical fertilisers, all manures supply relatively small quantities of plant
nutrients per unit of dry weight. One comparison not usually made is the content of
micronutrients in manures, which is usually higher in manures than in chemical fertilisers.
Although they contain a low percentage of nutrients, manures are added to soils in large
quantities of many tons per hectare. They supply considerable quantities of controlled-release
nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, plus some chelates and micronutrients (Magdoff and van
Es [16]; Miller and Donahue [10]).
2.2. Compost
Long and short term soil improvement of manure and compost application is first of all
the improvement of soil structure. This improves water infiltration, mitigation against run-off
which causes flooding and diffuse pollution, and also improves root penetration which
increases crop yield. Water holding capacity is getting to be involved through increased levels
of organic matter. In addition to improving structure and water holding capacity, soil organic
matter increases the capacity of soils to bind chemicals, buffer the release of pollutants and
regulate the supply of nutrients. It is lost from the soil through mineralization, erosion and
land use change. Application of compost helps to control soil erosion. Soil erosion has
negative impacts on water quality and can lead to habitat damages, sedimentation and loss of
carbon (Sjöström [17]). The nutrient content of organic manures must be taken into account
when planning nutrient applications. Recycling to land and decomposition in the soil is the
best practical environmental option in most circumstances for many organic materials as it
effectively closes the carbon and nutrient cycles, returning the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus
and other nutrients to the soil they came from. Not everything in the material is good for the
soil, nor for the environment: Some organic materials can include pollutants (for example
metals, POPs, biocides and nanoparticles) that can accumulate in the soil to levels where they
become toxic and can impair the long-term functioning of the soil. It is also important to
stress the harmful substances do not only exist in organic manures, but also in other materials
which are added to the soil - for example in fertilisers. When proper attention is given to the
composition of manures and decisions on rates, timing and application methods are made
correspondingly, the nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of manure can be strongly
enhanced. This should lead to a further reduction of mineral N fertiliser use, N surpluses and
pollution (Schröder [18]). To be able to optimize fertiliser plans and to maximize the
utilization of nitrogen in manure, new techniques for application and new technologies for

treatment have been introduced (Birkmose [19]). Managing food waste successfully is a
commercial opportunity as well as being environmentally virtuous (Evans [20]).
3. INCREASE OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER BY MANURE APPLICATION:

RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM FIELD EXPERIMENTS
Some benefits and limitations of long-term experiments have been reviewed by
Glendining and Poulton [21]. Ideally a long-term experiment should have accurate records,
archived samples and continuity of treatments, as long as the treatments remain relevant and
do not cause soil damage or crop failure.
3.1. Rothamsted
The importance of SOM in soil fertility was questioned by the early results from the field
experiments started by Lawes and Gilbert at Rothamsted, Great Britain between 1843 and
1856. As the annual applications of fertilisers and farmyard manure (FYM) continued, the
level of SOM in FYM treated soils increased relative to that in fertiliser treated soils
(Johnston et al. [22]). The effect of organic matter inputs on the level of SOM and the rate of
change as it moves toward the appropriate equilibrium level is well illustrated by changes in
% C in the top 23 cm of soil during more than 100 years of cropping, mainly with cereals, at
Rothamsted (Figure 3). The Broadbalk Winter Wheat experiment was started in 1843, the soil
is a silty clay loam, in the experiment winter wheat has been grown.
Figure 3. Changes in percent organic carbon (% C) in the top 23 cm of a silty clay loam soil, Broadbalk
Winter Wheat experiment, Rothamsted (adapted from Johnston et al. [22]).

On the unfertilized plot, SOM probably declined at the beginning and then remained
essentially constant at about 0.85% C, its equilibrium level. Applying mineral fertilisers and
returning the organic plant residues, SOM remained largely unchanged at its equilibrium level
about 1.12% C, for many years and it now contains about 25% more SOM than the
unfertilized control. Where annually FYM was applied, SOM increased rapidly at first and
then more slowly as approached the equilibrium level.
When the soil organic matter decomposes it provides mineral nitrogen and mineral
phosphate, which - assuming potassium is adequate - might be sufficient for the crop. A
major aim of organic farming is to build up organic matter in the soil for this purpose, by
return of all organic waste and by restorative crops. However, if this mechanism is used to
supply nutrient to a crop it implies that a pro rate amount of organic matter must be lost, the
carbon being converted to CO2. This loss can only be accepted to a limited extent, on grounds
of general soil physical properties such as soil structure, water-holding capacity and erosion
resistance. In any case, the decomposition of soil organic matter can provide only a limited
amount of mineral N and P in any one year, because soil organic matter decomposition is
controlled by the weather and the soil organic matter level, and cannot be manipulated closely
(Tinker [23]).
The soil organic nitrogen was built up by heavy manure additions, but as soon as these
ceased in 1871, soil organic nitrogen declined as it was mineralized. It is impressive to see
how long the manure effect can continue, with a greater rate of release than in the original
soil, but as the rate of release declines, so will the crop yield. From the slope of the line, it
seems that initially approximately 1 t N ha-1 was released in 40 years, or 25 kg N ha-1 a-1
(Figure 4).
Figure 4. Soil organic nitrogen and organic matter changes in topsoil receiving different manuring
treatments (Johnston et al. [24]).

3.2. Woburn
Plant and animal material added to soil are decomposed by the soil microbial population
so that SOM is the end product of this decomposition process and may be the remains of
microbial tissue and material that is very resistant to microbial attack. The C/N ratio of
material added to soil related to whether N will be released or fixed as it decomposes. For
example, in the Market Garden experiment at Woburn, Great Britain, which started in 1942,
four organic manures were compared: FYM, vegetable compost, sludge-compost and sewage
sludge. After 25 years the C/N ratio in the differently treated soils ranged from only 10.0 to
11.1:1 (Johnston [25]). All but the sewage sludge would have released some N as the
microbial population decomposed them to become SOM; sewage sludge would have required
some soil mineral N in its transformation to SOM. In the market garden experiment all four
organic manures were applied at the same weight of fresh material and two amounts of each
were tested. In consequence, due to the differences in composition, percent dry matter and the
rates tested, different amounts of organic matter were added between 1942 and 1967. The
increase in % C, was linearly related to the amount of organic matter added (Figure 5) and the
linear relationship accounted for 82% of the variance (Johnston [25]). After 25 years, the
increase in % C per tone organic matter added in the organic manures, which were applied
twice each year, was least with FYM 0.0107% and most with the compost, 0.0167 and
0.0180% with the vegetable and sludge composts, respectively. The increase with sewage
sludge was similar to that with the composts. These differences probably relate to the extent
of microbial decay before the manures were added to the soil.
Figure 5. Decline in carbon, t/ha, in the top 23 cm of soil. Market Garden experiment Woburn.
Treatments: FYM, single, double; sewage sludge, single, double; FYM compost, single, double; sludge
compost, single, double (adopted from Johnston et al. [26]).

3.3. Halle
One of the worldwide oldest long-term fertilisation experiments, the “Continuous Rye
Experiment” existing since 1878 is located in Halle, Germany on a sandy soil. The results
regarding to the organic matter content of soil (Table 5) indicate an increase of soil organic
matter content through manure application and a very low increase through NPK application.
In case of N or PK fertilisation and in case of the control treatment, soil organic matter
content decreased. A more detailed overview of soil organic matter changes is given in
Table 6.
Table 5. Change of Corg content of soil (0-20 cm) in the “Continuous Rye Experiment”
(Stumpe et al. [27])
1878 1929 1953-1961

C (%) C (%) C (%)
FYMI 1.24 1.64 1.71
NPK 1.24 1.24 1.28
Control 1.24 1.15 1.15
PK 1.24 1.17 1.22
N 1.24 1.23 1.24
FYMII 1.24 - 1.49
Results from the Continuous Rye Experiment at Halle demonstrate that on this sandy soil
the not manured control plot has lost nearly 10% of its original carbon content during 80
years (Table 6). The larger supply of plant residues on the mineral NPK-treated plots
maintained soil organic matter at its original level, while there was an increase of soil organic
matter with 30% on the farmyard manure treated plots. The time sequence suggests fairly
rapid changes in the initial stage of this experiment, while after 50 years equilibrium soil
humus content appears to have been attained.
Table 6. Change of organic carbon in the Continuous Rye Experiment Halle (Welte and
Timmermann [28]; Schmalfuss and Kolbe [29])
% C in the soil
Year Author
Control NPK Manure
1878 Kohn 1.24 1.24 1.24
1912 Weinaug - - 1.48
1922 calculated 1.12 1.20 1.61
1929 Scheffer 1.15 1.24 1.64
1949 Schmalfuss 1.12 1.22 1.66
1953 Merker 1.12 1.26 1.68
1958 Schmalfuss 1.14 1.26 1.69
Change (1878-1958) -0.10 +0.02 +0.45
% Ct extractable 32.2 35.5 39.5
Manure added (1878-1953): 900 t ha-1; Calculated carbon addition: 90 t ha-1; Manure carbon retention
(1878-1953): 14.7%; Manure carbon retention (1929-1953): 4.0%.
This fact has led to the conclusion by Welte and Timmermann [28] and Schmalfuss and
Kolbe [29] that the humification and retention of carbon originated from the manure was
much higher in the beginning and has later dropped to a low percentage of the annual dose.

Sauerbeck [30] however disagrees with this interpretation, since it is not conceivable why the
decomposition behaviour of a certain organic material should change so much in the same
soil.
3.4. Bad Lauchstädt
Another relevant long-term experiment regarding to soil organic matter management is

located also in Germany, in Bad Lauchstädt, on a sandy soil. This experiment was set up as a
crop rotation of sugar beet – summer barley – potato – winter wheat, where the different
treatments of mineral fertilisation are running with and without manure application
(Körschens et al. [31]). Based on the results (Table 7) it can be concluded that the highest soil
organic matter contents were achieved by the application of animal manure.
Table 7. Changing of Corg content of soil in Bad Lauchstädt in 1972-1981 (0-20 cm)
(Körschens et al. [31])
Fertilisation 30 t ha-1 2a-1 FYM 20 t ha-1 2a-1 FYM without FYM

1972-1981 C (%)
NPK 2.36 2.22 1.94
NP 2.33 2.12 1.87
NK 2.31 2.15 1.78
N 2.27 2.14 1.74
PK 2.24 2.10 1.68
0 2.21 2.12 1.70
3.5. Keszthely
The long-term fertilisation experiment with the crop rotation maize – winter wheat –
winter barley in Keszthely, Hungary on a clay soil exists since over 23 years. Change of soil
organic matter content in the crop rotation from 2005-2007 is described by Kismányoki [32].
Treatments with three different nitrogen levels (mineral fertilisation) were set up in
combination of NPK or NPK + FYM or NPK + straw + green manure application. Highest
soil organic matter contents were detected in case of manure application, without any relation
to the level of mineral nitrogen fertilisation. These levels are followed by the treatment with
straw and green manure, while the lowest organic matter content is in case of only mineral
fertilisation.
3.6. Martonvásár
From the long-term fertilisation experiment in Martonvásár, Hungary similar results are
reported regarding to the change of soil organic matter content than from the long-term
fertilisation experiments in Rothamsted and Halle (Balla [33]). In case of mineral fertilization

soil organic matter show a week increase and by manure application a much stronger increase
(Table 8).
Table 8. Change of SOM content in the long-term fertilisation experiment in

Martonvásár (Balla [33])
Year Fertilisation SOM (%)

1959 beginning 2.7
control 2.6
FYM (60 t ha-1 4 a-1) 2.9
1974
FYM (30 t ha-1 4 a-1) + NPK 2.8
NPK 2.7
3.7. Northern China
Hai et al. [34] reports that 26 years application of mineral fertilisers in China was not
capable of increasing total soil organic carbon in contrast to farmyard manure application.
The result that inorganic fertilisation was not able to enhance soil organic matter level is in
agreement with those by Halvoron et al. [35] in northern great plains, by Yang et al. [36] in
the humid northeast China and by Wu et al. [37] in the semiarid loess plateau of China.
4. EFFECTS OF APPLICATION OF COMPOST AND OTHER ORGANIC

FERTILISERS ON SOM
Compost is another important organic matter resource. Organic matter in compost varies
from as low as 30% to a high of 70%. The way compost is prepared affects the amount of
organic matter or organic C in compost. The feed stock, its characteristics, and level of
contaminants determine the amount of organic matter in relation to other constituents. As a
source of organic matter, its primary impact is on the soil physical properties. However,
several important soil chemical characteristics are also affected by the addition of organic
matter (Epstein [38]). Compost contains high portions of humus-C, the portion of carbon that
contributes to the humus reproduction. It accounts for 51% of the total organic carbon and is
therewith higher than in any other humus fertiliser. Compared with compost, straw and liquid
manure are containing 21% carbon and green-fertilisers only 14%. The effectiveness on
humus-reproduction with compost is by factor 4 higher than with straw and by factor 20
higher than with liquid manure (Kehres [39]).
The increase in soil organic carbon after addition of compost has also been observed by
numerous authors in field experiments. Mc Connel et al. [40] found that compost applied at
rates varying from 18 to 146 t/ha produced a 6% to 163% increase in soil organic matter.
Mays and Giordano [41] reported on long-term effects of municipal-solid-waste-sludge
compost application during 1968-1972. During that period, a total of 90 to 2.240 t ha-1 of
compost was applied. In the 0-15 cm soil depth, organic matter increased from 1.6% in the
control plots to 4.9% in the 2.240 t ha-1 plots. Avnimelech et al. [42] found that organic

carbon in the 0-10 cm depth increased from 6.1 mg g-1 in the control to 10.1; 15.6 and 22.6
mg g-1 for the 80, 160 and 400 m3 ha-1 treatments, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The presented results from world-wide long-term field experiments conclude the fact that
the amount of organic matter in soil depends on the input of organic material and its rate of
decomposition, the rate at which existing SOM decreases, furthermore on soil texture and
climate. Mostly an increase of soil organic matter by the application of organic fertilisers can
be detected. However, the increase is not as high as it could be expected from the amount and
duration of manure application. This tendency can be explained by the fact, that fertilisation
primary influences the nutrient humus fraction of SOM. Compared to the stable humus
fraction, the nutrient humus fraction represents a much lower fraction, but plays a special role
in soil fertility, since works as an energy source for soil microorganisms.
REFERENCES
[1] J. L. Smith, R. I. Papendick, D. F. Bezdicek, J. M. Lynch, Soil organic matter dynamics
and crop residue management In F. Blaine, Soil Microbial Ecology, Marcel Dekker,
New York (1993).
[2] S. Melero, E. Madejón, J. C. Ruiz, J. F. Herencia, Europ. J. Agro., 26,327 (2007).
[3] G. Füleky, S. Benedek , Ecological Fertilisation In E. Lichtfouse, Sustainable
Agriculture Reviews, Volume 6, Springer, (2011).
[4] W. M. Post, W. R. Emanual, P. J. Zinke, A. G. Strangenberger, Nature 289, 156,
(1982).
[5] B. Wolf , G. H. Snyder, Sustainable Soils. The Place of Organic Matter in Sustainable
Soils and Their Productivity, Food Products Press, New York-London-Oxford, (2003).
[6] F. J. Stevenson, Cycles of Soil, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, (1986).
[7] P. Stefanovits, G. Filep, G. Füleky, Talajtan, Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest, (1999).
[8] W. Flaig, The Chemistry of Humic Substances In The Use of Isotopes in Soil Organic
Matter Studies, New York, (1966).
[9] D. S. Powlson, P. Smith, K. Coleman, J. U. Smith, M. J. Glendining, M. Körschens, U.
Franko, Soil Till. Res., 47,263, (1998).
[10] R. W. Miller, R. L. Donahue, Soils, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, (1990).
[11] A. J. Franzluebbers, J. A. Stuedemann, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 74, 2131, (2010).
[12] G. Füleky, S. Benedek, Soil Organic Matter Management to Soil and Water Quality, In
L. Márton, T. Németh, J. Tamás Advanced Soil Science, RISSAC, Budapest, (2009).
[13] Commission of the European Communities, Strategy on Soil Protection, Brussels,
(2006).
[14] S. L. Tisdale, W. L. Nelson, J. D. Beaton, J. L. Havlin, Soil Fertility and Fertilisers,
Fifth Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, (1993).
[15] J. Reinhold, VDLUFA-Schriftenreihe 61,342, (2006).

[16] F. R. Magdoff, van H. Es, Building Soils for Better Crops, USDA Sustainable
Agriculture Network, (2000).
[17] A. E. Sjöström, Policies to encourage integrated nutrient management and recycling,
No. 637, International Fertiliser Society, York, (2008).
[18] J. J. Schröder, Manure as a Suitable Component of Precise Nitrogen Nutrition, No. 574,
International Fertiliser Society, York, (2005).
[19] T. S. Birkmose, Nitrogen Recovery from Organic Manures: Improved Slurry
Application Techniques and Treatment – The Danish Scenario, No. 656, International
Fertiliser Society, York, (2009).
[20] T. D. Evans, Nutrient and carbon recovery from household and food biowastes, No.
635, International Fertiliser Society, York, (2008).
[21] M. J. Glendining, P. R. Poulton, Interpretation difficulties with long-term experiments,
In D. S. Powlson, P. Smith, J. U. Smith, Evaluation of Soil Organic Matter Models
Using Existing Long-Term Datasets, NATO ASI Series I. Vol. 38. Springer Heidelberg,
(1996).
[22] A. E. Johnston, P. R. Poulton, K. Coleman, Soil Organic Matter: Its Importance in
Sustainable Agriculture and Carbon Dioxide Fluxes, In D. L. Sparks D. L. Advances in
Agronomy, Vol. 101, Burlington Academic Press, (2009).
[23] P. B. Tinker, Organic Farming – Nutrient Management and Productivity, No. 471,
International Fertiliser Society, York, (2001).
[24] A. E. Johnston, P. W. Lane, G. E. G. Mattingly, P. R. Poulton, M. V. Hewitt, J. Agri.
Sci., 106, 155, (1986).
[25] A. E. Johnston, The Woburn Market Garden Experiment, 1942-69. II. Effects of the
treatments on soil pH, soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, Rothamsted
Experimental Station Report for 1947, Part 2, (1975).
[26] A. E. Johnston, S. P. McGrath, P. R. Poulton, P. W. Lane, Accumulation and loss of
nitrogen from manure, sludge and compost: long-term experiments at Rothamsted and
Woburn, In J. A. A. Hansen, K. Henriksen Nitrogen in Organic Wastes Applied to Soils,
Academic Press, London, (1989).
[27] H. Stumpe, J. Garz, E. Hagedorn, Die Dauerdüngungsversuche auf dem Versuchsfeld in
Halle, In M. Körschens Dauerfeldversuche der DDR, Akademie der
Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Berlin, (1984).
[28] E. Welte, F. Timmermann, Ann. Agron., 27,721, (1976).
[29] K. Schmallfus, G. Kolbe, Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg. Math. –
Naturwiss., R., 10, 425, (1961).
[30] D. R. Sauerbeck, Influence of crop rotation, manorial treatment and soil tillage on the
organic matter content of German soils, In D. Boels, D. B.Davies, A. E. Hohnston, Soil
Degradation, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, (1980).
[31] M. Körschens, D. Eich, C. Weber, Der statische Versuch Lauchstädt, In M. Körschens,
Dauerfeldversuche der DDR, Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR,
Berlin, (1984).
[32] T. Kismányoki, Cer. Res. Comm. 36,535, (2008).
[33] A. Balla, Növénytermelés, 29,347, (1980).
[34] L. Hai, X. G. Li, F. M. Li, D. R. Suo, G. Guggenberger, Soil Biol. Biochem. 42,253,
(2010).
[35] A. D. Halvoron, B. J. Wienhold, A. L. Black, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 66,906, (2002).

[36] X. M. Yang, X. P. Zhang, H. J. Fang, P. Zhu, J. Ren, L. C. Wang, Environ. Manag.,

32,459, (2003).
[37] T. Wu, J. J. Schoenau, F. Li, P. Qian, Soil Till.Res., 77,59, (2004).
[38] E. Epstein, The science of composting, Technomic Publishing, Lancaester – Basel,
(1977).
[39] B. Kehres, Long-term perspectives for separate collection and recycling of biowastes,
The Future for Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste in Europe – ECN-Workshop,
Nürnberg, (2008).
[40] D. B. Mc Connel, A. Shiralipour, W. H. Smith, BioCycle, 33,61, (1993).
[41] D. A. Mays, P. M. Giordano, BioCycle 30,37, (1989).
[42] Y. Avnimelech, A. Cohen, D. Shkedi, Soil Technol., 3,275, (1990).

Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ORGANIC

FERTILIZERS USAGE IN AGRICULTURE
P. S. Chauhan1, A. Singh2, R. P. Singh3 and M. H. Ibrahim4

1
Division of Plant Microbe Interactions, CSIR-National Botanical
Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, India
2
Department of Botany, Allahabad University, Allahabad, India
3
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, India
4
Environment Technology Division, School of Industrial Technology,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
Nowadays expansion of global population is responsible for increasing the food
demand. Use of intensive farming techniques is creating not only localized ecological
disasters, but in many places having impacts across countryside. Because of intensive
farming, physico-chemical properties of soil are affected and that consequently results in
decreased soil fertility.
In order to produce more food with limited space, farmers utilize several techniques.
One of the best techniques is application of different types of inorganic and organic
fertilizers in soil that consequently maintain the soil nutrients level. It allows plant to
grow, flourish, and deal with pests, diseases and environmental stresses. Uses of organic
fertilizer along with inorganic fertilizers are recommended to maintain the integrated
nutrient management (INM) systems in soil.
These systems are needed to maintain sustainable agricultural productivity and also
to reduce possible environmental degradation from inorganic fertilization. Organic
fertilizers provide a broad range of nutrients and are helpful in maintaining the soil
health. It flourishes the rhizosphere micro-flora by providing nutrients that stimulate
growth of plants. However, in the above context the present chapter deals with utilization
of organic fertilizers in agriculture and its effect on environment.
Keywords: Organic fertilizer; Inorganic fertilizer; Intensive farming; Environment;

Integrated nutrient management

64 P. S. Chauhan, A. Singh, R. P. Singh et al.
1. INTRODUCTION
The application of fertilizers, including chemical fertilizers and manures, to enhance soil
fertility and crop productivity, has often negatively affected the complex system of
biogeochemical cycle (Perrott et al. 1992, Steinshann et al. 2004). Fertilizer use has caused
leaching and run-off of nutrients, evaporation as green house gases especially nitrogen (N)
and phosphorus (P), leading to environmental pollution (Tilman 1998, Gyaneshwar et al.
2002, Kennedy et al. 2004). This problem persists because of low use efficiency of externally
applied fertilizers by plants and also due to its long term application (Barlog and Grzebisz,
2004). Young plants also have no ability to transfer great amount of incorporated N into
proteins and other organic forms. Very often crops grown in soil fail to respond to supplement
of mineral fertilizers NPK because of soil factors such as inadequate moisture or ineffective
rates of mobilization of nutrients required for plant growth (Baldani et al. 2000, Kennedy et
al. 2004, Govindarajan et al. 2007). Despite the negative environmental effects, the total
amount of fertilizers used will increased in crop production to mitigate the demand of food
supply to the growing population (Vitousek et al. 1997, Matson et al. 1998, Frink et al. 1999,
Huang et al. 2002, Gruber and Galloway, 2008).
In the last few decades the rate of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK) fertilizer
application has tremendously increased in crop production. Adesmoye and Kloepper (2009)
reported that in the year 2006, the countries China, India and USA consume 50.15, 21.65 and
20.83 million tons of NPK fertilizers compared with consumption in 1961 of 1.01, 0.42 and
7.88 tomes, respectively. Therefore, the challenge is to continue sustainable agricultural crop
production through minimization of harmful effect of fertilization. As a consequence,
legislation aiming to protect the environment has been enacted by many countries. For
example, some of the US states required to include P-source co-efficient in the agricultural
site indexes assessment (Sharpley et al. 2003, Hochnuth et al., 2007) implementation of
National strategies of conservation and protection of nature and biodiversity in some of the
European countries (Nielson and Winding 2002); so that potential measure can be taken to
reduce environmental pollution.
Application of nitrogenous fertilizers for a longer period of time also lead to the increase
of salts in the soil, change pH of the soil solution as well as soil biogeny of those microbes
that are important for soil fertility. It disturbs natural equilibrium and altered the floristic
composition (Cvijanovic et al. 2001, Kennedy et al. 2004, Tilman et al. 1998). Mitchell and
Tu (2006) noted that continued application of poultry waste will increase levels of soil
nutrients, could cause a buildup of some nutrients and loss of nutrients to the environment.
Overall the intensive use of chemicals and manures in the conventional agricultural
production is one of the factors that affect the reduction in biodiversity, nitrogen leaching,
soils and water contamination (Kennedy et al. 2004, McLaughlin and Mineau 1995, Jarecki et
al. 2008). As such, fertilization in present day crop production though imminent but identified
as dangerous from the aspect of pollution of the environment (Marchner and Römheld 1992,
Kennedy et al. 2004).
To counteract the shortcomings of the application of mineral fertilizer in crop production,
the bacterial strains that have a beneficial effect on plant growth and development termed as
Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) (Bashan and Holguin 1998) are recognised as
alternative to mineral fertilizers. PGPR in the form of bio-inoculants considered as eco-

Environmental Impacts of Organic Fertilizers Usage in Agriculture 65
friendly and cost effective. Use of PGPR as bio-fertilizers have critical impact on soil
functions that modulate metabolic processes such as specific soil properties and soil fertility,
biogeochemical cycling of nutrients (Nannipieri et al. 2003, Waklin and Ryder 2004).
Application of PGPR also has multiple benefits such as increase in yield; fertilizer use
efficiency, possibility to reduce the application of mineral fertilizers; profit increase; cost
effective for the conservation of the soil as a limiting resource necessary for food production
(Subic et al. 2006).
Great attention has to be paid to the management and utilization of the soil as it is very
important agricultural resource for any country. It can be achieved by reducing all inputs that
lead to the endangerment of soil, water and air through microbiological fertilizers as bio-
inoculants which reduces the mineral fertilizers application (Bowen and Rovira 1999,
Rodriguez and Fraga 1999). Inoculation of N2-fixing bacteria and other PGPR that play
pivotal role in plant growth and development by their multifold plant growth promoting
activity ensure the supply of nutrients along with optimized yield (Adesmoye and Kloepper
2009). Non symbiotic diazotrophic PGPR may hold the key to achieve these outcomes as an
evolutionary advantage because of their competitive advantages in a situation of adequate C
substrates, but of N-deficiency by diazotrophs, allowing their selective enrichment in the
rhizosphere (Dobereiner and Pedrosa, 1987). Accordingly, the effort of scientific community
to control excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals is the focus of this article.
Research activities aimed to achieve better use efficiency of fertilizers, including the use
of PGPR as supplement of fertilizers have steadily increased in last two decades (Adesmoye
and Kloepper 2009). Historically though microbial inoculant was used to achieve biological
control and plant growth promotion, but the use of bio-inoculant in maintenance of nutrient
uptake is new and not much have been investigated. This review discusses the current reports
in the literature concerning microbes as inputs towards better use efficiency of fertilizers and
possibility of reducing the total fertilizers usage. The review examines studies on involvement
of PGPR as bioinoculant in nutrient management. Brief information related to fertilization
using manure and compost and related environmental issues with respect to fertilization has
also been discussed.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FERTILIZATION

Technological advances in agriculture are helping to meet the food needs of an ever-
increasing world population. Although the population has been growing and available land
for agriculture has been shrinking, intensive agriculture that involves heavy and continuous
use of fertilizers has ensured high crop productivity. The example is the increase food
production after the green revolutions (Tilman 1998). But it is reported that intensive and
extensive use of fertilizer cause environmental pollution. This is due to the low efficiency in
the uptake of fertilizer, a major factor that aggravates the negative environmental effects
(Barlog and Grzebisz 2004). Over 50% of the applied N can be lost from agricultural systems
as N2, trace gases, or leached nitrate (Vitousek et al. 1997, Tilman 1998, Kennedy et al.
2004), and the impacts are usually long term and global in scope (Vitousek et al. 1997,
Rabalais et al. 1998).

Similarly, phosphorous (P) fertilization the second essential macronutrients, also

precipitated even more than 90% (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999; Gyaneshwar et al. 2002) and
later causes P pollution (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999; Sharpley et al. 2003).
Beside chemical fertilizers, amendments of other fertilizers, such as organic manure,
compost, compost extract, and compost tea are also used in many parts of the world to
enhance crop production and/or control plant pathogens (Adesmoye and Kloepper 2009).
Akanbi et al. (2007) showed that foliar spray of compost extracts from cassava (Manihot
esculenta) peel and Mexican sunflower (Tithonia rotundifolia) help produce fluted pumpkin
(Telfairia occidentalis) plants with comparable growth to those that received NPK fertilizer.
In a different study with strawberry, Hargreaves et al. (2009) reported that compost tea
enhanced the uptake of most macronutrients and micronutrients in strawberry plants in
amounts that compared with inorganic mineral fertilizers.
But agro-environmental problems are not limited to the use of chemical fertilizers alone
but also occur with manures and compost (Mitchell and Tu 2006). Both animal waste and
chemical fertilizers have the potential of environmental pollution (McLaughlin and Mineau
1995, Jarecki et al. 2008). Organic manures (fertilizers) contain N-rich materials, high
extractable nutrients (P, K, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn)), and
can significantly raise soil fertility in the medium to long term (McLaughlin and Mineau
1995, Mitchell and Tu 2006). Mitchell and Tu (2006) noted that continued application of
poultry waste will increase levels of soil nutrients, could cause a buildup of some nutrients,
and loss of nutrients to the environment.
As such, though the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the
research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people, but
massive acceleration in use of artificial fertilizers worldwide has led to a host of
environmental problems, ranging from eutrophication of terrestrial and aquatic systems to
global acidification, effect on biodiversity, production of greenhouse gasses, global warming
(McLaughlin and Mineau 1995, Mosier et al. 1996; Tilman 1998; Rabalais et al. 1998, Frink
et al. 1999, Gyaneshwar et al. 2002, Sharpley et al. 2003). Here, brief discussions on some of
the environmental phenomena that have been linked to fertilizer use are briefly discussed.
3. FERTILIZATION ON NUTRIENT LEACHING, RUN-OFF

AND EUTROPHICATION
Agricultural intensification through the use of chemical fertilizers had environmental

consequences such as leaching of nitrate and run off which have been well documented by
several studies (Turner and Rabalais 1995, Matson et al. 1998, Ottman and Pope 2000,
Kennedy et al. 2004, Diaz and Rosenberg 2008, Gruber and Galloway 2008). Ottman and
Pope (2000) reported that leaching is inevitable; however, the severity of leaching can be
controlled, in part based on type of fertilizers, rate, and also timing fertilizer application. On
the other application of manure from live stock have multifold benefits, but level of
accumulation of P which in turn carried away by eroded soil to nearby low lying areas as well
to water bodies, finally causing the eutrophication (Ohno et al. 2005). Run-off of nutrients
from fertilized farms accelerates the growth of algae in the water bodies, thereby generates

O2 scarce situations in the aquatic bodies, the results is creation of dead zone (Gallaway et al.
1995, Rabalais et al. 1998, Diaz and Rosenberg 2008).
4. FERTILIZATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Globally, application of fertilizer nitrogen (N) has increased rapidly and it is expected to
increase by four to five folds by 2050, with two-thirds of that application in developing
countries (Tilman et al. 2002). Fertilized agriculture is the single most important
anthropogenic source of N2O, accounting for over 70% of the anthropogenic sources of this
accumulating greenhouse gas (Matson et al. 1998). As a result, findings of many national and
international research programmes investigating the manifold consequences of fertilization on
the biogeochemical cycle of C, N, P and S that ultimately contribute to changes in climate
system. Fertilization leads to release of greenhouse gases (Flessa et al. 2002, Jarecki et al.
2008), ozone layer depletion (Ma et al. 2007), global warming are reported as negative
impacts of fertilizer (Vitousek et al. 1997, Frink et al. 1999).
It is also reported that, increases in emissions of CO2, CH4, and nitric oxide (N2O), the
three most important greenhouse gases, have been linked to fertilizer applications (Flessa et
al. 2002, Adesmoye and Kloepper, 2009). This increase could occur through gas fluxes from
the soil surface or volatilization from plants (Mosier et al. 1996, Mulvaney et al. 1997).
Increasing atmospheric N2O is considered an important factor in ozone layer depletion (Ma et
al. 2007). Gases such as N2O and ammonia emissions from livestock and mineral fertilizers
lead to soil acidification and contaminate the neighboring water bodies (Norse 2003, Vance,
2000).
With the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels pushing the
climate system into uncharted territory (Tilman et al. 2002), which has major consequences
for the functioning of the global carbon cycle, and with nitrogen having a crucial role in
controlling key aspects of this cycle, questions about the nature and importance of nitrogen–
carbon–climate interactions are becoming increasingly pressing.
5. DEFINITION OF MICROBIAL INOCULANTS

According to Bashan (1998), a bacterial inoculant is a formulation containing one or
more beneficial bacterial strains (or species) in an easy-to-use and economical carrier
material, either organic, inorganic, or synthesized from defined molecules. The inoculant
means transport of living microbes from the factory to the field. The desired effects of the
inoculant on plant growth can include nitrogen fixation in legumes, the enhancement of
mineral uptake, weathering of soil minerals, and nutritional or hormonal effects. He proposed
that ‘Biofertilizer” - A misleading but widely used term meaning “bacterial inoculant”.
Usually it refers to preparations of microorganism(s) that may be a partial or complete
substitute for chemical fertilization (like rhizobial inoculants). However, other bacterial
effects on plant growth are largely ignored.
In contrary to very open interpretation of the term bio-fertilizers to the microbial
inoculants representing from green manures (Rao and Gill 1995, Vantura and Ladha 1997), to

animal manures (Abdel-Magid et al. 1995), to plant extract (Zodape 2001), a precise
definition was proposed by Vessey (2003) in his review on plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. According to him, microorganisms which, when applied to
seed, plant surfaces or soil, colonize the rhizosphere or the interior of the plant and promotes
growth by increasing supply or availability of primary nutrients to the host plants.
Accordingly, microbial inoculants should contain living microorganisms, when applied to
plants as seed, root, foliar or soil application etc. promotes the nutrient status of host plant
through their on-going existence in association with the plant and excluded the organic
fertilizer. It was also clarified that the PGPR which control the deleterious microorganisms
and subsequently promotes plant growth can not be coined as biofertilizers and should be
considered as bio-pesticides.
Therefore, microbial inoculants are the microbes which when applied to plants
consistently promote plant growth and yield in enhancement by nutrient up take of the
introduced plants and maintain the plant health. The application may be in seed, seedlings,
foliar spray, basal plant spray or in soil application. It was reported that many mycorrohizae
also being reported in maintenance of nutrient up take in plants. Here, the description is
restricted to use of PGPR, as microbial inoculants only in nutrient uptake.
6. APPLICATION OF PGPR IN FERTILIZER USE EFFICIENCY

Soil microorganisms are very heterogeneous and the most abundant group that makes the
soil a very complex and dynamic system. The abundance, diversity and microbial activity
control the soil fertility. The initial attempts of the application of the symbiotic bacteria as a
microbiological fertilizer was tried in Germany date as far back 1896 (Cvijanovic et al. 2006).
Subsequently it was also tried in union of Soviet Russia (Glick and Pasternak 2003). Though
in both the experiment, there was a convincing increment in crop production, but the idea was
not applied properly because the study was not methodical. Afterwards, investigation on the
use of beneficial rhizosphere microbes the term first coined by L. Hiltner 1904 in crop growth
was spreading and imputes on important measure to exploit microbial inoculants in
sustainable agricultural systems to reduction in the application of mineral fertilizers as well as
restoration of biodiversity (Hinisinger and Marschner 2006).
Microbial inoculants are promising components for integrated solutions to agro-
environmental problems because inoculants possess the capacity to promote plant growth,
enhance nutrient availability and uptake, support the health of plants and maintain the soil
fertility (Barea et al. 1998, Dobbelaere et al. 2001, Hodge et al. 2001, Bonfante 2003, Vessey
2003, Kloepper et al. 2004, Han and Lee 2005, Weller 2007, Adesemoye et al. 2008).
Microbial inoculants include three major groups: (1) arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF), (2)
PGPR, and (3) the nitrogen-fixing rhizobia. There is some discussion in the scientific
literature on the role of specific strains of PGPR on N fixation, inoculants activities (Koide
1991; Kloepper et al. 1999; Barea et al. 1998, Jetiyanon et al. 2003, Vessey 2003, Bashan et
al. 2004, Morrissey et al. 2004). But there is need for more attention, especially in regards to
nutrient management.
Benefits to plants from plant-PGPR inoculation have been shown to include increases in
seed germination rate, root growth, yield, leaf area, chlorophyll content, nutrient uptake,

protein content, hydraulic activity, tolerance to abiotic stress, shoot and root weights,
biocontrol, and delayed senescence (Mahaffee and Kloepper 1994, Raaijmakers et al. 1997,
Bashan et al. 2004, Mantelin and Touraine 2004, Madhaiyan et al. 2006, Pooguzhali et
al.2006, Bakker et al. 2007, Pooguzhali et al.2007, Indiragandhi et al, 2007, Kim et al., 2009,
Yang et al. 2009). Other beneficial effects of PGPR strains include enhancing phosphorus
availability (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999); fixing atmospheric nitrogen (Bashan et al. 2004);
sequestering iron for plants by production of siderophores (Raaijmakers et al. 1997, Bakker et
al. 2007) producing plant hormones such as gibberellins, cytokinins, and auxins; and
synthesizing the enzyme 1-amino cyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase, which
lowers plant levels of ethylene, thereby reducing environmental stress on plants (Glick et al.
2007, Gutierrez-Manero et al. 2001, Madhaiyan et al. 2007, Ryu et al. 2006)). The
mechanisms behind plant-PGPR interactions are complex phenomena involving a
combination of direct and indirect mechanisms, the details of which can be seen in the
reviews by Glick et al. (2007) and Vessey (2003). One specific proposed mechanism by
which PGPR affect nutrient uptake is by enhancing growth and development of plant roots,
leading to root systems with larger surface area and increased number of root hairs, which are
then able to access more nutrients (Biswas et al. 2000, Adesemoye et al. 2008).
The studies and utilization of microorganisms and their metabolic processes for the crop
production and optimization provide a long-term conservation of soil qualities. Therefore, the
application of microbial inoculates as stimulators in the food production, satisfies the concept
within the system of sustainable agriculture. Apart from this the application of the
information gained within the field of biological nitrogen fixation means the application of
effective microorganisms (that fix atmospheric nitrogen Rhizobium/ Bradyrhirizobium,
Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Methylobacterium sp., bluegreen algae
Nostoc, Anabaena and mycorrhizal fungi) as inoculates that increase the soil biological
activity and quality of field and vegetable crop growth (Milosevic and Jarak, 2005,
Madhaiyan et al. 2006, Madhaiyan et al. 2009). According to studies carried out by Babeva
and Zenova (1989) an amount of 160-190 kg N ha-1 is annually fixed biologically in the
agricultural field.
As a result, for long time the comparative study on reduction or substitution of mineral
fertilizers through application of PGPR is subject of investigation. Studies reported that, the
application of selected active strains of symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria and other beneficial
bacteria resulted in higher yields, higher protein content (34.55%), and reduction of nitrogen
mineral fertilizers utilization (60 kgN ha-1 replacement for approximately of 130 kg UREA
(Sombor, 2005) and 25% in red pepper production by the strain Methylobacterium (Lee et al.
2009) or even up to 150 kg N ha-1 depending on the nature of strain (Doberainer et al. 1972).
Plants in the association with symbiotic bacteria can satisfy up to 80% of their nitrogen
requirements. Use of nitrogen fixing bacteria (Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Derxia, etc.) in the
production of wheat, maize, sugar beet, sunflower and some vegetable crops, indicates to the
possibility of replacement of up to 60 kg N ha-1 (Govedarica et al. 1997).
In the countries of eastern Asia, a microbiological fertilizer with blue-green algae Nostoc
and Anabaena, that are able to bind atmospheric nitrogen in the amount of up to 20-30 kg N
ha-1 annually, is used in the production of rice and cotton (Kennedy et al. 2004). If a
microbiological fertilizer without supplements of mineral nitrogen is applied, the rice yield
can be increased by 33%, as it produces many biologically active growth substances
(Venkataraman 1981). Use of Azotobacter species (Azotobacter vinelandii and A.

chroococcum) in rice production increases the yields of rice in field trials up to 0.9 t ha −1
(20% increase) (Yanni and El-Fattah 1999) A. lipoferum increased rice yield significantly up
to 6.7 g plant−1 also plant height and tiller number of rice plants (Mirza et al. 2000, Nayak et
al. 1986) cotton yield by 15–28% (Iruthayaraj 1981). Patil and Patil (1984) observed that seed
inoculation with A. chroococcum plus 50–100 kg urea-N ha−1 gave higher cotton dry matter
yield, N uptake and soil N content than those obtained with N alone (50–100 kg urea-N ha−1)
in greenhouse conditions using non-sterilised soils. In the field, Balandreau (2002) found that
the estimated yield increase was around 1.8 t ha−1 (22% increase). Murty and Ladha (1988)
showed that Azospirillum inoculation increased P and NH4+–N uptake by rice plants.
Inoculation with A. brasilense can increase wheat grain yield by up to 30% and other yield
components significantly in field conditions (Okon and Labandera-Gonzalez, 1994), but only
at lower rates of fertilizer-N (50–60 kg N ha−1) but the higher rates (110–170 kg N ha−1), its
effects were not statistically significant (Dobbelaere et al., 2001). The PGPR effects can
increase N and P uptake in field trials presumably by stimulating greater plant root growth
(Galal et al. 2000; Panwar and Singh 2000).
Beneficial effects of inoculation with Azospirillum on wheat yields in both greenhouse
and field conditions have been reported (Hegazi et al. 1998, El-Mohandes 1999, Ganguly et
al. 1999, Islam et al. 2002). Field experiments results in India showed that application of
Acetobacter diazotrophicus by inoculating sets increased sugarcane yield for four varieties
significantly when it was applied in association with vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza
(Muthukumarasamy et al. 1999). They claimed that this practice completely substituted for
the recommended dose of 275 kg urea-N ha−1.
Azorhizobium caulinodans increased the dry weight and N content of wheat plants in a
greenhouse experiment (Matthews et al. 2001). Studies also confirms that inoculation of A.
caulinodans in wheat production saved up to 50% of the recommended rate of urea N in
greenhouse trials under gnotobiotic (or sterile) conditions (Saleh et al. 2001).
The genus Burkholderia comprises 29 species, with several of these including
Burkholderia vietnamiensis, Burkholderia kururiensis, Burkholderia tuberum and
Burkholderia phynatum being capable of fixing N2 (Estrada-de los Santos et al., 2001 and
Vandamme et al., 2002). Inoculation of B. vietnamiensis to rice in field trials increased grain
yields significantly (at 5% probability level) up to 0.8 t ha−1 (Trân Van et al. 2000) and
capable to save 25–30 kg N ha−1 mineral fertilizer. In this respect, Baldani et al. (2000),
using the 15N tracer technique, established that B. vietnamiensis can fix 19% of the rice plant
N (152 μg N plant−1) from the atmosphere under gnotobiotic conditions. Similarly the genus
Herbaspirillum, an endophyte (Pereira et al. 1988, Arangarasan et al. 1998, James et al. 2000,
Mirza et al. 2000), Rhizobium (Yanni et al. 1997, Yanni et al. 2001) can enhance plant
growth and nutrient uptake in different test crops under control and field study.
The recently much investigated methylotrophic bacteria the genus Methylobacterium an
ubiquitous plant root, shoot and leaf colonizers has identified as one of the potential candidate
as PGPR (Holland and Polacco 1994, Ivanova et al. 2001, Omer et al. 2004b, Poonguzhali et
al. 2005, Ryu et al. 2006, Kim et al. 2009, Madhaiyan et al. 2009). But to explore
Methylobacterium as future candidate of biofertilizers, large scale control and field study with
respect to soil type needs to be investigated.
Bacteria capable to supply plants by transforming unavailable mineral nutrients to
available forms such as phosphorus, zinc, sulphur oxidation are also very important criteria of
PGPR. Study made on application of P-fertilization show that the fertilizer cannot replace

mineral phosphorus fertilizers, but it should be a growth stimulator (Anandham et al. 2007,
Adesmoye and Kloepper 2009). Laboratory and greenhouse studies showed that when rice is
inoculated with increases both the growth and yield of rice, and its uptake of N, P and K
(Biswas et al. 2000a, Biswas et al. 2000b). Overall the benefit of the application of
microbiological inoculation can be of a great importance for both, growers and processors
(Subic et al. 2006).
PGPR improve the efficiency of utilization of chemical N fertilizer and other soil
nutrients for many crops. This beneficial effect reduces the risk of environmental pollution
and is just as effective as supplying newly fixed-N for the nutrition of crop plant. In an
exploratory work, considering sunflower as test crops Tamis and Pancevo, (2005) listed the
benefit accrued from microbial application. Hence, the application of PGPR and associative
nitrogen fixing bacteria has multiple significance for the crop yield increase, lowering of
mineral application fertilizers rate, profit increase, as well as positive effect on the soil. As a
result, the application of PGPR in crop improvement is the unavoidable future. Therefore,
large scale investigation on PGPR in crop production, a rational and efficient utilization of
mineral fertilizers can be provided by PGPR. To achieve the goal of PGPR, more inoculation
trials are inevitable.
7. MECHANISM OF PGPR ON PLANT GROWTH PROMOTION

The means by which PGPR enhances plant growth and improves the nutrient status of
host plants were characterized into five categories (Vessey, 2003). These are as follows:-
Biological nitrogen fixation;

Increasing the availability of nutrients in the rhizosphere;
Inducing increase in root surface area,
Enhancing other beneficial symbioses of the host and
Combination of modes of action.
Though many studies reported enough on the mode of action of PGPR on plant growth
but there are many data to be accounted to correlate the claim of PGPR in nutrient
management. In this respect the role of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) in plant growth (Costacurta
et al. 1994, Dobbelaere et al. 1999, Vande Broek et al. 1999, Baldwin et al. 2008) and
possible role of 1-aminocyclopropans-1-carboxylate deaminase (ACCD) production by some
PGPR are two of the classical examples (Shah et al. 1998, Mayak et al. 1999, Li et al. 2000,
Wang et al. 2000, Holguin and Glick 2001, Saleh and Glick 2001, Madhayan et al. 2007).
Effect of bio-inoculants on the role of fertilizer use efficiency is described below.
8. PGPR IN NITROGEN MANAGEMENT

The most studied and longest exploited PGPR are the rhizobia for their ability to fix N2
in their legume hosts. Commercial rhizobia inoculants for use on legume crops were first
introduced in the year 1890 (Fred et al. 1932) and reviewed the importance of rhizobium

(Hansen 1994, Gualtieri and Bisseling 2000, Sessitsch et al. 2002, McInnes et al. 2004,
Deaker et al. 2005). On the basis of nitrogenase activity the diazotrophic nitrogen fixers were
screened. Many of them showing high nitrogenase activity under in vitro experimental
condition but in field conditions the results are not encouraging.
The N cycle is an essential and complex biogeochemical cycle that has a great impact on
soil fertility (Jetten 2008). The cycle is dominated by four major microbial processes: N
fixation, nitrification, denitrification, and N mineralization (Ogunseitan 2005).
Microbial inoculants have demonstrated significant roles in N cycling and plant
utilization of fertilizer N in the plant–soil system (Ames et al. 1983, Briones et al. 2003,
Adesemoye et al. 2009). Plant N uptake through symbiotic N fixation (Elsheikh and Elzidany
1997) and non-legume biological fixation/non-associative uptake have been reported widely
in studies (Kennedy et al. 1997, Dobbelaere et al. 2001, Vessey 2003, Egamberdiyeva and
Hoflich 2004, Bashan et al. 2004, Hernandez and Chailloux 2004, Wu et al. 2005,
Shaharoona et al. 2008). The summary of the previously studied claims are as follows.
Wu et al. (2005) conducted a greenhouse study to valuate the effects of four co
inoculation of abuscular mycorrohizae fungi with or without N fixer (Azotobacter
chroococcum), P solubilizer (Bacillus megaterium), and K solubilizer (B. mucilaginous) on
the growth of maize (Zea mays). They reported that microbial inoculants increased the growth
and nutritional assimilation (total N, P, and K) of maize and improved soil properties. In a pot
experiment with soil collected from a non-fertilized field site, Hoflich (2004) demonstrated
that inoculation with Pseudomonas alcaligens PsA15 and Mycobacterium phlei MbP18 led to
increase in shoot and/or root N contents of cotton. Shaharoona et al. (2008) reported that pot
and field trials with inoculation of Pseudomonas fluorescens (strain ACC50) and P.
fluorescens biotype F (strain ACC73) showed increased use efficiency of N and P at all tested
NPK fertilizer levels in wheat.
Furthermore, Amir et al. (2005) reported enhanced uptake of N and P in oil palm
seedlings in Malaysia, following PGPR inoculation in the field nursery. Aseri et al. (2008)
conducted experiments in the field in India and assessed the effectiveness of PGPR
(Azotobacter chroococcum and A. brasilence) on the growth, nutrient uptake, and biomass
production of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Increase in N and P uptake was suggested
to result from improved symbiotic N2 fixation and improved phosphates activity. Adesemoye
et al. (2008) confirmed that inoculation with mixed strains were more consistent than single
strain inoculations. Nitrogen fixation has been proposed as a mechanism involved in
enhanced N uptake of inoculated plants.
A specific example is Azospirillum spp. enhanced plant N uptake and plant growth
promotion in which nitrogen fixation was the first reported mechanism as reviewed by
Dobbelaere et al. (2001) and Bashan et al. (2004). It is well reported that uptake of N, P, K,
and micronutrients are significantly enhanced in plants inoculated with Azospirillum in both
the greenhouse and field. It is crucial to point out that successful plant root colonization is
very important in Azospirillum and other PGPR in achieving enhanced nutrient uptake.
Details on Azospirillum can be found in Dobbelaere et al. (2001) and Bashan et al. (2004).
Nitrogen fixation has been proposed as a mechanism involved in enhanced N uptake of
inoculated plants. The specific example is Azospirillum spp. enhanced plant N uptake and
plant growth promotion (Debbelaere et al. 2001, Bashan et al. 2004). Putative nitrogenase
coding genes (nif operon), in a 30 kb DNA region, have been described in bacteria, and the
transcriptional organization has been studied (de Zamaroczy et al. 1989, Galimand et al.

1989). The enzymes nitrogenase containing two components: I (an α2β2 tetramer encoded by
nifD and nifK genes) and II (a homodimer encoded by nifH gene). The genes are commonly
report to regulate lateral root development and long distance movement of nitrogen (de
Zamaroczy et al. 1989, Ueda et al. 1995, Minerdi et al. 2001).
These two components are conserved in structure, function, and amino acid sequence
through diazotorphs. The genes are commonly reported to regulate lateral root development
and long distance movement of nitrogen (de Zamaroczy et al. 1989, Ueda et al. 1995, Minerdi
et al. 2001). Minerdi et al. (2001) examined Burkholderia spp. for the presence of the N
fixation gene and its expression in plants using the genomic library and were able to describe
the nif operon. They reported that Burkholderia NifH, NifD, and NifK proteins have high
sequence similarity to those of Azospirillum brasilense. The expression of nif genes indicates
a potential to fix nitrogen (Minerdi et al. 2001).
The nitrogenase enzyme complex has been credited for the capacity of some PGPR to
convert nitrogen into ammonia in a free state (Egener et al. 1999). Egener et al. (1999)
studied root-associated GUS (histochemical β-glucuronidase) and nifH expression with the
objective of monitoring the establishment of nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Azoarcus sp.) on or in
rice roots.
The authors observed that a primary step in assessing the metabolic activities of
beneficial bacteria in associations with the host plants is to localize the expression of bacterial
genes of interest in the host plant. Egener et al. (1999) noted that the presence of combined
nitrogen such as ammonia has a strong impact on the expression of nif gene in most
diazotrophs. Also, Vande Broek et al. (1993) estimated associative nifH expression both
qualitatively and quantitatively in A. brasilense on wheat roots through gusA fusion plasmid
system. However, as reported by Mantelin and Touraine (2004), there is no clear evidence
that the expression of nif genes or active N2 fixation by PGPR will translate into measurable
transfer of the fixed N2 to the plant.
Understanding of the key factors governing microbial ecology of the rhizosphere is
highly needed (Hardy and Eaglesham 1995) but has yet to be fully achieved. Nonetheless, we
share in the conclusion of Bhattacharjee et al. (2008) that with progressive understanding of
the interactions between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and cereal crops, the world is closer to the
dream of developing an ecofriendly nutrient source for cereal crops.
9. PGPR IN PHOSPHOROUS MANAGEMENT

Although soil is the large reserve of P, its availability is most commonly the key
constraint to agricultural crop productions (Stevenson and Cole, 1999). The low availability
of P to plants is because the vast majority of soil P is found to be insolubles, and plants can
only absorb p in two soluble forms, the monobasic (H2PO4-) and the dibasic (HPO42-) ions
(Glass, 1989). Depending on geochemical attributes, soils may immobilize P by binding with
Ca2 ,
Mg2 , Fe3 , adsorption to Fe- and Al-hydrous oxides and Al-silicates, or via precipitation
reactions (e.g., Al in acidic soils or Ca in alkaline soils) (Wakelin and Ryder 2004). The
farmer may then have to add large amount of fertilizers (Ohno et al. 2005), and a significant
part of the P will later constitute an environmental problem.. Soil microorganisms are

responsible for transforming immobilized soil P into plant-available forms by conversion of

insoluble forms of P to plant available forms (Gerretsen 1948, Kin et al. 1998, Rodriguez and
Fraga 1999, Mahmood et al. 2001, Tawaraya et al. 2006, Richardson 2001)). Research is
underway to determine the potential for exploitation of p-solubilizing microorganisms to
increase plant growth on soils high in immobilized P.
Few recently screened association of phosphorous solubilizing bacteria include
Azotobacter chrpococcum and wheat (Kumar and Narula 1999), Bacillus circulans and
Cladosporium herbarum (Singh and Kapoor 1999), Bacillus sp. (Pal 1998), Enterobacter
agglomerans and tomato (Kim et al. 1998), Pseudomonas chlororaphis and P. putida and
Soybean (Cattelan et al. 1999), Pseudomonas poae, P. trtivalis, and Rhizobium radibacter and
Chinese cabbage (Poonguzhali et al. 2008). It was also reported that phosphate solubilizing
bacteria are common in rhizosphere (Nautiyal et al. 2000). But not all the phophorus
solubilizing bacteria are responsible for plant growth on p- management but other factors also
influences plant growth (Vessey 2003).
The principal mechanism for their solubilization capacity was reported as production of
organic acids (Chen et al. 2006). Cloning two genes (PQQ synthase and gabY) that are
involved in gluconic acid production has been responsible as reviewed by Igual et al. (2001).
Other acids include 2-ketogluconic, acetic, citric, glycolic, isovaleric, isobutyric, lactic,
malonic, oxalic, propionic, and succinic acids also responsible for P soulbilisation (Rodriguez
and Fraga 1999; Chen et al. 2006).
Organic P usually accounts for 30% to 65% of total P in soils and must be converted to
inorganic or low-molecular weight organic acids before they can be assimilated by plants.
The common forms of P are inositol phosphatases, phosphoesters, phosphodiesters
(phospholipids and nucleic acids), and phosphotriesters. A large part of the organic P is
inositol phosphatases (phytate), accounting for half or more of organic P in soils and are the
most important in plant nutrition (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999, Zimmermann 2003).
Phosphatases refer to any enzyme that can hydrolyze phosphate esters and anhydrides.
These include phosphoprotein phosphatases, phosphodiesterases, diadenosine
tetraphosphatases, exonucleases, 5'-nucleotidases, phytases, alkaline and acid phosphatases,
phosphomonoesterases, etc (Zimmermann 2003). Phosphatases are sometimes described as
phosphomonoesterase and found in some of the PGPR including genus Bacillus (Idriss et al.
2002), Pseudomonas, and Rhizobium, as reviewed by Rodriguez and Fraga (1999).
Molecular biology tools have been used to elucidate plant-microbe interactions in P
metabolism (Rodriguez et al. 2000, Chen et al. 2006). Minder et al. (1998) indicated that the
genetic control system of phosphate (PO4) uptake is based on the PO4 regulatory protein
PhoB, which is mediated by the transmembrane sensor protein PhoR. They suggested that
phosphorylated PhoB acts as a transcriptional activator to the pho box in the promoter region
of genes belonging to the pho regulon. They explained that the product of the phoB gene
regulates the cellular response to environmental phosphate limitation. Although
Bradyrhizobium japonicum is an N fixer, after the study with B. japonicum on soybean, it
was concluded that phoB was required for phosphate-limited growth but not for symbiotic N2
fixation (Minder et al. 1998).
In addition, two phosphate transport systems—a low affinity phosphate inorganic
transport system and a high affinity phosphate-specific transport system (transporter operon,
pst)—in bacteria were previously described (Ruiz- Lozano and Bonfante 1999).

10. PGPR IN FACILITATION OF ABSORPTION OF IRON

The arrest of plant growth is also accounted for obtaining adequate soil nutrients. The in
adequacy of soil nutrients that hinder plant growth can be overcome by the use of PGPR
which enhanced nutrient availability for the plant in the rhizosphere (Glick 1995, Rodriguez
and Fraga 1999, Adesmoyee et al. 2008).
The methods are solubilization of unavailable nutrients to available form, and or
production of siderophores which help in facilitation of nutrients like iron.
Iron is an essential nutrient of plants, but it is relatively insoluble in soil solutions. Plants
uptake Fe as reduced ferrous (Fe2+) ion compared to readily available ferric (Fe3+) ion
(Salisburry and Ross 1992). Plants through phytosiderophores and organic compounds, binds
Fe3+ and helps to maintain in solution, thereby chelator deliver the Fe3+ to the root surface
where it is reduced to Fe2+ and immediately absorbed by plants (Vessey 2003).
Besides this some phytosiderophores, excreted by grasses absorbed with the Fe3+ across
the plasmalemma (von Wiren et al. 2000). Some rhizospheric bacteria also produce
siderophores and there is evidence that a number of plant can absorb bacterial Fe3+
siderophore complexes (Bar-Ness et al. 1991, Wang et al. 1993, Duijff et al. 1994, Deka
Boruah et al. 2003).
11. PGPR ON THE UPTAKE OF OTHER ELEMENTS

Inoculants have been shown to influence the uptake of many other elements in addition to
N and P (Peix et al. 2001, Khan 2005, Wu et al. 2005, Adesemoye et al. 2008). In a review,
Khan (2005) observed that inoculation with PGPR such as Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter
strains had resulted in enhanced uptake of Fe, Zn, Mg, Ca, K, and P by crop plants. In a study
with strains of Mesorhizobium mediterraneum inoculated onto chickpea and barley, K, Ca,
and Mg in addition to P and N contents significantly increased in both plants (Peix et al.
2001). Increased uptake of macro and micronutrient for seed inoculated plants with PGPR
Methylobacterium, Azospirillum and also co-inoculation were reported in red pepper, rice
and tomato (Kim et al. 2009, Madhayan et al. 2009) Kohler et al. (2008) also demonstrated
the effects of PGPR (Pseudomonas mendocina) on uptake of N, P, Fe, Ca, and manganese
(Mn) in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv. Tafalla) under three different levels of water stress in
Spain. Han and Lee (2005) reported an increased uptake of P and K when soil was fertilized
with rock P and K and co-inoculated with P solubilizing bacteria B. megaterium and K
solubilizing bacteria B. mucilaginosus. Sheng and He (2006) reported improved uptake of K
through the inoculation of PGPR B. edaphicus strains NBT and suggested that the production
of organic acids (citric, oxalic, tartaric, succinic, and α-ketogluconic) by the strain and its
mutants lead to chelation of metals and mobilization of K from K-containing minerals.
Sulfur (S) and Fe uptake have been achieved through sulfur-oxidizing bacterial inoculant
and siderophore-producing bacteria, respectively (Anandham et al. 2009, Banerjee et al. 2006,
Bakker et al. 2007). Biswas et al. (2000) reported a significant increase in Fe uptake in
lowland rice through inoculation of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii E11. They
suggested that the increased uptake of Fe, P, and K was associated with higher N rates but
higher N was a result of mechanisms other than biological N2 fixation.

12. ISOTOPE-LABELING TECHNIQUES FOR THE STUDY

Isotope-labeling techniques are being used to study the impacts of both PGPR on nutrient
uptake, especially P and N (Nayak et al. 1986, Hodge et al. 2001, Tu et al. 2006, Barea et al.
2007). Zapata and Axmann (1995) observed that one adequate approach for assessing the
availability of P in rock-phosphate materials to crops is through the use of 32P/33P isotope
tracers. When isotopic P-labeled soil is used, estimation of the sources of P in plant tissues is
easily estimated based on the specific activity in the plants. The stable isotope 15N labeling
has been used relatively more with Azospirillum than other PGPR species (Nayak et al. 1986,
Belimov et al. 1995). Nayak et al. (1986) used the technique of 15N to monitor the
inoculation effect of A. lipoferum on N uptake in rice. Adesmoye and Kloepper (2009)
inoculated a mixture of two PGPR strains (B. amyloliquefaciens IN937a and B. pumilus T4)
onto tomato in a greenhouse study and evaluated the effect of the PGPR on plant uptake of
applied fertilizer N using different rates of 15Ndepleted ammonium sulfate.
The use of 15N isotope and its basis in monitoring the movement of N in biological N
fixation, mineralization-immobilization of N, plant recovery of applied N, and movement of
N (including enriched and depleted 15N) were detailed in Hauck and Bremner (1976). Isotope
techniques are proving very useful in understanding the inoculants-enhanced plant nutrient
uptake paradigm. The experimental design, collection and analysis of data, and the capability
of the researcher in 15N data interpretation are very important.
13. PGPR AND SOIL PH

The microbial biogeography is controlled primarily by edaphic variables, especially by
pH (Fierer and Jackson, 2006). Different soil types are assumed to harbor specific microbial
communities, as recently shown in a continental-scale study of soil bacterial communities
(Fierer and Jackson, 2006). The structure and diversity of soil bacterial communities with
close relation to soil environmental characteristics and soil pH were reported to be crucial by
several studies (Borneman and Triplet 1997, McCaig et al. 2001, Fierer et al. 2005, Singh et
al. 2006, Hartman et al. 2008).
The effect of soil pH on specific microorganisms or on the whole microbial biomass,
microbial activity and more recently microbial community structure have previously been
investigated (Anderson 1998, Baath and Anderson 2003). Pietri and Brookes (2009) while
working on substrate inputs, pH variation in high arable soil under similar management
practices as factor controlling microbial biomass conclude that lower pH promotes gram
positive bacteria than that of gram negative bacteria but soil given straw reverse the trend at
pH 6.61. Coliff et al. (2008) studied the nitrogen cycle genes in soils for measuring the effects
of changes in land use and management. It was concluded that agricultural soil had greater
frequency of occurrence of nitrogen cycling gene compared with adjacent remnant native
vegetation. A pyrosequence based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial
community structure at continental scale by Lauber et al. (2009). Plant species and soil type
cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere
(Berg and Smalla 2009). Therefore, it is very much important to determine the effect of

changing edaphic factors, intensive cultivation practices and also cultivation management
regime on microbial community structure and soil health with special reference to soil pH.
14. FORECAST OF PGPR ON ENHANCED FERTILIZER

USE EFFICIENCY
The current proposition towards solving agro-environmental problems is integrated
nutrient management (INM). This does not aim to remove the application of fertilizer totally
in crop production in the near future but how best we can manage to minimize the application
of N, P, and other elements containing fertilizers to arrest negative impacts of the overuse of
fertilizers. The INM system promotes low chemical input but improved nutrient-use
efficiency by combining natural and manmade sources of plant nutrients in an efficient and
environmentally prudent manner (Adesmoye and Kloepper 2009). This will not sacrifice high
crop productivity in the short term nor endanger sustainability in the long term (Gruhn et al.
2000, Adesemoye et al. 2008, Tilman et al. 2002). Several studies reported that PGPR-elicited
plant growth promotion resulted in enhanced N uptake and other elements (Adesemoye et al.
2008, Madhaiyan et al. 2009, Kim et al. 2009). It was concluded in the paper that the increase
in plant N content might have resulted from increased fertilizer utilization efficiency in an
INM system.
The amount of fertilizer applied to plants is usually large; the part of the applied fertilizer
taken up by plants is usually small, ranging between 10% to 40% depending on soil type,
fertilizer type, and plant; and the part of the applied fertilizer that is lost could be in the range
of 60% to 90% of the original amount of fertilizer or manure applied (Hardy and Eaglesham
1995, Rowarth 1997, Hood et al. 1999, Gyneshwar et al. 2002, Huan et al. 2002, Tilman et al.
2002, Barlog and Grzebisz 2004, Kleinman et al. 2005, Kennedy et al. 2004). In such a
situation, the question to the scientific community as raised by Adesmoye and Kloepper
(2009) that whether it is possible to reverse the trend of (1) loosing high percentage of applied
fertilizer and (2) applying large amounts of fertilizers by supplementing reduced fertilizer
with inoculants while maintaining plant growth and high yield comparative to the use of full
recommended fertilizer rates.
15. PERSPECTIVES OF PGPR IN FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT

As the information on the effects of inoculants on nutrient uptake keeps increasing, there
is a need for a continuous discussion of emerging scientific data and reevaluation of
methodologies. This will help towards achieving the overall goal and ensure that scientific
information is not confusing to farmers and researchers alike, especially those new to the
field.
Egamberdiyeva (2007) used two soil samples (a nutrient poor calcisol soil from
Uzbekistan and a nutrient-rich loamy sand from Germany) to study the impact of PGPR on
nutrient uptake in maize in pot experiments. This author indicated that bacterial inoculation
had better stimulating effect on the growth and nutrient (N, P, and K) uptake of maize in
nutrient-deficient calcisol soil than loamy sand, which was contrary to the common

assumption that the usefulness of PGPR is limited under nutrient deficient conditions (Khan
2005).
Canbolat et al. (2006) provided a good basis for comparison of the impact of inoculants
with fertilizer. The study was conducted with barley seedlings in a design of eight treatments,
three soil compaction, and three harvest times in a pot experiment. The eight treatments
included (1) control (without bacteria or fertilizer addition), (2) N fertilizer (40 mg N kg−1
soil), (3) P fertilizer (20 mg P kg−1 soil), (4) NP fertilizer (40 mg N kg−1 soil+20 mg P kg−1
soil), (5) Bacillus RC01, (6) Bacillus RC02, (7) Bacillus RC03, and (8) Bacillus M-13. It was
shown that available P and N were significantly greater in the first harvest at 15 days after
planting (DAP) compared with 30 and 45 DAP, which indicated that the impact of inoculants
on nutrient uptake could depend on time or the stage of growth of the plant.
Similarly, Adesemoye et al. (2009) observed that time of sampling, i.e., the plant's stage
of growth, significantly impacted on the effectiveness of the inoculants. Furthermore,
Canbolat et al. (2006) reported increases in N and P content of plant dry matter with each
inoculated Bacillus strain compared with the control. It was also shown that the amounts of N
and P in plants inoculated with Bacillus were lower than the plants that were fertilized with
N, P, or NP fertilizers. This is an indication that inoculants were not able to fully replace
fertilizer, though it would have been more informative if Canbolat et al. (2006) had compared
joint applications of fertilizer and inoculants with separate applications of each. The study by
Elcoka et al. (2008) was somewhat similar to Canbolat et al. (2006) in terms of design.
Elcoka et al. (2008) studied chickpea inoculated with strains of Rhizobium, N2-fixing
Bacillus subtilis OSU-142, and P solubilizing B. megaterium M-3 in comparison with mineral
fertilizer application and a noninoculated, nonfertilized control in “controlled environments”
and in the field. The design of the experiments is interesting, and it gives room for
comparison of inoculants and fertilizer. The authors showed that single, double, and triple
inoculations significantly increased all parameters measured (including N content), with equal
or higher proportion compared to treatments with N, P, and NP fertilizers in controlled
experiments.
However, the conclusion of Elcoka et al. (2008) that double and triple combinations of
inoculants may substitute for NP fertilizers in chickpea production is a point of concern.
Contrary to this, Shaharoona et al. (2008) showed that the effectiveness of their PGPR strains
(P. fluorescens [ACC50] and P. fluorescens biotype F [ACC73]) were fertilizer-dependent.
Adesemoye et al. (2009) have shown that microbial inoculants are good and reliable
supplements to fertilizer.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, the use of chemical fertilizers and manures cannot be eliminated at this time
without drastically decreasing food production. At the same time, the harmful environmental
side-effects of fertilizer use, such as the expanding dead zones in marine systems worldwide,
as well as expanding rate of eutrophication cannot go unabated. Hence, there is an urgent
need for integrated nutrient management that targets agricultural inputs and lowers the
adverse environmental impacts of agricultural fertilizers and practices. Better understanding
of the inoculation of microbe, fertilizer, and plants is very important.

The management of “nutrient use efficiency” through microbial inoculation should target
to get more of the applied nutrient into the plant tissues, so that fewer nutrients lost to the
environment after the season. It will reduce the nutrient run-off or leaching along with crop
residue management. Microbial inoculants will also help to lower the amounts of fertilizers
use and increase in the use efficiency of the applied fertilizers. In each case, reduction in
agro-environmental pollution will be achieved. Results have shown that join inoculation of
compatible strain of PGPR or commercial formulations containing multiple strains has been
able to overcome the efficiency of microbial inoculants in crop production Therefore,
incorporation of multiple strains in nutrient management but, investigation on specific areas,
like relationship of C and soil factors on the efficiency of microbial inoculants needs to be
better studied.
One aspect that remains to be convincingly proven in the literature is the fate of nutrients
solubilized in the soil by inoculants. As a specific example, the correlation between
solubilization by microorganisms and practical uptake of the solubilized P by plant is not yet
clear. Studies using liquid or solid media under controlled environments have shown that
microorganisms are able to solubilize P from insoluble sources and also universal presence of
P solubilizing bacteria in soil. However, data on what proportion of the laboratory-based P
solubilization is taken up by plants in the field or used by the microorganism for its
development are not well defined in the literature. These information will help in determining
the level of insoluble phosphorus and inoculants that would be needed for practical purposes
in the field. This is important because the amount of P solubilized, P need of the bacteria, root
exudation of the specific plant, and soil conditions (including soil P status, P sorption
capacity, and pH) are among many possible factors that could affect whether the P that is
solubilized is taken up by plants or not. Further studies with focus on similar issues with other
elements and the molecular mechanisms of the impacts of microbes on plant nutrition and
fertility management will help improve our understanding of how to use microbial inoculants
to decrease harmful effects of fertilizers.
REFERENCES
A. Belimov, A. P. Kojemiakov and C. V. Chuvarliyeva, Plant and Soil, 173, 29–37 (1995).
A.E. McCaig, L.A. Glover and J.I. Proser, App. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 4554-4559. (2001).
A.G. Khan, J. Trace Elements Med. Biol. 18, 355–364 (2005).
A.N. Sharpley, J.L. Weld, D.B. Beegle, P.J.A. Kleiman, W.J. Gburek, P.A. Moore, Jr and G.
Mullins, J. Soil Water Conser. 58, 137–152 (2003).
A.R. Mosier, J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer and K. Minami, Plant and Soil, 181,
95–108 (1996).
B.K. Singh, S. Munro E. Reid, B. Ord, J.M. Potts, E. Paterson and P. Millard, 2006. Eur. J.
Soil. Sci., 57, 72-82.
B.R. Glick, B. Todorovic, J. Czarny, Z. Cheng, J. Duan and B. McConkey, Critical Rev.
Plant Sci. 26, 227–242 (2007).
C. Gerretsen, Plant and Soil, 1, 51-81 (1948).
C. Kim, M.L. Kecskes, R.J. Deaker, K. Gilchrist, P.B. New, R.I. Kennedy, S. Kim and T.M.
Sa,. Can. J. Microbiol. 51, 948-956(2005).

C.C. Mitchell and S. Tu, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 2146–2153 (2006).
C.C. Wood, N. Islam, R.J. Ritchie and I.R. Kennedy, Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,
28, 969–974 (2001).
C.L. Lauber, M. Hamady, R. Knight and N. Fierer, App. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 5111-5120
(2009).
D. Minerdi, R. Fani, R. Gallo, A. Boarino and P. Bonfante, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67,
725–732 (2001).
D. Norse, IFA-FAO Agriculture Conference on Global Food Security and the Role of
Sustainable Fertilization, Rome, Italy, 26–28 (2003).
D. Roseti, R. Gaur, B.N. Johri, G. Imfeld, S. Sharma, K. Kawaljeet and M. Aragno, Soil Biol.
and Bioche. 38, 1111-1120 (2006).
D.N. Nayak, J.K. Ladha and I. Watanabe, Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2, 7–14 (1986).
D.N. Nayak, J.K. Ladha and I. Watanabe, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2, 7–14 (1986).
E.E. Idriss, O. Makarewicz, A. Farouk, K. Rosner, R. Greiner, H. Bochow, T. Richter and R.
Borriss, Microbiol. 148, 2097–2109 (2002).
E.K. James, P. Gyaneshwar, W.L. Barraquio, N. Mathan, and J.K. Ladha, The Quest for
Nitrogen Fixation in Rice, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, pp. 119–140
(2000).
Egamberdiyeva and G. Hoflich, J. Arid Environ. 56, 293–301 (2004).
Egamberdiyeva, Appl. Soil Ecol. 36, 184–189 (2007).
F. Amijee, P. B. Tinker and D. P. Stribley, New Phytol. 111, 435–446 (1989).
F.J. Gutierrez-Manero, B. Ramos-Solano, A. Probanza, J. Mehouachi, F.R. Tadeo and M .
Talon, Physiol. Plant. 111, 206–211(2001).
G. Berg, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 84, 11–18 (2009).
G. Cvijanovic, N. Milosevic and D. Cvijanovic, Economics of Agriculture Year, 53 Special
edition, UDC 631.147:631.847, YU ISSN 0352-3462, 39-44 (2006).
G. K. Aseri, N. Jain, J. Panwar, A. V. Rao and P. R. Meghwal, Scientia Horti. 117, 130–135
(2008).
H. Chang and S. S. Yang, Biores. Technol. 100, 1648-1658 (2009).
H. Flessa, R. Ruser, P. Dörsch, T. Kamp, M. A. Jimenez, J. C. Munch and F. Beese, Agric.
Ecosys. Environ. 91, 175–189 (2002).
H. G. Amir, Z. H. Shamsuddin, M. S. Halimi, M. Marziah and M. F. Ramlan, Commun. Soil
Sci. Plant Anal. 36, 2059–2066 (2005).
H. P. Deka Boruah, B. K. Rabha, N. Saikia and B. S. Dileep Kumar, Plant and Soil. 256, 291-
301 (2003).
H. Rodriguez and R. Fraga, Biotchnol. Adv. 17, 319–339 (1999).
H. Steinshamn, E. Thuen, M.A. Bleken, U.T. Brenoe, G. Ekerholt and C. Yri Agric. Ecosys.
Environ. 104, 509–522 (2004).
H.S. Han and K.D. Lee, Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 1,176–180 (2005).
I.R. Kennedy, A.T.M.A. Choudhury and M.L. Kecskes, Soil Biol. Bioche. 36, 1229-1244
(2004).
J, Ma, X.L. Li, H. Xu, Y. Han, Z.C. Cai and K. Yagi, Austr. J. Soil Res. 45, 359–367 (2007).
J. Balandreau, Biofertilisers in Action, Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation, Canberra, 55–63 (2002).
J. Borneman and E. W. Triplet, App. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 2647-2653 (1997).
J. C. Aciego Pietri and P. C. Brookes, Soil Biol. Bioche. 41, 1396-1405 (2009).

J. C. Biswas, J. K. Ladha and F. B. Dazzo, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1644–1650 (2000).
J. Dobereiner and F.O. Pedrosa, Science Tech., Madison, 117-148. (1987).
J. Kohler, J.A. Hernandez, F.Caravaca and A. Roldan, Function Plant Biol. 35, 141–
151(2008).
J. M. Barea, M. Toro and R. Azcon, First international meeting on microbial phosphate
solubilization, Springer, New York, 223–227 (2007).
J. N. Galloway, W. H. Schlesinger, H. Levy II, A. Michaels and J. L. Schnoor, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 9(2), 235–252 (1995).
J. Yang, J.W. Kloepper and C.M. Ryu, Trends Plant Sci. 14, 1–4 (2009).
J.C. Biswas, J. K. Ladha, F. B. Dazzo, Y. G. Yanni and B.G. Rolfe, Agron. J. l92, 880–886
(2000).
J.C. Hargreaves, A.S. Adl and P.R. Warman, J. Sci. Food Agric. 89, 390–397(2009).
J.K. Vessey, Plant and Soil, 255, 571–586 (2003).
J.M. Raaijmakers, D.M. Weller and L.S. Thomashow, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 881–887
(1997).
J.P. Morrissey, M. Dow, G.L. Mark and F. O'Gara, EMBO Rep. 5, 922–926 (2004).
J.W. Kloepper, C.M. Ryu and S. Zhang, Phytopathol. 94, 1259–1266 (2004).
J.W. Kloepper, R. Rodriguez-Kábana, G.W. Zehnder, J.F. Murphy, E. Sikora and C.
Fernández, Austr. Plant Pathol., 28, 21–26 (1999).
K. Kim, W.J. Yim, P. Trivedi, M. Madhaiyan, H.P. Deka Boruah, M.R. Islam, G. Lee and
T.M. Sa, Plant Soil, 327(1), 429-440 (2009).
K.W. Perrott, S.U. Sarathchandra and B.W. Dow, Austr. J. Soil Res. 30, 383–394 (1992).
K.Y. Kim, D. Jordan and G.A. McDonald, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 26, 79–87 (1998).
L. S. Estrada-de, P. Santos, R. Bustilios-Cristales and J. Caballero-Mellado, App. Environ.
Microbiol. 67, 2790–2798 (2001).
M. J. Califf, S. A. Waklein, D. Gomez and S. L. Rogers, Soil Biol. and Biochem. 40, 1637-
1645 (2008).
M. Madhaiyan, S. Poonguzhali and T.M. Sa, Planta, 226, 867-876 (2007).
M. Madhaiyan, S. Poonguzhali M. Senthilkumar S.P. Sundaram and T.M. Sa, Microbiol. Res.
164, 114-120 (2009).
M. Madhaiyan, S. Poonguzhali, B.G. Kang, Y. J. Lee, J. B. Chung and T.M. Sa, Plant and
Soil, 328, 71-82 (2009).
M. Madhaiyan, S. Poonguzhali, J. Ryu and T.M. Sa, Planta, 224, 268-278 (2006).
M. Madhaiyan, S. Poonguzhali, S.P. Sundaram and T.M. Sa, Environ. Expt. Biol. 57, 168-176
(2006).
M. R. Banerjee, L. Yesmin and J .K. Vessey, Handbook of microbial biofertilizers, Food
Products Press, New York, 137–181 (2006).
M. Y. Canbolat, S. Bilen, R. Cakmakci, F. Sahin and A. Aydin, Biol. Fertil. Soils. 42, 350–
357 (2006).
M.E. Sumner, Advances in Soil Science, 12, 53–123 (1990).
M.J. Ottman and N.V. Pope, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1883–1892 (2000).
M.K. Jarecki, T.B. Parkin, A.S.K. Chan, J.L. Hatfield and R. Jones, J. Environ. Qual. 37,
1432–1438 (2008).
M.S. Mirza, G. Rasul, S. Mehnaz, J.K. Ladha, R.B. So, S. Ali, and K.A. Malik, The Quest for
Nitrogen Fixation in Rice, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, pp. 191–204.
(2000).

M.S. Singh, R.K.T. Devi and N.I. Singh, Indian Journal of Hill Farming, 12, 22–24(1999).
McInnes, J. E. Thies, L. K. Abbott and J. G. Howieson, Soil Biol. and Bioche. 36, 1295-1308
(2004).
McLaughlin and P. Mineau Agric. Ecosys Environ. 55, 201–212 (1995).
N. Fierer, J. A. Jackson, R. Vilgalys and R. B. Jackson, App. Environ. Microbiol., 71, 4117-
4120 (2005).
N. Islam, C.V.S. Rao and I.R. Kennedy, Biofertilisers in Action, Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation, Canberra, pp. 84–93 (2002).
N.A. Hegazi, M. Fayez, G. Amin, M.A. Hamza, M. Abbas, H. Youssef, and M. Monib,
Nitrogen Fixation with Non -Legumes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 209–222
(1998).
N.N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner, W.J. Wiseman, Jr and Q. Dortch, Regul. Rivers Res. Mgmt.
14,161–177 (1998).
O. Adesemoye and J.W. Kloepper, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 1–12 (2009).
O. Adesemoye, H. A. Torbert and J.W. Kloepper, Can. J. Microbiol. 54, 876–886 (2008).
O. Adesemoye, H. A. Torbertand and J.W. Kloepper, Microbiol. Ecol. 58, 921-929 (2009).
O. Ogunseitan, Microbial diversity: form and function in prokaryotes. Blackwell Science
Ltd., Massachusetts, USA, p 142(2005).
P. A. Bakker, C. M. Pieterse and L. C. van Loon, Phytopathol. 97, 239–243 (2007).
P. Barlog and W. Grzebisz, J. Agron. Crop Sci. 190, 314–323 (2004).
P. Bonfante, Biol. Bull. 204, 215–220(2003).
P. Gyaneshwar, G.N. Kumar, L.J. Parekh and P.S. Poole, Plant and Soil, 245, 83–93(2002).
P. Indiragandhi, R. Anandham, M. Madhaiyan and T.M. Sa, Curr. Microbiol. 56, 327-333
(2007).
P. Vandamme, J. Goris, W.M. Chen, P. Vos de and A. Willems, Systematic Applied
Microbiology, 25, 507–512 (2002).
P.L. Patil and S.P. Patil, Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 9, 171–172.
(1984).
P.M. Vitousek, J.D. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H.
Schlesinger and D.M. Weller, Phytopathology, 97, 250–256 (2007).
Peix, A.A. Rivas-Boyero, P.F. Mateos, C. Rodriguez-Barrueco, E. Martínez-Molina and E.
Velazquez, Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 103–110 (2001).
R. Anandham, K. H. Choi, P. Indiragandhi, W. J. Yim, S. J. Park, K. A. Kim, M. Madhaiyan
and T. M. Sa, World J. Microbiol. Biotech., 23, 1121-1129 (2007).
R. B. Bhattacharjee, A. Singh and S. N. Mukhopadhyay, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 80,
199–209 (2008).
R. Deaker and I. R. Kennedy, Acta Biotechnol. 21, 3–17 (2001).
R. Frink, P. E. Waggoner and J. H. Ausubel, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96, 1175–1180 (1999).
R. Ivanova, D. Bojinova and K. Nedialkova, J. University of Chemical Technology and
Metallurgy, 41, 297–302 (2006).
R. J. Diaz and R. Rosenberg, Sci., 321, 926–929 (2008).
R. Muthukumarasamy, G. Revathi and C. Lakshminarasimhan, Tropical Agriculture, 76,
171–178 (1999).
R.E. Turner and N.N. Rabalais, Biosci. 41, 140–147 (1995).
R.L. Mulvaney, S.A. Khan and C.S. Mulvaney, Biol. Fertil. Soils. 24, 211–220 (1997).

R.L. Williams and I.R. Kennedy, Biofertilisers in Action, Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation, Canberra, pp. 112–114 (2002).
S. A. Wakelin and M. H. Ryder, doi:10.1094/CM-2004-0301-01-RV (2004).
S. Dobbelaere, A. Croonenborghs, A. Thys, D. Ptacek, J. Vanderleyden, P. Dutto, C.
Labandera-Gonzalez, J. Caballero-Mellado, J. F. Anguirre, Y. Kapulnik, S. Brener, S.
Burdman, D. Kadouri, S. Sarig and Y. Okon, Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 28, 871–879 (2001).
S. Mantelin and B. Touraine, J. Exp. Bot. 55, 27–34 (2004).
S. R. Carpenter, N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley and V. H. Smith,
Eco. App. 8(3), 559-568 (1998).
S.A. Saleh, G.A.A. Mekhemar, A.A.A. El-Soud, A.A. Ragaband and F.T. Mikhaeel, Bulletin
of Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University 52, pp. 319–338 (2001).
S.C. Wu, Z.H. Cao, Z.G. Li, K.C. Cheung and M.H. Wong, Geoderma. 125, 155–166 (2005).
Shaharoona, M. Naveed, M. Arshad, Z.A. Zahir, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 79,147–155
(2008).
T. H. Anderson, Plant and Soil, 199, 117-122 (1998).
T. Ohno ,T.S. Griffin, M. Liebman and G.A. Porter, Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 105, 625–634
(2005).
T. Ueda, Y. Suga, N. Yahiro and T. Matsuguchi, J. Bacteriol. 177, 1414–1417 (1995).
T.K. Ganguly, A.K. Jana and D.N. Moitra, Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 33, 35–
39 (1999).
Tilman, Nature, 396, 211–212 (1998).
V. Arangarasan, S.P. Palaniappan and S. Chelliah, Ind. J. Microbiol. 38, 111–112 (1998).
V. L. D. Baldani, J. I. Baldani and J. Döbereiner, Biol. Fert. Soils. 30, 485–491 (2000).
V. Tran Van, O. Berge, S.N. Kê, J. Balandreau and T. Heulin, Plant and Soil, 218, 273–284
(2000).
Vande Broek, J. Michiels, A. Van Gool and J. Vanderleyden, Mol. Plant-Microbe. Inter. 6,
592–600 (1993).
W.F. Mahaffee and J.W. Kloepper, Soil biota: management in sustainable farming systems.
CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, pp 23–31(1994).
W.H. Hartman, C.J. Richardson, R. Vigaleys and G.L. Bruland, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
105,17842-17847 (2008) .
X.F. Sheng and L.Y. He, Can. J. Microbiol. 52, 66–72 (2006).
Y. Bahsan, Biotechnol. Adv. 16, 729-728 (1998).
Y. Bashan, G. Holguin and L. E. de-Bashan, Can. J. Microbiol. 50, 521–577 (2004).
Y. G. M. Galal, I. A. El-Ghandour, S. S. Aly, S. Soliman and A. Gadalla, Biol. Fert. Soils. 32,
47–51 (2000).
Y. Okon and C.A. Labandera-Gonzalez, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 26, 1591–1601.
(1994).
Y. P. Chen, P. D. Rekha, A. B. Arun, F. T. Shen, W. A. Lai and C. C. Young, Appl. Soil Ecol.
34, 33– 41(2006).
Y.G. Yanni and F.K.A. El-Fattah, Symbiosis, 27, 319–331 (1999).
Y.G. Yanni, R.Y. Rizk, F.K. Abd El-Fattah, A. Squartini, V. Corich, A. Giacomini, F. de
Bruijn, J. Rademaker, J. Maya-Flores, P. Ostrom, M. Vega-Hernandez, R.I.
Hollingsworth, E. Martinez-Molina, K. Ninke, S. Philip-Hollingsworth, P.F. Mateos, E.
Velasquez, E. Triplett, M. Umali-Garcia, J.A. Anarna, B.G. Rolfe, J.K. Ladha, J. Hill, R.

Mujoo, P.K. Ng, and F.B. Dazzo, Australian Journal Plant of Physiology, 28, 845–870
(2001).
Y.G. Yanni, R.Y. Rizk, V. Corich, A. Squartini, K. Ninke, S. Philip-Hollingsworth, G.
Orgambide, F. de Bruijn, J. Stoltzfus, D. Buckley, T.M. Schmidt, P.F. Mateos, J.K.
Ladha and F.B. Dazzo, Plant and Soil, 194, 99–114 (1997).
Zabetakis, Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Culture, 50, 179–183 (1997).

Chapter 5
ROLE OF VARIOUS VERMICOMPOSTING

PARAMETERS IN GREEN
SUSTAINABLE APPROACH
Richa Kothari1, , Sarita Verma1 and V. V. Tyagi2

1
School of Environmental Sciences, Babasaheb Bhimrao
Ambedkar University, Lucknow, (U.P.), India
2
Centre for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
ABSTRACT
Due to rapid urbanization and industrialization all over the world in the last few
decades, the nature and volume of waste has changed considerably. A sustainable
approach to handle this will be to reprocess waste on-site and produce useful products.
Composting is the most economical and sustainable option for waste management which
is organic in nature. Among the various techniques of composting enlisted in literature,
using worms for process gives a better end product than others.
Vermicompost technology is need of present world to minimize environmental
pollution. It is known to be the world's best organic fertilizer. Vermiculture technology
has improved the crop productivity by increasing soil fertility through ecological methods
of farming.
Organic farming has emerged as the only answer to bring sustainability to agriculture
and environment. Vermicomposting is also an ideal for practicing organic farming.
Vermiculture based composting are the most advanced biotechnology necessary to
support developing organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, green agriculture and
non-pollution agriculture.
Hence, in this chapter, the potential of vermicompost technology by emphasizing the
various working parameters i.e. type of earthworms, type of substrate used and other
influencing parameters has been discussed in detail.
Keywords: Vermicompost, substrate type, operating parameters
Corresponding author email:- kothariricha21@gmail.com.

86 Richa Kothari, Sarita Verma and V. V. Tyagi
1. INTRODUCTION
Solid waste management is one of the biggest environmental challenges facing the world
today due to the increasing population and urbanization. A sustainable approach to handle this
will be to treat and reprocess organic waste on-site, to produce useful products. Composting is
the most economical and sustainable option for organic waste management as it is easy to
operate and can be conducted in small space provided. Composting using worms, known as
vermicomposting gives a better end product than composting due to the enzymatic and
microbial activity that occur during the process [1].Vermicomposting is the stable fine
granular organic matter when is added to clay soil it loosens the soil and provides the passage
for the entry of air. In Vermicomposting, it is an aerobic process; it leads nitrogen
mineralization and the use of earthworms increase and accelerates this nitrogen
mineralization rate. This technology is an innovative technology, which have the potential to
minimize the organic burden on the landfills as well as to reduce the wide environmental
impacts of improper solid waste management. During vermicomposting, earthworms ingest,
grind and digest organic waste with the help of aerobic and anaerobic microflora in their gut,
leading to rapid mineralization and humification process [2]. The generated product,
vermicompost, resembles native soil humic substances [3, 4], and is a valuable, marketable
plant growth medium [5]. Various wastes including primary sewage sludge [6], dairy
processing plant sludge [7], sugar industry waste [8, 9], textile mill sludge [10, 11], pig waste
[12, 13], water hyacinth [14, 15], crop residue [16, 17], livestock excreta [18], paper waste
[19, 20], kitchen waste [21, 22] etc. have been tested for their suitability in vermicomposting
process.
The objectives of this chapter were to investigate the potential of vermicompost
technology by emphasizing the various working parameters.
1.1. Important Tools for Vermicomposting
Some important tools required for potential vermicomposting are:
1.1.1. Earthworms
Earthworm can generally be called as biological indicators of soil fertility for soil with
earthworm most definitely support healthy populations of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes ,
prtozones insects, millipedes and other hosts are essential for sustaining a healthy soil.
Earthworms are the unheralded soldiers of the soil. They aerate, break up soil for easier
access by plant roots, and help the soil hold more water cleanup dead organic matter by eating
it and turning it into world’s best plant food. Earthworms are very sensitive to hydrogen ion
concentration. Most of the species of earthworms prefer soil with about neutral pH. They
avoid drought and dry soils either by migrating to lower layers or by entering a stage of
dispose. The earthworms can tolerate temperature ranging from 0°C to 40°C with pH of 7 but
the regeneration capacity is more at 25°C to 40°C and 40-45% moisture contents and partially
decomposed organic matter is rich in nitrogen [23, 24] Generally earthworms are more active
in moist soil than dry soil. The kind and amount of food material available in soil influence
the size of earthworm’s population, species diversity, growth rate and cocoon production.

Role of Various Vermicomposting Parameters in Green Sustainable Approach 87
India has about 3000species of earthworms which are adapted to a range of vermiculture
needs. They prefer these factor like- soil texture, substrate aeration, temperature, moisture,
pH, inorganic salts, organic matter, reproductive potentials, enzymatic digestion and also
microbial decomposition of substrate in intestine of earthworms [25, 26].There are many
species of earthworms and each has different preferences for soil conditions.
Some species are only found within the top surface layer while others, such as Lumbricus
may be able to penetrate several feet to the sub soil horizon. Earthworm has key role in soil
biotechnology; it is a wonderful natural BIOREACTOR carrying out various functions in the
soil.
i. Earthworms are tubular bioreactors, taking in organic waste, processing it with the
help of gut micro flora and excreting the vermicasts, the effective biofertilizers for
the soil.
ii. They are isothermal bioreactors. All the bioprocess are sensitive to high
temperatures. Earthworms have novel temperature regulating mechanisms.
iii. They maintain a stable pH throughout their guts .All enzymes are very active in a
very narrow pH range.
iv. They can separate oxygen from the air and supply to the gut micro flora, thus
encouraging various aerobic waste-stabilization process and destroying soil
pathogens.
v. Earthworms build up nitrogen fixing activity in the soil by providing ideal conditions
of food , moisture and air to the N-fixing bacteria .Hence crops can flourish without
any synthetic nitrogen addition. Relatively small P requirements are met by increased
ability of phosphates produces by earthworms.
The most common types of earthworms used for vermicomposting are brandling worms
(Eisenia foetida) and Redworms or Red wigglers (Lumbricus rubellus). Often found in aged
manure piles, they generally have alternating red and buff-colored stripes. They are not to be
confused with the common garden or field earthworm (Allolobophora caliginosa and other
species). Although the garden earthworm occasionally feeds on the bottom of a compost pile,
they prefer ordinary soil. An acre of land can have as many as 500,000 earthworms, which
can recycle as much as 5 tons of soil or more per year. Redworms and brandling worms,
however, prefer the compost or manure environment. Passing through the gut of the
earthworm, recycled organic wastes are excreted as castings, or worm manure, an organic
material rich in nutrients that looks like fine-textured soil. Finished vermicompost should
have a rich, earthly smell if properly processed by worms. Vermicompost can be used in
potting soil mixes for house plants and as a top dressing for lawns. Screened vermicompost
combined with potting soil mixes make an excellent medium for starting young seedlings.
Vermicompost also makes an excellent mulch and soil conditioner for the home garden. The
survival, biomass production and reproduction of earthworms are the best indicator to
evaluate the vermicomposting process [27].
1.1.2. Anatomy of Earthworms

The earthworm has a long, rounded body with a pointed head and slightly flattened
posterior. Rings that surround the moist, soft body allow the earthworm to twist and turn,
especially since it has no backbone.

Earthworms are a hermaphrodite, which means they have both male and female sex
organs, but they require another earthworm to mate. The wide band (clitellum) that surrounds
a mature breeding earthworm secretes mucus (albumin) after mating. Sperm from another
worm is stored in sacs. As the mucus slides over the worm, it encases the sperm and eggs
inside. After slipping free from the worm, both ends seal, forming a lemon-shape cocoon
approximately 1/8 inch long. Two or more baby worms will hatch from one end of the cocoon
in approximately 3 weeks. Baby worms are whitish to almost transparent and are 1/2 to 1 inch
long. Red worms take 4 to 6 weeks to become sexually mature.
1.1.3. Classification
Earthworms are closely related with their anatomical features. There are 6 types of
earthworms namely- Polypheretima elongate, Lampito mauritii, Pontoscolex corethrurus,
Perionxyx excavatus, Octochaetoides beatrix and Drawida barwelli exhibited definite pattern
of distribution, soil salinity and temperature tolerance range determines habitat niche of
earthworms.
1.1.4. Species Occurrence

I. Polypheretima elongata -They found at a depth of 4-30 cm low grasslands. They
require rich supply of water high salinity and high level of organic matter for
survival.
II. Pontoscolex corethrurus -They found in sub-surface soils which contain very low
salinity and high organic matter of shady regions of garden soil.
III. Peionyx excavatus- Found near cow sheds where compost heaps and is a highly
adaptable earthworm to any kind of habitat.
IV. Lampoon mauritii- They have greater polytrophic adaptation and tolerance to
changing micro habitats.
V. Pontoscolex corethrurus -Cast of moderate size on soil surface.
2. TYPE OF EARTHWORM SUITABLE FOR VERMICOMPOSTING

There are 3 types of ecological strategies of earthworms:
I. Epigeic (litter dweller)- Epigeic worms live deep in the soil from 10-30 cm and feed
on the humic materials and mineral matter, esophageal; detritivore, lives in and
consume litter; small size, uniformly pigmented.
II. Endogeic (subsoil dweller)- microphage; geophage; (epiendogeic or
hypoendogeic)lives in horizontal, branching burrows in organo-mineral layer,
consume soil, small to large in size, weakly pigmented.
III. Anecic (top soil dweller)- Anecic worms can go very deep in to soil upto 60-90 cm
and form complicated burrows for their movements. The external abiotic parameters
and the poor soil nutrients appear to be controlling factors for growth of earthworm
population, macrophage; detritivore, lives in deep vertical burrows, casting on
surface; emerges at night to draw down organic matter (plant residue), large as
adults(200-1,100mm)brown pigment interiorly and dorsally.

Table 1. The nutrient status of vermicompost by Eisenia foetida
S.No. Parameters Eisenia foetida

1 pH 7.0
2 Organic Carbon 27.43
3 Total Nitrogen% 0.60
4 Total Phospha% 1.34
5 Total Potassium% 0.40
6 C:N ratio 45:70
The species Eisenia foetida (red worm) are the most popular precisely because of the ease
replicating the environmental conditions. Perfectly suited to indoor existence and the
culturing of this worm requires only minimum of effort, and presenting no hardship for their
place of residence.
The concentrations of nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, and phosphates are all higher in soil
that has earthworms. The movement of the earthworms through the soil loosens it up and
makes it valuable to all gardeners and to many others. The enriched soil is naturally processed
by the earthworms.
3. VERMICOMPOSTING MATERIAL
The biologically degradable and decomposable organic wastes commonly used as
composting material in vermicomposting are as follows:
1) Animal dung- cattle dung, sheep dung, horse dung, goat and poultry dropping etc
may be used for this purpose.
2) Agriculture waste- The leaves, stem, husk,peels,vegetable waste, orchard leaf litter,
processed food wastes, sugarcane rash and baggase are all waste used as a agriculture
waste.
3) Forestry wastes- These are plant products such as wood shavings, peels, saw dust and
pulp. All these besides various types of forest leaf litter can be used. The unutilized
forest waste such as leaf litter may also be used for vermicomposting.
4) City leaf litter- The burnt leaf litter from avenue or residential areas may be used.
The leaf litter of mango, guava, grasses and certain weeds (free from seeds)may be
used.
5) Waste paper and cotton cloth- These are decomposable organic waste. These if not
being recycled for other useful products, can be recycled with vermicomposting.
6) City refuge-City refuge or garbage on daily production basis comprise important
items of city factors and considerable portion of city refuge can be sorted and
recycled or composted. Most of household as kitchen waste with little manipulation
can be used for vermicomposting.
7) Industrial wastes- wastes like waste from food processing, distillery et can also be
used in vermicomposting.

8) Biogas slurry-After recovery of biogas, if not required for agriculture use in

convention composting can be used for vermicomposting.
Millions of tons of food waste are buried or burned each year at considerable financial
and environmental cost. Instead of discarding the food scraps, can recycle them with the help
of worms. Vermicomposting (worm composting) turns many types of organic waste into a
nutritious soil for plants. When worm compost is added to soil, it boosts the nutrients
available to plants and enhances soil structure and drainage. Composting food waste offers
several advantages:
(i) It reduces household garbage disposal costs.

(ii) It produces less odor and attracts fewer pests than putting food wastes into a garbage
container.
(iii) It saves the water and electricity that kitchen sink garbage disposal units consume.
(iv) It produces a free, high-quality soil amendment (compost).
(v) It requires little space, labor, or maintenance.
(vi) It spawns free worms for fishing.
Earthworm can be fed all forms of food waste, yard and garden waste, paper and
cardboard etc. Leaves are dominant organic waste in most backyard compost piles.
Approximately 1kg of actual nitrogen is required for 100 kg of dry sawdust.
4. INFLUENCING PARAMETERS
The other influencing parameters are followings:
4.1. Environmental Parameters
Various species of earthworms have different environmental requirements which are

necessary for their propagation and continued health. These requirements will inevitably
dictate whether one particular species of worms will be suitable for culture in any given
circumstances. The main parameters are.
4.1.1. Air (Aeration)

Worms need to breath, just like other living creatures. The available oxygen is used up
and replaced with carbon dioxide and other miscellaneous waste gases. The decreasing
amount of fresh oxygen can result in an increase in heat will result in a similar rise in the
oxygen requirements of worm. The whole situation is easily rectified, and only requires very
infrequent attention.
4.1.2. Moisture Content

The bin content should be kept moist but no soaked. A straw covering may be needed in
exposed sites to keep the bin from drying out during hot summer weather. Under natural

condition, the greatest abundance of earthworms will be located in soil which average
between 12%-30% moisture content.
If the amount of available moisture should fall too low, the earthworm will begin to lose
its internal water content, and a series of biological events will begin to occur, which if
unchecked, will eventually result in the death of the animal.
Adequate moisture is essential for microbial activity. A dry compost pile will not
decompose efficiently. Enough water should be added to completely moisten the pile, but
over watering should be avoided.
4.1.3. Temperature
Temperature requirement for optimal results is 20-30°C .However survival of
earthworms is even at lower temperature and up to 48°C air temperature. The temperature
drops below 10°C the amount of food eaten by the worms will also decrease. The worms will
less active, and possibly move a little lower into the bedding causing the problem, in which
case they will move nearer the surface.
At the 4-50°C, the adult worms may stop producing cocoons, and the growth rate of
younger worms will diminish. Red worms can survive a wide range of temperature (40-
80°C), but they reproduce and process food waste at an optimum bedding temperature range
of 20°C.
4.1.4. pH
During the initial stage of decomposition organic acids are produced, decreasing the pH.
The end of composting is usually alkaline (pH 7.1 - 7.5).
4.2. Other Parameters
Other important parameters for potential working of earthworms on suitable waste are:
4.2.1. Suitable: (i) Bedding (ii) Food

4.2.2. Unsuitable
4.2.1. Suitable
Some parameters can be classified according to their suitability for earthworms that are:
I. Kitchen waste suitable for worms includes coffee grounds and paper filters, tea bags,
plate scrapings, rotting fruit (including citrus fruit but not citrus peel), vegetable
peels, leftovers, moldy bread, etc. These materials can be raw or cooked. They do not
have to be ground up, as the micro-organisms in the bin will gradually soften them.
II. Chopping fruit and vegetable scraps into smaller pieces will speed the composting
process. If a large quantity of dry food (e.g., moldy bread) is added and covered with
bedding, pour a little purified water over the bedding to moisten the mixture.
III. If too much kitchen waste is added, the bin mixture putrefies before the worms can
process it and becomes harmful to the worms.

IV. High-protein foods like beans are particularly susceptible of their mix to only include
fruit and vegetable matter, avoiding grains, proteins or prepared food scraps
altogether.
V. Check the bin at least once a week, give the materials a stir to oxygenate, and add
bedding if the bin appears too moist.
VI. Soft vegetable are decomposable but the worms will not process the woody parts or
large roots and these will have to be hand-removed later from the finished
vermicompost.
VII. Compost able plates, cups, etc. are also suitable, but in small bins they should be torn
first into smaller pieces so as not to block oxygen flow.
I. Bedding
Bedding is the living medium and also a food source for the worms. It should be material
high in carbon and made to mimic decaying dried leaves on the forest floor, the worms'
natural habitat.
The bedding should be moist (similar to the consistency of a wrung-out sponge) and
loose to enable the worms to breathe and to facilitate aerobic decomposition of the food that
is buried in it.
A wide variety of bedding materials can be used, including shredded newspaper, sawdust,
hay, cardboard, coir, burlap coffee sacks, peat moss, pre-composted (aged) manure, and dried
leaves. Cat litter, and pet and human waste should not be used, because they may carry
disease.
Most vermicomposters avoid using glossy paper from newspapers and magazines, junk
mail, and shredded paper from offices, because they may contain toxins which may disrupt
the system. Also, coated cardboard that contains wax or plastic, such as milk boxes, should
not be used. Newspaper and phone books printed on regular, non-glossy paper with non-toxic
soy ink are safe for use, and decompose relatively quickly.
II. Food
Worms and other composting organisms have a preferred ratio of carbon to nitrogen
(C:N), approximately 30:1. As some waste is richer in carbon and others in nitrogen, waste
must be mixed to approximate the ideal ratio. Brown matter, or wood products such as
shredded papers, is rich in carbon.
Green matter, such as food scraps, has more nitrogen, which is related to the amount of
protein in the waste. If the waste is mostly vegetable and fruit scraps, and does not regularly
include animal products or high-protein vegetable foods like beans, the resulting
vermicompost and waste liquid will be low in nitrogen.
4.2.2. Unsuitable
I. Many materials which are not digested by the worms they are called unsuitable like
Protein, fats in meat scrap these materials can attract scavengers.
II. Grass clippings and other products sprayed with pesticides should be avoided.
III. Too much oil or fat can hinder the breathing of the worms; meat and dairy products
increases the difficulty of maintaining a healthy, low-odor vermicomposting mix, and
is usually not recommended.

IV. Acidic foods (tomatoes, citrus), starchy foods (bread, rice), garlic and onions should
only be added in moderation. Large amounts of these materials can change the
balance of the system.
5. APPLICATIONS
Vermicomposting have lots of applications, which are following:
5.1. Medical Application of Vermicomposting/ Vermiculture Biotechnology
The medical value of earthworms dating from at least as back as 2600 B.C. and covering
a range of disease from Pyorrhea to post partial weakness, from Jaundice to increase in the
sperm count and excellent aphrodisiacs.
5.2. Earthworm and Pollution Control
The urban and rural wastes being generated continuously are undesirable pollutants for
the environment and a menace to health of the community. The sources of toxic substances
reaching the soil surface are mainly the solid wastes containing heavy metals released from
industrial and pesticides used for health and agriculture. The accumulation of toxic chemicals
in earthworm tissue is very significant ecologically because these animals are important
components in the food chain of several species of birds and mammals. This is very important
from the point of minimization of soil pollution. It helps for the people like job and increase
the economic value.
5.3. Role of Vermicompost in Sustainable Agriculture
In tropical countries due to high temperature and low moisture, the use of inorganic
fertilizers is not economical as there is only two fold increase in yield on application of 10
fold increased use of inorganic fertilizers.
The organic carbon content is very low in tropical soil which is very important for soil
organisms who contribute towards soil physical properties like aggregate stability, porosity,
bulk density and water holding capacity. They also contribute towards immobilization as well
as solubilization and mobilization of nutrients as and when required. Thus vermicompost
which can be prepared without large scale investment can be utilized as an organic
amendment to enhance biological process in soil.
Thus primarily vermicompost can act as medicine for the health of soil and secondarily as
a nutrient supplier to the crop.

CONCLUSION
Compost made from vermiculture has tremendous applications in all the key developing
countries. With tremendous increase of environmental pollutants like chemical fertilizers in
most of the developing countries including India, vermicompost technology is indeed key to
overcome pollution load, maintain the environment and improve the economy. Hence, it’s a
green sustainable approach.
REFERENCES
[1] Bajsa, O., Nair, J., Mathew, K., Ho, G.E., 2003. Vermiculture as a tool for domestic
wastewater management. Water Science and Technology 48 (11–12), 125–132.
[2] M.S. Maboeta, L. Van Rensburg, 2003. Vermicomposting of industrially produced
wood chips and sewage sludge using E. foetida, Ecotoxicol. Eniron. Saf. 56, 256–270.
[3] C.A. Edwards, Earthworm Ecology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004.
[4] E. Benıtez, H. Sainz, R. Nogales, 2005. Hydrolytic enzyme activities of extracted
humic substances during the vermicomposting of a lignocellulosic olive waste,
Bioresour. Technol. 96 785–790.
[5] E. Aranda, I. Barois, P. Arellano, S. Irisson, T. Salazar, J. Rodriguez, J.C. Patron, 1999.
Vermicomposting in the tropics, in: P. Lavelle, L. Brussard, P. Hendrix (Eds.),
Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems, CABI, UK, 253–287.
[6] R. Gupta, V.K. Garg, 2008. Stabilization of primary sludge during vermicomposting, J.
Hazard. Mater. 153, 1023–1030.
[7] C. Elvira, M. Goicoechea, L. Sampdro, S. Mato, R. Nogales, 1996. Bioconversion of
solid paper-pulp mill sludge by earthworms, Bioresour. Technol. 75, 173–177.
[8] B. Sen, T.S. Chandra, 2007. Chemolytic and solid-state spectroscopic evaluation of
organic matter transformation during vermicomposting of sugar industry wastes,
Bioresour. Technol. 98, 1680–1683.
[9] P. Sangwan, C.P. Kaushik, V.K. Garg, (2008). Feasibility of utilization of horse dung
spiked filter cake in vermicomposters using exotic earthworm Eisenia foetida,
Bioresour. Technol. 99 2442–2448.
[10] V.K. Garg, P. Kaushik, 2005. Vermistabilization of textile mill sludge spiked with
poultry droppings by an epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida, Bioresour. Technol. 96,
1189–1193.
[11] V.K. Garg, P. Kaushik, N. Dilbaghi, 2005. Vermiconversion of wastewater sludge from
textile mill spiked with anaerobically digested biogas plant slurry employing Eisenia
foetida, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 65 (3), 412–419.
[12] L.P.S. Chan, D.A. Griffiths, 1998. The vermicomposting of pre-treated pig manure,
Biol.Wastes 24, 57–69.
[13] U. Reeh, 1992. Influence of population densities on growth and reproduction of the
earthworm Eisenia andrei on pig manure, Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 1327–1331.
[14] S. Gajalakshmi, E.V. Ramasamy, S.A. Abbasi, 2002. Vermi-composting of different
forms of water hyacinth by the earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae, Kinberg, Bioresour.
Technol. 82, 165–169.

[15] R. Gupta, P.K. Mutiyar, N.K. Rawat, M.S. Saini, V.K. Garg, 2007. Development of a
water hyacinth based vermireactor using an epigeic earthworm E. foetida, Bioresour.
Technol. 98, 2605–2610.
[16] S. Bansal, K.K. Kapoor, 2000. Vermicomposting of crop residues and cattle dung with
Eisenia foetida, Bioresour. Technol. 73, 95–98.
[17] S. Suthar, 2006. Potential utilization of Guar gum industrial waste in vermicompost
production, Bioresour. Technol. 97, 2474–2477.
[18] V.K. Garg, Y.K. Yadav, A. Sheoran, S. Chand, P. Kaushik, 2006. Livestock excreta
management through vermicomposting using an epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida,
Environmentalist 26, 269–276.
[19] S. Gajalakshmi, S.A. Abbasi, 2004. Vermiconversion of paper waste by earthworm
born and grown in the waste-fed reactors compared to the pioneers raised to adulthood
on cowdung feed, Bioresour. Technol. 94, 53–56.
[20] Renuka Gupta, V.K. Garg, 2009. Vermiremediation and nutrient recovery of non-
recyclable paper waste employing Eisenia fetida, Journal of Hazardous Materials 162,
430–439.
[21] A.J. Adi, Z.M. Noor, 2009. Waste recycling: Utilization of coffee grounds and kitchen
waste in vermicomposting, Bioresource Technology 100, 1027–1030.
[22] Kristiana, R., Nair, J., Anda, M., Mathew, K., 2005. Monitoring of the process of
composting of kitchen waste in an institutional scale worm farm. Water Science and
Technology 51 (10), 171–177.
[23] Kale, R.D., 1995. Vermicomposting has a bright scope. Indian Silk 34, 6–9.
[24] Nagavallemma, K.P., Wani, S.P., Lacroix, S., Padmaja, V.V., Vineela, C., Babu Rao,
M., Sahrawat, K.L., 2004. Vermicomposting: Recycling wastes into valuable organic
fertilizer. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no. 8. International Crops Research
Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, Andhra Pradesh (India). 20.
[25] Hand, P., Hayes, W.A., Satchell, J.E., Frankland, J.C., Edwards, C.A., Neuhauser, E.F.,
1998. The vermicomposting of cow slurry earthworm. Waste Environment
Management, 49–63.
[26] Sharma, S., Pradhan, K., Satya, S., Vasudevan, P., 2005. Potentially of earthworms for
waste management and in other uses – a review. The Journal of American Science 1 (1),
4–16.
[27] Suthar, S., 2006. Potential utilization of guar gum industrial waste in vermicompost
production. Bioresource Technology 97, 2474–2477.

Chapter 6
VALORIZATION OF ORGANIC WASTES

AS FERTILIZER: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
OF COMPOSTING AND ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION TECHNOLOGIES
Carla Lopes, Marta Herva, Carlos García-Diéguez

and Enrique Roca
Sustainable Processes and Products Engineering and Management Group,
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, University
of Santiago de Compostela, Campus Vida, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
ABSTRACT
Composting of organic wastes is a biodegradation process involving the
mineralization and partial humification of the organic matter, leading to a stabilized final
product, generally free of phytotoxic products and pathogens and with some good humic
substances. The three major types of composting technologies are open windrow, static
windrow and reactor systems. Meanwhile, anaerobic digestion (AD) is a multi-stage
process in which complex organic components of the waste are hydrolyzed, broken
down, and fermented into intermediate products that are subsequently converted into
methane, carbon dioxide, and microbial biomass. Main advantages of AD are the
generation of a ‘biogas’ methane (CH4) which is a cleaner source of energy and a
stabilized product called ‘digestate’. Methane escapes as ‘greenhouse gas’ in waste
management by composting or landfilling. It is 25 times more powerful GHG than CO2.
Also mixtures of organic wastes can be co-digested to obtain higher methane production
in AD system.
Compost and digestate can be reused as bio-fertilizers in agriculture. This application
provides nutrients, increases soil organic matter (SOM), improves soil structure and
enhances nutrient absorption by plants. This can also reduce the use of chemical
fertilizers and avoid other less appropriate waste management techniques such as
incineration or landfill disposal.
Corresponding author email: enrique.roca@usc.es.

98 Carla Lopes, Marta Herva, Carlos García-Diéguez et al.
However, depending upon the composting technologies, the levels of available

nutrients may not be adequate for plants. Besides, compost may also contain different
inorganic (heavy metals) and organic (e.g. POP’s, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and
personal care products) pollutants which could cause soil contamination and severe
adverse effects on animal and human health through their incorporation into the food
chain.
The chapter reviews the two waste treatment technologies ‘Composting’ and
Anaerobic Digestion’. Their main environmental impacts are highlighted, paying special
attention to emissions of greenhouse gases (methane and carbon dioxide) during the
treatment processes, as well as to the transfer of pollutants to the farm soil by reuse of the
stabilized organic wastes as bio-fertilizer.
Keywords: Composting; Organic waste; Anaerobic digestion; Fertilizer; Environmental

impact
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AD Anaerobic digestion
BFR Brominated flame retardants
CBs Chlorobenzenes
CP Chlorinated paraffins
DL-PCBs Dioxin-like PCBs
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERA Environmental Risk Assessment
ESIS European chemical Substances Information System
EU European Union
EUSES European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances
GHG Greenhouse gases
HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
MSW Municipal solid wastes
OFMSW Organic fraction of municipal solid waste
PAEs Phthalic acid esters
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDFs Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans
PFAS Polyfluorinated alkyl substances
POPs Persistent organic pollutants
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
TBBPA Tetrabromobisphenol A
VFAs Volatile fatty acids
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
VOSCs Volatile organic sulfur compounds

Valorization of Organic Wastes as Fertilizer 99
1. INTRODUCTION
Solid waste management is one of the major environmental concerns in the world. The
amount of wastes generated by municipalities, industries, or agricultural activities, has been
progressively increasing due to the growing human population and changes in lifestyles and
consumption patterns. One of the major challenges for municipalities in the 21st century is to
collect, recycle, treat and dispose of these increasing quantities of solid waste [1]. The
sustainable management of municipal solid waste (MSW), including the organic fraction
(OFMSW), has become necessary at all phases of impact from planning to design, to
operation and to decommissioning [2]. Waste causes a number of impacts on the
environment, including pollution of air, soil, surface and ground water; meanwhile, valuable
space is taken up by landfills and poor waste management causes risks to public health [3, 4].
This, together with cost effects, is conventionally the catalyst to handle the problem;
otherwise, waste is considered as irrelevant to production [5].
Landfill is still the most common waste management method used across the pan-
European region. The European Union (EU) directives and national policies developed since
the beginning of the 1990s set targets for recycling and recovery and restrictions on waste to
landfill. As a result, the percentage of municipal waste recycled (including composting) has
increased significantly. In EU-15 + EFTA (European Free Trade Association), the percentage
of recycling has almost doubled, reaching 40 % in 2004. In EU-10, however, recycling and
incineration are minimal [4]. The increasing pressure on waste managers, planners and waste
regulators to deliver a sustainable approach has spanned the spectrum of new and existing
waste treatment technologies and managerial strategies from maintaining environmental
quality at present to meet sustainability goals in the future [2, 6]. Thus, the purpose of a waste
management system is to assure that waste materials are removed from the source or location
where they are generated and treated, disposed of or recycled in a safe and proper manner [7].
The waste hierarchy defined in the Directive 2008/98/EC on waste establishes the
following priority order to be considered in waste prevention and management legislation and
policy: 1) prevention; 2) preparing for re-use; 3) recycling; 4) other recovery, e.g. energy
recovery; and 5) disposal [8]. Nonetheless, this new Directive also addresses the possibility of
altering the stated hierarchy in a specific situation, if justified by a life-cycle thinking study
[8, 9]. Thus, this kind of studies can be used to test the waste hierarchy and identify situations
where it may be modified, as for exchanging order between recycling and incineration, or to
place biological treatments such as anaerobic digestion (AD) and composting [10, 11]. This
may depend on the waste itself, on the location where the waste arises and its timing, as well
as priorities in cases of conflicting results. Alternatives should be examined systematically so
that waste is put to the use which is most beneficial in resource and environmental terms,
rather than accepting a simple hierarchy, thus pursuing integrative strategies [1, 2, 12].
Therefore, an exhaustive and overall environmental analysis is needed to predict the likely
overall environmental burdens of any waste management system to improve decision-making
effectiveness [13, 14].
This chapter specifically focuses on the organic fraction of waste streams, for which
different treatment alternatives from the hierarchy could be considered. Thermal treatment
processes such as incineration, pyrolysis or gasification are usually considered for these kinds
of wastes due to the likely energy recovery by means of electricity or steam production.

Nonetheless, the recommendations of the Directive 2008/98/EC refer to the importance of

facilitating its separate collection and proper treatment in order to produce environmentally
safe compost and other bio-waste based materials; thus, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
originating from waste disposal on landfills would be reduced [8]. Environmental evaluation
assessments usually support this recommendation. In this respect, in the studies by Arena et
al. [15] and Cherubini et al. [1] different treatment alternatives for a given waste stream were
analyzed; the separation of the organic fraction for composting with energy recovery from the
refuse derived fuel (RDF) was identified as the most environmentally friendly option, in
comparison with landfill with biogas collection or incineration with energy recovery without
previous sorting. AD of the OFMSW has also been found to be more environmentally
effective than landfill, incineration or pyrolysis [16].
Among the available technologies suitable to treat the organic fraction of wastes,
composting and AD are considered as the most promising options [17]. Apart from to the
OFMSW, composting can be applied to a wide diversity of wastes: e.g. grass and forest
residues, yard waste, wastewater treatment sludge, manure, other organic residues, and
mixtures of them. On the other hand, AD is mostly applied to OFMSW, wastewater with high
organic content, manure and sewage sludge, although the variety expands in co-digestion
processes [18]. The advantages of these biological treatments include: reduction of volume in
the waste material; stabilization of the waste generated; destruction of pathogens in the waste
material and production of biogas for energy use. The final products of these types of
treatments can be recycled as a soil amendment or as organic fertilizer [17]. However, some
of the disadvantages associated with these technologies are related to the emissions released
during the treatment processes (to air and water compartments), which can be reduced by
means of the adequate setting of operational parameters, and to the possible transfer of
pollutants to air, water and soil derived from the valorization of the stabilized organic wastes.
The application of both the compost and the digestate as fertilizers in agriculture presents
a series of environmental benefits since it reduces the use of conventional chemical fertilizers
and avoids the application of other less appropriate waste treatment techniques such as
incineration or landfilling [20-23]. Further, this practice improves the structure of soil and the
content of some important nutrients (such as N, P and K) and of organic matter, increases the
microbiological activity and enhances nutrient absorption by plants [24, 25]. However,
negative environmental impacts can also occur. The composting matrix can be composed of
diverse waste types (e.g., livestock, food, wood, sewage sludge, etc.) [26]; as a consequence,
a wide variety of pollutants can be found [27, 28]. These pollutants include organic (e.g.,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAHS, polychlorinated biphenyls - PCBs and dioxins)
and inorganic (e.g., heavy metals) compounds [29-31] that can be transferred to different
environmental compartments and finally affect the human health. Therefore, the application
of organic wastes as fertilizer must be controlled to guarantee safe conditions. Moreover,
pesticides are potentially present in composting feedstocks like yard trimmings, MSW and
agricultural residues and numerous herbicides and insecticides have also been detected in
compost [32]. Besides, different studies have analyzed the environmental fate and behavior of
organic and inorganic pollutants in sludge-amended soils [33-36]. Nonetheless, to define an
appropriate sludge application schedule, a good understanding of N and P dynamic in soils is
required, since an incorrect application of sludge and N supplement could lead to poor crop
yield or lodging problems, while excessive sludge use typically results in a fast build up of
soil P. This latter situation may occur because sludge is K deficient [37], and an excessive

application of the waste may be considered to achieve the desirable levels of this nutrient.
However, in these cases the joint use of a supplement should be preferred; otherwise, high
levels of nutrients would cause eutrophication impact in the media. Other undesirable
properties of sludge are high organic, pathogen, nutrient and water contents, as well as bad
odors.
In this chapter a review on composting and AD waste treatment techniques is carried out.
Their main environmental impacts are highlighted, paying special attention to emissions
released during the treatment processes, as well as to the transfer of pollutants to soil derived
from the reuse of the stabilized organic wastes as fertilizer.
2. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
Anaerobic digestion consists in the biological degradation of organic and occasionally
inorganic substrates in the absence of oxygen. AD is a multi-stage process in which complex
organic components of the waste are hydrolyzed, broken down, and fermented into
intermediate products that are subsequently converted into CH4, CO2, and microbial biomass
[38]. Four main stages and three major bacterial groups can be considered in order to simplify
AD process: i) hydrolysis, where complex substrates that are too large to pass through cell
membrane are hydrolyzed to monomer compounds (e.g., amino acids, sugars, long chain fatty
acids) through the controlled action of extracellular enzymes excreted by fermentative
bacteria [39,40]; ii) a fermentative step (acidogenesis) where the organic compounds are
converted into volatile fatty acids (VFAs) [41]; iii) acetogenesis, this step involves the
degradation of alcohols, fatty acids and aromatic compounds to produce acetic acid, carbon
dioxide and hydrogen [42]; iv) and finally the methanogenesis that consists in the production
of biogas rich in methane, either from acetate or from H2 and CO2 [43]. In the complex
process of AD, hydrolysis and methanogenesis are considered as rate-limiting steps [44].
AD systems can be classified in accordance with the number of stages considered in
single stage or multistage processes [45], while according to total suspended solid
concentration these can be divided into dry (between 20 and 40% of total solids) and wet
systems (dry matter content of approximately 10%) [46], and by temperature of operation
these can be classed as mesophilic (i.e., 20 – 40 ºC) or thermophilic (i.e., 45 – 70 ºC) systems
[47].
The AD process leads to a production of methane, with a theoretical methane production
of 348 Nm3/t of COD. In general, AD produces 100 – 200 Nm3 of COD per ton of biological
municipal waste processed. Biogas generation is very sensitive to the feedstock, one plant
found volumes ranging from 80 to 120 Nm3 per ton depending on the waste input. Biogas has
a typical composition of 55 – 70 % methane, 30 – 45 % carbon dioxide and 200 – 4000 ppm
hydrogen sulfide [48].
For over 100 years AD has been used to treat sewage sludge and over the past three
decades much experience has been gained on AD of other solid wastes (e.g., manure,
OFMSW) and liquid wastes [46]. Nowadays, several types of substrates (wastes) are used,
such as the OFMSW, spent tea leaves, grass, food waste, fodder beet silage, fruit and
vegetable waste, kitchen waste, crop residues, solid slaughterhouse waste, manure, potato
waste, waste activated sludge and sugar beet silage [18].

During the last few decades, the anaerobic biological treatment of organic wastes has
been considered as a suitable alternative to landfilling and incineration [48]. However, it
should be noted that biogas production is not an alternative to incineration or gasification
because biogas is produced from the organic fraction and thermal treatment is applied to the
non-recyclable fraction [49]. This technology option produces a compost residue from source-
segregated putrescible wastes that can be used in agriculture or horticulture. AD is able to
inactivate weed seeds, bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites in the feedstock which is of great
importance if the digestate is used as fertilizer [50]. The waste is digested in sealed vessels
under air-limited (anaerobic) conditions, during which a methane-rich biogas is produced.
The biogas is collected and used as a fuel for electricity generation or combined heat and
power cycle [51]. The AD process followed by solid/liquid separation could be used to
produce fertilizers with different end-uses, e.g. the liquid fraction can be used for irrigation
and fertilization in situ while solid material (digestate) can be more economically transported
over greater distances than the original material [52, 53].
The amount of digestate generated ranges from 100 – 500 kg/t of waste feed to the
reactor. This range depends on the degree of biodegradation, the moisture content of waste,
the recycling flow rate of water, the way in which the digestate is used and the degree to
which steam is used to heat biomass. The composition varies according to feedstock origin as
can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Nutrient content of anaerobic digestate from different

feedstocks [48]
Feedstock units N P K Mg Ca
Biowaste % of total solids 1.2 0.68 0.74 0
Source separation MSW % of dry matter 1.90 0.66 0.63 -
Source separation MSW ppm 20.0 11.9 14.7 11.6 49.7
OFMSW ppm 1-1.3 6-12 8-12 17-26 60-110
Fruit/vegetables from market ppm 21.9 9.5 10.5 4.7 -
Unsorted MSW ppm 19 13 15 3.67
Anaerobic processes may be used to directly treat liquid wastes, the biological sludge
generated by an earlier aerobic stage, organic solids and sludges. The inclusion of other
feedstocks, such as manure, alters the resulting digestate. However, it is important to note that
co-digestion of a mixture of organic solid waste with other feedstocks could improve both the
environmental and economic aspects of the anaerobic process.
2.1. Co-Digestion
Co-digestion is described as the combined treatment of several wastes with

complementary characteristics. Thus its main advantage lies on exploiting the synergy of the
mix, compensating the shortcomings of each substrate. Co-digestion plants are operating not
only as waste treatment systems, but also as sustainable energy producers and for recycling
and redistribution of fertilizing materials.

The interest in such concepts has increased with the implementation of the Kyoto
protocol [54]. AD requires macro (phosphorous, and sulfur in a ratio of C/N/S=600/15/5/1)
and micronutrients (trace elements like iron, nickel, cobalt, selenium, molybdenum, and
tungsten are important [55] for the growth and survival of specific groups of microorganisms.
Digestion of nutrient-deficient organic wastes can be improved through mixing with other
residues [56-60] such as glycerin from biodiesel production, cattle manure, the OFMSW with
different composition, vegetal biomass, etc. However, the policy of mixing essentially
pathogen-free waste streams with sanitary and other pathogen-contaminated waste streams to
enhance treatment process rates and intensities can be inappropriate from the safety point of
view, and segregation of seriously pathogen contaminated streams and their separate specific
treatment is recommended [61].
There exist abundant scientific literature with regards to the application of co-digestion of
OFMSW with agricultural residues mixtures [62, 63], organic solid wastes with sewage
sludge [64], and other wastes mixtures [65]. Table 2 shows different co-digestion mixtures
used in industrial plants or under research to obtain biogas from biowastes. Recent works on
co-digestion have been focused on the search of synergisms or antagonisms among the co-
digested substrates [66]. For example, the optimization of the carbon to nitrogen ratio when
co-digesting municipal wastes and sewage sludge is pointed as beneficial to methane yield
[60]. The improvement of the buffer capacity is also reported as a positive effect in the co-
digestion process [67]. In contrast, some authors have shown negative results in some co-
digestion processes, which are attributed to the specific characteristics of the digested wastes
[68]. Additionally, the configuration of anaerobic reactors (batch or continuous, one or two
stages, mesophilic or thermophilic) have been the objective of other studies [69-71].
2.2. Environmental Impacts of AD
AD can convert biowastes to a variety of energy forms including heat, steam, electricity,
hydrogen, ethanol, methanol, and methane. Besides, a stabilized digestate with applications as
fertilizer is obtained. Despite these positive aspects, other studies have demonstrated that AD
is not free from pollution problems. The aim in the next sections is to point out the main
environmental issues of AD.
2.2.1. Sludge Environmental Implications

The management of sewage sludge used to be considered as a secondary issue after the
main wastewater treatment processes. But since the nineties, it became one important issue in
pollution control systems owing to the strong growth of sludge generation and the
reinforcement of the regulations on its disposal. Sludge production and disposal entered a
period of important changes, driven mainly by European legislation. The implementation of
the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive [86] was predicted to result in at least 50%
increase in the volume of sludge produced in Europe [87] between 1992 and 2005. During the
same period, however, sludge disposal to sea was forbidden. Disposal to landfill was also
highly restricted by a number of regulatory amendments pursuant to the Landfill Directive
[88] since 2002. Further increases in sludge production could be expected due to the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive [89]. Sludge and its derivative products
are currently classified as wastes in legal terms within Europe. The transportation, storage and

disposal of sludge are therefore strictly governed by regulations and various codes of practice.
However the main provisions were set out in the Waste Framework Directive [90] and the
Sewage Sludge Directive [91].
Table 2. Co-digestion of different types of wastes mixtures
Mixture Comments References

Manure + olive oil mill Persistence of tannins and polyphenols in the effluent. [72]
wastewaters COD/N ratio range 61-42:1. 65-85% converted into
methane. Requires more research and development (RandD).
Manure + horticulture Industrial plants: Spain (Miralcamp, Vila-Sana), Canada [73]
wastes (Cudwoth Pork), Finland (Kotimäki). Several research
studies.
Manure + Orange Inhibitory effects of essential oils on AD process. Requires [74,75]
wastes more RandD of pre-treatment techniques.
Cattle manure + sugar Increase methane production by 1.49. Mixture of 40% of [76,77]
beet wastes sugar beet and 60% of cattle manure. Increase the value of
the effluent obtained as fertilizer. Excess of sugar beet roots
in the mixture produce inhibition. Industrial plant in Italy.
Manure + energy crops Several industrial plants in Germany, Denmark, Holland, [78]
Austria, Sweden and Finland. In some occasions these plants
use only energy crops to obtain biogas.
Manure + maize Most of industrial plants are located in Germany favored by [73]
local legislation.
Manure + Most of industrial plants are located in Denmark. There are [79-81]
slaughterhouse wastes several publications about AD of slaughterhouse wastes but
scarce about its co-digestion with other wastes; although
there are several industrial co-digestion plants that are
running.
Manure + fishing An excessive concentration of NaCl has an inhibitory effect [82,83]
wastes on AD, co-digestion with other wastes as manure helps to
dilute the high concentration of salt in fishing wastes.
Manure + dairy wastes Some plants in Denmark and one in Spain mix dairy industry [73]
wastes with other wastes such as manure and fishing wastes.
Manure + biodiesel 2 industrial plants in Denmark (Skovbaekgaard, Hashoej). [73,84]
industry wastes The addition of glycerin in the AD of manure increases the
methane production. However, an excess of glycerin could
produce inhibitory effects.
Manure + wastewater There are industrial plants in Germany, Denmark, Italy, UK, [73,85]
industry wastes Holland, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland. The amount of
(wastewater and sewage co–substrate permitted in manure digestion is limited by the
sludge) heavy metals and nitrogen load introduced into the soil.
As mandatory legislations become stricter, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are

facing more stringent environmental laws. These restrictions are leading to increased number
of WWTP that are producing higher quantities of sludge. Moreover, undesirable properties of
sludge (high organic, pathogen, nutrient and water content, and odiferous and biologically
active nature) further complicate sludge management. Thus, the technical alternatives are
focused on sludge reduction (minimizing secondary sludge production while maximizing the
recovery of the organic material for energy production), sludge treatment (improvement of

the traditional biological steps that reduce the sludge to biogas and biosolids- AD) and
downstream processing (additional steps that produce the sludge derivatives to enhance the
value of the sludge products- production of organic fertilizers).
2.2.2. Hygienic Conditions

In the EU, animal by-products Regulation 1774/2002/EC [92] lays down rules for the
possible uses and processing of any material of animal origin not intended for human
consumption and divides animal by-products into three categories: specified risk materials
(e.g., risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy), high-risk (e.g., manure) and low-risk (e.g.,
biowaste) materials. According to the Directive 1774/2002/EC [92], biogas plants can process
all low-risk (category 3) materials, if hygienized (70 ºC, 60 min, particle size <12 mm), and
high-risk materials (category 2), if sterilized (133 ºC, 20 min, 3 bar, particle size <50 mm),
and end-products are permitted to be spread on land if they are free of salmonella in 25 g
samples and if amounts of Enterococcaceae or Escherichia coli are <1000 cfu/g in four
samples and <5000 cfu/ g in one sample during or straight after the digestion process (total 5
samples/year; European Parliament and Council, 2002). The regulations governing manure
differ from those pertaining to other high-risk (category 2) materials in that manure may be
used as a raw material in biogas plants without sterilization or hygienization if the above
stated end-product microbiological criteria are fulfilled [93].
A higher retention time will enable more extensive biodegradation and subsequently a
better quality digestate; therefore the biogas production can increase. A high enough process
temperature and a long enough retention time will ensure that the material is mature, free
from pathogenic bacteria and seeds and generate lower odor emissions. In fact, European
regulations establish that the AD process should be carried out in such a way that a minimum
temperature of 55 °C is maintained over a period of 24 hours without interruption and that the
hydraulic retention time in the reactor is at least 20 days [51]. Thus, the combination of this
temperature (thermophilic process) and anaerobic conditions is sufficient to destroy most
pathogens, though if lower process temperatures are used (mesophilic process), further heat
treatment during the final aerobic stabilization stage may be required to produce sanitary
residues [94]. In case of lower operating temperature or shorter period of exposure the
biowaste shall be pre-treated at 70 °C for 1 hour, or the digestate shall be post-treated at 70 °C
for 1 hour or the digestate shall be composted [51]. If lower than 55ºC process temperatures
are used (mesophilic process), further heat treatment during the final aerobic stabilization
stage may be required to produce a hygienized digestate. Depending on conditions and time,
storage of a non hygienized digestate may affect the characteristics of the stored materials and
the separation of nutrients through biological decomposition as well as the amounts of
bacteria in the materials [95-98].
2.2.3. Atmospheric Emissions

The AD process is carried out in closed systems and emissions to air are unlikely to occur
except during transfer to and from the digester, since the principal gaseous emission
(methane) is a desired product [99]. The CO2 generated in AD is of biogenic origin and for
this reason the emissions are not considered contributors to global warming [100]. The CH4
emissions generated in AD plants are generally between 0 to 10% of the total CH4 produced,
and are released due to technical problems. Under optimal operation conditions, CH4
emissions are close to zero [101]. However, emissions related to the delivery of waste and

mechanical treatment or pre-treatments may cause emissions of odors and dust problem if not
properly treated [48]. Further, fugitive emissions of biogas are possible from emergency vent
valves and from poorly sealed water traps. This can result in a range of hazards, including the
risk of fire or explosion, as well as toxicity from contaminant gases such as H2S and
mercaptans (generating odor) (Table 3).
Volatile chemical constituents are the most likely to result in fugitive air emissions,
together with ammonia. Therefore, bad operating conditions can produce the accumulation of
VFAs, indicating methanogenic inhibition [102] and generating strong bad odors. An
excessive concentration of VFAs in the digestate can reduce its applicability as fertilizer,
because VFAs are toxic for microorganism that live in the soil. Therefore, the digestate in
these cases could need to be matured aerobically to oxidize and stabilize these compounds, in
a process similar to the maturation of aerobic composts.
Table 3. Gaseous Emissions from anaerobic digesters [48]
Component Emission Unit Specific emission Specific

concentration (g/t of waste) emission
(g/MJ of CH4)
Methane Fugitive 0 - 411 0.1
CO2 31 -35.2 vol-% 181000 – 520000 85
CO 72.3 0.25
NOx 10 – 72.3
NH3 Fugitive
N2O 0 0.2
SOx 2.5 -3.0 0.15
H2S 284 – 289 mg/Nm3 0.033
VOC 0.0023
Odour 626 GE/Nm3
Chloroform 2 μg/Nm3
Benzene 50 -70 μg/Nm3
Toluene 220 – 250 μg/Nm3
Ethylbenzene 610 – 630 μg/Nm3
Xylene 290 – 360 μg/Nm3
Halogenated HC 0.00073
and PCBs
Dioxins/furans (0.4 -4) 10-8
(TEQ)
Total Chlorine 1.5 μg/Nm3
HCl 0.011
HF 0.0021
Cd 9.4 10-7
Cr 1.1 10-7
Hg 6.9 10-7
Pb 8.5 10-7
Zn 1.3 10-7
On the other hand, the availability of NH4+ depends on the chemical characteristics of the
raw material. According to the literature, the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio is the main factor
controlling NH4+ availability. The optimum C/N ratio in AD is approximately 20-30. A high

C/N ratio is an indicator of fast consumption of nitrogen by methanogens that results in a

lower biogas production, whereas a lower C/N ratio could produce ammonia accumulation
and pH values above 8.5, which are toxic for methanogenic bacteria [103] and favors the
emissions of ammonia to air.
Measures should be taken to control odor emissions from biological treatment plants
located near dwellings and producing more than 500 tons of treated green and wood waste per
year or 250 tons of treated biowaste per year [51].
Biogas can be used to support energy requirements of the AD process as well as, in the
case of excess of production, to be exported to the electricity net. Biogas is combusted as fuel
in internal combustion engines. The emission limits given in Table 4 must be fulfilled
(normalized to 5% O2 in the exhaust gases). In addition, to prevent the formation of dioxins,
the concentration in biogas of total halogenated hydrocarbons shall be lower than 150 mg/m³,
and biogas that cannot be used on-site or upgraded to natural gas quality shall be flared.
When flaring biogas, the outlet temperature of the flue gas shall be at least 900°C and the
residence time 0.3 seconds. The maximum concentration of sulfur compounds in biogas
should be 50 ppm or a removal efficiency of at least 98% should be proven.
Table 4. Emission limits for combustion engines in AD plants [51]
Parameter Limit value (mg/m3)

Dust 50
NOx 500
SO2 500
CO 650
H2S 5
HCl 30
HF 5
In general, digestate is stored in uncovered tanks from which several gases, such as CO2,
NH3, N2O and CH4, are released to the atmosphere [52]. GHG, such as N2O, CO2 and CH4,
affect the global environment and climate while NH3 contributes to general atmospheric
pollution and poses a significant odor problem [104]. Measurements have shown that up to
80% of the odors in the feedstock can be reduced [55]. For these reasons, some European
countries (e.g., Germany) have required that digestate was stored in closed tanks [105]. On
the other hand, N2O emissions in AD plants are considered negligible [101].
2.2.4. Consumption of Resources

The main flows of consumed materials in AD processes are water, energy and additional
materials needed to get it work properly (alkalinity, nutrients, …).
Water
The total water consumption for the treatment of 1 ton of waste is 78 liters. This
treatment uses either tap or groundwater [48].
Although anaerobic systems can be operated in stages to reduce the overall COD in the
effluent, they are generally operated for efficient methane production, and the liquid effluent
thus tends to be more concentrated than the effluent from aerobic systems [48]. Therefore,

wastewater may need to be treated before disposal [46]. Appropriate measures shall be taken,
with respect to the characteristics of the biowaste treated on the site and prevailing
meteorological conditions, in order to collect the contaminated water and leachate from the
site that, if released into surface water, shall be suitably treated to comply with the relevant
requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC [86].
Energy Requirements
The energy sources used during the normal operation of the installation are electricity,
which could be generated on-site, and heat, which may be needed for possible drying
processes and for heating the buildings. The electricity use per ton of waste is 55 kWh. This
electricity could be generated at the installation itself by the combustion of biogas in a biogas
engine (efficiency: 35 %). The biogas consumption for electricity production is 29.1 Nm³
biogas containing 55 % (in volume) of CH4 (i.e., 37 kg). Up to one third of the biogas
produced is needed to heat the digester itself, since the process requires warm conditions.
The fundamental problem of effective and economic AD treatment involves the
attainment of high process rates at high process intensities. Traditional AD treatment
processes for solid wastes are generally low rate, often because of either low or negligible
rates of mixing and relatively large particle sizes resulting in low surface area to volume
ratios. The former problem can be overcome by enhanced mixing, while the latter can be
alleviated by greater feedstock diminution. Both measures involve both increased capital
investment and increased operating costs in the form of energy requirements [61].
Some experiments have shown that an adequate degree of mixing is necessary to achieve
an efficient operation [106]. The mixture reduces the mass transfer limitations of substrate or
nutrients within the liquid phase to the microbes. A 60% reduction in the degree of mixing
may cause as much as a 50% decrease in treatment efficiency [107]. However, it increases the
energy consumption in the AD plants.
Usually, pre-treatment techniques are applied in order to improve the anaerobic
biodegradability of organic materials treated, the acceleration of the degradation process, the
increment of methane production, the lowering of digested sludge amount and the
improvement of the energetic balance of process [108]. These treatments can be biological,
mechanical or physicochemical [109] but all of them increase the consumption of energy and
of some chemicals in AD plants. The high efforts required for pre-treatment of some co-
substrates can often not be met by small scale biogas plants. Therefore, if extensive waste
pretreatment is required, usually only large-scale centralized farm digesters, industrial
applications or municipal sewage sludge co-fermentation plants can meet the requirements. In
consequence, a particular problem with AD is the location of the resource (wastes) which is
generally considered to be too widely dispersed to economically exploit but co-operative
ventures, resulting in economics of scale, could be more attractive [110]. There are likely to
be considerable difficulties initiating such schemes commercially, which may limit their
penetration into the market.
Also, after digestion the material usually needs some kind of refining before it can be
used for horticulture or agriculture [46], therefore some post-treatment techniques could be
required, such as thermal treatment, dewatering or composting, if digestate not accomplished
hygienic conditions given by the corresponding plant health laws in each country. AD
facilities in Western Europe typically include dewatering and ‘‘curing” of residue (digestate)

from the digestion process. Curing is a passive aerobic treatment process intended to
minimize residual odor and phytotoxicity [111].
Consumption of Additional Materials

Some materials are required during the operation to correct pH, to avoid the formation of
foam (anti-foaming products), to promote granulation (flocculants), and to add micro and
macro-nutrients deficiencies.
Degradation products such as CO2 and VFAs can reduce the pH, whereas cations such as
ammonium and sodium ion can increase the alkalinity [112]. Thus, the retention time of the
digestate can affects the pH value. Furthermore, the pH in the reactor plays an important role
in the biogas composition due to the effect on the amount of CO2 dissolved.
3. COMPOSTING
Composting has become a common method for the recycling of a wide range of organic
materials such as MSW, industrial sludges, manures, yard wastes, food and agricultural
wastes [113]. Composting is a biotechnological process in which aerobic thermophilic and
mesophilic microorganisms decompose organic matter into simpler nutrients [114]. During
the process, carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds are transformed through the activities
of successive microbial populations into more stable, complex organic forms which
chemically and biologically resemble humic substances [115]. The final product of
composting can be defined as a stabilized material which can be used as an amendment in
agricultural soils or organic fertilizer (Figure 1). The main requirement for compost to be
safely used in soils is its degree of stability or maturity, which implies stable organic matter
content and the absence of toxic compounds and pathogens [116]. However, this type of
evaluation is not easy, despite all the methods proposed, and no single method can be applied
to all composts due to the wide range of materials and composting systems.
The composting process usually occurs in two stages, decomposition and maturation. The
latter provides the time required for the degradation of the more refractory organics,
overcoming the “slowing” effects imposed by kinetic rate limitations and re-establishing
lower temperature microbial populations, which may be beneficial in the final compost,
metabolizing phytotoxic compounds, and suppressing plant disease. The efficiency of the
process is influenced by numerous factors such as temperature, oxygen supply (i.e., aeration),
moisture content, pH, nutrients (C/N ratio), particle size and the degree of compaction [113,
117-119].
The inorganic nutrients required to support microbial synthesis in biological systems
include nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). Particle size affects the aeration,
which is essential to supply the oxygen needed by aerobic microorganisms, to facilitate the
regulation of excess moisture by evaporation and to maintain the proper temperature [113,
120]. Besides, microorganisms require a certain amount of water for their metabolism, as it is
used as a transport medium for soluble feed materials and waste products from the reaction
[118].

Figure 1. Composting process, indicating main input and output flows (adapted from [117]).
3.1. Composting Technologies
The composting technologies can be classified into three main types: open windrow,
static windrow and in-vessel systems. They are mostly differentiated by the way aeration is
accomplished. In the open windrow system, compost piles are open to air, whereas in static
windrow systems air is mechanically forced. On the other hand, when reactors are used, the
compost is mechanically mixed to ensure aeration [121].
3.1.1. Open Windrow Systems

Windrow composting is a process for aerobic and thermophilic biological transformation
of organic materials. It involves the formation of horizontally extended piles of organic
materials by a front-end loader, and the periodic turning of the piles by loader or purpose built
windrow turner to mix materials and reduce the density of the composting mass, thereby
allowing increased passive air movement (via convection and gaseous diffusion) into the
composting mass. The mass of organic material (windrow) is then monitored, and managed
only by watering and periodic mechanical turning for aeration. This method is simple, non-
intensive and has relatively low capital cost [122].
3.1.2. Static Windrow Systems

For static windrows systems, air needs to be forced through the system to maintain
aerobic conditions through the pile and to control temperature. This system was initially
developed for municipal biosolids and therefore is suitable for feedstocks with a bulking

agent to provide structure and porosity. The mix is piled on perforated pipes that have been
covered with finished compost or the bulking agent. The pile is then generally covered with a
layer of finished compost, which maintains heat within the pile and reduces odor emissions
from the pile. Air required maintaining aerobic conditions changes with the specific
environmental conditions and with the feedstock. Air is generally turned on for set intervals
during the composting period. Systems can be controlled automatically based on temperature
[123].
3.1.3. In-Vessel Systems

In-vessel systems are based on the same concepts as open windrow and static windrow
systems, but a portion of the composting process takes place in an enclosed structure [113].
There are a wide range of types of structures that fall into this general category, including
vertical flow and horizontal flow systems.
In both of these types of systems, the mixed feedstock is introduced into one end of the
reactor and is gradually moved through a system until it is sufficiently stabilized and exits the
enclosed systems. The movement is generally combined with forced aeration. In many cases,
in addition to the mixing that occurs as the feedstocks are moved through the system,
feedstock mixing is accomplished using augers.
The retention time in these systems is often short, so even though some decomposition
occurs within the reactor, the material requires additional curing time in windrows before it is
stable enough [123].
3.2. Environmental Impacts of the Composting Process
The aim of a waste treatment plant is to safely transform wastes into less polluting and/or
dangerous substances or to obtain useful products reducing their possible impact to the
environment. However, there are some inherent environmental loads associated to the waste
treatment facilities, which are reviewed below.
3.2.1. Atmospheric emissions

Polluting or odorous gaseous emissions represent one of the most important burdens
associated to composting facilities [113]. Enclosure of compost pile halls, ventilation systems
and biofilters are often insufficient to minimize the burden of compost-derived compounds in
the air. In fact, certain working procedures, i.e. the turning of compost piles to increase
aeration, shredding and sieving of compost to attain homogeneous fractions and removal of
non-organic waste, are essential during the process of composting and give rise to a great
amount of air emissions [124]. The main sources of odor and pollution include the reception
and handling of materials, forced aeration composting and stock piling [17]. Gaseous
emissions in composting facilities are typically constituted by volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), nitrogen-based compounds and sulfur-based compounds [125], as well as
bioaerosols [126]. These may have adverse health effects on compost workers, but also on
residents in the vicinity of composting facilities [124].

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs are a large group of anthropogenic (xenobiotic) or biogenic organic compounds
with relatively high vapor pressures [124, 127, 128]. These compounds can contribute to
global warming (indirectly), stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone formation,
adverse effects on health and both general toxicity and carcinogenicity [126,129].
Emissions of VOCs in composting facilities (mainly for MSW) were first reported by
Eitzer [125], who identified that most VOCs generated in aerobic composting plants are
already emitted in the initial steps of the process (i.e., decomposition phase). The total
concentrations of VOCs oscillated between 10 and 150 mg/m3 of air, considered to be under
safety levels. Kim et al. [130] were also pioneers at assessing the level or concentration of
VOCs (chloroform, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and toluene),
evaluating their fate in gas and liquid phases. With respect to the exhaust gas, all
concentrations determined were less than 1µg/L. Komilis et al. [129] conducted a laboratory
experiment using organic components of MSW that were decomposed under controlled
aerobic conditions. They also observed that VOCs were emitted early during the composting
process and their production rates decreased with time at thermophilic range of temperature.
Toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, p-isopropyl toluene, and naphthalene were in
the largest amounts, and unseeded waste paper was found to produce the major quantities of
these compounds (6.5 mg/dry kg) whereas unseeded food wastes presented the lowest (0.33
mg/dry kg). The work by Müller et al. [124] represents another contribution to the measure of
VOCs in composting processes. The spectrum of volatiles found consisted of alcohols,
ketones, furans, sulfur-containing compounds and especially terpenes; the concentrations of
single compounds ranged from 102 up to nearly 106 ng/m3. The same groups of VOCs were
identified by Schlegelmilch et al. [131].
Smet et al. [132] compared two different techniques of composting for organic
biomaterial from MSW with respect to the total emission of VOCs during the period of active
composting. In the process of aerobic composting, the material was aired during 12 weeks,
while the combined process aerobic/anaerobic consisted of a sequence of 3 weeks of AD
(phase I) and a period of 2 weeks of ventilation (phase I). They determined emissions of
VOCs, NH3 and H2S; the total emissions during the process of aerobic composting were 742
g/t of biowaste, whereas the total emissions during phases I and II of the combined
aerobic/anaerobic composting were 236 and 44 g/t, respectively.
Ammonia
Ammonia is one of the main compounds responsible for generation of offensive odors
and atmospheric pollution when composting organic wastes with high nitrogen content [133],
and it is the main compound found in exhaust gases, except for carbon dioxide [134]. These
emissions may cause acidification and eutrophication impacts, damaging forests and altering
the ecosystems [135]; moreover, they can be converted to N2O, a powerful GHG [136].
Ammonia emissions are related to protein, urea or uric acid degradation during
composting [137]. In this process, pH, temperature and moisture content determine the
NH3/NH4+ balance and hence ammonia emission [117, 133, 138]. High temperatures inhibit
the nitrification process, and therefore, the possibility for ammonia volatilization is high.
Amlinger et al. [139] detected the highest concentrations of NH3 at temperatures above 40-
50ºC. Besides, an alkaline pH enhances NH3 volatilization during composting (additives may
be added to reduce pH, but this practice increments costs). On the other hand, NH3 emissions

are higher for aerobic than anaerobic treatments [140]. This means that, during composting, a
compromise solution should be sought to maintain aeration at a sufficient level to keep the
process going (this would be influenced by the physical characteristics of the raw material,
i.e. porosity and moisture content, and by the height and the shape of the heap), but at the
same time minimize ammonia volatilization [138]. For animal manure composting, a
reduction of free air space by 20–60%, either by compacting or adding water (or both),
reduced the ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions by 30–70% [141].
According to the conclusions from the study by Pagans et al. [133], it is recommended
that sanitization of the compost is conducted after the initial thermophilic stage, since this
would reduce ammonia emissions, environmental impact of the composting process and the
cost of exhaust gases treatment.
Sulfur Compounds
Sulfur compounds can be produced during composting under insufficient aeration
conditions. The main characteristic of these pollutants is the intense odor [17]. Wu et al. [142]
investigated the emission of volatile organic sulfur compounds (VOSCs) during laboratory-
controlled aerobic decomposition in an incubator for a period of 41 days. Emission of VOSCs
from the food wastes totaled 409.9 mg/kg (dry weight). Released VOSCs accounted for 5.3%
of sulfur content in the food wastes, implying that during aerobic decomposition considerable
portion of sulfur in food wastes would be released into the atmosphere as VOSCs, primarily
as dimethyl disulfide, which is very short-lived in the atmosphere and thus usually less
considered in the sources and sinks of reduced sulfur gases.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The aerobic decomposition from well managed composting is supposed to result in the
emission of CO2 and H2O [143]. Due to the heterogeneous nature of a compost pile, some
CH4 may form in anaerobic pockets within the pile [144]. Some studies have shown that the
majority of this CH4 emission oxidizes to CO2 in aerobic pockets and near the surface of the
compost pile, making CH4 emission negligible [145]. However, different authors have
reported significant emissions, as it is presented later in this section.
The emission of GHG from the composting process is highly dependent on the feedstock,
which ranges from green waste to MSW to manure. Waste stream with a higher dissolved
organic carbon will result in higher GHG emissions from aerobic decomposition [143].
Besides, the higher the nitrogen and moisture content, the higher the GHG emissions;
therefore, they can be minimized by using high C/N feedstock mixtures with low moisture
content [123]. In addition, process management issues such as aeration, mechanical agitation,
moisture control and temperature regime are the most important factors controlling methane
and nitrous oxide emissions. GHG mostly refer to CO2, CH4 and N2O; nonetheless, the CO2
from composting is not fossil derived and, therefore, it is not computed as a contribution to
global warming [139].
Several authors have accomplished the assessment of GHG emissions in composting
processes. Brown et al. [123] focused on methane emissions avoidance when composting is
carried out instead of landfilling for MSW or lagoon storage for animal manure. They
considered the GHG emissions associated to electricity and fossil fuel consumption for the
operation of composting facilities, as well as those derived from the biological process itself.
They concluded that, in spite of the emissions generated, composting resulted beneficial with

respect to the other options. Ahn et al. [146] analyzed the effect of pile mixing on GHG
emissions during dairy manure composting. GHG emissions from compost piles that were
mixed four times during the 80 day trial were approximately 20% higher than emissions from
unmixed (static) piles. For both treatments, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous
oxide (N2O) accounted for 75–80%, 18–21%, and 2–4% of GHG emissions, respectively.
Higher emissions factors when mixing were also identified by Andersen et al. [147] during
home composting practices. The emissions of methane and nitrous oxide were quantified as
0.4–4.2 and 0.30–0.55 kg Mg-1 input wet waste respectively, depending on the mixing
frequency. CH4 and NH3 have opposing causal conditions, since NH3 emission is favored by
high O2 concentration contrary to CH4; consequently, the choice of good composting
practices needs a compromise between conditions to control NH3 and CH4 emissions.
Furthermore, one of the solutions to reduce N2O emissions is to prevent denitrification, which
is done by improving aeration [138].
Amlinger et al. [139] evaluated a range of emission factors for CH4 and N2O associated
to home composting, open windrow composting, encapsulated composting systems with
waste air treatment and mechanical biological waste treatment. A total CO2 equivalent
emission factor of 20–65 kg Mg–1 fresh matter resulting from the entire composting process
of biowaste or green waste materials was estimated. Values in excess of this probably indicate
some kind of system mismanagement, such as use of an unbalanced initial mixture of source
materials (high available N sources and low C/N ratio, low structure and air-filled pore space,
respectively, excessive moisture) or insufficient aeration and mechanical turning of the
material. A pattern of temperature dependency was also observed; thus, CH4 and NH3
concentrations were highest at temperatures above 40–50°C, whereas N2O only appeared
when the temperature fell below 45°C.
Wider implications regarding GHG emissions associated to the application of compost as
fertilizer were identified by Lou and Nair [143]: decrease in the demand of chemical
fertilizers and, therefore, reduction of GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuel for their
production and application; more rapid growth in plants, thereby increasing C uptake and
storage within the plant; sequestration of C in soil that has received compost application;
improvement of tillage and workability of soil and, therefore, reduction of emissions from
fossil fuel that would otherwise be used to work the soil [148].
Bioaerosol Emissions
Bioaerosols are particles of microbial, plant or animal origin and may be called organic
dust. They can include live or dead bacteria, fungi, viruses, allergens, bacterial endotoxins
(components of cell membranes of Gram-negative bacteria), antigens (molecules that can
induce an immune response), toxins (toxins produced by microorganisms), mycotoxins
(toxins produced by fungi), glucans (components of cell walls of many molds), pollen, plant
fibers, etc. [149]. During the composting of organic materials there are multiple opportunities
of exposure to organic dusts. The individuals who handle these wastes can be exposed to
infectious viruses, microorganisms, bacteria that generate allergenic endotoxins, fungi,
parasitic protozoa and organic dusts. In comparison to the effects caused by chemical and
physical agents, those of biological origin are less known and not so well defined.
Nonetheless, a series of health problems have been identified to be caused by the exposure to
these compounds: e.g. pulmonary inflammation, occupational asthma, gastroinstestinal
disturbances, fevers and infections and irritations of eyes, ear and skin [126,150-153].

Several studies have assessed bioaerosol exposures at and around composting facilities.
Fischer et al. [127,154] analyzed several airborne samples from an indoor compost facility
and they observed that the total number of fungi ranged from 106–107 cfu/m3 year-round in
highly contaminated areas such as the loading area and compost pile hall. High airborne
concentrations of viable Aspergillus, Penicillium, Paecilomyces and Rhizopus were also
collected in addition to measurable levels of the Aspergillus mycotoxins tryptoquivaline and
trypacidin in the dust. Folmsbee et al. [155] analyzed a yard waste facility in Oklahoma
(USA) and reported that mean fungi and bacteria concentrations (in cfu/m3) peaked at 5,059
and 972 respectively 30 m downwind from the site as compared to 1,000 and 450 respectively
several km from the site. An outdoor suburban yard waste composting facility in northern
Illinois, in which landscape waste comprised of grass clippings, leaves and tree branches, was
studied by Hryhorczuk et al. [156]. On-site concentrations of total spores,
Aspergillus/Penicillium spores, total bacteria, Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative
bacteria, Actinomycetes, total particulates and β-1,3 glucans were higher than off-site
concentrations. A pattern of decreasing concentration with distance from pile and higher
downwind versus upwind concentrations were identified.
3.2.2. Leaching Streams

Nutrient losses by leaching or runoff water are often negligible in terms of total amounts
lost except for potassium, which does not present pollution problems [138]. For VOCs, the
fate in the liquid phase has also been found to be negligible [130]. In general, the impact of
composting on water is less important than on air. Besides, in animal manure composting, for
instance, compacting can be used specifically to reduce the water loss [141].
Eghball et al. [157] quantified nutrient and mass loss during the composting of beef cattle
feedlot manure in an open windrow. They found that N losses in water accounted for less than
0.5% of initial manure N content and phosphorus runoff loss was lower than 2%. Regarding
K and Na losses in runoff, high values were obtained for two years of the study (> 6.5%),
whereas losses did not reach 2% when rainfall was fewer. Nitrogen losses due to leaching
were less than 0.4% of the initial N and less than 0.8% for P during the composting of dairy
deep litter analyzed by Sommer and Dahl [158]. The nitrogen losses occurring during
composting of mixtures of straw and different liquid manures (poultry, pig, cattle and
mixtures) over a period of 98 to 114 days were determined by Martins and Dewes [159],
yielding that between 9.6 and 19.6% of the initial total nitrogen was lost as leachates. The
greatest proportion of nitrogen in the leachate (76.5−97.8%) was ammonium-nitrogen. As a
consequence, groundwater pollution is possible if open windrow compost is always made in
the same location.
NH4+ is transformed into NO3− by nitrification in the soil, being responsible for water
acidification and eutrophication impact [160]. Organic carbon compounds and phosphate are
potential pollutants of subsurface water and, to a lesser degree, of groundwater. Potassium,
which is the most important nutrient lost by leaching from the compost heap, is not
considered as a pollutant [138].
Pollution through nutrient losses mostly depends on water fluxes and on the amount of
nutrients in the drainage water. Therefore, the water holding capacity of the raw materials is a
key factor. In open systems, composting should be avoided during seasons with high
precipitations. This problem can be partially solved by covering the pile or making it under
roof.

3.2.3. Consumption of Resources
Energy Requirements
The primary energy usage in aerobic composting is to provide aeration of the compost.
Secondary usage is in materials handling to move the compost from one part of the process to
another. A third energy usage in aerobic composting is in the front end processing of the
wastes prior to composting [161]. Nonetheless, the consumption of energy in composting
facilities highly depends on the kind of technology being applied [162]. Available data on the
overall energy consumption for various methods of composting lead to an average range of
18–50 kWh (electrical) per ton of input [94].
Windrow system, in which rows are mechanically turned, is the simplest one and,
therefore, it is expected to require less energy. The electricity used on site is needed for
collecting and pumping rain water to keep piles moist.
In aerated static pile systems, air needs to be forced to maintain aerobic conditions
through the pile and to control temperature. This requirement changes with the specific
environmental conditions and with the feedstock [123]. In addition to the energy needed to
move air, the piles also require energy to set up and break down, which is carried out using
similar equipment as for windrow systems.
Regarding in-vessel systems, the mixed feedstock needs to be introduced and gradually
moved through the reactor until it is sufficiently stabilized and exits the enclosed system. This
movement is generally combined with forced aeration. In many cases additional feedstock
mixing is accomplished using augers.
Cadena et al. [162] studied two real composting plants using different technologies:
tunnels and confined windrows, which required 130 or 160 kWh/t MSW, respectively. In an
aerobic treatment plant for OFMSW, green and wooded waste, where indoor piles with forced
aeration were employed, a consumption of 219 MJ and 2.06 L diesel per ton of input bio-
waste were determined [163]. In the home composting of leftovers of raw fruits and
vegetables evaluated by Colón et al. [160], energy was only demanded for the garden chipper
(1.6 MJ per t of input feedstock).
Water Consumption
Moisture content must be carefully monitored during composting processes. The
moisture content should range between 50 and 60 percent of total weight [161, 164]. Because
water content of most feedstocks is not adequate, water is usually added to achieve the
desired rate of composting. The amount of water evaporated usually exceeds the input of
moisture from the decomposition processes; consequently, there is generally a net loss of
moisture from the compost pile. In such cases, adding moisture may be necessary to keep the
composting process performing at its peak. Evaporation from compost piles can be minimized
by controlling the size of piles. Piles with larger volumes have less evaporating surface/unit
volume than smaller piles. Any run-off collected is often sprayed back onto the composting
material to maintain sufficiently high moisture contents. If waste paper is included in the
feedstock, this will absorb much of the water, and so little or no leachate is actually produced
[94].
The moisture content should not be great enough, however, to create excessive free flow
of water and movement caused by gravity. Further, excessive moisture and flowing water

form leachate, which creates a potential liquid management problem and potential water
pollution and odor problems. It would also impede oxygen transfer to the microbial cells, thus
increasing the possibility of anaerobic conditions developing and may lead to rotting and
obnoxious odors.
In the same study by Cadena et al. [162] referred in the energy requirements section, it
was determined that the tunnel consumed 16 times more water than the windrow system (0.33
and 0.02 m3 water/t OFMSW, respectively). Two main reasons could explain this difference.
The first one is that watering of the material during the composting process is more intensive
in tunnel than in windrow plant. Additionally, in the windrow plant leachate is used to water
the windrow during the decomposition phase to reduce water consumption. The second
reason was that, given that the tunnel plant was close to a municipal WWTP, treated water
was used in the wet scrubber to treat gaseous emissions (mainly ammonia) to the atmosphere.
In the work by Benglini [163] a water consumption of 89 L per ton of input bio-waste was
reported; meanwhile, moistening water reflected in the inventory for home composting [160]
was 50.9 L/t feedstock.
3.2.4. Types of Wastes Used in Composting Feedstocks

Materials that are commonly used as feedstocks for composting operations include food,
paper, and yard trimmings that are separated from the MSW stream, green waste, municipal
biosolids and animal manures [123, 139]. Composting has also proved to be a useful means of
treatment of sewage sludge prior to its use in agriculture or for land reclamation. The sludge
is normally partly dewatered to achieve a moisture content in the range 65-85%. It is then
mixed with a bulking agent to provide an open matrix facilitating the access of air to the heap
[120]. Mixed waste inputs, such as MSW, need extensive pre-sorting to remove all of the
inorganic material, which is not suitable for biological treatment. In contrast, finely sorted
putrescible feedstock from an RDF type process would have already undergone a sorting
stage; thus, it would not require another pre-sort prior to the biological treatment process [94].
Some examples of materials that have been used for composting that were reported in the
literature were summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Types of feedstocks used for composting
Origin Source
Municipal solid waste [165-168]
Sewage sludge [169-172]
Bark [173,174]
Fly ash [175]
Manure [176-178]
Green waste [179-182]
Spent mushroom [183]
Tannery sewage sludge [184]
Beet vinasse [185]
Table 6 summarizes the physical characteristics and plant nutrient contents of different
types of compost. Heavy metals contents are not included because the environmental
implications associated to these compounds are further discussed in Section 5.

Table 6. Physicochemical characteristics and plant nutrient contents of different types

of compost produced by aerobic process [94]
Biowaste Biowaste with Green waste Wet waste Total waste

compost paper compost compost compost(*) compost
H2O% w.w. 37.7 45.0 34.8 44.2 35.6
pH-value 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.3
Salt g/l w.w. 3.9 3.6 2.3 5.8 7.3
OS % d.w. 33.3 42.0 32.5 55.4 39.7
C/N ratio 17.0 21.8 20.0 18.8 17.8
N total % d.w. 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.7 1.1
P2O5 % d.w. 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.9
K2O % d.w. 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.6
MgO % d.w. 0.8 0.8 0.6 2.0 0.7
CaO % d.w. 4.0 4.1 3.0 10.0 4.9
w.w. wet weight; d.w. dry weight.
(*) Fraction remaining after separate collection of dry waste, e.g. recyclables such as glass, paper,
metal, wood, etc. OS, organic substances.
4. COMPOSTING VS ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

Composting and AD are the most common technologies applied for the treatment of
organic wastes. In Section 2 and Section 3, the environmental burdens associated to both
processes were examined; in this section, the differences between them are compared. These
are summarized in Table 7.
Composting and AD can be used separately or combined. In fact, the digestate from the
AD process can be composted to obtain a better quality final product suitable for its direct
application in land. This post-aerobic treatment may be required when the digestate is
odorous, too wet, contains a notable amount of VFAs which are phytotoxic or if it is not
hygienized because digestion did not occur within the thermophilic range of temperatures
[186, 187]. This requirement certainly poses a disadvantage for AD [58], whereas composting
provides and appropriate management solution [188, 189]. Besides, composting is faster than
AD.
On the other side, one of the advantages of AD with respect to composting often reported
in the literature is that the former is energy sufficient (in fact, an excess of energy production
frequently occurs), while composting process are net energy consumers [186, 187]. AD is
capable of being energy sufficient if only one quarter of the organic waste is digested to
biogas [64]. This energy balance also implies that the contribution to GHG emission is lower
for AD than for composting; CH4 is collected to produce heat or electricity, while fugitive
CH4 emissions from composting facilities (formed in anaerobic zones of the pile) are
generally released to the atmosphere without control. Moreover, AD processes need less area
than composting to treat the same amount of wastes. Additionally, the aerobic treatment
produces large and uncontrolled emissions of volatile compounds, such as ketones, aldehydes,
ammonia and methane [132, 186]. In anaerobic systems these compounds are broken down
by anaerobic bacteria. After anaerobic sludge is dewatered, the digestate contains few of these

compounds so overall emissions, and therefore odors, are far less than from aerobic systems
[94].
Because of these environmental benefits, AD is a promising technology for the treatment
of organic wastes. Nonetheless, it is also true that it is a more complex process, thus making
its control more difficult, and it requires larger inversions [186]. A better choice in many
cases could be the integration of both technologies in the same process. This fact allows
taking benefit from the different advantages of each one. A suitable scheme is shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2 represents a two-stage process in which a liquid supernatant is circulated from a
first stage digester containing the materials to a second-stage digester. This circulation
eliminates the need for agitation equipment and also provides the system operator with more
opportunity to carefully control the biological process. As digestion progresses, a mixture of
methane and carbon dioxide is produced. This mixture is continuously removed from both
first- and second stage digesters and is either combusted on-site or directed to off-site gas
consumers. A portion of the recovered gas may be converted to thermal energy by
combustion which is then used to heat the digester. A stabilized residue remains when the
digestion process is completed. The residue is either removed from the digester with the
mechanical equipment, or pumped out as a liquid. The residue is chemically similar to
compost but contains much more moisture. Conventional dewatering equipment can reduce
the moisture content enough to handle the residue as a solid. The digested residue may require
further curing by windrow or static pile composting [194].
Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of composting and AD (taken from [187])
Composting Anaerobic Digestion References

Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Simple More complex [46, 186, 189,
Inexpensive More expensive 190]
Larger area Smaller area [46, 189]
Odor pollution Reduction of odor via [46, 132, 189,
biogas combustion 190]
Uncontrolled leachate High strength [191]
emission wastewater formed
Uncontrolled CH4 [46, 64, 132,
production 192]
Net energy consumer Net energy producer [193]
Figure 2. Integrated scheme of anaerobic digestion and composting technologies.

5. VALORIZATION OF ORGANIC WASTES AS FERTILIZER

About 9.3 million tons of digestate and compost are produced per year in the 25 EU
member states, being mostly applied to agricultural soils [195]. Reusing this type of organic
waste as a soil fertilizer offers a number of advantages over other management alternatives
since it reduces the use of additional fertilizers and eliminates the requirement of its
subsequent treatment or disposal [22, 23]. The application of such wastes to soil provides
nutrients, increases organic matter, improves soil structure and enhances nutrient absorption
by plants [24, 25]. Thus, the use of different types of organic waste in agriculture or farming
activities instead of using conventional chemical fertilizers should be chosen in terms of
sustainability. These residues can also be used as amendments to regenerate infertile soils and
for improving plant cover [196].
However, the European legislation has become more restrictive on the content of priority
pollutants in residues that are used as raw materials for the production of fertilizers or as
fertilizers themselves [197], ultimately limiting waste reuse in agriculture. Currently, there are
several types of organic waste and compost, classified according to the origin of its raw
materials [198]: urban residues, agricultural and forest residues, wastewater treatment sludge,
residues resulting from terrestrial remediation activities, residues from industrial processes,
and mixtures of these. Depending on the raw material, toxicity due to the presence of heavy
metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) may become important [36, 172].
It is important to consider that, apart from pollutant concentration, the repeated
application of organic wastes over extended periods of time and an increase in application
frequency favor contaminant accumulation and biotransfer. Depending on soil composition
and on the presence of metals in the reused waste, specific chemical and physical associations
can cause the accumulation of these pollutants in soil. This soil build-up might cause severe
adverse effects to animal and human health through their incorporation into the food chain,
with the intake of food grown in contaminated areas as the most direct route of exposure
[199-203].
5.1. Inorganic Contaminants
The regular application of compost and digestate to soil may result in a gradual raise of
its total metal content in the long-term. Heavy metals like Pb, Cd, Cr, Ni, Cu and Zn have
been identified as those most commonly present in these types of organic fertilizers [173, 204,
205]. Significant concentrations of heavy metals are typically found in sludge coming from
WWTPs that collect industrial effluents [196, 206], although high concentrations can also be
found in domestic sewage depending on the country of origin [36, 207-210]. With respect to
compost derived from source-segregated waste streams or green waste, they are generally
reported to contain smaller amounts of heavy metals compared to mechanically-sorted
products [211-213].
Several authors have accomplished assessments of heavy metal concentrations in
compost. Pitchel and Anderson [204] studied the content of heavy metals (Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and
Zn) in two samples of compost derived from MSW and sewage sludge, respectively. The first
sample of compost was prepared from MSW that were processed first by manual techniques

to remove non-recyclable materials. The compostable fraction included food and yard wastes,
paper products and other organic solids. The solids were exposed to in-vessel biological
digesters for pretreatment and were then composted by the turned-pile method for several
weeks. On the other hand, the sewage sludge compost, derived from primarily domestic
wastewater, was anaerobically digested and then composted by the aerated-pile method. It
was observed that sewage sludge compost presented higher levels of concentrations of heavy
metals than MSW compost
Riedel and Marb [214] assessed heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn) in 30
compost samples taken from numerous plants (household biowaste, green waste, digestate
from household biowaste composting plants) and they concluded that all of the heavy metals
studied exhibited low concentrations, except for Cu and Zn that presented higher
concentrations. In a study developed by Ciavatta et al. [215] samples of well-matured
composts taken after stabilization of the organic matter in turned piles of compost arising
from separately collected organic wastes and from static piles of compost arising from MSW
stabilized during the summer and winter, both under a forced-pressure ventilation composting
system, were analyzed. It was observed that the total content of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr,
Ni and Cd) increased appreciably during composting due in part to losses of organic carbon,
especially as CO2, during the stabilization of compost, but also due to the purification process
(removal of inert materials such as plastic and glass).
The speciation of metals plays a key role to properly assess the fate of these pollutants. In
this regard, Greenway and Song [216] studied how metal (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd and Pb)
speciation changed during a large scale composting process. Four open-air windrow-
composting systems were chosen with different feedstocks and management conditions. The
results obtained from this study showed that, in general, metals become less available for the
first extraction step as the composting process proceeds. This implies that composting tends
to redistribute metals from more labile forms to more fixed forms; therefore, the application
of composts could be useful for the remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals.
There are exceptions to this trend and, in some cases, metals appear to behave differently
depending on the source of the compost. Although composting can effectively reduce the
availability of metals [202, 217], it has proved difficult to significantly reduce the total heavy
metal content of the initial waste [172, 218, 219]. In fact, this content can be even higher in
compost than in the initial waste for certain metals due to the weight loss suffered through
mineralization [217].
Fuentes et al. [220] studied different types of sludge (aerobic, anaerobic, unstabilized and
sludge from a waste stabilization pond) in measured concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Cr,
Ni, Fe, Zn, Pb and Cd). They observed that all the values recorded for the four types of sludge
were within the maximum permitted levels from the Directive 86/278/EEC. However,
anaerobic sludge presented the highest values of metals concentrations, in special for Cr,
which was found in very high concentrations. A similar study was carried out by Walter et al.
[30] to compare the potential impacts of the same heavy metals of three sewage sludges
(anaerobically digested, heat-dried and composted). They found that total heavy metal
concentrations were below the maximum permitted for land applied waste and the differences
among them were small. However, they found that sewage sludge anaerobically digested
presented the lowest values of heavy metals concentrations.
A wide inventory of heavy metal content of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn, in sludge and
compost was reviewed by Lopes et al. [221], including the studies above mentioned

(references [30, 204, 215, 216, 220]. As a result of this review, it was stated that sludge
contained the highest concentrations of metals, being the presence of toxic metals like Cd and
Pb more significant than in compost.
Apart from heavy metals, sewage sludge typically contains high proportions of
ammonium–nitrogen [222]. Therefore, the leachates generated from sewage sludge have high
concentrations of ammonia, which can origin various serious environmental problems.
Ammonia nitrogen contributes to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in water due to its
biologic oxidation by nitrifying bacteria, which can have a significant dissolved oxygen
requirement for the breakdown of NH3 into NO3−. In addition to the presence of nitrates, the
principal end product of nitrification stimulates algal growth and eutrophication in waterways
[223].
5.1.1. Transfer and Exposure Pathways of Heavy Metals

Heavy metals tend to accumulate in the upper layers of the soil by binding to the different
existing organic or mineral fractions, either in solution or particulate [224]. Their mobility
and bioavailability to plants and microorganisms may be influenced by several factors among
which the pH of the soil is the most important [225]. From soil solution, leaching of heavy
metals to groundwater can occur depending on local conditions, e.g. meteorology and soil
type [226, 227]. Therefore, plants uptake metals from soil solution compartment (increasing
with total concentrations in soil) and they are concentrated preferentially in the roots and
vegetative parts [228]. The pH is an essential factor that influences the cation mobility and
regulates the solubility of heavy metals in soil. Most of metals tend to be available in acid pH
[229]. Plants reveal a great adaptation to the variable composition of growth media, and have
developed several uptake mechanisms for a given nutrient under deficiency conditions in
soils, and can also exclude an element at high external concentrations. However, mechanisms
involved in the exclusion processes are much weaker than those developed by roots in the
absorption of deficient micronutrients. Thus, the excess of trace metals in soils is a stronger
stress to plants than their deficiency. Moreover, changes in the pH of the root ambient
solution and various root exudates can significantly increase the availability of certain
elements, such as Cu and Zn [230].
As a consequence, when a fertilized soil is dedicated to agricultural activities, uptake of
heavy metals by animals occurs through contaminated plants, soil and water ingestion. Metal
quantities ingested and absorbed and their subsequent toxicity levels to animals has widely
been reported in the literature [231-234].
5.2. Organic Contaminants
Regarding organic compounds, the most frequently detected at significant level in

digestate and compost are monocyclic aromatics, PAHs, PCBs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs) [235-239]. These
compounds may represent serious health and environmental hazards due of their toxic
properties even at low concentrations [240]. Apart from the list mentioned above, in the case
of sewage sludge phthalic acid esters (PAEs), organochlorinated pesticides, chlorobenzenes
(CBs), amines, nitrosamines and phenols were also found [27, 35, 241-255]. In some cases,
concentrations of these contaminants exceeded the limits proposed for soil application [256].

Brandli et al. [235] found a wide range of the most concerning organic pollutants in
digestate and compost from Switzerland. The compounds studied were: PAHs, PCBs, dioxin-
like PCBs (DL-PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecane
(HBCD), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS),
pesticides, phthalates, nonylphenol and chlorinated paraffins (CP). Brandli et al. [237] studied
PCDDs, PCDFs, DL-PCB, brominated flame retardants (BFR), PBDEs, HBCD, TBBPA and
about 270 pesticides in 13 compost and 5 digestate samples from commercial plants in
Switzerland. They observed that the concentrations were at or above the levels found in
background soils.
In a study developed by Riedel and Marb [214], 30 compost samples were taken from
many plants (household biowaste, green waste, digestate from household biowaste
composting plants) and organic contaminants such as PAHs, PCDD/Fs and PCBs were
examined. It was observed that the contents of PCDD/Fs and PCBs were generally low and
that green waste compost showed lower concentration levels than household biowaste
composts and composted digestate.
Significant concentrations of hydrophobic organic [35] and some volatile [257] chemicals
in sewage sludge are explained as they are removed from wastewater through the absorption
by the biosolids. This is particularly true for persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances that
might enter the waste stream. Furthermore, after they have been separated from wastewater,
land applied sludges must be treated to reduce pathogens through a number of processes
including AD, lime stabilization or composting [35].
5.2.1. Transfer and Exposure Pathways of Organic Compounds

The transport and fate of organic compounds in contaminated soil are governed by
various environmental processes that include: partitioning between air, soil and water;
sorption to the soil matrix; abiotic and biotic degradation/transformation; volatilization into
the atmosphere from soil and foliage; wet and dry deposition to soil and plant foliage and
uptake into plants via roots and foliage including metabolism in plants [258]. Organic
compounds are physically, chemically and biologically transformed in other intermediary
compounds during their mineralization. Their degradation pathways and, consequently, time
elapsed before reaching negligible concentration in soils may greatly depend on the aerobic or
anaerobic degradation conditions.
Leaching of organic pollutants to groundwater is a possible pathway that cannot be
ignored in some cases. The importance of this mechanism depends on the properties of the
compounds and the soil. Many compounds present short half-life values, reducing the risk of
leaching to groundwater. On the other hand, persistent compounds such as PCBs show an
affinity with soil particles and will therefore bind to soil rather than leach to groundwater
[259].
Organic compounds in soil can be transferred to the plant root surface via the soil water,
the gas phase in soil pores or via direct contact with soil particles. From the surface, these
chemicals may pass through the epidermis into the cortex (outer tissue of the root), enter the
xylem, be transported in the transpiration stream and eventually reach the leaves [33, 260].
These contaminants are generally taken up into roots passively, i.e. the plant does not expend
energy to regulate the level of the chemical in the roots. Thus, the maximum capacity of the
roots to store a chemical is defined by the equilibrium partition coefficient of the chemical
between the root and the surrounding medium [260]. Partitioning is related to the Kow of

organic compounds, such that retention of compounds in soil and plant root surfaces from soil
solution is directly proportional to solubility [33, 261]. Compounds with higher Kow have
been observed to be present primarily on the surface of roots [262].
Bioaccumulation of organic compounds may occur in animals, and concentrations of
concern have been reported in meat and milk [263, 264]. Consumption of animal products
could be considered as the main route of human exposure to organic pollutants, due to the
application of compost and sewage sludge in soil [263].
5.3. Existing Models for Evaluating the Risk Resulting from the Valorization
of Organic Wastes in Agriculture
The Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) methodology is comprised of the following

steps: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment and risk
characterization [260,265].
During hazard identification, the adverse effects expected by a potential exposure are
assessed under a qualitative approach. For example, as indicated in Section 3, in MSW
composting primary hazards for workers include pathogens and their toxins, organic
chemicals (many of them are in common household items such as solvents and cleaners), and
heavy metals (from items such as batteries and consumer electronics), as well as mechanical
and related hazards. In the compost products concerns for consumers and the environment are
mainly the heavy metals and some persistent organics. Furthermore, potential hazards may
come from three sources: those present in MSW, those materials transformed by composting
and those materials created by the composting organisms themselves (endotoxins, spores,
etc.) [266].
A dose-response assessment identifies the relationship between the received doses and
the intensity or severity of the adverse effects produced on the exposed population. This is
traduced in the establishment of recommended doses (Reference Doses, RfDs and Slope
Factors, SF) under which no adverse health effects are produced. These recommended doses
are available in reference databases of international organizations, like the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) database of the U.S. EPA and the European chemical Substances
Information System (ESIS) of the European Chemicals Bureau.
The exposure assessment consists in the quantitative estimation of the pollutant doses to
which the receptor population is exposed. It includes the frequency, duration and intensity
with which an agent or activity is presented to a subject by various routes, such as inhalation,
ingestion or dermal contact. Exposure can be direct, as for inhalation of MSW compost dusts
and ingestion of compost/soil by children, or indirect by ingestion through the food chain.
Background levels of contamination from other sources, including natural phenomena, must
be identified and quantified. Monitoring of the MSW composting process, for example, has
been useful in showing that potentially harmful levels of organisms associated with
respiratory disease exist only in the immediate vicinity of a disturbed pile, even though such
organisms are widely distributed throughout the environment [266].
Finally, risk characterization includes an estimate of the probability and severity of
adverse effects on the health of the exposed population. In this stage, hazard or risk indexes
are calculated by comparing the total dose predicted in the exposure assessment with the
available toxicological data. Risk characterization sets the stage for risk assessment by

developing both the models of exposure-response in test species and human beings and the
means to convert one to the other.
Exposure assessment is one of the most complex steps of the ERA process since the
estimation of the fate and exposure of a pollutant in each compartment of a particular scenario
is usually difficult, expensive and time-consuming. However, it is fundamental to know these
concentrations in order to evaluate the exposure of receptors. In this sense, fate models are
developed to describe and estimate the distribution of pollutants in the environment,
constituting a previous step before exposure modeling. Therefore, it is important to predict
the fate of pollutants in media to understand their potential environmental impacts.
5.3.1. Fate and Exposure Models

Organic and inorganic compounds, when discharged to the environment, can persist for a
long period of time in the environment. Predicting the concentrations of pollutants and
quantifying the exposure assessed by a risk assessment process involves, therefore, the
application of fate and multi-exposure models. However, to perform a realistic modeling, the
uncertainty of model parameters and of the model itself has to be taken into account,
especially when few data are available.
To estimate chemical concentrations of contaminants, the assistance of a model which
processes the available input data is necessary. This is the function of the multimedia fate
models [267]. The most important software tools to carry out ERA studies of a wide diversity
of pollutants and multimedia scenarios are: EUSES (European Union System for the
Evaluation of Substances), CalTOX, Risk-Based Corrective Action RBCA- [268] and ACC-
Human. CalTOX [269] and ACC-Human [270] were specifically developed for organic
contaminants.
In general, these tools consist of a fate multi-compartment model connected to an
exposure multi-pathway model in which the user can select the adequate compartments and
pathways to build the adequate scenario. Multimedia mass-balance box models have been
used to predict the overall persistence, multi-compartmental distribution and long-range
transport potential of POPs.
In these models, substances are exchanged between the environmental compartments,
either assuming that the thermodynamic equilibrium is instantaneously established or that the
transfer is described by mass transfer kinetics [271]. Multimedia and multi-pathway software
models present significant advantages, such as the possibility to evaluate complex and ad hoc
scenarios. These general models provide the basis for the development of more specific and
simplified models to evaluate the risk in organic waste application as fertilizers scenarios.
Examples of such studies can extensively be found in the literature, as for the case of heavy
metals [205, 233, 272, 273]. These tools can be further improved with the application of GIS
[274].
In the specific case of heavy metals, many of the species that may be present in the
different compartments are difficult to measure; as a consequence, the speciation of these
compounds in soil solution is usually computer modeled [275]. Different computer models
are available for calculating the speciation or partitioning of inorganic chemicals: WHAM,
MINTEQ, HYDROQL, GEOCHEM, SOILCHEM, ECOSAT and PHREEQC [276].

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been supported by the Spanish Government (Science and Innovation
Ministry) through the Project INDIE (CTM2010-18893) ERDF included. Marta Herva also
wishes to thank the University of Santiago de Compostela for her pre-doctoral contract.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Cherubini, S. Bargigli and S. Ulgiati, Energy 34, 2116 (2009).
[2] Pires, G. Martinho and N.-B. Chang, J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1033 (2011).
[3] E. Daskalopoulos, O. Badr and S.D. Probert, Appl. Energy 58, 209 (1997).
[4] Environmental Protection Agency. Europe’s environment. The fourth assessment.
Copenhagen, Denmark. ISBN: 978-92-9167-932-4 (2007).
[5] J.K. Seadon, J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1639 (2010).
[6] J.R. Barton and D. Dalley, V.S. Patel, Waste Manage. 16 (1-3), 35 (1996).
[7] Demirbas, Energy Conv. Manag. 52, 1280 (2011).
[8] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 19 November
2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, Official Journal of the European
Union. L 312/3 (2008).
[9] M. Tarantini, A. Dominici Loprieno, E. Cucchi and F. Frenquellucci, Energy 34, 613
(2009).
[10] Moberg, G. Finnveden, J. Johansson and P. Lind, J. Clean. Prod. 13, 231 (2005).
[11] G. Finnveden, J. Johansson, P. Lind and Å. Moberg, J. Clean. Prod. 13, 213 (2005).
[12] R. Clift, A. Doig and G. Finnveden, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 78 (4), 279 (2000).
[13] Morrissey and J. Browne, Waste Manage. 24, 297 (2004).
[14] Thomas and F. McDougall, J. Clean. Prod. 13, 321 (2005).
[15] U. Arena, M.L. Mastellone and F. Perugini, Chem. Eng. J. 96 207 (2003).
[16] S.M. Al-Salem and P. Lettieri, Eur. J. Sci. Res. 34 (3), 395 (2009).
[17] E. Cadena, J. Colón, A. Sánchez, X. Font and A. Artola, Waste Manage. 29, 2799
(2009).
[18] L.C. Martins das Neves, A. Converti, T.C. Vessoni Penna, Chem. Eng. Technol. 32 (8),
1147 (2009).
[19] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, chapter 4 (2006).
[20] P.L. Giusquiani, M. Pagliai, G. Gigliotti, D. Businelli and A. Benetti, J. Environ. Qual.
24, 175 (1995).
[21] Karaca, O.C. Turgay and N. Tamer, Biol. Fertil. Soils 42, 585 (2006).
[22] S. Bruun, T.L., Hansen, T.H. Christensen, J. Magid and L.S. Jensen, Environ. Model.
Assess. 11, 251 (2006).
[23] J.C. Hargreaves, M.S. Adl, P.R. Warman, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 123, 1 (2008).
[24] J. Weber, A. Karczewska, J. Drozd, M. Licznar, S. Licznar, E. Jamroz and A.
Kocowicz, Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 294 (2007).
[25] R.P. Singh and M. Agrawal, Waste Manage. 28, 347 (2008).
[26] K. Kawata, T. Asada and K. Oikawa, J. Chromatogr. A 1090, 10 (2005).

[27] M.D. Webber, H.R. Rogers, C.D. Watts, A.B.A. Boxall, R.D. Davis, R. Scoffin, Sci.
Total Environ. 185, 27 (1996).
[28] A.E. McGowin, K.K. Adom and A.K. Obubuafo, Chemosphere 45, 857 (2001).
[29] R.E. Alcock, J. Bacon, R.D. Bardget, A.J. Beck, P.M. Haygarth, R.G.M. Lee, C.A.
Parker and K.C. Jones, Environ. Pollut. 93, 83 (1996).
[30] Walter, F. Martínez and V. Cala, Environ. Pollut. 139, 507 (2006).
[31] M.D. Perez-Murcia, R. Moral, J. Moreno-Caselles, A. Perez-Espinosa and C. Paredes,
Bioresour. Technol. 97, 123 (2006).
[32] K. Kawata, T. Asada and K. Oikawa, J. Chromatogr. A 1090, 10 (2005).
[33] R. Duarte-Davidson and K.C. Jones, Sci. Total Environ. 185, 59 (1996).
[34] G.S. Senesi, G. Baldassarre, N. Senesi and B. Radina, Chemosphere 39, 343 (1999).
[35] E.Z. Harrison, S.R. Oakes, M. Hysell, A. Hay, Sci. Total Environ. 367, 481 (2006).
[36] L. Hua, W.X. Wu, Y.X. Liu, C.M. Tientchen and Y.X. Chen, Biomed. Environ. Sci. 21,
345 (2008).
[37] M.Y. Miah and M. Chino, Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 40, 135 (1999).
[38] M.D. Kim, M. Song, M. Jo, S.G. Shin, J.H. Khim and S. Hwang, Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 85, 1611 (2010).
[39] S.G. Pavlostathis and E. Giraldo-Gómez, Kinetic of anaerobic treatment: a critical
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Contr. 21, 411 (1991).
[40] S. Ponsá, I. Ferrer, F. Vázquez and X. Font, Water Res. 42, 3972 (2008).
[41] W. Gujer and A.J.B. Zehnder, Water Sci. Technol. 15, 127 (1983).
[42] D.B. Archer, The microbiological basis of process control in methanogenic
fermentation of soluble wastes. Enzyme Microbiology Technology 5, 170 (1983).
[43] D.J. Batstone, J. Keller, I. Angelidaki, S. Kalyuzhny, S.G. Pavlostathis, A. Rozzi, W.
Sanders, H. Siegrist, V.A. Vavilin, Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1), Report
No. 13, IWA Publishing; (2002).
[44] H.N. Gavala, I. Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring, Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 81, 57
(2003).
[45] P. Vandevivere, L. De Baere, W. Verstraete, Types of anaerobic digesters for solid
wastes. In: Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, IWA
Publishing; (2003).
[46] K. Braber, Biomass Bioenerg. 9, 365 (1995).
[47] G. Lettinga, Antonie Leeuwenhoek 67, 3 (1995).
[48] European Commission, IPPC – Reference document on BATs for Waste Treatment
Industries, August (2006).
[49] J.D. Murphy and E. McKeogh, Renew. Energ. 29, 1043 (2004).
[50] P. Weiland, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85,849 (2009).
[51] European Commission, Working Document – Biological Treatment of Biowaste, 2nd
Draft, February (2001).
[52] P. Hobson, and A. Wheatley, Anaerobic digestion–modern theory and practice,
Elsevier Applied Science, London (1992).
[53] H. Møller, I. Lund, S. Sommer, Bioresour. Technol. 74, 223 (2000).
[54] Angelidaki, A. Heinfelt and L. Ellegaard, Water Sci. Technol. 54, 237 (2006).
[55] P. Weiland, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 849 (2010).
[56] C.J. Rivard, B.W. Duff, J.H. Dickow, C.C. Wiles, N.J. Nagle, J.L. Gaddy and E.C.
Clausen, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 70, 687 (1998).

[57] C.J. Rivard, B.W. Duff and N.J. Nagle, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 70, 569 (1998).
[58] H.M. Poggi-Varaldo and J.A. Oleszkiewicz, Environ. Technol. 13, 409 (1992).
[59] P.G. Stroot, K.D. McMahoni, R.I. Mackie and L. Raskini, Water Res. 3, 1804 (2001).
[60] P. Sosnowski, A. Wieczorek and S. Ledakowicz, Adv. Environ. Res. 7, 609 (2003).
[61] G. Hamer, Biotechnology Advances 22, 71 (2003).
[62] Converti, F. Drago, G. Ghiazza, M. Borghi and A. Macchiavello, J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 69, 231 (1997).
[63] H. Kübler, K. Hoppenheidt, P. Hirsch, A. Kottmair, R. Nimmrichter, H. Nordsieck, W.
Mücke and M. Swerev, Water Sci. Technol. 41, 195 (2000).
[64] W. Edelmann, K. Schleiss and A. Joss, Water Sci. Technol. 41, 263 (2000).
[65] F.J. Callaghan, K. Luecke, D.A.J. Wase, K. Thayanithy and C.F. Forster, J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 68, 405 (1997).
[66] S.N. Misi and C.F. Forster, Bioresour. Technol. 80, 19 (2001).
[67] Mshandete, A. Kivaisi, M. Rubindamayugi and B. Mattiasson, Bioresour. Technol. 95,
19 (2004).
[68] M. Murto, L. Björnsson and B. Mattiasson, J. Environ. Manage. 70, 101 (2004).
[69] S. Lafitte-Trouqué and C.F. Forster, Bioresour. Technol. 71, 77 (2000).
[70] P. Kaparaju and J. Rintala, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43, 175 (2005).
[71] Fernández, A. Sánchez and X. Font, Biochem. Eng. J. 26, 22 (2005).
[72] Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring, H. Deng, J.E. Schmidt, Water Sci- Technol. 45, 213 (2002).
[73] E. Marañón, Y. Fernández and L. Castrillón, Manual de estado del arte de la co-
digestion anaerobia de residuos ganaderos y agroindustriales - Handbook of state-of-
art of co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes, ProBiogas PSE (2009).
[74] A.G. Lane, Food Technol. Australia 36, 125 (1984).
[75] H.R. Srilatha, K. Nand, K.S. Babu and K. Madhukara, Process Biochemistry 30, 327
(1995).
[76] K. Umetsu, S. Yamazaki, T Kishimoto, J. Takahashi, Y. Shibata, C. Zhang, T. Misaki,
O. Hamamoto, I. Ihara and M. Komiyama, Fertilizer value of anaerobic co-digested
dairy manure and food processing wastes, Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture,
Elsiever Sciences, Amsterdam (2006).
[77] M. Soldano, C. Fabbri and S. Piccinini, “Co-digestion plant in dairy cattle farm in
Emilia Romagna Region (Italy)”, International Conference: Progress in Biogas, 19-21,
Sept. 2007 (Sttutgart, Germany) pp95-99.
[78] J. DeBruyn, H. House and J. Rodenburg, Ontario Large Herd Operators European
Anaerobic Digestion Tour Report: Germany, Denmark and Netherlands at
http://www.lho-ontario.ca/, (2006).
[79] Z.J. Wang and C.J. Banks, Process Biochemistry 38, 1267 (2003).
[80] Resch, M. Grasmug, W. Smeets, R. Braun and R. Kirchmay, Water Sci. Technol. 53,
213 (2006).
[81] M.J. Cuetos, X. Gómez, M. Otero and A. Morán, Biochem. Eng. J. 40, 99 (2008).
[82] A.P. Francese, G. Aboagye-Mathiesen, T. Olesen, P.R. Cordoba and F. Siñeriz, World
J. Microb. Biot. 16, 147 (2000).
[83] M. Murto, L Björnsson and B. Mattiasson, J. Environ. Manage. 70, 101 (2003).
[84] T. Amon, B. Amon, V. Kryvoruchko, V. Bodiroza, E. Pötsch and W. Zollitsch,
“Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure: Effects of dairy

systems and of glycerine supplementation”, International Congress Series, 2006 (1293)

pp217-220.
[85] R. Braun and A. Wellinger, Potential of Co-digestion, Task 37 IEA Bioenergy, EU
LIFE project No. 99 EVN/A/406 by the EU commission (2006).
[86] European Commission, Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban Waste Water Treatment,
(1991).
[87] European Commission, Waste management options and climate change, Final report to
the European Commission, July (2001).
[88] European Commission, Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of waste, (1999).
[89] European Commission, Directive 2000/60/EC the EU Water Framework Directive,
(2000).
[90] European Commission, Directive 1975/442/EEC on Waste, (1975).
[91] European Commission, Directive 1986/278/EEC on sewage sludge use in agriculture,
(1986).
[92] European Commission, Directive 1774/2002/EC laying down health rules concerning
animal by-products not intended for human consumption, (2002).
[93] European Commission, Commission Regulation No. 208/2006 amending Annexes VI
and VIII to Directive 1774/2002 as regards processing standards for biogas and
composting plants and requirements for manure, (2006).
[94] F.R. McDougall, P.R. White, M. Franke and P. Hindle, Integrated Solid Waste
Mangement: a Life Cycle Inventory, 2nd edition, Backwell Science (2001).
[95] E. Bagge, L. Sahlstrom and A. Albihn, Water Res. 39, 4879 (2005).
[96] H. Bendixen, Water Sci. Technol. 30, 171 (1994).
[97] H. Møller, S. Sommer and B. Ahring, Bioresour. Technol. 85, 189(2002).
[98] L. Sahlström, Bioresour. Technol. 87, 161 (2003).
[99] P. Sørensen and H.B. Møller. Fate of nitrogen in pig and cattle slurries applied to the
soil-crop system. In: Adani, F., Schievano, A., Boccasile, G. (Eds.), Anaerobic
Digestion: Opportunities for Agriculture and Environment. DiProVe University of
Milan, Milan, pp 27–37 (2009).
[100] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5, chapter 4 (2006).
[101] R. Pipatti and M.S. Manso, 2006 IPPC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories, Volume 5 Waste, Hayama, Kanagawa (2006).
[102] G. Bitton, Wastewater microbiology, Second Edition. Wiley Series in Ecological and
Applied Microbiology, New York (1999).
[103] D.R. Boone and L. Xun, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53, 1589 (1987).
[104] J.B. Holm-Nielsen, T. Al Seadi and P. Oleskowicz-Popiel, Bioresource Technol. 100,
5478 (2009)
[105] C.A. Palm, K.E. Giller, P.L. Mafongoya and M.J. Swift, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 61, 63
(2001).
[106] A.E. Campos, Optimización de la digestión anaerobia de purines de cerdo mediante
codigestión con residuos orgánicos de la industria agroalimentaria. Tesis doctoral.
Departament de Medi Ambient i Ciencias del Sòl. Escola Tècnica Superior
d’Enginyeria Agrària, Universitat de Lleida, Lleida, Spain (2001).
[107] R. Bello-Mendoza and P.N. Shararratt, Water Sci. Technol. 40, 49 (1999).
[108] M. Dohányos, J. Zábranská and P. Jenícek, Water Sci. Technol. 36, 145 (1997).

[109] J.A. Müller J.A., Water Sci. Technol. 44, 121 (2001).
[110] S. Dagnall, Bioresource. Technol. 52, 275 (1995).
[111] M.F. Drennan and T.D. DiStefano, Bioresource. Technol. 101, 537 (2010).
[112] R.E. Speece, Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial wastewaters. Arche Press,
Nashville, TN (1996).
[113] R.T. Haug, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL (1993)
[114] M.A. Bustamante, C. Paredes, F.C. Marhuenda-Egea, A. Pérez-Espinosa, M.P. Bernal
and R. Moral, Chemosphere 72, 551 (2008).
[115] T. Paré, H. Dinel, M. Schnitzer and S. Dumontet, Biol. Fertil. Soils 26, 173 (1998).
[116] M.P. Bernal, C. Paredes, M.A. Sánchez-Monedero and J. Cegarra, Bioresour. Technol.
63, 91 (1998).
[117] R. Rynk, On-farm composting handbook. Cooperative extension, Northeast Regional
Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, New York (1992).
[118] K.R. Gray, K. Sherman and A.J. Biddlestone, Process Biochem. 6, 22 (1971a)
[119] K.R. Gray, K. Sherman and A.J. Biddlestone, Process Biochem. 6, 32 (1971b)
[120] A.J. Biddlestone and K.R. Gray, Composting. In: Comprehensive Biotechnology. The
principles, applications and regulations of biotechnology in industry, agriculture and
medicine. Elsevier Science and Technology (1985).
[121] J.G. Speight and S. Lee, Environmental Technology Handbook, 2nd Edition. Taylor and
Francis (2000).
[122] Recycled Organics Units, 2nd Edition, Life cycle inventory and life cycle assessment
for windrow composting systems. Department of Environment and Conservation, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia (2007).
[123] S. Brown, C. Kruger and S. Subler, J. Environ. Qual. 37, 1396 (2008).
[124] T. Müller, R. Thiflen, S. Braun, W. Dott and G. Fischer, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 11
(2), 91 (2004).
[125] B.D. Eitzer, Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 896 (1995).
[126] J.L. Domingo and M. Nadal, Environ. Int. 35, 382 (2009).
[127] G. Fischer, R. Schwalbe, R. Ostrowski and W. Dott, Mycoses 41, 383 (1998).
[128] G. Fischer, T. Miiller, R. Schwalbe, R. Ostrowski and W. Dott, Int. J. Hyg. Environ.
Health 203, 97 (2000)
[129] D.P. Komilis, R.K. Ham and J.K. Park. Water Res. 38, 1707 (2004).
[130] J.Y. Kim, J.K. Park, B. Emmons, D.E. Armstrong, Water Environ. Res. 67, 1044
(1995).
[131] M. Schlegelmilch, J. Streese, W. Biedermann, T. Herold and R. Stegmann, Waste
Manage. 25, 917 (2005).
[132] E. Smet, H. Van Langenhove and I. De Bo, Atmos. Environ. 33, 1295 (1999).
[133] E. Pagans, X. Font and A. Sánchez, J. Hazard. Mater. B131, 179 (2006).
[134] B. Beck-Friis, S. Smars, H. Jönsson, H. Kirchmann, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 78, 423 (2001).
[135] M.A. Sutton and D. Fowler, Environ. Pollut. 119, 7 (2002).
[136] S.V. Krupa, Environ. Pollut. 124, 179 (2003).
[137] E. Pagans, X. Font and A. Sánchez, Biosyst. Eng. 97, 491 (2007).
[138] J. Peigné and P. Girardin, Water Air Soil Pollut. 153, 45 (2004).
[139] F. Amlinger, S. Peyr and C. Cuhls, Waste Manag. Res. 26, 47 (2008).
[140] I.K. Thomsen, Bioresour. Technol. 72, 267 (2000).

[141] N.A.E. Kader, P. Robin, J.-M. Paillat and P. Leterme, Bioresour. Technol. 98, 2619
(2007).
[142] T. Wu, X. Wang, D. Li and Z. Yi, Atmos. Environ. 44, 5065 (2010).
[143] X.F. Lou and J. Nair, Bioresour. Technol. 100, 3792 (2009).
[144] S. Brown and S. Subler, Biocycle 48, 37 (2007).
[145] S. Brown and P. Leonard, Biocycle 45, 54 (2004).
[146] H.K. Ahn, W. Mulbry, J.W. White and S.L. Kondrad, Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2904
(2011).
[147] J.K. Andersen, A. Boldrin, T.H. Christensen and C. Scheutz, Waste Manage. 30, 2475
(2010).
[148] E. Favoino and D. Hogg, Waste Manage. Res. 26, 61 (2008).
[149] E.Z. Harrison, BioCycle Nov-2007, 44 (2007).
[150] M. van Tongeren, L. van Amelsvoort and D. Heederik, Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
3, 30 (1997).
[151] D. Milton, D. Wypij, D. Kriebel, M. Walters, S.J. Hammond and J. Evans, Am. J. Ind.
Med. 29, 3 (1996).
[152] J. Bünger, B. Schappler-Scheele, R. Hilgers and E. Hallier, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ.
Health 80, 306 (2007).
[153] P. Sykes, K. Jones and J.D. Wildsmith, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 410 (2007).
[154] G. Fischer, T. Muller, R. Ostrowski and W. Dott, Chemosphere 38, 1745 (1999).
[155] M. Folmsbee and K. Stewart, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 49, 554 (1999).
[156] D. Hryhorczuk, L. Curtis, P. Scheff, J. Chung, M. Rizzo, C. Lewis, N. Keys and M.
Moomey, Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 8, 177 (2001).
[157] B. Eghball, J.F. Power, J.E. Gilley and J.W. Doran, J. Environ. Qual. 26 (1), 189
(1997).
[158] S.G. Sommer and P. Dahl, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 74, 145 (1999).
[159] O. Martins and T. Dewes, Bioresour. Technol. 42 (2), 103 (1992).
[160] J. Colón, J. Martínez-Blanco, X. Gabarrell, A. Artola, A. Sánchez, J. Rieradevall and X.
Fonta, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 893 (2010).
[161] S.A. Vigil and G. Tchobanoglous, Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Aerobic
and Anaerobic Composting Technologies, Report 94-WPIOO.05, Air and Waste
management association (1994).
[162] E. Cadena, J. Colón, A. Artola, A. Sánchez and X. Font, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14,
401 (2009).
[163] G.A. Benglini, Resour. Conserv. Recycl 52, 1373 (2008).
[164] Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, Volume II, (EPA 530-R-95-023),
1995. Project Co-Directors: Philip R. O’Leary and Patrick W. Walsh, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Education Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension.
[165] P. Bazzoffi, S. Pellegrini, A. Rocchini, M. Morandi and O. Grasselli, Soil Tillage Res.
48, 275 (1998).
[166] K.R. Baldwin and J.E. Shelton, Bioresour. Technol. 69, 1 (1999).
[167] Kaschl, V. Römheld and Y. Chen, Sci. Total Environ. 291, 45 (2002).
[168] D. Goi, F. Tubaro and G. Dolcetti, Waste Manage. 26, 167 (2006).
[169] H. Hyun, A.C. Chang, D.R. Parker and A.L. Page, J. Environ. Qual. 27, 329 (1998).

[170] R. Millares, E.M. Beltrán, M.A. Porcel, M.L. Beringola, J.V. Martín, R. Calvo and
M.M. Delgado, Foro del Oliva y el Medio Ambiente OLI-2007 (in Spanish). Available
at: www.expoliva.com/expoliva2003. Accessed 27 January 2010. (2003).
[171] J. Casado-Vela, S. Sellés, C. Díaz-Crespo, J. Navarro-Pedreño, J. Mataix-Beneyto and
I. Gómez, Waste Manage. 27, 1509 (2007).
[172] P. Oleszczuk, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 69, 496 (2008).
[173] F. Pinamonti, G. Stringari, F. Gasperi and G. Zorzi, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 21, 129
(1997).
[174] N. Korboulewsky, S. Dupouyet and G. Bonin, J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1522 (2002).
[175] G.A.R. Hackett, C.A. Easton and S.J.B. Duff, Bioresour. Technol. 70, 217 (1999).
[176] J.W.C. Wong, K.K. Ma, K.M. Fang and C. Cheung, Bioresour. Technol. 67, 43 (1999).
[177] M.C. Ramos, J. Environ. Manage. 78, 209 (2006).
[178] H.J. Ko, K.Y. Kim, H.T. Kim, C.N. Kim and M. Umeda, Waste Manage. 28, 813
(2008).
[179] M. Larchevêque, C. Ballini, N. Korboulewsky and N. Montès, Sci. Total Environ. 369,
220 (2006).
[180] M. Sager, Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1383 (2007).
[181] P. Alvarenga, A.P. Gonçalves, R.M. Fernandes, A. de Varennes, G. Vallini, E. Duarte
and A.C. Cunha-Queda, Sci. Total Environ. 406, 43 (2008).
[182] L. Roca-Pérez, C. Martínez, P. Marcilla and R. Boluda, Chemosphere 75, 781 (2009).
[183] S.N. Jordan, G.J. Mullen and M.C. Murphy, Bioresour. Technol. 99, 411 (2008).
[184] M. Haroun, A. Idri and S. Omar, J. Hazard. Mater. 165, 111 (2009).
[185] M. Tejada, A.M. García-Martínez and J. Parrado, Catena 77, 238 (2009).
[186] J. Mata-Alvarez, S. Macé and P. Llabrés, Bioresour. Technol. 74, 3 (2000).
[187] L. Walker, W. Charles and R. Cord-Ruwisch, Bioresour. Technol. 100, 3799 (2009).
[188] K. Meissl and E. Smidt, E., Biocycle 48 (3), 55 (2007).
[189] W. Edelman, H. Engeli, Water Sci. Technol. 27 (2), 169 (1993).
[190] L. De Baere, Water Sci. Technol. 41, 283 (2000).
[191] H. Hartmann, B.K. Ahring, Water Sci. Technol. 53, 7 (2006).
[192] W. Edelmann, U. Baier, H. Engeli, Water Sci. Technol. 52, 203 (2005).
[193] W. Edelmann, A. Joss, H. Engeli. “Two step anaerobic digestion of organic solid
wastes”, Second International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Wastes,
15– 18, June 1999 (Barcelona, Spain) pp153–160.
[194] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen and S. Vigil, Integrated Solid Waste Management,
McGraw Hill (1994).
[195] European Communities, Waste generated and treated in Europe 1995-2003, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2005).
[196] M. Soliva and S. Paulet, In: Boixadeira J, Teira MR (eds) Agricultural aplication of
organic wastes. University of Lleida, Spain, pp 63 (in Spanish) (2001).
[197] European Commission, Final report on heavy metals and organic compounds from
wastes used as organic fertilisers, ENV.A.2./ETU/2001/0024, July (2004).
[198] European Community, Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. Off. J. Eur. Union L114, 9 (2006).
[199] R. Lǎcǎtuşu, C. Rǎuţǎ, S. Cǎrstea and I. Ghelase, Appl. Geochem. 11, 105 (1996).
[200] S. Khan, Q. Cao, Y.M. Zheng, Y.Z. Huang and Y.G. Zhu, Environ. Pollut. 152, 686
(2008).

[201] N. Sridhara Cari, C.T. Kamala and D.S. Suman Raj, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 69, 513
(2008).
[202] S.R. Smith, Environ. Int. 35, 142 (2009).
[203] P. Zhuang, M.B. McBride, H. Xia, N. Li and Z. Li, Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1551
(2009).
[204] J. Pichtel and M. Anderson, Bioresour. Technol. 60, 223 (1997).
[205] F. Madrid, R. López and F. Cabrera, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 119, 249 (2007).
[206] S. Bose and A.K. Bhattacharyya, Chemosphere 70, 1264 (2008).
[207] G. Kandpal, B. Ram, P.C. Srivastava and S.K. Singh, J. Hazard. Mater. 106, 133
(2004).
[208] M. Chen, X.-M. Li, Q. Yang, G.-M. Zeng, Y. Zhang, D.-X. Liao, J.-J. Liu, J.M. Hu and
L. Guo, J. Hazard. Mater. 160, 324 (2008).
[209] G. Egiarte, G. Corti, M. Pinto, J. Arostegui, F. Macías, E. Ruíz-Romero and M. Camps
Arbestain, Water Air Soil Pollut. 198, 133 (2009).
[210] M.R. Lasheen and N.S. Ammar, J. Hazard. Mater. 164, 740 (2009).
[211] E. Epstein, R.L. Chaney, C. Henry and T.J. Logan, Biomass Bioenerg. 3, 227 (1992).
[212] V.K. Sharma, M. Canditelli, F. Fortuna and G. Cornacchia, Energy Convers Manag 38,
453 (1997).
[213] F. Amlinger, M. Pollak and E. Favoino, Heavy metals and organic compounds from
wastes used as organic fertilisers. ENV.A.2./ETU/2001/0024. Final Report to DG
Environment, Brussels (2004).
[214] H. Riedel and C. Marb, Heavy metals and organic contaminants in Bavarian composts –
an overview. In: Compost and digestate: sustainability, benefits, impacts for the
environment and for plant production. Proceedings of the international congress CODIS
2008. February 27-29, Solothurn, Switzerland (2008).
[215] C. Ciavatta, M. Govi, A. Simoni and E. Sequi (1993) Bioresour. Technol. 43, 147
(1993).
[216] G.M. Greenway and Q.J. Song, J. Environ. Monit. 4, 300 (2002).
[217] C. García, J.L. Moreno, T. Hernández, F. Costa and A. Polo, Bioresour. Technol. 53, 13
(1995).
[218] T. Manios, E.I. Stentiford and P.A. Millner, Ecol. Eng. 20, 65 (2003).
[219] S. Nomeda, P. Valdas, S.-Y Chen and J.-G. Lin, Waste Manage. 28, 1637 (2008).
[220] D. Fuentes, A. Valdecantos, J. Cortina and V.R. Vallejo, Ecol. Eng. 31, 281 (2007).
[221] C. Lopes, M. Herva, A. Franco-Uría and E. Roca, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 18, 918
(2011).
[222] X.Z. Li, Q.L. Zhao and X.D. Hao, Waste Manage. 196, 409 (1999).
[223] K.C Pun, R.Y.H Cheung and M.H Wong, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 31 (4–12), 394 (1995).
[224] G. Ahlberg, O. Gustafsson and P. Wedel, Environ. Pollut. 144, 545 (2006).
[225] S. Bose, S. Chandrayan, V. Rai, A.K. Bhattacharyya and A.L. Ramanathan, Bioresour.
Technol. 99, 4467 (2008).
[226] T.B. Chen, J.W.C. Wong, H.Y. Zhou and M.H. Wong, Environ. Pollut. 96, 61 (1997).
[227] H. Xue, L. Sigg and R. Gächter, Water Res. 34, 2558 (2000).
[228] Kabata-Pendias, Geoderma 122, 143 (2004).
[229] M.A. Kashem and B.R. Singh, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 61, 247 (2001).
[230] J.J. Mortvedt, F.R. Cox, L.M. Shuman and R.M. Welch, Micronutrients in Agriculture,
2nd Ed. The Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI (1991).

[231] M. López Alonso, J.L. Benedito, M. Miranda, C. Castillo, J. Hernández and R.F. Shore,
Vet. J. 160, 259 (2000a).
[232] M. López Alonso, J.L. Benedito, M. Miranda, C. Castillo, J. Hernández and R.F. Shore,
Sci. Total Environ. 246, 237 (2000b)
[233] Franco, M. Schuhmacher, E. Roca and J.L. Domingo, Environ. Int. 32, 724 (2006).
[234] M. Miranda, J.L. Benedito, I. Blanco-Penedo, C. López-Lamas, A. Merino and M.
López-Alonso, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 23, 231 (2009).
[235] R.C. Brändli, T.D. Bucheli, T. Kupper, M. Zennegg, U. Berger, P. Edder, M. Oehme, J.
Müller, C. Schaffner, R. Furrer, P. Schmid, S. Huber, D. Ortelli, S. Iozza, F.X.
Stadelmann and J. Tarradellas, Organohalogen Compd. 68, 863 (2006).
[236] R.C. Brändli, T.D. Bucheli, T. Kupper, R. Furrer, W.A. Stahel, F.X. Stadelmann and J.
Tarradellas, J. Environ. Monit. 9, 456 (2007a).
[237] R.C. Brändli, T. Kupper, T.D. Bucheli, M. Zennegg, S. Huber, D. Ortelli, J. Müller, C.
Schaffner, S. Iozza, P. Schmid, U. Berger, P. Edder, M. Oehme, F.X. Stadelmann and J.
Tarradellas, J. Environ. Monit. 9, 465 (2007b).
[238] M.S. McLachlan, Environ. Sci. Technol. 30, 252 (1996).
[239] K.C. Jones and A.P. Stewart, Environ. Sci. Technol. 27, 1 (1997).
[240] Q.-Y. Cai, C.-H. Mo, Q.-T. Wu, Q.-Y. Zeng and A. Katsoyiannis, Chemosphere 68,
1751 (2007).
[241] M.J. Wang, S.P. McGrath and K.C. Jones, Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 356 (1995).
[242] S. Perez, M. Guillamon and D. Barcelo, J. Chromatogr. A 938, 57 (2001).
[243] H. Fromme, T. Kuchler, T. Otto, K. Pilz, J. Muller and A. Wenzel, Water Res. 36, 1429
(2002).
[244] J. Stevens, G. Northcott, G. Stern, G. Tomy and K.C. Jones, Environ. Sci. Technol. 37,
462 (2003).
[245] C. Durand, V. Ruban, A. Ambles and J. Oudot, Environ. Pollut. 132, 375 (2004).
[246] E. Abad, K. Martinez, C. Planas, O. Palacios, J. Caixach and J. Rivera, Chemosphere
61, 1358 (2005).
[247] S. Amir, M. Hafidi, G. Merlina, H. Hamdi, A. Jouraiphy, M.E. Gharous and J.C. Revel,
Process. Biochem. 40, 2183 (2005).
[248] R. Gibson, M.J. Wang, E. Padgett and A.J. Beck, Chemosphere 61, 1336 (2005).
[249] Katsoyiannis and C. Samara, Water Res. 38, 2685 (2004).
[250] Katsoyiannis and C. Samara, Environmental Research 97, 245 (2005).
[251] Katsoyiannis, Chemosphere 65, 1551 (2006).
[252] R. Oliver, E. May and J. Williams, Water Res. 39, 4436 (2005).
[253] F. Busetti, A. Heitz, M. Cuomo, S. Badoer and P. Traverso, J. Chromatogr. A 1102,
104 (2006).
[254] P. Villar, M. Callejon, E. Alonso, J.C. Jimenez and A. Guiraum, Chemosphere 64, 535
(2006).
[255] J. Dai, M. Xu, J. Chen, X. Yang and Z. Ke, Chemosphere 66, 353 (2007).
[256] Q.-T. Wu, L. Hei, J.W.C. Wong, C. Schwartz and J.-L. Morel, Chemosphere 68, 1954
(2007).
[257] S.R. Wild and K.C. Jones, Sci. Total Environ. 119, 85 (1992).
[258] M. Matthies, Toxicol. Lett. 140-141, 367 (2003).
[259] European Commission, Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge – Synthesis
report. European Commission, DG Environment – B/2 (2002).

[260] C.J. van Leeuwen and T.G. Vermeire, Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction.
2nd Ed., Springer (2007).
[261] G.G. Briggs, R.H. Bromilow and A.A. Evans, J. Pest. Sci. 13, 495 (1982).
[262] Y. Iwata, F.A. Gunther and W.E. Westlake, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11, 523
(1974).
[263] G.F. Fries, Sci. Total Environ. 185, 93 (1996).
[264] R.K. Rosenbaum, T.E. McKone and O. Jolliet, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 8191 (2009).
[265] National Research Council, Issues on Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment
Methodology. National Academy Press (1993).
[266] J.W. Gillett, Cornell Composting – Resources: MSW composting fact sheets. Municipal
Solid Waste Composting: Issues in Risk Assessment and Management/Worker Health
and Safety. Institute for Comparative and Environmental Toxicology at Cornell
University (1996).
[267] Lopes, C., Herva, M., Franco, A., Roca, E., Organic waste valorization in agriculture
and its environmental risk implications. In: Pollution Control: Management,
Technology and Regulations. Air, Water and Soil Science and Technology Series.
Pages 1-45. Editorial: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York (2011).
[268] ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000. Standard guide for risk-
based corrective action. E2081-00, West Conshohocken, PA.
[269] D. Mackay and S. Paterson, Environ. Sci. Technol. 15, 1006 (1981).
[270] G. Czub and M.S. McLachlan, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 2356 (2004).
[271] G. Lammel, W. Klöpffer, Semeena V.S., E. Schmidt and A. Leip, Env. Sci. Pollut. Res.
14, 153 (2007).
[272] S.L. Lipoth and J.J. Schoenau, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc. 170, 378 (2007).
[273] J.O Azeez, I.O. Adekunle, O.O. Atiku, K.B. Akande and S.O. Jamiu-Azeez, Waste
Manage. 29, 2582 (2009).
[274] M. Río, A. Franco-Uría, E. Abad, E. Roca, J. Hazard. Mater. 185, 792 (2011).
[275] Cloutier-Hurteau, S. Sauvé and F. Courchesne, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8104 (2007).
[276] R. Carrillo-González, J. Šimůnek, S. Sauvé and D. Adriano, Adv. Agron. 91, 111
(2006).

Chapter 7
USING ORGANIC FERTILIZERS TO GROW

ASPARAGUS AND HALF HIGH BLUEBERRIES
P. R. Warman and S. X. Margarit

Coastal BioAgresearch Ltd. and Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Canada
ABSTRACT
Experiments with asparagus and half-high blueberries were conducted using
different organic fertilizers for as short as two years to as long as eight years and used to
grow the crops in different sandy loam soils. Composts, compost teas, blood meal or
soybean meal (Soy), and ground rock phosphate (RP) were used as treatments. The three
types of mature composts and their respective teas were Municipal Solid Waste
(MSWC), Ruminant and Biosolids. Blood meal, soybean meal and compost additions
were based on crop N requirements, while teas were applied regularly to crop leaf
surfaces or as a soil drench around the plant roots. Yields were taken and leaf tissue and
extractable soil elements were analysed for 14 elements. This chapter highlights the
unpublished work related to asparagus production and half-high blueberry production,
comparing the results of those studies with previous work using another cultivar of
asparagus, other vegetable and berry crops.
None of the treatments to the asparagus or blueberries influenced crop yields. For the
blueberries, the Control and MSWC tea plots were lowest in soil extractable nutrients.
The cultivar ‘Chippewa’ out produced ‘Polaris’ every year except 2008 and yields
steadily increased from 2005 through 2009. MSWC increased soil pH the most relative to
all other treatments, especially the Control.
The Soy+RP treatment produced the greatest K and S in the blueberry leaves in 2009
while the MSWC treatment produced the highest Ca and Cu content in the leaves. For the
asparagus, K levels in fern tissue showed the only significant differences due to
treatments, while only Cu and Ni contents in the spear tissue were affected by treatments.
The authors suggest that more work must be done to evaluate the effect of micronutrient
and organic supplements for both crops.
Keywords: Asparagus; Blueberries; Organic fertilizer; Compost; Soil; Yield
Corresponding author email: prwarman@eastlink.ca.

138 P. R. Warman and S. X. Margarit
INTRODUCTION
Since 1996, Nova Scotia has achieved the target of recycling 50% of its solid waste,
mostly by composting. With all the source-separated municipal solid waste compost (MSWC)
available, it was inevitable researchers would evaluate the impact of organic amendments and
composts to grow various horticultural crops. Furthermore, research and development of
organic horticultural production is necessary due to growing agribusiness interests in the
substantially higher market value of certified organic foods.
The use of MSWC and Biosolids compost (BC) in horticulture, however, is still a
concern because of their metal content and possible contaminants [1, 2]. The production of
compost teas may improve the marketable value of the compost to municipalities and
producers as a value-added product or the fact the product is in a liquid form making it easier
to use. Compost tea is a liquid extract of compost made by mixing water and compost for a
period of time; some teas are made by bubbling air into the mix (aerobic), while other teas are
made the way one would make a tea beverage with little mixing. The tea is applied to plant
leaves where it may confer disease resistance, provide beneficial microorganism to the plant
and soil, and/or supply essential plant nutrients [3,4,5]. Furthermore, since compost tea is
usually a foliar spray it is also claimed that it supplies nutrients more rapidly to the plant than
solid compost additions to soil [3]. The application of compost and tea to soils and plants
might provide increased benefits than either one individually.
Compost teas are normally low in total N and P, the most critical nutrients for
horticultural plants. Thus, blood meal and rock P may be useful amendments to add to plots
receiving teas. In incubation trials, Hartz and Johnstone [6] found blood meal to have the
greatest overall N availability among four organic certified N sources; 66% of the N in blood
meal had been mineralized during an 8 week period. Rock P represents one of the most
concentrated forms of P in organic systems and is the feedstock for conventional P fertilizers.
Crop response to rock P application is greatly affected by the source and fineness of the rock
and the characteristics of the soil amended [7].
Half-high blueberries are a cross between highbush (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) and
lowbush blueberries (V. angustifolium Ait.); they are shorter in stature and cold-hardier than
highbush blueberries and could be productive in the colder regions of northeastern North
America. Asparagus has been grown in the Northeast for centuries although the acidic
Podzolic soils of the Northeast are not the preferred habitat. The authors have had some
positive experiences using fertilizers, composts and legume species as fertility sources for
asparagus [8, 9, 10] once the soil has been limed.
A comparative study is vital to evaluate the feasibility of using various organic
amendments in place of chemical fertilizers. Organic farmers have used blood meal, soybean
meal and rock P for many years. Few studies have evaluated the use of biosolids or municipal
solid waste composts or their teas for horticultural crop production [11, 12, 13, 14, 15].
Asparagus and blueberries are both high value perennial crops that take years to become well
established; since the mineralization of most organic amendments is dependent on the soil’s
ecosystem, these perennials are good candidates for this type of study, especially since there
have been conflicting reports regarding the fertility requirements of these crops [16, 17].
Consequently, the following were the objectives of the experiments: evaluate plant nutrition,

Using Organic Fertilizers to Grow Asparagus and Half High Blueberries 139
soil fertility, and yields from the application of various organic amendments to asparagus and
half-high blueberries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experimental plots were established at Boutiliers Point, N.S. (44°39′39″ N,
63°57′02″ W) in a Gilbraltar brown sandy loam with good drainage and mild slope and at
Vista Bella farm, Malagash, N.S. (45 46’37” N, 63 20’4.2” W) in a Debert stone-free fine
sandy loam with imperfect drainage and mild slope. Both soils are classified as Humo-Ferric
Podzols. Both properties had little history of crop production or fertilization for at least 10
years and both were converted from scrub brush and grass and rototilled at least three times
prior to planting any of the transplants by hand. Plants were grown using minimal pesticides;
only the asparagus field received a one-time 1% Roundup application in June 2007. The rest
of the time, weed control was by hand hoeing or rototilling; insects and fungus were not a
problem at any time and did not require spraying.
The ruminant compost (RUMC) was first prepared in 2003 using a windrow system with
sheep manure, beef manure and sheep bedding consisting mostly of straw, mixed in a ratio of
1:2:3, respectively. The pile was turned three times in a one-month period until a constant
temperature was maintained. Another batch of RUMC was made in 2006 using similar
feedstocks. The source-separated municipal solid waste compost (MSWC) was obtained from
the Lunenburg Regional Recycling and Composting Facility at Whynotts Settlement, N.S.
Different batches from the same facility were used throughout the eight-year period.
Biosolids compost (BC) was produced by Fundy Compost Inc. (Brookside, N.S.) using bark
blended with aerobically digested sludge and composted for eight months in windrows. The
material was turned frequently using a Wildcat compost turner, screened through a 1.5 cm
screen, stacked 6m high and cured all winter. All composts were analysed prior to application
every year for total N and later for 15 other elements (see tissue digestion). Non-aerated
compost teas were prepared using the individual composts following the bucket-fermentation
method [18]; aerated compost teas, used only in the asparagus experiment, were made using
the bucket fermentation method with air pumped into the container. The compost teas were
made at a dilution of 5 (blueberry) or 10 (asparagus) times fresh weight using well water and
left to steep or aerated for 72 hours. A typical analysis of the composts and their teas is shown
in Table 1.
Soybean meal (6.5-1.5-0.1), blood meal (12.0-1.0-0.6), rock phosphate (0-12-0) and
fertilizers (34-0-0, 0-46-0, 0-0-60) were also used as fertility treatments in the experiments.
Treatments containing 34-0-0, blood or soybean meal were added to match the
recommendations for N (120 kg N ha-1 for asparagus or 135 kg N ha-1 for highbush
blueberries). Treatments containing 0-46-0 or rock phosphate were added to match the N.S.
Dept. Agr. soil test recommendations for P2O 5 addition (110 kg ha-1 for asparagus, 175 kg ha-
1
for blueberries). Potash (0-0-60) was applied at the rate of 250 kg ha-1 for the fertilizer
asparagus treatment; no K was added to the blueberries after 2003. Compost (only) treatments
were based on the total N content of the composts and were added to provide 200% of the
recommended N requirement for asparagus (assumed 50% availability), but 100% of the
recommended N for blueberries.

Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of three composts and two compost teas
MSWC RUMC BC BC
Parameter MSWC
Tea b Tea b
% dry weight 70 -- a 41 38 --
pH 8.04 7.73 7.40 7.30 6.80
C:N ratio 10.1 -- 11.0 17.1 --
N (g·kg-1) 21.3 0.0043 19.2 15.0 0.0012
P 8.12 0.84 5.49 5.35 3.1
K 6.13 200 6.50 4.15 4.8
Ca 38.0 67 12.4 9.24 12.2
Mg 4.19 20.5 4.10 2.32 1.5
S 11.4 165 6.18 4.15 11.0
Fe 11.6 0.69 7.30 9.07 1.6
Cu (mg·kg-1) 81.4 0.05 23 148 0.1
Mn 858 0.16 526 790 0.1
Zn 197 0.17 224 266 0.05
B 29.2 0.40 29.0 19.9 0.2
Na 4732 219 527 1522 5.5
Cd N.D. c N.D. 0.1 0.2 N.D.
Cr 18.3 0.03 8.0 24.7 N.D.
Ni 10.4 0.13 4.9 7.4 N.D.
Pb 44.8 0.11 10 22.6 0.01
a
Not determined (--)
b
Tea element concentrations expressed in mg·L-1
c
Not detectable (N.D.)
The one tea treatment for the blueberries (MSWC tea) was applied on the foliage in 50
than 100ml increments from May through the end of July, in total, approximately 500 ml
annually. For the asparagus, all compost tea plots were first amended with compost, of the
same feedstock, at a rate of 60 kg N ha-1. Then four foliar tea applications of 1.2 L per
spraying began the second week after the last harvest of the season and every second week
after for a total of 4.8 L per plot.
Experiment 1 - Half-High Blueberries (2005-2009)
‘Polaris’ and ‘Chippewa’ half-high blueberry cultivars (Vaccinium corymbosum L. /

V.angustifolium Ait.) were chosen for the study. Field experiments were initiated in May 2002
when single bushes were planted at the center of each plot (lm X lm). Rows were 2 m apart
and plants were spaced at 1.5 m within rows. Initially, the study consisted of a RCBD using
five treatments (Alfalfa meal+rock P[RP]; NPK fertilizer; MSWC; RUM; food waste, manure
and yardwaste compost). In 2005, the fertilizer treatment became a no amendment Control,
soybean meal (Soy) replaced alfalfa meal, and the FMYC became the MSWC tea treatment.
Each treatment was blocked five times giving 25 test plots for each variety for a total of 50
plots. Solid amendments were hand broadcast onto each plot and raked into the soil in mid

May; tea sprays began in early May and continued until the end of July. Mehlich-3 (M-3)
extractable soil chemical properties prior to the amendments in 2002 were as follows: 4.61
pH; 10% OM; 315.5 mg Ca kg-1; 44.5 mg Mg kg-1; 9.5 mg P kg-1; 58.5 mg K kg-1; 21.5 mg
Na kg-1; 85.5 mg S kg-1; 91.5 mg Fe kg-1; 0.6 mg Cu kg-1; 10.2 mg Mn kg-1; 2.3 mg Zn kg-1;
0.3 mg B kg-1.
Experiment 2 - Asparagus (2007-2009)
A three-year field experiment began with tillage, spraying of Roundup and a limestone
application and incorporation of 9 Mg ha-1 on July 3, 2007. Field planting of one-year-old
crowns took place on July 11 and 12.
The experiment was organized as a completely randomized design with five replications
and 15 treatments. Each plot contained 12 cv. Guelph Millennium plants, 6 plants per row,
with an in-row spacing of 0.5 m and between-row spacing of 1.5 m. All treatments were
applied after the ‘normal’ harvest period in 2008 and 2009. The treatments and their
designations are given in Table 2.
Soil Sampling, Soil and Tissue Analysis for Both Experiments
Four core soil samples from each plot were taken after the harvest or at leaf sampling to a
depth of 15 cm, mixed and a composite taken. Leaf samples (50) were taken from each of the
blueberry plots in September, while 12 randomly selected fern (top 35 cm) and 12 spear
samples were taken from each asparagus plot. Fern tissue sampling was employed in
September prior to frond senescence. For the blueberries, mature fruit was hand harvested
three times a week from early August until mid-September and the total fruit weight was
recorded. Asparagus was harvested in June 2009; all spears were cut at ground level when
they had reached a height of 25 cm.
Table 2. Identifying symbols for the asparagus treatments
Municipal Solid Waste Symbol Biosolid Compost Symbol

Compost
Compost Only MSW-C Compost Only B-C
Aerated Tea MSW-ACT Aerated Tea B-ACT
Unaerated Tea MSW-UCT Unaerated Tea B-UCT
Aerated Tea + Rock MSW-ACT RP Aerated Tea + Rock B-ACT RP
Phosphate Phosphate
Unaerated Tea + Rock MSW-UCT RP Unaerated Tea + Rock B-UCT RP
Phosphate Phosphate
Aerated Tea + Rock MSW-ACT RP BM Aerated Tea + Rock B-ACT RP BM
Phosphate + Blood Meal Phosphate + Blood Meal
Unaerated Tea + Rock MSW-UCT RP BM Unaerated Tea + Rock B-UCT RP BM
Phosphate + Blood Meal Phosphate + Blood Meal

Soil was mixed at a ratio of 2:1 (water:soil), left for 30 minutes, and the pH was
measured using an Accumet pH meter. Soil mineral elements (P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na, Fe, Cu,
Mn, Zn, B, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb) were extracted using the Mehlich-3 (M-3) extractant and
determined using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICAP)
(Thermo Jarrell Ash ICAP 1100, Thermo Jarrell Corp., Waltham, MA) at the PEI Soil and
Feed Testing Lab in Charlottetown.
All plant tissue was rinsed with distilled water and dried at 65˚C for 48 hours. The dried
leaves, fronds or spears were ground and digested with nitric acid according to Zheljazkov
and Warman [19]. The digests were analyzed for Ca, Mg, K, S, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, P, Cd, Cr,
Ni, Pb, and B using ICAP. The ground tissue or composts were analysed for total N using the
LECO CNS Analyzer.
Statistical analysis was completed using SAS software version 8.0 (SAS, 2000). After
verifying the assumptions, the GLM with randomized complete block design was used for the
analysis. If the model was significant at the 0.05 level, treatment means were compared using
Tukey’s means comparison test. SAS was also used to evaluate the significance of difference
between the two-way interaction of cultivar and treatment, and the main effect of cultivar.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Half-High Blueberries
Blueberry yields for the years 2005 to 2009 are shown in Table 3 listed by cultivar. There
were no significant yield differences due to treatment in any year. ‘Chippewa’ out produced
‘Polaris’ every year except 2008 and yields steadily increased from 2005 through 2009. Thus,
the tea treatment performed as well if not better than all the others for Polaris in 2009 and in
the previous two years, and statistically as well as the other treatments for Chippewa. In three
other studies using MSWC and its tea, Hargreaves et al. [12,13] and Radin and Warman [20]
found the teas were as effective as other amendments for producing raspberries, strawberries
or Brussels sprouts.
Table 3. Half-high blueberry yields (g plot-1)
Cultivar Treatment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Control 134 301 450 521 1047
Soy+RP 104 135 345 256 934
MSWC 110 210 449 342 1021
Chippewa RUMC 106 183 468 296 893
MSWC tea 76 299 649 395 836
Mean 106 226 472 362 946
Control 92 218 163 367 258
Soy+RP 136 148 78 265 306
MSWC 88 190 462 408 650
Polaris RUMC 132 144 403 440 446
MSWC tea 46 145 533 478 935
Mean 99 169 328 392 519

The following section is related to the significant treatment effects on soil and plant
elements: Mehlich-3 extractable P and S were greatest in the Soy+RP treated plots while M-3
K, Ca, Mg, and Cu were greatest in the MSWC plots in 2009, which closely paralleled 2008
(Tables 4a, 5a).
Generally, for the above elements, the C and MSWC tea plots were lowest in M-3
nutrients. Following seven years of yearly amendments, treatments effected soil pH in 2009
as follows: 5.73a, 5.33b, 5.26b, 4.97c, 4.92c for MSWC, MSWC tea, RUMC, C, Soy+RP,
respectfully; different letters following the numbers indicate significance at p<0.05. Thus,
RUMC, MSWC and its tea increased the soil pH, primarily by providing bases to the soil to
replace hydrogen on the colloids.
The effect of all the organic amendments on soil pH showed the first year after the
plots were established in 2002; NPK fertilizer, now C, consistently produced a lower soil pH
[21]
Table 4a. Mehlich-3 soil elemental concentrations (mg kg-1) of the half-high blueberry
plots, Fall 2008
Control MSWC Tea MSWC RUMC Soy+RP Mean Std. dev.

P 80b 81b 100b 99b 138a
K 35.3b 39.4b 67.6a 60.2a 56.9a
Ca 325c 636b 1247a 449bc 573b
Mg 23.5d 47.0bc 76.2a 60.3ab 29.7cd
S 33.9b 30.0b 31.7b 31.7b 44.8a
Fe 121 123 118 125 124 122 3
Cu 1.65 1.78 2.39 2.03 1.73 1.91 0.30
Mn 9.6 10.4 9.8 10.8 10.1 10.1 0.5
Zn 2.86 3.76 4.08 4.53 2.53 3.55 0.84
B 0.19b 0.37ab 0.41ab 0.27b 0.59a
* Different letters within a row indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test (P<0.05).
Table 4b. Leaf tissue elemental concentrations of the half-high blueberries, Fall 2008
Control Soy+RP MSWC RUMC MSWC Tea Mean Std. dev.

P 0.86ab 0.85ab 0.76b 0.89a 0.85ab
K 3.22ab 3.90a 3.45ab 3.67ab 3.16b
Ca 8.19a 7.42ab 8.54a 6.89b 8.39a
Mg 1.76a 1.43b 1.93a 1.81a 2.04a
S 2.68 2.68 2.74 2.61 2.65 2.67 0.05
Fe 75.6 91.4 81.7 74.0 101.3 84.8 11.5
Cu 3.29 3.24 4.36 3.10 4.33 3.66 0.62
Mn 700a 629a 314b 368b 308b
Zn 12.4 14.2 8.5 13.4 13.2 12.3 2.2
B 46.8 39.1 43.7 40.5 43.3 42.7 3.0
Na 67 94 82 67 86 79 12
Units are g kg-1 for macronutrients, and mg kg-1 for all other elements

Table 5a. Mehlich-3 soil elemental concentrations (mg kg-1) of the half-high
blueberry plots, Fall 2009
Control Soy+RP MSWC RUMC MSW Tea Mean Std. Dev.

P 34.5b 78.7a 46.7b 50.1b 35.7b
K 29.5b 70.7ab 82.5a 61.0ab 35.3b
Ca 303c 612b 1319a 563bc 579bc
Mg 27.6b 30.5b 82.9a 82.5a 43.6b
S 106ab 133a 100b 110ab 101b
Fe 101 107 97 105 98 102 4
Cu 1.67ab 1.51b 2.12a 1.95ab 1.53b
Mn 13.1 11.9 14.0 14.0 12.5 13.1 0.9
Zn 5.78 6.16 7.47 7.51 5.43 6.47 0.97
B 1.14 1.34 1.35 1.45 1.53 1.36 0.14
Cd 0.09b 0.13a 0.11ab 0.09b 0.10b
Cr 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.01
Ni 0.38ab 0.45a 0.33b 0.35ab 0.36ab
Pb 1.87 1.71 2.75 1.71 2.57 2.12 0.50
Table 5b. Leaf tissue elemental concentrations of the half-high blueberries, Fall 2009
Control Soy+RP MSWC RUMC MSW Tea Mean Std. Dev.

P 0.52 0.59 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.03
K 1.72b 2.23a 2.08a 1.96ab 1.94ab
Ca 4.16bc 5.11ab 5.22a 3.61c 4.87ab
Mg 1.04 1.07 1.25 1.07 1.29 1.17 0.12
S 1.39b 1.62a 1.60ab 1.49ab 1.59ab
Na 22.8b 48.8ab 34.6ab 29.4ab 61.1a
Fe 24.8 30.3 28.3 23.4 29.3 27.8 3.1
Cu 1.45ab 1.17b 1.83a 1.13b 1.64ab
Mn 302a 287ab 132c 160abc 148bc
Zn 7.90 7.09 6.73 7.77 7.10 7.17 0.43
B 21.3 21.3 24.3 19.5 24.8 22.5 2.5
Cr 0.62 0.47 0.18 0.53 0.19 0.35 0.18
Ni 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.08 0.17 0.15 0.05
Units are g kg-1 for macronutrients, and mg kg-1 for all other elements
The Soy+RP treatment produced the greatest K and S in the blueberry leaves in 2009
while the MSWC treatment produced the highest Ca and Cu content in the leaves, although
the differences between all the treatments were not significant . Except for leaf Mn, which is
very much related to soil pH (Warman et al. 2004), the C had the least K, Ca, S, and Na; these
results were anticipated since the C had not received any amendments since 2004. In 2009,
three elements were different in elemental leaf content between the two varieties (Table 5b).
Polaris was much greater in Na (p<0.001) and greater in B (p=0.016) than Chippewa, while
Chippewa was much greater than Polaris in Cu (p<0.001). These results differ from those of
2008, where leaf B, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Mn were greater in Chippewa than Polaris; Na,
however, was still greater in Polaris. Also, we noted that the tissue results for 2008 were all

greater than in 2009 and similar to the work reported in Warman and Shanmugam [21]; we
attribute this result to a difference in physiological maturity of the plants, i.e. at the time of
sampling the 2008 plants were more physiologically active and the plants had not started to
become senescent. Since 2009 was a drier summer, mineralization of the organic amendments
would have been slower, releasing fewer nutrients into the soil.
Asparagus
Spear yields in 2009 averaged 329 g fresh wt plot-1, overall, for all 75 plots, with no
statistically significant differences between treatments. Blood meal and Rock P, used in
conjunction with the compost teas, had no effect on asparagus yields. The lack of response to
the blood meal and rock P was most likely due to the surface incorporation of the
amendments, the mineralized N and P probably did not reach the deeply growing roots of the
asparagus plant. Yield responses compared well to those reported for perennial crops with
complementary growth habits such as raspberries and strawberries [12, 13] using compost
and teas made from similar feedstocks. Warman and Margarit [10] showed that MSWC
produced more asparagus than RUMC at another Nova Scotia location when rates were
increased to 400% of recommended N, at lower rates (200%) the two composts reacted
similarly. Warman [22] wrote, however, a fertilizer treatment out produced a high MSWC
treatment the last three years of that study. In another study involving mostly BS and BS tea
treatments [15], a Soy treatment produced the greatest greenhouse tomato fruit yields.
Table 6. Mean chemical characteristics of soil extracts (2008-9), fern digestate (2007-8),
and 2009 spear digestate (mg kg-1) for the asparagus experiment
Mehlich-3 Soil Extract Fern HNO3 Digestate Spear HNO3 Digestate

Element Amount StDev Element Amount StDev Element Amount StDev
P 31 5 P 1000 177 P 4970 508
K 271 169 K 2092 1229 K 17771 1497
Ca 1922 138 Ca 6654 583 Ca 2040 295
Mg 225 14 Mg 2772 174 Mg 939 86
S 62 5 S 8618 950 S 10286 1386
Fe 259 14 Fe 132 56 Fe 95 10
Cu 3.2 1.1 Cu 5 1 Cu 21 * 2
Mn 219 14 Mn 78 9 Mn 22 2
Zn 2.8 0.6 Zn 20 4 Zn 48 8
B 0.9 0.1 B 62 7 B 15 1
Na 414 12 Na 4415 406 Na 385 77
Cd 0.1 0.0 Cd bdl bdl Cd 0.1 0.0
Cr bdl bdl Cr bdl bdl Cr 2.0 0.3
Ni 0.9 0.1 Ni 0.6 0.4 Ni 1.9 * 0.4
Pb 3.1 0.3 Pb 0.4 0.5 Pb 0.8 0.2
* Indicates significant difference among treatments according to Tukey’s test(P<0.1).
bdl = bellow detection limit.

Table 7. Significant differences among treatments for soil extracts (2008-9), fern
digestate (2007-8), and 2009 spear digestate (mg kg-1) for asparagus
Edible Spear Cu Edible Spear Ni Fern Tissue K

Treatment Value Value Value
Inorganic 15.8 b 1.1 b 5896 a
ab ab
MSW-C 19.7 1.5 2764 b
ab ab
MSW-ACT 20.4 1.7 1612 b
ab ab
MSW-ACT RP 23.2 2.0 2450 b
ab ab
MSW-ACT RP BM 19.6 2.2 1215 b
ab ab
MSW-UCT 20.3 1.7 3396 b
ab ab
MSW-UCT RP 20.0 1.3 1703 b
ab ab
MSW-UCT RP BM 21.3 2.3 1118 b
ab a
B– C 21.4 2.5 1651 b
a ab
B– ACT 24.4 2.1 1380 b
ab ab
B– ACT RP 21.8 1.8 2029 b
a a
B– ACT RP BM 24.5 2.4 2003 b
ab ab
B– UCT 20.2 2.0 1484 b
ab ab
B– UCT RP 20.2 1.8 1566 b
B– UCT RP BM 19.4 ab 1.4 ab 1116 b
Standard Error 1.6 0.3 515
Pr>F 0.06 <0.01 <0.001
Different letters within a row indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test (P<0.1).
MSW - Municipal Solid Waste, B – Biosolids, C – Compost, ACT – Aerated Compost Tea, UCT –
Unaerated Compost Tea, RP – Rock Phosphate, BM – Blood Meal.
Potassium levels in fern tissue showed the only significant differences due to treatments,
while only Cu and Ni contents in the spear tissue were affected by treatments (Table 7). The
plants showed few fertility differences despite the clear differences in plant available N and P
applied every year.
The lack of nutrient response was similar to that reported by other researchers growing
asparagus. For example, Clore and Stanberry [23] wrote that it was not until the sixth harvest
year that the effects of fertilizers overcame field variability. The lack of response to P was
also similar to the results seen in the past. Brown et al [24] found that only 3% of asparagus P
came from the fertilizer applied. This suggests asparagus is a very efficient plant in terms of
exploiting the nutrients in the soil; the long fibrous root system of asparagus, as deep as 2 m
underground, could explain the crop’s nutrient uptake efficiency.
The differences in tissue K between treatments did not affect yields significantly, similar
to work reported by Brown and Carolus [16]; the greater K applications correlated poorly to
yield response, until other nutrients were applied. Boron application was required to induce
an increase in yield with higher K applications, suggesting B is the limiting nutrient; this
suggestion was also supported by Brasher [25]. Brown and Carolus [16] postulate that B may
stimulate the uptake of N, P, and Mg. The low B content of the Malagash soils (<1 mg/kg)
may explain the lack of yield response to the higher K uptake from the inorganic treatments.
Warman [9] found that applications of 7.2 kg B ha-1 resulted in cv Viking KB3 fern tissue
responses in two years at two different sites, although spear yields were not affected.
However, no soil test recommendations for asparagus exist for B or other micronutrients.

There was a great deal of difference in elemental tissue concentrations between Malagash
and Boutiliers Point [10]. The different physiological state of the plants at sampling,
differences in soil type and texture, as well as the difference between cultivars were likely the
strongest contributing factors. The age of the asparagus plantation could also have a great
deal of effect on the nutrient concentrations in the spear. More mature asparagus fields have
higher yields, and therefore they would have a higher need for all essential nutrients. More
residual fertility could also be expected in Boutiliers Point as the composts have been applied
for the last seven years. In the trials at Boutiliers Point the MSW and RUM composts
increased spear Pb concentrations above the allowable limits set out by the European
guidelines for heavy metals in vegetables [26]. In Malagash, MSWC treatments did not
increase spear Pb concentrations above European limits. In comparison, the Pb content of
raspberry fruit was not affected by six yearly high MSWC treatments [22]. Thus, monitoring
metal concentrations in the edible portion of any plant is strongly advised.
CONCLUSION
Amendments to blueberries or asparagus did not induce a significant difference in yields.
The MSW-C and B-C composts had similar effects on crop growth and development. Due to
the dramatic difference in total nutrients applied neither crop was an ideal candidate for
determining yield differences among treatments over the short term; treatment differences
became noticeable over a longer period of time, as was the case for cultivars in the blueberry
experiment. Whether its yields or plant nutrition, the lack of amendment affects could be due
in part to the slow mineralization of organic amendments, or that compost teas are an
effective amendment for nutrient uptake by plants, or the crops have a lower requirement for
N and P than was recommended. Thus, all treatments supplied adequate fertility. More
fertility research must be conducted on asparagus and half-high blueberries before any
informed recommendations for organic or conventional amendments can be made. Especially
needed is more long-term evaluation of micronutrient supplements or organic amendments
with known levels of available macro- and micronutrients.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC) Discovery grant and the Agrifocus program of the Nova Scotia Department
of Agriculture and Fisheries. Thanks are extended to Andy Radin for his help in the field and
laboratory and with the statistics.
REFERENCES
[1] Hargreaves, J.C.; Adl, M.S.; Warman, P.R. Agric. Eco. Environ. 2008a. 123(1-3), 1-14.
[2] Smith, S.R. Environ. Interntl. 2009. 35(1), 142-156.
[3] Bess, V.H. BioCycle 2000. 41(10), 71-72.

[4] Touart, A.P. BioCycle 2000. 41(10), 74-77.

[5] Scheuerell, S.; Mahaffee, W. Compost Sci. Util. 2002. 10(4), 313-338.
[6] Hartz, T.K.; Johnstone, P.R. HortTech. 2006. 16 (1), 39-42.
[7] Chien S.H.; Prochnow, L.I.; Mikkelsen, R. Better Crops. 2010. 94 (4), 21-23.
[8] Warman, PR. Scientia Hort. 1990. 44, 1-7.
[9] Warman, P.R. Scientia Hort. 1991. 47, 231-237.
[10] Warman, P.R.; Margarit, S.X. submitted 12/2009 to Acta Horticult.
[11] Warman, P.R.; Murphy, C.J.; Burnham, J.C.; Eaton, L.J. Small Fruits Rev. 2004.
3(1/2),19-31.
[12] Hargreaves, J.C.; Adl, M.S.; Warman, P.R.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Plant Soil 2008b. 308,
213-226.
[13] Hargreaves, J.C.; Adl, M.S.; Warman, P.R. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 2009. 89, 390-397.
[14] Warman, P.R.; Hargreaves, J.C.; Radin, A.M. In: Proceedings 7th International
Conference, Orbit 2010. Eds: Lasardi, K., Manios, T., Bidlingmaier, W., Abeliotis, K.,
de Bertoldi, M., Diaz, L., Stentiford, I. Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2010. CD ROM. pp.
516-521.
[15] Warman, P.R. Dynamic Soil. Dynamic Plant, Theme: Compost. Global Science Books.
submitted 12/2010.
[16] Brown, L.D. ; Carolus R.L. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1965. 86, 332-337.
[17] Korcak, R.F. Hort Rev. 1988. 10, 183-227.
[18] Diver, S. 2002. Notes on compost teas: a supplement to ATTRA Publication: compost
teas for plant disease control. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. 15
July 2007. http://www.attra.ncat.org.
[19] Zheljazkov, V.D.; Warman, P.R. Compost Sci. Util. 2002 10(3),197–203.
[20] Radin, A.M.; Warman, P.R. Interntl. J.Veg. Sci. 2010. 16(4), 374-391.
[21] Warman, P.R.; Shanmugam, S.G. In: International Meeting on Soil Fertility, Land
Management, and Agroclimatology. Ed: Bilgehan, G. Kusadasi, Turkey. 2008. Theme:
Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility. CD ROM.
[22] Warman, P.R. Internl. J. Fruit Sci. 2009. 9, 35-45.
[23] Clore, W.J.; Stanberry, C.O. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1946. 46, 296-298.
[24] Brown L.D.; Lawton, K.; Carolus, R.L. Soil Sci. 1961. 92(6), 380-383.
[25] Brasher. E.P. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1959. 73, 334-338.
[26] European Commission (EC). J. Euro. Commun. 2001. Commission Regulation (EC)
466/2001. p. 77.

Chapter 8
A PROSPECTUS FOR BIO-ORGANIC FERTILIZER

BASED ON MICROORGANISMS: RECENT AND FUTURE
RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM
Yonghong Wu and Linzhang Yang

State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute
of Soil Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
ABSTRACT
The long-term use of large quantities of inorganic fertilizer is usually associated with
environmental problems such as the degradation of soil quality, resulting in the decline of
agricultural products. Hence, an environmentally benign and relatively inexpensive
organic fertilizer has been developed.
This review focuses on response of bio-organic fertilizer based on microorganisms
(BFM) to environmental variation. A specific objective of this review is to identify the
BFM - insightful concepts and environmental relationships in agricultural ecosystem.
Contributors to microbial fertilizer (MF) have led the field in testing and expanding
concepts in agricultural ecosystem. However, many detailed topics about organic
fertilizer remain unexplored and underexplored, e.g., BFM in agricultural ecology for
benefiting ecosystem. These topics include the specific define and composition of BFM,
resource reuse, benefit responses to flora and fauna, allelopathy, competitive inhibition
and exclusion. Under the heavy situation of nonpoint source pollution across the world,
the application of BFM was introduced in this field in preventing the output of excessive
nutrients in agricultural ecosystem. In this review, the BFM type, development and
application in the field of controlling nonpoint source pollution in China will be
summarized briefly.
Based on the theory of hierarchical eco-restoration, both the decrease of unnecessary
nutrient inputs and the reuse of natural resource are the primary aims. The development
BFM is of practical significance in meeting these primary aims, thereby providing a
beneficial transitional habitat for the restoration of agricultural ecosystem. Overall, the
Corresponding author email: yhwu@issas.ac.cn.

150 Yonghong Wu and Linzhang Yang
introduction of the BFM will provide a robust insight to expand the current understanding
of organic fertilizer.
Keywords: Bio-organic fertilizer; microorganisms; nonpoint source pollution
1. THE HISTORY FROM MF TO BFM

The prototype of microbial fertilizer is that soil microorganisms were used for enhancing
agricultural yield due to the benefit of bacteria in the soil. In ancient times, the farmers in
Rome had found out that the product of rice increased as long as legume plants had been
planted at the rice-cropland, which resulted from the enrichment of bacteria (Zhuang, 2003).
In the early 1900s, in order to enhance agricultural products, some U.S. and German farmers
input the soils that had been planted with legume or alfala plants into some newly reclaimed
croplands (Crews and Peoples, 2004). In 1838, J. B. Boussingault, a France agricultural
chemist, found that nitrogen could be fixed by legume plants. He then built the first
agricultural field experimental station at 1843 and analyzed relevant parameters (Manlay et
al., 2007). Under the conditions of sand culturing legume plants between 1886 and 1888, H.
Hellriegal, a German agriculturist, demonstrated that the nitrogen in the air could be fixed as
long as Rhizobium formed (Fogarty, 1992). A Holland researcher, Mr. M.W. Beijerinck
successfully isolated Rhizobium in 1888, representing a breakthrough in terms of microbial
fertilizer (Rodelas et al., 1999).
From then on, many microbial fertilizer products were widely applied in agriculture
across the world. The first product of microbial fertilizer based on a kind of soil bacteria was
sold by a U. S. company in 1898 (Arvanitoyannis, 2008). In the early 1900s, some organic
fertilizers based on legume root Rhizobium were produced (Amarger, 2001). In 1930s, many
studies concerning self-fixed-nitrogen bacteria had been conducted by scientists in many
countries such as U.S. and Soviet Union researchers (Bowen and Rovira, 1999). Then a
combined fixed-nitrogen-system in corn roots was discovered by China and Brazil
researchers (Oelofse et al., 2010). Thereafter, the combined fixed-nitrogen-systems in the
rhizospheres of rice, cane and some tropic pasturage crops were also found (Ying et al.,
1992). The nitrogen-fixed activities in these combined fixed-nitrogen-systems existed widely
were proved strong. In the middle of 1980s, the organic fertilizer based on nitrogen-fixed
bacteria started to be applied in plot and field experiments in U.S. and Israel (Ladha et al.,
2005). With the development of the fertilizer based on nitrogen-fixed bacteria, the fertilizers
based on phosphorus/potassium-fixed bacteria have been also arisen in 1960s (Epstein, 2003;
Bao et al., 2007).
A kind of fertilizer based on cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) have been developed and
applied extensively in rice cropland in Asia since 1940s, which was defined as bio-fertilizer
(Irisarri et al., 2001). This bio-fertilizer still plays an important role in improving rice high
yield and maintaining soil quality in long-term. Investigations have been under progress at the
Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, since 1961 on the role of blue-green algae in
augmenting the fertility of rice soils and for increasing rice production.
Some of the results have already been reported (Relwani, 1963, 1965; Relwani and
Subrahmanyan, 1963; Rewani and Manna, 1964; Subrahmanyan et al., 1964a, b, 1965). The

A Prospectus for Bio-Organic Fertilizer Based on Microorganisms 151
nitrogen-fixing capacity, the extra-cellular nitrogen liberated and organic matter produced
have also been investigated (Subrahmanyan and Sahay, 1964, 1965).
In recent years, much attention has paid to the complex organic fertilizer based on
different microorganisms. Heterocystous nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae consist of filaments
containing two types of cells: the heterocysts, responsible for ammonia synthesis, and
vegetative cells, which exhibit normal photosynthesis and reproductive growth. This unique
biological system could be used for the conversion of solar energy into organic fertilizer,
through cultivation of these algae in open ponds (Benemann, 1979). Complex organic
fertilizer comprising of daily organic manure plus chemical fertilization of three earthen
provided an average of 3 g carbon and 0.3 g nitrogen and approximately 0.3 g phosphorus/m2
per day. Twenty-four-hour net primary production added an average of 4.0 algal carbon/m2
(Schroeder et al., 1990).
2. THE DEFINITION OF BFM

BFM is defined as a kind of new organic fertilizer comprising of specific living
microorganisms (Zhang et al., 2005). The microorganisms may be heterotrophic or
phototrophic microorganisms or their complex mixture, including algae, bacteria, protozoa,
metazoan, epiphytes and detritus (Azim, 2005).
In this definition mentioned above, it is specifically indicated that the BFM is a kind of
new organic fertilizers and the component of BFM must include some living microorganisms.
When BFM is applied in the soils in cropland or in pond for fish cultivation, the living
microorganisms in the BFM will activate (or adjust or regular) the environmental conditions
such as increasing the soil porosity and affecting the nutrient (e.g. phosphorus) circle, and
then in potential in improving the qualities of agricultural product and eco-environment.
Compared with the conversional inorganic and organic fertilizers, a series of benefits
might occur after the BFM is applied in the soils in cropland, promoting the agricultural
ecosystem in a more stable and harmonious state.
The application of BFM not only increases the nutrient level but provides all kinds of
necessary element for crop growth. Moreover, the advantage of the BFM can enhance the
activity of beneficial soil organisms, depleting the excessive nutrient in some context,
avoiding many malpractice caused by inappropriate use of fertilizers.
The BFM can accelerate the transformation of soil organic matter into humus matter,
increase the granular structure of soils, enhance the capacity of maintaining fertility and
water, activate the nutrients fixed by soils and then improve the efficiency of fertilizers.
In addition, the microorganisms BFM might produce some beneficial secondary materials
such as growth-stimulating hormone, Indole acetic acid (IAA), Gibberellic acid (GA) and
many kinds of enzymes. These favorable materials might help to transform nutrients, decrease
the occurrence of soil-borne disease, and restore the polluted soils.
Thus, it is an excellent option that the BFM is a kind of ideal fertilizer for the
development of green- and organic- agriculture. In a word, the development of the BFM is of
great potential and practice in the sustained agricultural progress, thereby leading to a large
increase of agricultural efficiency.

3. THE BENEFITS TO AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM

Many kinds of living microorganisms such as algae, bacteria, protozoa, metazoan,
epiphytes and detritus live at the BFM, this is because the BFM is the substrates (or/and
habitats) for these microorganisms. As a result, the application of the BFM has great potential
to benefit the agricultural ecosystem, which is summarized as follows.
Firstly, due to different microorganisms resided at BFM, the use of the BFM will affect
the prosperity of the soils, change the nutrient circle and optimize the structure (including
composition and temporal-spatial characteristics) of soil ecosystem, thereby affecting soil
health. Organic fertilizers, which mainly come from crop residues like rice bran, various
oilseed cakes and animal byproducts like meat bone meal, blood meal, fish meal and crab
meal, are sometimes distinguished from animal manure or compost based on animal waste
(Lee, 2010). They contain specifically high levels of nutrients, e.g. N in oilseed cakes and
blood meal and P in rice bran and meat bone meal, and are also high in organic matter content
and a variety of micronutrients in general (Blatt, 1991; Cayuela et al., 2008), so that they have
been widely used as alternative fertilizers for organically grown fields. Fertilization such as
the application of BFM is one of the soil and crop management practices which exert a
considerable influence on soil quality such as soil microbial properties, carbon contents,
enzyme activities etc (Li et al., 2008). Various organic materials have been recognized as soil
amendments and disease controllers, including the control of brown spot disease and
augmentation of bacterial numbers by rice bran (Osunlaja, 1989) and the increase in plant
growth and reduction of nematodes population by oil cakes (Khan and Saxena, 1997).
However, there have been problems like the accumulation of nitrate in vegetables and
increased soil electronic conductivity in organic farming caused by excessive application of
animal manure and organic fertilizer (Lee et al., 2004; Sohn et al., 1996). Such advantages
and disadvantages mentioned above then might change the composition and temporal-spatial
structures of soil ecosystem.
Secondly, it is likely that the application of BFM can prevent and/or carry some soil-
borne disease due to the reaction among the microorganisms and the virus causing soil-borne
disease. In other world, the BFM is actually a kind of bio-control agents (Zhao Q., et al.,
2011). It is well known that biological control was an alternative strategy to control fusarium
wilt disease (De Cal, 1995; Larkin and Fravel, 1998). Many antagonistic strains life in BFM
have been proved to be effective bio-control agents in controlled laboratory or greenhouse
conditions. Rhizoctonia (Muslim et al., 2003), Bacillus spp. (Gong et al., 2006), Penicillium
spp. (Sabuquillo et al., 2006; Larena et al., 2003), Aspergillus spp. (Suárez-Estrella et al.,
2007), Trichoderma spp. (Rojo et al., 2007) are a few among the long lists. There has been no
bio-control agent that is universally effective everywhere, because of genetic diversity of
responsible pathogens (Mishra et al., 2010).
In addition, antagonistic strains must be combined with a suitable substrate to improve
their bio-control efficacy because they can survive for a long time after been applied to soil
(El-Hassan and Gowen, 2006). BFM not only plays an important role in providing a suitable
substrate, but also serves as a growth-promoting medium (Raviv et al., 1998). The
microorganisms in compost may produce antibiotics (Whipps, 1997), compete for nutrients
and ecological niches (Hoitink and Boehm, 1999), and/or induce resistance in plants (Weller
et al., 2002). Therefore, the development of a new bio-organic fertilizer with improved field

consistency such as BFM is continuous process and mandatory for several and individual
ecological niches.
Thirdly, the application of BFM is environmentally benign. Chemical fertilizers also tend
to release many chemicals into the soil that contain nutrients helpful to soil but may also
contain elements that are not easily biodegradable. These may go on to contaminate our lands
and water. On the other hand, by definition, organic fertilizers such as the BFM almost
always have only biodegradable contents. When lawns and gardens are sprayed with chemical
fertilizers, one has to be careful that the family members, especially kids and pets who often
play on lawns, do not ingest the harmful chemicals. However, there is no way of preventing
local wildlife from being affected. Organic fertilizers raise no such concerns and can be used
safely (http://edu.udym.com/five-advantages-of-organic-fertilizers/). In addition, the
application of some organic fertilizer such as complex microbial fertilizer can be used against
soil-borne plant pathogenic fungi (Yan et al., 2004).
Last but not the least, the application of the BFM is inexpensive and cost-effective. BFM
can be produced at home or on farms by using a mix of chicken, pig, cow, sheep and horse
manure along with wastes like leaves and dead plants. This is a great way of getting rid of
wastes and certainly a cheaper alternative to purchasing chemical fertilizers
(http://edu.udym.com/five-advantages-of-organic-fertilizers/).
4. THE CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT

SOURCE POLLUTION
About 30-40% amount of fertilizer such as nitrogen fertilizer applied into cropland just
be absorbed in China’s agricultural system, which is very low compared to the average
fertilizer use efficiency (68%) in developed countries’ agricultural system (Keeney, 1982;
CAAS, 1994). This leads to the losses of more than half amount of fertilizer from cropland
into downstream waters carried by runoff or leakage. The process of fertilizer loss is the main
form of the occurrence of agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Thus, it is practically
significant in preventing the movement of the excessive fertilizer via using environmentally
benign bio-organic fertilizer.
The application of manures to agricultural fields also has the potential to contaminate
surface waters through several different routes, including (1) runoff directly to drainage
ditches and streams, and (2) percolation into groundwater that may later ‘‘daylight’’ as
springs or contribute directly to surface waters through channels connecting groundwater and
creeks, streams and sloughs (Dowd et al., 2008). After decades of working to reduce
emissions from point sources, pollution from nonpoint sources now constitutes the number
one source of pollution in waterways, with agriculture being the single largest contributor
(EPA, 2000). How to best manage agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is still an
issue of increasing importance to policymakers in China. Therefore, the development of new
fertilizer with low pollution loads is practical to control agricultural nonpoint source
pollution.
In China, many kinds of BFMs have been developed to substitute inorganic fertilizer and
then decline the losses of nutrients. As a result, the intensity and frequency of agricultural

nonpoint source pollution discharge decreases. The populated example in China is that the
bio-materials such as cyanobacteria were used for producing organic fertilizers.
Cyanobacteria are a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis
(Stewart and Falconer, 2008). Cyanobacteria account for 20-30% of earth's photosynthetic
productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450
TW (Oren, 2004). Cyanobacteria utilize the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a
process where the energy of light is used to split water molecules into oxygen, protons, and
electrons. Due to their ability to fix nitrogen in aerobic conditions, cyanobacteria are often
found as symbionts with a number of other groups of organisms such as fungi (lichens),
corals, pteridophytes (Azolla), angiosperms (Gunnera) etc, even forming a kind of biofilm
(Spolaore, et al., 2006). Therefore, cyanobacteria are used for the materials produced organic
fertilizers.
The results showed that cyanobacteria in Dianchi Lake, West China is a kind of good raw
materials for utilization (Table 1 and 2), such as fertilizer and feed.
Moreover, the concentration of heavy metals in cyanobacteria showed that the
cyanobacteria could be used as fertilizer safely according to the national pollutants control
standard in agriculture (Table 3).
Table 1. The nutrient content of cyanobacteria (%)
Protein 17.8-26.4 Fat 1.49-4.67 Fiber 12.6-19.3

Ash 13.8-20.0 N 1.56-8.14 P2O5 0.71-1.95
Fe 0.05-0.1 Mn 0.05-0.1 Ca 0.58-2.5
Mg 0.18-0.46 K2O 3.11-5.90 Na 0.12-0.93
Table 2. The nutrient content in cyanobacteria and other feeds

(dry weight)
Protein (%) LYS (%) MET (%) Vitamin E (mg kg-1)

Cyanobacteria 24.2 1.16 0.31 > 50
Barley 10.8 0.37 0.13 38
Rice 8.5 0.29 0.14 13
Broomcorn 8.70 0.22 0.08 12
Chaff 12.1 0.86 0.25
Bran 14.4 0.47 0.15
Table 3. The content of heavy metals in cyanobacteria from Dianchi Lake,

West China (mg kg-1 dry weight)
Elements Stem Leaf Roots Total plant

Zn 18.09 15.68 39.53 25.22
Cu 10.28 3.08 20.83 12.22
Pb 0.93 0.14 2.07 0.91
Cd 0.25 0.59 0.91 0.72
Cr 1.57 0.69 2.99 1.76
As 0.9 0.3 2.3 1.68
Hg 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02

Table 4. Prescription of complex organic and inorganic fertilizers for various crops
(Shen et al., 2005)
Sorts Tobacco Celery Chinese Chives Carnation

Urea 15 25 15 15
Uperphosphate 9 9 9 16
Ammonium phosphate 6 6 6 9
Potassium sulfate 20 10 10 10
Cyanobacterial biomass 50 50 60 50
Total 100 100 100 100
Organic matter (%) 35 35 35 35
Total maintain (N+P2O5+K2O) 26.27 25.77 23.78 24.27
To remove the microcystins from cyanobacteria, the cyanobacteria were fermented under
aerobic and anaerobic conditions sequentially. The residuals of the fermentation of
cyanobacteria were used as the raw materials for producing organic fertilizers. To balance the
nutrients for crop growth, some inorganic fertilizers were added into the organic fertilizer
based on cyanobacterial biomass (Table 4). Then, it was called complex organic and
inorganic fertilizer.
To test the effect of the complex organic and inorganic fertilizer based on cyanobacterial
biomass, a series of field experiments had been conducted. The results showed that compared
with efficiency of general compound fertilizes on the market, that of the organic and
inorganic fertilizes from several cyanobacteria (Microcystis) were higher to the output of
tobacco, celery leek and carnation. Dose of 900 kg/ hm2 is best in tobacco experiments, and
tobacco’s yield, production value and fine tobacco ratio increased 7.28%, 5.04% and 19.81%
, respectively; Treated with three doses of 600 kg/ hm2, 900 kg/ hm2 and 1200 kg/ hm2,
Chinese chives’ output is higher than the control’s, increased 9.5%, 17.1% and 16.3%,
respectively; leek’s high, leaf broad and yield increased 12.21% and 13.32% respectively,
with treatment of 900 kg/hm2, 1200 kg/hm2 of cyanobacterial fertilizer; Output of Carnation
arrived to 4865 bunch/100m2, increased 11.6% compared with the control. No cyanobacterial
toxin was determined in leek and soil, suggesting that the safety of cyanobacterial fertilizer
(Shen et al., 2005).
During the organic fertilizer based on cyanobacterial biomass was applied in leek
cropland, the losses of nitrogen and phosphorus was studied. The results showed that the
application of organic fertilizer based on cyanobacterial biomass could decrease nitrification,
leading to the decline of nitrate movement from soil into groundwater. Compared with the
control, the nitrate concentration in leakage in the treatments with organic fertilizer based on
cyanobacterial biomass was low by 32.9-60.2%. In addition, ammonia concentration in the
runoff was reduced by 8.8-43.7% after the application of organic fertilizer based on
cyanobacterial biomass. The losses of total dissolved phosphorus in the runoff declined from
12.3-53.6% after the leek cropland was applied the organic fertilizer based on cyanobacterial
biomass.
Overall, the application of BFM such as the organic fertilizer based on cyanobacterial
biomass not only solves the difficult problem of reducing the input of chemical fertilizer into
cropland and then decline the output of agricultural nonpoint source pollution into
downstream waters, but also improves environment, and increases benefits of society and
economy.

CONCLUSION
Although the use of bio-organic fertilizer based on microorganisms in improving the
productivity of crops and protecting soil quality is commonplace, so far, there is no new
investigation to emerge from decades of research to intentionally use specific microorganisms
or microbial aggregates (biofilms) for decrease nonpoint source pollution. Several proposals,
including development of bio-organic fertilizer bases on microorganism biomass (or
substrates), including microalgae and combinations of several microorganisms, have the best
potential for future commercial use. So far, in terms of production of bio-organic fertilizer
based on microorganisms, it is difficult to differentiate between the role of microalgae and
other microorganisms, mostly bacteria.
Currently, there are major advantages to ‘greener’ technologies. The public, even in more
developing countries in agriculture, is constantly demanding green technologies for most
aspects of daily life. The common decontamination technologies, wastewater included, that
produce more, or a different kind, of secondary pollution (like precipitation of phosphorus in
nonpoint source wastewater by metal salts that are disposed of as a toxic waste in landfill)
have a negative public perception. With public opinion on its side, it appears that the
development and application of BFM is a prime candidate as a green technology.
From a scientific standpoint, the BFM development has many advantages:
(1) Its main advantage is that it controls and protects the dominant and always useful
microorganism within the agricultural ecosystem itself. The microorganisms in the
organism fertilizers, with usually superb ability to adopt the agricultural
environments because of the organism fertilizers acting as their substrates, can be
dominated within the agricultural ecosystem despite competition with other
microorganisms present in the agricultural ecosystem.
(2) It is possible to maintain a sustained agricultural ecosystem using different
microorganisms in the BFM to simultaneously treat several contaminants in the soils
and then improve the soil quality. This will be useful, especially for recalcitrant
compounds that require specialized microalgae for degrading the pollutant.
(3) The microorganisms in BFM (BFM as the substrates for Microorganisms) have
better plasmid stability within the agricultural ecosystem, allowing successful use of
genetically modified special microorganisms designed for specific cleaning purposes
of polluted soils and avoiding the common failure of such genetically modified
microorganisms in environmental systems. From a practical view, the
microorganisms in BFM systems use solar energy and need relatively small amounts
of other inputs for operation. They are relatively easy to handle on a large scale
because they have been used by compound producing industries for a very long time.
BFM application in agricultural ecosystem without health hazards, are environmental

friendly (promoting the image of the public/company/government that uses them), produce no
secondary pollution, and the BFM application in large scale can decrease the output of
nonpoint source pollution loads in intensive agricultural areas. In addition, the cost of BFM
application is not expensive, about 1/3 cost of that of the chemical fertilizer.

It is assumed that the application of BFM will find its greatest usefulness when (1)
several different contaminants in soils need to be treated simultaneously and the degraded soil
quality needs to be improve in large scale; (2) the discharge of some pollutants such as output
of nitrogen and phosphorus is very high, and the discharge modern of these pollutants is not
fixed forms (including discharge intensity, frequency and time). That is, the heavy nonpoint
source pollution in this agricultural ecosystem needs to be treated in source by applying
BFM; or (3) when complex degrading processes are needed that require specialized
microorganisms.
There are still a number of technical aspects of the application of BFM that could be
developed, such as improvement of the component of the BFM to create ‘‘real substrate
conditions” for the living microorganisms in BFM, development of more complex
constitution of heterotrophic and heterotrophic microorganisms to maintain a steady
ecological status in the BMF, optimizing selection of the proper microorganisms for specific
applications such as removing or fixing some specific pollutants in soils, and decreasing the
volume of BFM to transport and operate easily. Solving these shortcomings will enhance the
future potential of the application of BFM in commercial agriculture.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Innovative Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(KZCX2-EW-QN401), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41171363 and
41030640), and the Key Project of Basic Research, Yunnan Province, China 41030640), and
the Key Project of Basic Research, Yunnan Province, China (2009CC006). The authors
sincerely appreciate Dr Mercy Ijenyo, from University of Ibadan, Nigeria for her helpful
editing of language.
REFERENCES
Amarger, N., 2001. Rhizobia in the field. Advances in Agronomy, 73, 109-168.
Arvanitoyannis, I. S., Waste Management in Food Packaging Industries, in Book: Waste
Management for the Food Industries, 2008, p 941-1045.
Azim, M.E., Verdegem, M.C.J., van Dam, A.A., Beveridge, M.C.M., Edit, 2005. Periphyton:
Ecology, Exploitation and Management. CABI Publishing.
Bao, L. L., Li, D., Li, X. K., Huang, R. X., Zhang, J., LV, Y., Xia, G. Q., 2007. Phosphorus
accumulation by bacteria isolated from a continuous-flow two-sludge system. Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 19, 391-395.
Benemann, J. R., 1979. Production of nitrogen fertilizer with nitrogen-fixing blue-green
algae. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 1, 83-90.
Blatt, C.R., 1991. Comparison of several organic amendments with a chemical fertilizer for
vegetable production. Scientia Horticulture, 47, 177-191.
Bowen, G.D. and Rovira, A.D. 1999. The Rhizosphere and its management to improve plant
growth. Advances in Agronomy, 66, 1-102.

CAAS (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science), edt. Chinese Fertilizer, Shanghai:

Shanghai Sci-Tech Press, 1994, p3-5.
Cayuela, M.L., Sinicco, T., Mondini, C., 2008. Mineralization dynamics and biochemical
properties during initial decomposition of plant and animal residues in soil. Applied Soil
Ecology, 41, 118-127.
Cebolla, V., Pera, J., 1983. Suppressive effects of certain soils and substrates against
Fusarium wilt of carnation. Acta Horticulture, 150, 113-119.
Crews, T. E. and Peoples, M. B., 2004. Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen:
ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102,
279-297.
De Cal, A., García-Lepe, R., Melgarejo, P., 2000. Induced resistance by Penicillium oxalicum
against of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici: histological studies of infected and
induced tomato stems. Phytopathology 90, 260-268.
Dowd, B. M., Press, D., Huertos, M. L., 2008. Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution
policy: The case of California’s Central Coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 128, 151-161.
El-Hassan, S.A., Gowen, S.R., 2006. Formulation and delivery of the bacterial antagonist
Bacillus subtilis for management of lentil vascular wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.
sp. lentis. Phytopathology 154, 148-155.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
National Water Quality Inventory, EPA, Washington, DC.
Epstein, W. 2003. The roles and regulation of potassium in bacteria. Progress in Nucleic Acid
Research and Molecular Biology, 75, 293-320.
Fogarty, T. J., 1992. Organizational socialization in accounting firms: A theoretical
framework and agenda for future research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17,
129-149.
Gong, M., Wang, J.D., Zhang, J., Yang, H., Lu, X.F., Pei, Y., Cheng, J.Q., 2006. Study of the
antifungal ability of Bacillus subtilis strain PY-1 in vitro and identification of its
antifungal substance (iturin A). Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. 38, 233-240.
Hoitink, H.A.J., Boehm, M.J., 1999. Biocontrol within the context of soil microbial
communities: a substrate-dependent phenomenon. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 37,
427-446.
Irisarri, P., Gonnet, S., Monza, J., 2001. Cyanobacteria in Uruguayan rice fields: diversity,
nitrogen fixing ability and tolerance to herbicides and combined nitrogen. Journal of
Biotechnology, 91, 95-103.
Keeney, D. R., Nitrogen management for maximum efficiency and minimum pollution.
Severnson , F. J., Nitrogen in Agricultural Soils. Am. Soc. of Agron. Maidson Wis:
Agronomy, 1982, 605-649.
Khan, R.A., Saxena, S.K., 1997. Integrated management of root knot nematode Meloidogyne
javanica infecting tomato using organic materials and Paecilomyces lilacininus.
Bioresource Technology, 61, 247-250.
Ladha, J. K., Pathak, H., Krupnik, T. J., Six, J., van Kessel, C. 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer
nitrogen in cereal production: retrospects and prospects. Advances in Agronomy, 87,
85-156.

Larena, I., Sabuquillo, P., Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., 2003. Biocontrol of Fusarium and
Verticillium wilt of tomato by Penicillium oxalicum under greenhouse and field
conditions. Phytopathology, 151, 507-512.
Larkin, R.P., Fravel, D.R., 1998. Efficacy of various fungal and bacterial biocontrol
organisms for control of Fusarium wilt of tomato. Plant Disease, 82, 1022-1028.
Lee, J., Effect of application methods of organic fertilizer on growth, soil chemical properties
and microbial densities in organic bulb onion production. Scientia Horticulture, 2010,
124, 299-305.
Lee, J.J., Park, R.D., Kim, Y.W., Shim, J.H., Chae, D.H., Rim, Y.S., Sohn, B.K., Kim, T.H.,
Kim, K.Y., 2004. Effect of food waste compost on microbial population, soil enzyme
activity and lettuce growth. Bioresource Technology,93, 21-28.
Li, J., Zhao, B. Q., Li, X. Y., Jiang, R. B., So, H. B., 2008. Effects of long-term combined
application of organic and mineral fertilizers on microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities
and soil fertility. Agricultural Sciences in China, 7, 336-343.
Manlay, R. J., Feller, C., Swift. M. J., 2007. Historical evolution of soil organic matter
concepts and their relationships with the fertility and sustainability of cropping systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 119, 217-233.
Mishra, K., Kumar, A., Pandey, K., 2010.RAPD based genetic diversity among different
isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and their comparative biocontrol. World
Journal of Microbial Biotechnology, 26, 1079-1085.
Muslim, A.H., Horinouchi, Hyakumachi, M., 2003. Biological control of fusarium wilt of
tomato with hypovirulent binucleate Rhizoctonia in greenhouse conditions. Mycoscience
44, 77-84.
Oelofse, M., Høgh-Jensen, H., Abreu, L. S., Almeida, G. F., Qiao, Y. H., Sultan, T., de
Neergaard, A. 2010. Certified organic agriculture in China and Brazil: Market
accessibility and outcomes following adoption. Ecological Economics, 69, 1785-1793.
Oren, A., 2004. A proposal for further integration of the cyanobacteria under the
bacteriological Code. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 54, 1895-1902.
Osunlaja, S.O., 1989. Effect of organic soil amendments on the incidence of brown spot
disease in maize caused by Physoderma maydis. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 29,
501-505.
Raviv, M., Reuveni, R., Zaidman, B.Z., 1998. Improved medium for organic transplant.
Biology and Agriculture Horticulture, 16, 53-64.
Relwani, L. L., Manna, G. B. 1964. Effect of blue-green algae in combination with urea on
paddy yield. Ibid, 33, 687.
Relwani, L. L., Subrahmanyan, R., 1963. Role of blue-green chemical nutrients and partial
soil sterilization on paddy yield. Ibid, 32, 441-43.
Relwani, L. L.,1963. Role of blue-green algae on paddy yield. Current Science, 32, 417-418.
Relwani, L. L.,1965. Response of paddy varieties to blue-green algae and methods of
propagation. Ibid, 5, 34.
Rodelas, B., González-López, J., Pozo, C., Salmerón, V., Martínez-Toledo, M. V. 1999.
Response of Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) to combined inoculation with Azotobacter and
Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. Viceae. Applied Soil Ecology, 12, 51-59.
Rojo, F.G., Reynoso, M.M., Ferez, M., Chulze, S.N., Torres, A.M., 2007. Biological control
by Trichoderma species of Fusarium solani causing peanut crown root rot under field
conditions. Crop Protection, 26, 549-555.

Sabuquillo, P., De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., 2006. Biocontrol of tomato wilt by Penicillium
oxalicum formulations in different crop conditions. Biological Control, 37, 256-265.
Schroeder, G.L., Wohlfarth, G., Alkon, A., Halevy, A., Krueger, H., 1990. The dominance of
algal-based food webs in fish ponds receiving chemical fertilizers plus organic manures.
Aquaculture, 86, 219-229.
Shen, Y.W., Liu, Y. D., Wu, G.Q., Ao, H. Y., Qiu, C. Q., 2005. Efficiency test on organic and
inorganic fertilizers with cyanobacteria (Microcysits) in several crops. Acta
Hydrobiologica Sinica, 29, 400-405.
Sohn, S.M., Han, D.H., Kim, Y.H., 1996. Chemical characteristics of soils cultivated by the
conventional farming, greenhouse cultivation and organic farming and accumulation of
NO3- in Chinese cabbage and lettuce. Journal of Korean Organic Agriculture, 5,
149-165.
Spolaore, P., Joannis-Cassan, C., Duran, E., Isambert, A., 2006. Commercial applications of
microalgae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 101, 87-96.
Stewart, I., Falconer, I. R., 2008. Cyanobacteria and cyanobacterial toxins. Walsh, P.J.,
Smith, S.L., Fleming, L.E., Eds, Oceans and human health: risks and remedies from the
seas, Academic Press.
Suárez-Estrella, F., Vargas-Garcia, C., Lopez, C.M.J., Capel, J.M., 2007. Antagonistic
activity of bacteria and fungi from horticultural compost against Fusarium oxysporum f.
sp. melonis. Crop Protection, 26, 46-53.
Subrahmanyan, R., 1964a. Observations on the role of blue-green algae on rice yield
compared with that of conventional fertilizers. Ibid, 33, 485-486.
Subrahmanyan, R., 1964b. Role of blue-green algae and different methods of partial soil
sterilization on rice yield. Process of Indian Academcy for Science, 60b, 293-297.
Subrahmanyan, R., Sahay, M. N., 1964b. Observations on nitrogen-fixation by some blue-
green algae and remarks on its potentialities in rice culture. Process of Indian Academcy
for Science, 60b, 145-154.
Subrahmanyan, R., Sahay, M. N., 1965. Observations on nitrogen-fixation and organic matter
produced by Anabaena circinalis Rabh and their significance in rice culture. Process of
Indian Academcy for Science, 61b, 164-169.
Weller, D.M., Raaijmakers, J.M., Mc Spadden Gardener, B.B., Thomashow, L.S., 2002.
Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens.
Annual Reviwe of Phytopathology, 40, 309-348.
Whipps, J.M., 1997. Developments in the biological control of soilborne pathogens. Advance
in Botany Research, 26, 1-134. .
Yan, S. Z., Yang, Q. Y., Chen, Y. Y., 2004. Antagonism of complex microbial fertilizer and
functional actinomycetes against soil-borne plant pathogenic fungi. Chinese Journal of
Biological Control, 20, 49-52.
Ying, J.F., Herridge, D.F., Peoples, M.B., Rerkasem, B., 1992. Effects of N fertilization on
N2 fixation and N balances of soybean grown after lowland rice. Plant Soil, 147,
235-242.
Zhang, Q., Qin, T., Zhang, H.Y., Luan, X. W., 2005. The progress of microbial fertilizer
application. Xinjiang Agricultural Science (in Chinese), 42, 159-180.

Zhao, Q., Dong, C., Yang, X., Mei, X., Ran, W., Shen, Q., Xu, Y., 2010. Biocontrol of
Fusarium wilt disease for Cucumis melo melon using bio-organic fertilizer. Applied Soil
Ecology, 47, 67-75.
Zhuang, S.D., 2003. The status, problem and strategy on the development and application of
microbial fertilizer. Fujiang Agricultural Science and Technology, 1, 34-45.

Chapter 9
EARTHWORMS VERMICOMPOST:
A NUTRITIVE BIOFERTILIZER
AND POWERFUL BIOPESTICIDE
FOR PROMOTING ORGANIC FARMING WHILE
PROTECTING FARM SOILS
AND MITIGATING GLOBAL WARMING
Rajiv K. Sinha1, , Dalsukh Valani2, Krunal Chauhan2,

Brijal K. Soni2 and Sunita Agarwal3
1
School of Engineering (Environment), Griffith
University, Brisbane, Australia
2
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
3
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India
ABSTRACT
Chemical fertilizers which ushered in the ‘green revolution’ in the 1950-60’s,
boosted food productivity, but at the cost of environment and society. It destroyed the
‘physical, chemical and the biological properties’ of soil over the years of use. It also
impaired the power of ‘biological resistance’ in crops making them more susceptible to
pests and diseases. No farmland of world is free of toxic pesticides today. Earthworm
vermicompost can ‘restore damaged soils’, ‘promote of high food productivity’ while
also improve ‘soil fertility’. Vermicompost are scientifically proving to be a ‘miracle
plant growth promoter and protector’ rich in NKP, micronutrients, beneficial soil
microbes like ‘nitrogen-fixing’ and ‘phosphate solubilizing’ bacteria, ‘mycorrhizal
fungi’, humus and growth hormones – auxins, gibberlins and cytokinins. They also
contain enzymes like amylase, lipase, cellulase and chitinase, which continue to break
down organic matter in the soil to release the nutrients and make it available to the plant
roots. Vermicompost has very high ‘porosity’, ‘aeration’, ‘drainage’ and ‘water holding
Corresponding author email: Rajiv.Sinha@griffith.edu.au.

164 Rajiv K. Sinha, Dalsukh Valani, Krunal Chauhan et al.
capacity’. It appears to retain more nutrients for longer period of time and work as ‘slow
release fertilizer’. More significantly vermicompost also protect plants against various
pests and diseases either by suppressing or repelling them or by inducing biological
resistance in plants to fight them. ‘Vermiwash’ and the ‘vermicompost tea’ also works as
very effective bio-pesticides.
Several studies indicate that vermicompost is ‘extraordinary powerful growth
promoters’ in crops (5-7 times more than other bulky organic fertilizers and can give
farm yield significantly higher (20-40 %) over chemical fertilizers.
Additionally, use of vermicompost in farms ‘sequesters’ large amount of
‘atmospheric carbon’ and bury them back into the soil as SOC (soil organic carbon)
improving soil fertility and also ‘mitigating global warming’. It is like a ‘win-win
situation’ for the farmers, environment and the society.
Keywords: Vermicompost – Highly Nutritve Organic Fertilizer and Sustainable Alternative

to Chemical Fertilizers; Vermicompost – Rich in Humic Acids and Growth Hormones;
Vermicompost – Pest Repellent and Disease Suppressing; Vermicompost – Rich in
Beneficial Soil Microbes; Composts – Sequester Atmospheric Carbon in Soil and
Mitigate Global Warming
1. INTRODUCTION
Chemical fertilizers which ushered the ‘green revolution’ in the 1950-60’s came as a
‘mixed blessing’ for mankind. It boosted food productivity, but at the cost of environment
and society. It dramatically increased the ‘quantity’ of the food produced but decreased its
‘nutritional quality’ and also destroyed the ‘physical, chemical and the biological properties’
of soil over the years of use. It killed the beneficial soil organisms which help in renewing
natural fertility. It also impaired the power of ‘biological resistance’ in crops making them
more susceptible to pests and diseases. Over the years it has worked like a ‘slow poison’ for
the soil with a serious ‘withdrawal symptoms’. The excessive use of ‘nitrogenous fertilizer’
(urea) has also led to increase in the level of ‘inorganic nitrogen’ content in groundwater
(through leaching effects) and in the human food with grave consequences for the human
health. Chemically grown foods have adversely affected human health all over the world.
Organic farming systems with the aid of various nutrients of biological origin such as
‘composts’ are thought to be the answer for the ‘high food productivity with safety and
environmental security’ in future. The global movement for ‘Organic Farming’ is directed
towards the production of biological based fertilizers (bio-fertilizers) and bio-control of pests
and diseases (bio-pesticides) with restoration of biologically active ‘disease-suppressive’
fertile soils that can also ‘protect plant health’ while promoting plant growth.
The ‘scientifically produced composts (bio-fertilizers) with recent knowledge in
biotechnologies are much more nutritive and productive than those produced traditionally by
farmers in earlier days. Among them the vermicompost made by biodegradation of organics
of MSW (municipal solid waste which is being generated in huge amount every day all over
the world) by waste eater earthworms are scientifically proving to be a ‘miracle plant growth
promoter’ even superior to chemical fertilizer. The organic fraction of the MSW (about 60-
70%) containing plenty of nitrogen (N), potash (K) and phosphorus (P) is a good source of
macro and micronutrients for the soil. Composts also contain plenty of ‘beneficial soil

Earthworms Vermicompost 165
microbes’ which help in ‘soil regeneration’ and ‘fertility improvement’ and also ‘protect
crops from pests and diseases’.
Earthworms vermicompost is highly nutritive ‘organic fertilizer’ and more powerful
‘plant growth promoter and protector’ over the conventional thermophillic composts
increasing the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil, restoring and improving its
natural fertility. Vermicompost is rich in NKP (nitrogen 2-3%, potassium 1.85-2.25% and
phosphorus 1.55-2.25%), micronutrients, beneficial soil microbes and also contain ‘plant
growth hormones and enzymes’.
Vermicompost retains nutrients for long time and while the conventional compost fails to
deliver the required amount of macro and micronutrients including the vital NKP to plants in
shorter time, the vermicompost does. The ‘vermiwash’ (liquid produced during
vermicomposting filtered through the body of earthworms) and ‘vermicompost tea’ (solution
produced in water) are highly effective ‘bio-pesticides’ with 100 % control of crop pests and
diseases.
Both production and use of all composts including vermicompost is an ‘environmentally
friendly’ practice as it uses most ‘organic wastes’ from both municipal and industrial streams
diverting them from landfills, protect farm soil and improve its physical, chemical and
biological properties as well as ‘moisture holding capacity’ to reduce the use of water for
farm irrigation by 40-50 %.
With compost costs significantly less than the cost of chemical fertilizers, composts use
can reduce the cost of food production. Compost use in farms would also ‘sequester’ huge
amounts of atmospheric carbon (CO2) and bury them back into the soil improving the soil
fertility and also reducing greenhouse gas and mitigating global warming.
2. COMPOSTS: THE PLANT GROWTH

PROMOTER AND PROTECTOR
Composts are aerobically decomposed products of organic wastes such as the cattle dung
and animal droppings, farm and forest wastes and the municipal solid wastes (MSW).
Bombatkar [1] called them as ‘miracle’ plant growth promoter. They supply balanced
nutrients to plant roots and stimulate growth; increase organic matter content of the soil
including the ‘humic substances’ that affect nutrient accumulation and promote root growth.
They in fact improve the total physical and chemical properties of the soil.
They also add useful micro-organisms to the soil and provide food for the existing soil
micro-organisms and thus increase their biological properties and capacity of self-renewal of
soil fertility.
One ton of compost may contain 10 lbs of nitrogen (N), 5 lbs of phosphorus (P2O5) and
10 lbs of potash (K2O). Compost made from poultry droppings contains highest nutrient level
among all compost. There are several agronomic benefits of composts application to soil.
Composts contribute to healthy soils and plants in several ways.
They improve ‘soil structure’ and ‘moisture retention capacity’ making water available
for plants when they need it. They increase the amount of nutrients that are ‘bio-available’ to
plants with steady release of nutrients over time. It also protects soil against ‘extremes of
temperature’ and moisture.

Table 1. Properties and nutrient value of compost produced from MSW
1. Biological properties
(a) Total bacteria count/gm of compost 104
(b) Actinomycetes/gm of compost 104
(c) Fungi/gm of compost 106
(d) Azotobacter/mg of compost 106
(e) Root nodule bacteria (Rhizobium) 104
(f) Phosphate solubilizers 106
(g) Nitrobacter/gm of compost 102
2. Chemical properties
(a) pH 7-8.2
(b) Organic carbon 16.0%
(c) Nitrogen 1.50-2.00%
(d) Phosphorus 1.25%
(e) Potassium 1.05-1.20%
(f) Calcium 1-2%
(g) Magnesium 0.7%
(h) Sulphates 0.5%
(i) Iron 0.6%
(j) Zinc 300-700 ppm
(k) Manganese 250-740 ppm
(l) Copper 200-375 ppm
Source: ‘Vermiculture and Sustainable Agriculture’; Sinha et al.,[2].
2.1. The Nutritional Value of Compost
There are five primary nutrients that are generally measured in compost and that is
nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). ‘Available
nutrients levels’ rather than ‘total nutrients levels’ are of significance.
Nitrogen: Available nitrogen is reported as ‘ammonium (NH3) and nitrate (NO3) as these
are the ‘organic forms’ of ‘soluble nitrogen’ much better than the ‘inorganic nitrogen’ from
the synthetic fertilizers which is also having adverse side effects on soil structure while
promoting growth. Composts stimulate ‘mineralization’ of soil nitrogen and increase the
availability of N within the soil.
Phosphorus: Soil may have high levels of phosphorus (P) but plants cannot access them.
Adding composts to soils make this P more plant available by stimulating biological
activities. In addition, around 30-40 % of the P in compost will be ‘crop available’ after the
first application and up to 100 % will be available after the third year.
Potassium: Potassium is an important nutrient for plant growth and health. Some
researches show that K from composts is 100 % available to plants from very first
application.

3. VERMICOMPOST VIS-A-VIS CONVENTIONAL

COMPOST AND CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS
Conventional composting and vermicomposting are quite distinct processes particularly
with respect to optimum temperatures for each process and the type of decomposer microbial
communities that predominate during active processing. While ‘thermophilic bacteria’
predominate in conventional composting, ‘mesophilic bacteria and fungi’ predominate in
vermicomposting. Although the conventional composting process is completed in about 8
weeks, but additional 4 weeks is required for ‘curing’. Curing involves the further aerobic
decomposition of some compounds, organic acids and large particles that remain after
composting. Less oxygen and water is required during curing. Compost that has had
insufficient curing may damage crops. Vermicomposting takes nearly half the time of
conventional composting and vermicompost do not require any curing and can be used
straightway after production Vermicomposts have much ‘finer structure’ than ordinary
compost and contain nutrients in forms that are readily available for plant uptake.
Vermicomposts have outstanding chemical and biological properties with ‘plant growth
regulators’ (lacking in other composts) and significantly larger and ‘diverse microbial
populations’ than the conventional thermophilic composts. Earthworms guts are like
‘microbial factories’. Edwards and Burrows [3].
Atiyeh et al., [4] found that the conventional compost was higher in ‘ammonium’, while
the vermicompost tended to be higher in ‘nitrates’, which is the more available form of
nitrogen. They also found that vermicompost has higher N availability than the conventional
compost on a weight basis and the supply of several other plant nutrients e.g. phosphorus (P),
potassium (K), sulfur (S) and magnesium (Mg), were significantly increased by adding
vermicompost as compared to conventional compost to soil. Vermicompost retains nutrients
for long time and while the conventional compost fails to deliver the required amount of
macro and micronutrients including the vital NKP (nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus) to
plants in shorter time, the vermicompost does. Subler et al. [5].
Agarwal [6] reported that the NPK value of vermicompost processed by earthworms from
the same feedstock (cattle dung) significantly increases by 3 to 4 times. It also enhances
several micronutrients. Similar was findings of Sinha [7]. Vermicompost processed by
earthworms showed higher values of important plant nutrients as compared to those available
in composts made from the same feed stock ‘food and garden wastes ’by aerobic and
anaerobic methods.
Table 2. NPK value of vermicompost compared with conventional

cattle dung compost made from cattle dung
Nutrients Cattle-dung compost Vermicompost

1 N 0.4-1.0% 2.5-3.0%
2 P 0.4-0.8% 1.8-2.9%
3 K 0.8-1.2% 1.4-2.0%
Source: Agarwal [6]; Ph. D Thesis, University of Rajasthan, India.

Table 3. Important nutrients present in vermicompost vis-à-vis conventional composts

prepared from the same feed stock ‘food and garden wastes’ (in mg/g)
Nutrients Vermicompost Aerobic compost Anaerobic compost

1) Nitrogen (N) 9.500 6.000 5.700
2) Phosphorus (P) 0.137 0.039 0.050
3) Potassium (K) 0.176 0.152 0.177
4) Iron (Fe) 19.730 15.450 17.240
5) Magnesium (Mg) 4.900 1.680 2.908
6) Manganese (Mn) 0.016 0.005 0.006
7) Calcium (Ca) 0.276 0.173 0.119
Source: Vermiculture Revolution; Sinha, [7]; NOVA Science Publication, USA.
Suhane [8] asserts that vermicompost is at least 4 times more nutritive than cattle dung
compost. In Argentina, farmers who use vermicompost consider it to be seven (7) times richer
than conventional composts in nutrients and growth promoting values. Pajon; Undated [9].
Composts: A Slow Release Fertilizer for Sustained Crop Growth
All composts work as a ‘slow-release fertilizer’ whereas chemical fertilizers release their
nutrients rather quickly in soil and soon get depleted. Composts take at least three years to
demonstrate its full value. As a general rule, compost deliver significant amount of potassium
(K) initially, with slower release of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).
As a general rule 20 % of N, 40 % of P and 80 % of K in the compost is available in the
first year of application. N and P are not all available to plant roots in the first year because N
and P in organic matter are resistant to decay. Nitrogen is about one half effective as
compared to chemical fertilizer, but phosphorus and potassium are as effective as chemical
fertilizers. With continued application of compost the organic nitrogen tends to be released at
constant rate from the accumulated ‘humus’ and the net overall efficiency of nitrogen over a
period of years is considerably greater than 50% of that of chemical fertilizers. Availability of
phosphorus is sometimes much greater than that from inorganic fertilizers.
Chemical fertilizers release their nutrients rather quickly in soil and soon get depleted.
Moreover, significant amount of chemical nitrogen is lost from soil due to oxidation in
sunlight. Suhane [8] calculated that upon application of 100 kg urea (N) in farm soil, 40-50 kg
gets oxidised and escapes as ‘ammonia’ (NH3) and ‘nitrous oxides’ (N2O) into the air, about
20-25 kg leaches underground polluting the groundwater, while only 20-25 kg is available to
plants. N2O is a powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ nearly 312 times as compared to CO2.
Properties of Farm Soil Using Compost vis-a-vis Chemical Fertilizers
Suhane (2007) studied the chemical and biological properties of soil under organic
farming (using vermicompost) and chemical farming (using chemical fertilizers-urea (N),
phosphates (P) and potash (K).

Table 4. Farm soil properties under organic farming and chemical farming
Chemical and biological Organic farming Chemical farming

properties of soil (Use of vermicompost) (Use of chemical fertilizers)
1) Availability of nitrogen (kg/ha) 256.0 185.0
2) Availability of phosphorus (kg/ha) 50.5 28.5
3) Availability of potash (kg/ha) 489.5 426.5
4) Azatobacter (1000/gm of soil) 11.7 0.8
5) Phospho bacteria (100,000/kg of soil) 8.8 3.2
6) Carbonic biomass (mg/kg of soil) 273.0 217.0
Source: Vermicompost; Suhane [8].
4. THE AGRONOMIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF COMPOST/VERMICOMPOST
IN AGRICULTURE
Use of composts in agriculture has several benefits. Vermicompost still has greater
significance as it is 5-7 times more powerful than all the conventionally produced composts.
Moreover, its use in farm soil eventually leads to generation of huge population of
‘earthworms’ from their cocoons in the vermicompost. Earthworms are great soil and
environmental managers and add further to the agronomic, social, economic and
environmental benefits in agriculture. Sinha et al, [10]. One square meter of healthy soil
contains 1,000 earthworms. According to the estimate of an American researcher, 1,000,000
earthworms in a garden plot provide the same benefit as three gardeners working 8 hours in
shifts all year round, and moreover having 10 tons of manure applied in the plot. Xu Kuiwu
and Dai Xingting, [11].
4.1. The Agronomic Considerations for Compost Use
1). Increase the ‘Soil Organic Matter’ (Soil Carbon) and Soil Structure which Is Vital
for Crop Growth
The modern ‘Organic Farming’ movement calls for an emphasis on maintaining ‘soil
organic matter’ to support ‘biologically active disease-suppressive soils’ that can ‘protect
plant health’. Australian soils are generally low in organic matter. Application of compost
increase the soil organic matter (SOM) i.e. soil carbon to more sustainable levels, above 3-5
% and improve fertility. In loamy soil, compost applied @16 tonnes /acre (35 t/ha) SOM
increased from 1.1 % to 2.5 %. Organic carbon in soil plays a central and fundamental role in
soil structure, quality and fertility. SOM acts as a ‘glue’ to bind ‘soil particles’ into aggregates
thus improving soil structure, infiltration, air porosity, water and nutrient holding capacity. It
can save 10-20 % of irrigation inputs.
Soil ‘erosion and compaction’ are exacerbated when soils are depleted in organic matter.
Soil quality and fertility reduces over time as carbon is continually removed from farm soil
through grain harvesting, cutting of hay and stubble fed to cattle and also through oxidation as
greenhouse gas ‘carbon dioxide’. Soil carbon in farms is not being replaced in natural way.

Application of composts ‘replenishes the SOM’ adds the lost soil carbon and helps to sustain
the soil quality and fertility and maximise production over time.
As the SOM decomposes over time it results in the development of more stable carbon
compound called ‘humus’. Humus enhances mineral breakdown and in turn nutrient
availability to plants. Highly mature and stable composts contain long-lasting form of carbon
called ‘humates’ or ‘humic and fulvic acids’ which are very important for soil health and
fertility. Compost Australia, [12].
2). Increase Beneficial Soil Microbes, Microbial Activity and Essential Nutrients
All composts are rich in beneficial soil microbes. Vermicompost is especially rich in
microbial diversity. Soil organic matter (SOM) is also the food source of beneficial soil
microbes and helps in improving microbial population and diversity. Microbes are
responsible for transforming, releasing and cycling of nutrients and essential elements. Many
nutrients are constantly removed from the farm soil every year through cropping. For
example, nitrogen (N) is removed from 17 kg/t of yield with oats to 40 kg/t of yield with
canola. Phosphorus (P) is removed from 2kg/t of yield with cereals to 6.5 kg/t of yield with
canola. Potassium (K) is removed from 3.7 kg/t of yield with wheat to 20 kg/t of yield with
hay GRDC [13]. Nitrogen is also lost by oxidation as ‘nitrous oxides’ which is a powerful
greenhouse gas (312 times than carbon dioxide). However as composts add ‘biological
nitrogen’ it is oxidised very little as compared to the ‘chemical nitrogen’ added by the use of
chemical fertilizers. Microbes are also essential for converting nutrients into their ‘plant
available forms’ and also for ‘facilitating nutrients uptake’ by plants. Soil microbes also
create the ‘glue’ that sticks soil particles together, creating soil crumbs and pore spaces that
make good soil structure decreasing ‘soil hardness’.
3). Improve Cation Exchange Capacity

Compost application also increases the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of soil. In loamy
soil, compost applied @16 tonnes /acre (35 t/ha) CEC increased from 14.4 to 20.1 meq/100
gm. An increase in soil CEC leads to higher ‘soil adsorption’ of positively charged cations
such as ‘calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K) and sodium (Na)’. The more ‘clay
and organic matter’ available, the greater the availability of the soil to absorb cations. The
increase in cations translates into nutrients being held in the soil and made progressively
available for plants uptake. This also leads to ‘reduced acidity’ and ‘higher soil pH’. Compost
Australia, [12].
4). Reduces Bulk Density of Soil, Prevents Soil Compaction and Erosion
Soil is made of large and small particles, organic matter and pockets of air (pores) and
‘spaces’ which determines its ‘porosity’. Small pores (micro-pores) are important for water
storage, while the large (macro-pores) for water infiltration and drainage, air movement and
root growth. When this soil structure is disturbed soil can become ‘compacted’ and porosity is
lost.
Bulk density gives a measure of ‘soil porosity’. Soils with low bulk density have higher
pore space, are less tightly packed and have a greater potential to store water and allow for
roots to grow readily. Composts reduce the bulk density of the soil, improving potential root
growth, drainage and infiltration. This also reduce ‘surface crusting and sealing’ and allow

better infiltration of rainfall and irrigation. Even a thin seal or crust, often just formed by
raindrops on bare soil can reduce infiltration rates and increase ‘run-off’ and ‘erosion’.
5). Remove Soil Sodicity and Salinity

Almost a third of all agricultural land in Australia is affected by salinity or sodicity and
this is increasing. Sodium bonds with chlorine in the soil to form a salt. This reduces the
availability of water to plants and can even cause plant death when present in high levels in
soil. When chlorine is washed away leaving behind the ‘sodium’ it is sodic soil. Without its
accomplice chlorine, sodium attaches to tiny clay particles in the soil. This makes the clay
particles to lose their ability to stick together when wet and leads to soil instability. Sodic
soils are prone to erosion and waterlogging.
A soil is regarded as sodic where exchangeable sodium (Na) is higher than 6 % and the
pH is greater than 8.5. Compost plays an important role in managing ‘sodic’ and ‘saline’
soils. Sodicity is generally fought with application of ‘gypsum’ which increases the amount
of ‘exchangeable calcium’ in the soil. But it is a slow process. Compost can help in spread of
gypsum much faster in the soil by stimulating microbes and soil fauna (earthworms) that
creates ‘channels and pores’ in the soil and gypsum moves through them much faster with
rainfall and irrigation. Earthworms help more through their burrowing actions and excretion
of vermicast, which proliferates useful microbes in billions and trillions. Worms ingest soil
and gypsum, mixing them together, resulting in fast and thorough spread of gypsum deep into
the soil profile.
Farmers at Phaltan in Satara district of Maharashtra, India, applied live earthworms to
their sugarcane crop grown on saline soils irrigated by saline ground water. The yield was 125
tonnes/hectare of sugarcane and there was marked improvement in soil chemistry. Within a
year there was 37% more nitrogen, 66% more phosphates and 10% more potash. The chloride
content was less by 46%.
In another study there was good production of potato (Solanum tuberosum) by
application of vermicompost in a reclaimed sodic soil in India. The sodicity (ESP) of the soil
was also reduced from initial 96.74 to 73.68 in just about 12 weeks. The average available
nitrogen (N) content of the soil increased from initial 336.00 kg/ha to 829.33 kg/ha. Sinha et
al., [2].
As compost ‘conserve soil moisture’ it reduces the need for irrigation which is generally
the source of most salts in soil. Compost also increase the rate of ‘water infiltration’ and
‘reduces evaporation’, which means that less salt accumulates at the surface and the top soil is
less saline. Compost Australia, [12].
6). Maintain Optimal pH Value of Soil

Most compost have a neutralizing value of 5% calcium carbonate equivalent in the dry
matter (3 % in fresh compost) compared with 50 % for ground limestone. The neutralising
value of 30 tonnes of fresh compost is roughly equivalent to 2 tonnes of limestone. With
repeated application at this rate, soil would either maintain or slightly increase in pH over
time. In loamy soil, compost applied @16 tonnes /acre (35 t/ha) pH raised from 6.8 to 7.1.
Compost Australia, [12].

6). Suppress Plant Diseases

Composts have been found to suppress high levels of soil-borne disease. Vermicompost
is much more efficient. Jack [76]. Chaoui et al, [14]. Ayres [15] reported that mean root
disease was reduced from 82% to 18% in tomato and from 98% to 26% in capsicum in soils
amended with compost. Naturally-occurring microbes (bacteria and fungi) can suppress
organisms that cause diseases and it is done by a wide range of compost microbes. Important
plant diseases suppressed by composts are ‘wilt’ caused by Fusarium spp.; ‘damping off’
caused by Fusarium, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Sclerotium spp.; ‘stem and root rot’ caused by
Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Phytopthora, Sclerotium and Aphanomyces spp. Disease
suppression depends upon maturity of composts. Nearly 90 % of ‘mature composts’ provides
general suppression against ‘root rots’ caused by the fungus Phytopthora and Pythium. But
‘immature composts’ can increase the severity of plant diseases because as the organic matter
breaks down it releases sugars which provide food for plant pathogens. Different compost
ingredients (feedstock) give different results. Carbon-rich composts are good at suppressing
‘plant parasitic nematodes’ because they support fungi which are antagonistic to these
nematodes. Woody materials in composts that degrade slowly can provide long lasting
disease suppression for more than 3 years as they release nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus
slowly into the soil. Nitrogen (N) is a key nutrient in disease suppression and nitrogen
deficiencies in soil can make plants more susceptible to diseases. High soil salinity can also
increase susceptibility to disease and nullify the natural disease suppressive effects of
composts. Then composts with high salt content can encourage Phytopthora and Pythium
causing root rots. There are several ways how the composts suppress crop diseases.
a) Competition: Beneficial compost organisms out-compete disease-causing plant

pathogens in the search for nutrients or colonisation space in specific habitats such as
root zone. This prevents pathogens from becoming established and multiplying to
levels that can cause plant disease
b) Antibodies and Hormones: These are secreted by some beneficial microbes in the
compost which inhibit the growth of plant pathogens.
c) Predation and Parasitism: The beneficial compost microbes use the pathogens as
food for predation.
d) Induction of Systemic Defences in Plants Against Diseases: Some beneficial compost
microbes activate a plant’s defence mechanisms against diseases. This can include
‘thickening of the cell walls’ in plant roots and foliage to make it more difficult for
pathogens such as fungi to get into plants.
e) Boosting Immune Systems: Composts can also help plants to combat diseases by
boosting their immune systems. Magdoff, [16]; Hoitink, [17].
4.2. The Social Considerations for Compost Use
1). Preventing the Damaging Effects of Agrochemicals on Human Health

Studies indicate that there is significant amount of ‘residual pesticides’ contaminating our
food stuff long after they are taken away from farms for human consumption. Vegetable
samples were contaminated 100% with HCH and 50 per cent with DDT.

Adverse effects of agro-chemicals on the health of farmers using them and the society
consuming the chemically grown food have now started to become more evident all over the
world.
According to United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Health
Organization (WHO) nearly 3 million people suffer from ‘acute pesticide poisoning’ and
some 10 to 20 thousand people die every year from it in the developing countries.
US scientists predict that up to 20,000 Americans may die of cancer, each year, due to the
low levels of ‘residual pesticides’ in the chemically grown food. UNEP/GEMS Report, [18].
2). Production of Safe and Nutritive Foods

There are several reports of workers and feedbacks from farmers
that fruits and vegetables grown on vermicompost are nutritious, tastier, and bigger in size
with longer storage and market value. Studies made at CSIRO Australia found that the
presence of earthworms (Aporrectodea trapezoids) in soil lifted protein value of the grain of
wheat crops (Triticum aestivum) by 12 %. Baker and Barrett, [19]. This implies the role of
vermicasts secreted by the worms in the soil.
4.3. The Economic Considerations for Compost Use
1). Conversion of Product of Negative Economic Value to Positive Economic Value

Any composting system converts ‘waste’ (product of negative economic value) into a
‘valuable resource’ (nutritive biofertilizer – product of positive economic value) and diverts
them from ending up in costly landfills. It is like ‘killing two birds in one shot’. Construction
of engineered landfills incurs 20-25 million US dollars upfront before the first load of waste
is dumped. In 2002-03 Australians generated 32.3 million tonnes of MSW of which 17.4 mt
i.e. about 54 % ended up in landfills. It cost $ 2458.2 million Australian Bureau of Statistics,
[20].
2). Higher Production of Safe Organic Foods at Low Cost

A matter of considerable economic and environmental significance is that the ‘cost of
food production’ by use of vermicompost or any compost will be significantly low by more
than 60 - 70 % as compared to costly chemical fertilizers and the food produced will be a
‘safe chemical-free organic food’ for the society. It is a ‘win-win’ situation for both producers
(farmers) and the consumers (feeders). The farmers today are caught in a ‘vicious circle’ of
higher use of agrochemicals to boost crop productivity at the cost of declining soil fertility.
The amount of chemicals used per hectare has been steadily increasing over the years to
maintain the same yield as the soil became ‘addict’. Nearly 3-4 times of agro-chemicals are
now being used per hectare what was used in the 1960s. This is adversely affecting their
economy as the cost of agrochemicals has been rising all over the world. Government in
developing nations have to subsidize the cost of agro-chemicals to make it affordable to
farmers and also to keep the cost of food production artificially low for society.
The cost of production of vermicompost is simply insignificant as compared to chemical
fertilizers. Vermicompost can even be produced ‘on-farm’ at low-cost by simple devices,
while the chemical fertilizers are high-tech and high-cost products made in factories. While

the compost is produced from ‘human waste’ - a raw material which is in plenty all over the
world, the chemical fertilizers are obtained from ‘petroleum products’ which is a vanishing
resource on earth.
Slowly over the years, as the worms build up the soil’s physical, chemical and biological
properties, the amount of vermicompost can be slowly reduced while maintaining the same
yield and thus further reducing cost.
The yield per hectare may also increase further as the soil’s natural fertility is restored
and strengthened. With compost costs approximately 60-70 % less than the cost of chemical
fertilizers, applying vermicomposts in farm production can pay significant dividends for
farmer’s and nation’s economy. With high soil moisture holding capacity of vermicompost,
(nearly 40-50 %) there can be significant savings on water for irrigation too which is also
becoming a costly commodity.
4.4. The Environmental Considerations for Compost Use
Application of vermicompost and other vermiproducts (vermiwash and vermicompost

tea) in agriculture have beneficial effects on environment in several ways:
1). Replacing the Environmentally Destructive Agrochemicals in Farm Production

In the production of chemical fertilizers, from the procurement of raw materials
(petroleum products) to their production in factories and transport to farms and their uses by
farmers generate huge toxic wastes and pollution and also emission of greenhouse gases at all
stages.
Adverse effects of chemical pesticides on the agricultural ecosystem (soil, flora, fauna
and water bodies in farms) have now started to become more evident all over the world.
2). Diverting Wastes from Landfills and Reducing Emission of Powerful Greenhouse
Gases
All compost (including vermicompost), are produced from some ‘waste materials’ of
society. It has potential to divert huge amount of wastes ending up in landfills which are
proving as an ‘environmental burden’ for society as they emit large amount of powerful
greenhouse gases like methane (22 times powerful than CO2) and nitrous oxides (312 times
powerful than CO2) along with CO2.
Every 1 kg of waste diverted from landfills prevents 1 kg of greenhouse gas emission
equivalent to CO2. In 2005, landfill disposal of MSW contributed 17 million tons CO2-e
(equivalent) of GHG in Australia, equivalent to the emissions from 4 million cars or 2.6 % of
the national GHG emissions. Australian Greenhouse Office, [21].
3). Sequestering Carbon in Soil and Mitigating Greenhouse Gases and Global
Warming
Much of the world’s carbon is held in the soils, including the agricultural (farmlands)
soils as ‘soil organic carbon’ (SOC). The global pool of SOC is about 1,550 Pg C (1 Pg=
1,000 million metric tons or MMT) i.e. 41 %. Taken together with the ‘soil inorganic carbon’
which is about 750 – 950 Pg C i.e. 23 %, this is about three times of the atmospheric carbon

pool as CO2 which is 20 %. The rest 16 % carbon is with the terrestrial vegetation.
Follett,[22]. Ever since agriculture started (7000-10,000 yrs ago) the balance between these
two carbon pools SOC and the atmosphere have been changing. The loss of ‘soil organic
carbon’ (SOC) as CO2 due to aggressive ‘ploughing and tillage’ in the wake of modern
mechanised farming practices has augmented the atmospheric carbon pool as greenhouse gas
inducing the global warming and climate change. Soil erosion is also a major cause of the loss
of SOC. Use of fossil fuels since 1750 has further accelerated the process. Of the increase of
atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years, about a third (33.3 %) is thought to have come
from agriculture. Robbins, [23]. Australia has 473 million hectares of agricultural land and
emitted 537 million tonnes of CO2 in 2009. Leu, [24].
All over the world agricultural and environmental scientists are trying to reverse the trend
by putting more carbon back into the soil – a process called ‘carbon sequestration’ through
sustainable agricultural practices mainly organic farming by the use of composts. Compost
use in farms would ‘sequester’ huge amounts of atmospheric carbon (CO2) and bury them
back into the soil, mitigate greenhouse gases and global warming. Composts are in fact
disintegrated products of ‘plant biomass’ which are formed from atmospheric CO2 fixed
during photosynthesis by green plants. Plants absorb atmospheric CO2 and converts them into
‘plant material’ (biomass) in sunlight. Some of this remains in the ground as soil organic
matter (SOM). This is about 58 % of the soil organic carbon (SOC). Robbins, [23].
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) recognised that carbon (C)
sequestration in soils as one of the possible measures through which the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and global warming can be mitigated. Applying organic wastes or their
composted products to agricultural lands could increase the amount of carbon (C) stored in
these soils and contribute significantly to the reduction of GHG. Application of composts to
the soil can lead either to a build-up of soil organic carbon (SOC) over time, or a reduction in
the rate at which soil organic matter (SOM) is being depleted from soils – thus benefiting the
soil in every way. Bolan, [25].
Lal and Bruce [26] estimated that the carbon sequestration potential of the global
croplands (agriculture farms) is about 0.75 – 1.0 Pg C per year. Total potential for soil carbon
sequestration by agriculture especially ‘organic farming’ by the use of composts may be as
high as 1.4 Pg C a year which would offset no less than 40 % of the estimated annual increase
in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Soil carbon sequestration in agricultural farmlands by
organic farming alone might offset the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels for one or two decade
or even longer. A study by FiBL, the world’s largest Organic Scientific Research
Organization found that ‘Organic Farming’ practices remove about 2,000 kg of CO2 from the
atmosphere every year and sequester it in a hectare of farmland. Study by the UK Soil
Association found that the organic farming practices by composts remove about 2,200 kg of
CO2 per hectare per year and sequester it in farmland. The peer reviewed Rodale Studies
reported that over 7,400 kg of CO2 can be sequestered per hectare per year. With Australia
having 473 mha of farmlands, it has to practise organic farming with higher use of composts
and sequester 1,100 kg CO2 per hectare per year to make Australia CO2 neutral. Leu, [24].
But one of the problems faced with the use of all composts as a means of ‘soil carbon
sequestration’ is their subsequent degradation in the soil and release of CO2 back into the
atmosphere. However, as they are ‘slow release fertilizers’ their carbon get oxidised much
slowly and if continued application of composts are made over the years they would capture
back the released CO2 much faster (as the rate of CO2 fixation by green plants during

photosynthesis are very rapid) and bury them back into the soil. A medium term (7-12 years)
research from Europe demonstrated that 30 % – 50 % of compost carbon is retained over that
period. Biala and Kavanagh, [27]. And as the soil organic matter (SOM) decomposes over
time it results in the development of more ‘stable carbon compound’ called ‘humus’. Highly
mature and stable composts contain ‘long-lasting form of carbon’ called ‘humates’ or ‘humic
and fulvic acids’.
Earthworms secrete ‘humus’ and hence the vermicompost contains more stable forms of
carbon which remains in the soil for long periods of time and are not emitted as CO 2.
Vermicomposts are ‘highly degraded and mature composts’ prepared in the gut of
earthworms and excreted out as ‘vermicasts’. And as long as good population of earthworms
are there in any farm soil (germinated from cocoons in vermicompost) they will continue to
feed on the soils with ‘fragile carbons’ (liable to be oxidised as CO2) and secrete more ‘stable
carbons’ in the form of humates to be retained in soil.
5. VERMICOMPOST: THE MIRACLE PLANT GROWTH PROMOTER AND

PROTECTOR
Vermicompost is a nutritive ‘organic fertilizer’ rich in NKP (nitrogen 2-3%, potassium
1.85-2.25% and phosphorus 1.55-2.25%), micronutrients, beneficial soil microbes like
‘nitrogen-fixing bacteria’ and ‘mycorrhizal fungi’ and are scientifically proving as ‘miracle
growth promoters and protectors’ with significantly higher agronomic impacts (5-7 times)
over the conventional composts discussed above. Kale and Bano [28] reports as high as
7.37% nitrogen (N) and 19.58% phosphorus as P2O5 in worms’ vermicast. Suhane [8] showed
that exchangeable potassium (K) was over 95% higher in vermicompost. There are also good
amount of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn) and manganese (Mn). Additionally,
vermicompost contain enzymes like amylase, lipase, cellulase and chitinase, which continue
to break down organic matter in the soil (to release the nutrients and make it available to the
plant roots) even after they have been excreted. Annual application of adequate amount of
vermicompost also lead to significant increase in soil enzyme activities such as ‘urease’,
‘phosphomonoesterase’, ‘phosphodiesterase’ and ‘arylsulphatase’ and the soil has
significantly more electrical conductivity (EC) and near neutral pH. Tiwari et al. [29].
Vermicompost has very ‘high porosity’, ‘aeration’, ‘drainage’ and ‘water holding
capacity’. They have a vast surface area, providing strong absorbability and retention of
nutrients. They appear to retain more nutrients for longer period of time. Study showed that
soil amended with vermicompost had significantly greater ‘soil bulk density’ and hence
porous and lighter and never compacted. Significantly, vermicompost works as a ‘soil
conditioner’ and its continued application over the years lead to total improvement in the
quality of soil and farmland, even the degraded and sodic soils. Nelson and Rangarajan, [30].
There have been several reports that worm worked waste and their excretory products
(vermicast) can induce excellent plant growth. It has been found to influence on all yield
parameters such as-improved seed germination, enhanced rate of seedling growth, flowering
and fruiting of major crops like wheat, paddy, corn, sugarcane, tomato, potato, brinjal, okra,
spinach, grape and strawberry as well as of flowering plants like petunias, marigolds,
sunflowers, chrysanthemums and poinsettias. In all growth trials the best growth responses

were exhibited when vermicompost constituted a relatively small proportion (10%-20%) of

the total volume of the container medium. Surprisingly, greater proportions of vermicomposts
in the plant growth medium have not always improved plant growth. Subler et al.,[31].
Arancon et al., [32] also found that maximum benefit from vermicompost is obtained when it
constitutes between 10% and 40% of the growing medium.
Sinha [7] has reported extraordinarily good growth of potted cereal and vegetable crops
on vermicompost as compared to conventional composts and chemical fertilizers. He also
reported good yields in farmed wheat crops grown on vermicompost (comparable with
chemical fertilizers) which progressively increased upon successive applications of same
amount of vermicompost over the years. Interestingly, lesser amount of vermicompost was
needed to maintain the same productivity of the previous years as the ‘natural fertility’ of the
soil was build up over successive application of vermicompost over the years. He also found
that there is an ‘optimal value’ of vermicompost for good crop productivity, below which the
productivity is reduced and above which there is no significant increase in productivity. This
optimal value may vary from crop to crop.
Application of vermicompost has other agronomic benefits. It significantly reduces the
demand for irrigation by nearly 30-40%. Test results indicated better availability of essential
micronutrients and useful microbes in vermicompost applied soils. Most remarkable
observation was significantly less incidence of pests and disease attacks in vermicompost
applied crops.
5.1. Some Significant Properties of Vermicompost of Great Agronomic

Values
a) High levels of bio-available nutrients for plants: Vermicompost contains most

nutrients in plant-available forms such as ‘nitrates’ (N), ‘phosphates’ (P), ‘soluble’
potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg) and ‘exchangeable’ phosphorus (P) and
calcium’ (Ca). Vermicomposts have large particulate surface areas that provides
many micro-sites for microbial activities and for the strong retention of nutrients
(Arancon and Edwards, [33].
b) High level of beneficial soil microorganisms promoting plant growth:
Vermicomposts are rich in ‘microbial populations and diversity’, particularly ‘fungi’,
‘bacteria’ and ‘actinomycetes’ (Chaoui et al., [34]. Guts of earthworms are ‘factories
and storehouse’ of beneficial soil microbes. Apparently, it is both the earthworms
and its microbes that plays combined role in growth promotion and improved
agricultural production. Worms and microbes secrete growth promoting plant
hormones ‘gibberlins’, ‘auxins’ and ‘cytokinins’ which help mineralise the nutrients
and make them ‘bio-available’ to plant roots. Microbes also help in plant protection.
In a glasshouse trial, Buckerfield et al., [35] found that the ‘stimulatory effect’ of
vermicompost on plant growth was apparently destroyed when it was ‘sterilized’.
Parle [36] reported bacterial count of 32 million per gram in fresh vermicast compared to
6-9 million per gram in the surrounding soil. Scheu [37] reported an increase of 90% in
respiration rate in fresh vermicast indicating corresponding increase in the microbial
population. Suhane [8] found that the total bacterial count was more than 1010 per gram of

vermicompost. It included Actinomycetes, Azotobacter, Rhizobium, Nitrobacter and

phosphate solubilizing bacteria which ranged from 102-106 per gm of vermicompost. The
PSB has very significant role in making the essential nutrient phosphorus (P) ‘bio-available’
for plant growth promotion. Although phosphates are available in soils in rock forms but are
not available to plant roots unless solubilized.
Pramanik [38] studied the microbial population in vermicompost prepared from cow
dung and municipal solid wastes (MSW) as substrates (raw materials) and found that it was in
highest abundance in cow dung vermicompost. The total bacterial count was 73 x 108, the
cellulolytic fungi was 59 x 106 and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria was 18 x 103. It was least in
vermicompost obtained from MSW. The total bacterial count was 16 x 108, the cellulolytic
fungi were 21 x 106 and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria were 5 x 103. Application of lime in the
substrate enhanced the population of all above mentioned microbes irrespective of the
substrates used for vermicomposting.
Plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) directly stimulates growth by nitrogen (N)
fixation, solubilization of nutrients, production of growth hormones such as 1-
aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase and indirectly by antagonising
pathogenic fungi by production of siderophores, chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase, antibiotics,
fluorescent pigments and cyanide. There is also substantial body of evidence to demonstrate
that microbes, including bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, yeasts and algae, also produce ‘plant
growth regulators’ (PGRs) such as ‘auxins’, ‘gibberellins’, ‘cytokinins’, ‘ethylene’ and
‘ascorbic acids’ in appreciable quantities and as their population is significantly boosted by
earthworms large quantities of PGRs are available in vermicompost (Sinha et al., [2]; Sinha
[7].
c) Rich in growth hormones: Biochemical stimulating total plant growth: Researches
show that vermicompost further stimulates plant growth even when plants are
already receiving ‘optimal nutrition’. Vermicompost has consistently improved seed
germination, enhanced seedling growth and development and increased plant
productivity much more than would be possible from the mere conversion of mineral
nutrients into plant-available forms. Neilson [39] and Tomati et al., [40] have also
reported that vermicompost contained growth promoting hormone ‘auxins’,
‘cytokinins’ and flowering hormone ‘gibberellins’ secreted by earthworms. It was
demonstrated by Grappelli et al., [41] that the growth of ornamental plants after
adding aqueous extracts from vermicompost showed similar growth patterns as with
the addition of auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins through the soil.
d) Rich in humic acids: Biochemical promoting root growth and nutrient uptake:
Atiyeh et al., [42] speculates that the growth responses of plants from vermicompost
appears more like ‘hormone-induced activity’ associated with the high levels of
humic acids and humates in vermicompost rather than boosted by high levels of
plant-available nutrients. Humic acid is secreted by earthworms in its excreta.
Without humus plants cannot grow and survive. The humic acids in humus are
essential to plants in four basic ways:
1) Enables plant to extract nutrients from soil;

2) Help dissolve unresolved minerals to make organic matter ready for plants to use;
3) Stimulates root growth; and,
4) Helps plants overcome stress. Kangmin et al., [43].

This was also indicated by Canella et al., [44] who found that humic acids isolated from
vermicompost enhanced root elongation and formation of lateral roots in maize roots.
Pramanik [38] reported that humic acids enhanced ‘nutrient uptake’ by the plants by
increasing the permeability of root cell membrane, stimulating root growth and increasing
proliferation of ‘root hairs’.
e) Vermicompost is free of pathogens: Study indicates that vermicomposting leads to

greater reduction of pathogens after 3 months upon storage. Whereas, the samples
which are subjected to only thermofilic composting, retains higher levels of
pathogens even after 3 months. Sinha [7].
f) Vermicompost is free of toxic chemicals: Several studies have found that earthworms
effectively bio-accumulate or biodegrade several organic and inorganic chemicals
including ‘heavy metals’, ‘organochlorine pesticide’ and ‘polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons’ (PAHs) residues in the medium in which it inhabits. Sinha [7].
g) Vermicompost has high water holding capacity for soils: Addition of vermicompost
to soils increases water holding capacity, maintain evaporation losses to a minimum
and works as a ‘good absorbent’ of atmospheric moisture due to the presence of
colloidal materials – the ‘earthworm mucus’
The worm vermicast works as ‘micro-dams’ storing hygroscopic and gravitational
water. The water stable aggregates of ‘polysaccharide gums’ produced by the
bacteria inhabiting the intestine of earthworm increases the general entry of water
into the soil and infiltration due to construction of cemented ‘macro- pores’.
Increasing water holding capacity of soils prevents ‘soil erosion’ and improves
productivity. There are reports that earthworms increased the water holding
capacity of New Zealand soils by 17 %. Sinha [7].
5.2. Vermicompost and Vermiproducts (Vermiwash and Vermicompost Tea)

Protects Plants against Various Pests and Diseases
There have been several reports and evidences in recent years regarding the ability of
earthworms and vermicompost to protect plants against various pests and diseases either by
suppressing or repelling them or by inducing biological resistance in plants to fight them or
by killing them through pesticidal action. Chaoui et al, [14]; Anonymous [45]; Arancon et al.,
[75]; Jack [76]; Arancon et al. [79]; Wang et al., [80]; Elmer [81] and Compant et al., [82].
The other vermiproducts - vermiwash (liquid filtered through body of worms) and
vermicompost tea (solution of vermicompost in water) can be made 100 % effective
biopesticides to replace the toxic chemical pesticides. Vermicompost works to protect crops
in three ways
i. Induce biological resistance in plants: Vermicompost contains some antibiotics and

actinomycetes which help in increasing the ‘power of biological resistance’ among
the crop plants against pest and diseases. Pesticide spray was significantly reduced
where earthworms and vermicompost were used in agriculture. Sinha [7].
ii. Repel crop pests: There seems to be strong evidence that worms varmicastings
sometimes repel hard-bodied pests. Edwards and Arancon [46] reports statistically

significant decrease in arthropods (aphids, buds, mealy bug, spider mite) populations
and subsequent reduction in plant damage, in tomato, pepper and cabbage trials with
20% and 40% vermicompost additions.
Hahn [47], doing commercial vermicomposting in U.S., claims that his product repels
many different insect pests and suppress pathogenic bacteria, fungi and soil nematodes
causing crop diseases. His scientific explanation is that this is due to production of enzymes
‘chitinase’ by worms which breaks down the chitin in the insect’s exoskeleton. Chitin
degraders can also digest bacteria and all other chitin based fungi. There are also ‘cellulose
degraders’ enzymes in vermicompost that are able to digest bacteria and cellulosic fungi e.g.
Pythium and Phytopthora which causes wide range of crop diseases. He asserts direct
relationship between efficacy of repellency and the number of chitin degraders and the
concentration of chitinase enzymes. At 25 million cfu/dwg of chitin degraders aphids were
driven from roses in 90 days; at 56 m cfu/dwg in 4 weeks and at 200 m + cfu/dwg aphids
were chased off in less than 1 week. Parasitic nematodes were also suppressed. A 20 acre
cauliflower infested with ‘centipedes’ saw elimination in 3 months. Some 30,000 pine trees in
the forest of San Bernardino, U.S. were being decimated by the ‘bark beetles’.
Upon treatment with chitin degraders and chitinase rich vermicompost the mortality was
reduced to less than 1%. The neighbouring untreated pines are being lost at 80 + % every
year. In a Pecan research project in U.S., application of chitinase rich vermicompost produced
a 400 % increase in yield while also eliminating the ‘pecan scab’ and ‘pecan weevil’.
The level of ‘chitin degraders’ in vermicompost prepared from feeding normal cattle
dung and food wastes to the earthworms is generally 2-3 millions cfu/dwg which is below the
10 million cfu/dwg threshold for effective action. If about 30 % chitin is added to the feed
material the level of chitin degraders can be significantly increased to 200 million cfu/dwg in
the vermicompost. This can be achieved by adding shrimp or crab shells, melted cow horns or
even dead bugs to the worm beds. Number of cellulose degraders in the vermicompost can be
increased by adding paper or saw dust in the feed materials. Hahn [47].
iii. Suppress plant disease: Edwards and Arancon [46], Arancon et al. [75] and Jack [76]
have studied that use of vermicompost in crops significantly inhibited the soil-born
fungal diseases. They also found statistically significant suppression of plant-
parasitic nematodes in field trials with pepper, tomatoes, strawberries and grapes.
The scientific explanation behind this concept is that high levels of agronomically
beneficial microbial population in vermicompost protects plants by out-competing
plant pathogens for available food resources i.e. by starving them and also by
blocking their access to plant roots by occupying all the available sites. This concept
is based on ‘soil-foodweb’ studies pioneered by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Corvallis,
Oregon, U.S. (http://www.soilfoodweb.com). They also studied the agronomic
effects of small applications of commercially produced vermicompost, on attacks by
fungus Pythium on cucumber, Rhizoctonia on radishes in the greenhouse, by
Verticillium on strawberries and by Phomposis and Sphaerotheca fulginae on grapes
in the field. In all these experiments vermicompost applications suppressed the
incidence of the disease significantly. They also found that the ability of pathogen
suppression disappeared when the vermicompost was sterilized, convincingly

indicating that the biological mechanism of disease suppression involved was

‘microbial antagonism.
Several authors have also reported that the aqueous extracts of vermicomposts depress
soil-borne pathogens and pests. They found in their field experiment that only half as many
plants of tomatoes sprayed with aqueous extract of vermicompost were infected with
Phytopthora infestans (that cause ‘late-blight’ disease) as those of control ones. Sinha [7].
Earthworms have also been found to be directly involved in suppression of soil-borne
plant diseases.
Genus Aporrectodea have been found to reduce the symptoms of several soil-borne plant
diseases. Presence of A. rosea and A. trapezoids in soils were correlated with a reduction in
the symptoms of diseases caused by Rhizoctonia solani in wheat crops in an Australian farm
soil. These earthworm species were also associated with suppression of crop diseases caused
by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici on wheat. Earthworms may also act as ‘vector’ for
dispersal of ‘disease-suppressive’ useful microbes in soils. For example A. trapezoids
mentioned above spread the bio-control bacterium Pseudomonas corrugata (which is highly
effective against G. graminis var. tritici on wheat) to a depth of 9 cm in soil after surface
inoculation in pots compared to a depth of only 3 cm in soil without earthworms (controls).
The presence of earthworms in soil was also correlated with increase in colonization of wheat
roots by P. corrugata. In addition to stimulating the activities of and / or dispersing disease-
suppressive microbes, earthworms may also directly decrease the viability of plant pathogens.
The tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) and cowpea mosaic virus (CPMV) passed through the gut
of earthworms Eisenia fetida was significantly reduced in its infectivity. Their proteins were
completely damaged.
Thus increasing the population and distribution of the ‘bio-control microbial agents’ in
farm soil by increasing the population of mixed species of earthworms may become future
safe ‘biological based strategies’ for crop disease control, completely eliminating the
destructive chemical based control. Jack [76].
Vermiwash : Liquid Filtered through Body of Earthworms - an Effective Biopesticides

The brownish-red liquid which collects from all vermicomposting beds is also useful in
farming. This liquid partially comes from the body of earthworms (as worm’s body contain
plenty of water) and is rich in amino acids, vitamins, nutrients like nitrogen, potassium,
magnesium, zinc, calcium, iron and copper and some growth hormones like ‘auxins’,
‘cytokinins’. It also contains plenty of nitrogen fixing and phosphate solubilising bacteria
(nitrosomonas, nitrobacter and actinomycetes). It has the capacity to revive even a dying
plant. (Mr. Avnish Bhardwaj; avnish.bhardwaz@live.com).
More importantly this liquid also contains good numbers of beneficial microbes - the
chitin and cellulose degraders. Farmers from Bihar in North India reported high growth
promoting and pesticidal properties of this liquid. They used it on brinjal and tomato with
excellent results.
The plants were healthy and bore bigger fruits with unique shine over it. Spray of
vermiwash effectively controlled all incidences of pests and diseases, significantly reduced
the use of chemical pesticides and insecticides on vegetable crops and the products were
significantly different from others with high market value.

Hahn [47] indicates that the vermiwash liquid can be made more effective as pest
repellent and diseases suppressant if the numbers of the beneficial microbes (chitin and
cellulose degraders) are increased in them. Under normal worm feed materials usually 2-3
millions chitin degraders and 4-5 million cellulose degraders are formed in a given volume of
vermiwash liquid but the threshold number required for effective action is about 10 millions.
If sugars are added to the vermiwash and fermented for some hours the number of chitin and
cellulose degrader microbes can also multiply in several millions in short time.
Vermicompost Tea: Vermicompost Solution in Water - an Effective Biopesticide

Hahn [47] also reported that if the vermicompost is dissolved in water and made into
solution called ‘vermicompost tea’ this liquid can also be used as spray for repelling pests and
suppressing plant diseases.
Vermicompost prepared by adding chitins and cellulosic materials in the feed can have
high number of chitin and cellulose degraders in vermicompost tea. This solution can also be
fermented with sugars to multiply the numbers of pest and disease killer microbes in millions
and billions in short time. Hahn [47] got 9 billion chitin and cellulose degraders in a given
volume of solution in 24 hours. Hence with smaller amount of vermicompost farmers can
make large volumes of bio-pesticides with very high number of pest and disease killer
microbes.
5.3. Factors Determining the Nutritional Quality of Vermicompost
The nutritional quality of vermicompost is determined primarily by the type of the

substrate (raw materials) and species of earthworms used for composting, along with
microbial inoculants, liming, aeration, humidity, pH and temperature. Cattle dung has been
found to yield most nutritive vermicompost when composted by Eisinea fetida. Pramanik [38]
found that application of lime @ 5 gm/kg of substrate and ‘microbial inoculation’
by suitable ‘cellulolytic’, ‘lignolytic’ and ‘N-fixing’ strains of microbes not only enhance the
rate of vermicomposting but also results into nutritionally better vermicompost with greater
enzymatic (phosphatase and urease) activities.
Studies indicate that inoculation with N-fixing bacteria significantly increased the
‘nitrogen’ (N) content of the vermicompost. Liming generally enhance earthworm activities
as well as microbial population. Earthworms after ingesting microbes into its gut proliferate
the population of microbes to several times in its excreta (vermicast). It is therefore
advantageous to use beneficial microbial inoculants whose population is rapidly increased for
rapid composting and also better compost quality.
Pramanik [38] studied the vermicomposting of four (4) substrates viz. cow dung, grass,
aquatic weeds and municipal solid wastes (MSW) to know the ‘nutritional status and
enzymatic activities’ of the resulting vermicomposts in terms of increase in total nitrogen (N),
total phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), humic acid contents and phosphatase activity.
1). Total Nitrogen (N)

Cow dung recorded maximum increase in nitrogen (N) content (275%) followed by
MSW (178%), grass (153%) and aquatic weed (146%) in their resulting vermicomposts over

the initial values in their raw materials. And this was even without liming and microbial
inoculation. Application of lime without microbial inoculation, however, increased N content
in the vermicompost from 3% to 12% over non-limed treatment, irrespective of substrates
used.
2). Total Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K)

Similarly, the vermicompost prepared from cow dung had the highest total phosphorus
(12.70 mg/g) and total potassium (11.44 mg/g) over their initial substrate followed by those
obtained from aquatic weeds, grasses and MSW. This was also irrespective of lime
application and microbial inoculation.
Among the microbes inoculated for vermicomposting, Bacillus polymyxa a free-living N-
fixing bacterium was most effective in increasing total phosphorus (11-22%) in the
vermicompost after liming.
3). Humic Acid

It was highest in vermicompost prepared from cow dung (0.7963 mg/g), followed by
those from grasses (0.6147 mg/g), aquatic weeds (0.4724 mg/g) and MSW (0.3917 mg/g).
And this was without liming and microbial inoculation.
However, microbial inoculation again increased humic acid contents in vermicompost
from 25% to 68% depending upon the substrate used. Inoculation by Phanerochaete
chrysoporium recorded highest humic contents without liming as compared to other
inoculants. But under limed condition, inoculation by B. polymyxa was most effective in
increasing humic acid contents irrespective of substrates used for vermicomposting.
4). Phosphatase Activity

Vermicompost obtained from cow dung showed the highest ‘acid phosphatase’ (200.45
μg p-nitrophenol/g/h) activities followed by vermicompost from grasses (179.24 μg p-
nitrophenol/g/h), aquatic weeds (174.27 μg p-nitrophenol/g/h) and MSW (64.38 μg p-
nitrophenol/g/h). The ‘alkaline phosphatase’ activity was highest in vermicompost obtained
from aquatic weeds (679.88 μg p-nitrophenol/g/h) followed by cow dung (658.03 μg p-
nitrophenol/g/h), grasses (583.28 μg p-nitrophenol/g/h) and MSW (267.54 μg p-
nitrophenol/g/h).
This was irrespective of lime application and microbial inoculation. However, when
inoculated by fungi all showed maximum phosphatase activities under both limed and non-
limed conditions.
6. STUDIES ON HIGH GROWTH IMPACTS OF VERMICOMPOST

OVER CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS
There have been several reports that earthworms and its vermicompost can induce
excellent plant growth and enhance crop production. Edwards and Burrows [48] found that
vermicompost consistently improved seed germination, enhanced seedling growth and
development, and increased plant productivity significantly.

Gunathilagraj [49] noted that the association between plant and earthworms induced
significant variation among the plants. Small doses of NPK fertilizers and earthworms +
cowdung + mulch significantly increased the chlorophyll protein, potassium, iron, manganese
and zinc contents in the field crops.
Cereal Crops: Several workers have reported amazing growth impacts of vermicompost
on cereal crops especially wheat and rice crops which are either comparable to or better than
the chemical fertilizers.
1) Nighawan and Kanwar [50] studied that earthworms vermicast when applied in
wheat crops significantly increased ‘plant height’, ‘number of tillers and leaves’,
promoted ‘early ear heading’, increased ‘ear head length’ and ‘dry matter’ per plant
in Triticum aestivum over control.
2) Kale and Bano [28] studied the grain yield of rice crops (Oryza sativa) on
vermicompost and chemical fertilizers and found that rice crops receiving
vermicompost @ 10,000 kg / ha were statistically at par with those receiving
chemicals @ 200 kg / ha. Kale et al. [77] reported greater population of nitrogen
fixers, actinomycetes and mycorrhizal fungi inducing better nutrient uptake by crops
and better growth in all vermicompost applied soils.
3) Krishnamoorthy and Vajranabhaiah [51] studied the impact of vermicompost and
garden soil in different proportion on wheat crops. They found that when the garden
soil and vermicompost were mixed in 1:2 proportions, the growth was about 72-76 %
while in pure vermicompost, the growth increased by 82-89 %.
4) Palaniswamy [52] studied that earthworms and its vermicast improve the growth and
yield of wheat by more than 40 %.
5) Reddy and Ohkura [53] studied the agronomic impacts of vermicompost on sorghum
(Sorghum bicolour) and compared with normal compost and chemical fertilizers (N
+ P2O5). Sorghum on vermicompost showed significantly higher growth
performances in all growth parameters.
6) Roberts et al. [54] reported high yield of wheat crops under vermicompost.
7) Guerrero [55] reported good response of upland rice crops grown on vermicompost
in combination with reduced dose (by 50%) of chemical fertilizers.
Table 5. Agronomic Impacts of Vermicompost Vis-à-vis Normal Compost

and Chemical Fertilizers on Sorghum (Sorghum bicolour)
Treatments Plant Root No. of Shoot

Height Length Leaves Biomass
(cm) (cm) (gm / pot)
1) Control 12.08 10.94 4.83 1.05
2) Vermicompost 54.60 30.28 10.78 9.59
3) CF (N + P2O5) 52.22 25.04 10.44 7.10
4) Compost 28.42 15.66 7.06 2.79
Source: Reddy and Ohkura [53]; Keys: CF = Chemical Fertilizers.

Table 6. Yield of Upland Rice Crops Fertilized by Vermicompost and Chemical

Fertilizers (After 123 Days of Culture)
Treatments Grain Yield / Pot (gm)

1) Control 2.7
2) Chemical Fertilizers (100 %) 19.2
3) Vermicompost (5 ton / ha) + CF (50 %) 24.0
Source: Guerrero [55]; Keys: CF = Chemical Fertilizer.
Guerrero [55] also reported about the growth impacts of vermicompost on corn crops
(Zea mays). There was 14 % increase in ear yield of corn crops applied with vermicompost @
5 ton / ha as compared to inorganic fertilizers applied at normal recommended dose. The yield
of grain in rice crops was 40 % higher.
Fruit Crops: Several studies have indicated high growth performance of vermicompost
on horticultural crops. But the presence of live worms in soil makes a significant difference in
the numbers of flowers and fruit formation per plant, size and weight of the fruits.
1) Buckerfield and Webster [56] found that vermicompost boosted grape yield by two-
fold as compared to chemical fertilizers. Treated vines with vermicompost produced
23 % more grapes due to 18 % increase in bunch numbers. The yield in grapes was
worth additional value of AU $ 3,400 / ha. Significantly, the yield was greater by 55
% when vermicompost applied soil was covered under mulch of straw and paper.
Still more significant was that ‘single application’ of vermicompost had positive
effects on yields of grapes for long 5 years. There were other agronomic benefits.
Biological properties of soil were improved with up to ten-fold increase in total
microbial counts. Levels of exchangeable sodium (Na) under vine were at least
reduced to 50% and there were three-fold increase in the population of earthworms
under the vine with long-term benefits to the soil.
2) Farmer in Sangli district of Maharashtra, India, grew grapes on ‘eroded wastelands’
and applied vermicasting @ 5 tons/ha. The grape harvest was normal with
improvement in quality, taste and shelf life. Soil analysis showed that within one
year pH came down from 8.3 to 6.9 and the value of potash increased from 62.5
kg/ha to 800 kg/ha. There was also marked improvement in the nutritional quality of
the grape fruits. Sinha et al., [57].
3) Arancon et al., [58] studied the agronomic impacts of vermicompost and inorganic
(chemical) fertilizers on strawberries (Fragaria ananasa) when applied separately
and also in combination. Vermicompost was applied @ 10 tons / ha while the
inorganic fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) @ 85 (N)- 155 (P) – 125 (K)
kg / ha. Significantly, the ‘yield’ of marketable strawberries and the ‘weight’ of the
‘largest fruit’ was 35 % greater on plants grown on vermicompost as compared to
inorganic fertilizers in 220 days after transplanting. Also there were 36 % more
‘runners’ and 40 % more ‘flowers’ on plants grown on vermicompost. Strawberries
grown on inorganic fertilizers amended with vermicompost had significantly greater
dry shoot weight, leaf areas and more number of flowers than grown exclusively on
inorganics in 110 days after transplanting. Farm soils applied with vermicompost had

significantly greater ‘microbial biomass’ than the one applied with inorganic
fertilizers.
4) Webster [59] studied the agronomic impact of vermicompost on cherries and found
that it increased yield of ‘cherries’ for three (3) years after ‘single application’
inferring that the use of vermicompost in soil builds up fertility and restore its vitality
for long time and its further use can be reduced to a minimum after some years of
application in farms. At the first harvest, trees with vermicompost yielded an
additional $ 63.92 and $ 70.42 per tree respectively. After three harvests profits per
tree were $ 110.73 and $ 142.21 respectively.
5) Singh et al. [60] also reported that vermicompost increased the yield of strawberries
by 32.7 % and also drastically reduced the incidence of physiological disorders like
albinism (16.1  4.5 %), fruit malformations (11.5 %  4 %), grey mould (10.4 %
 2.1 %) and diseases like Botrytis rot. By suppressing the nutrient related
disorders, vermicompost use increased the yield and quality of marketable strawberry
fruits up to 58.6 %
6) Sarjolta [61] reported about use of vermicompost in ‘apple orchards’ in India. It is
used once a year between 5-15 kg per plant. About 12 – 30 cm growth per year is
observed in apple trees. More significant observations were that ever since
vermicompost were being used (2002-03) the quantity and quality of the apple fruits
have increased, both in terms of ‘size and taste’. The ‘storage value of fruits’ has also
increased. The soil quality of the apple orchard has also improved. Apple farmers in
India have practically given up the use of chemical fertilizers. (Personal
Communication).
Vegetable Crops: Studies on the production of important vegetable crops like tomato
(Lycopersicum esculentus), eggplant (Solanum melangona) and okra (Abelmoschus
esculentus) on vermicompost have yielded very good results. Agarwal et al., [6].
1) Munroe [62] reported that lettuce grown on vermicompost showed significantly

higher yield by 20 % in wet weight as compared to control and conventional
compost. Average weight of lettuce head was 313 gm on vermicompost, while on
ordinary compost it was 257.5 gm and 259.1 on control. He also studied the
agronomic impacts of vermicompost on tomato plants (Lycopersicum esculentus) and
reported that the VC applied plants were bigger and healthier and the yield was
substantially higher even though the other tomato plants (without VC) received an
optimal nutrient supply.
2) Karmegam and Daniel [63] studied the effect of vermicompost and chemical
fertilizer on hyacinth beans (Lablab purpureas) and found that all growth and yield
parameters e.g. total chlorophyll contents in leaves, dry matter production, flower
appearance, length of fruits and fruits per plant, dry weight of 100 seeds, yield per
plot and yield per hectare were significantly higher in those plots which received
vermicompost either alone or in combination with chemical fertilizers (NPK). The
highest fruit yield of 109 ton / ha was recorded in plots which received vermicompost
@ 2.5 tons / ha plus half dose (50 %) of recommended NPK.
3) Suthar [64] studied the impact of vermicompost (VC), chemical fertilizers (NPK) and
farmyard manure (FYM) on root and shoot length, weight and number of cloves in

garlic (Allium sativum) and found that the best growth performance was achieved on
VC (15 ton/ha) + 50 % NPK as compared to FYM (15 ton/ha) + 100 % NPK. The
average fruit weight on vermicompost was also approximately 26.4 % greater than
the other combinations.
4) Ansari [65] studied the production of potato (Solanum tuberosum), spinach (Spinach
oleracea) and turnip (Brassica campestris) by application of vermicompost in a
reclaimed sodic soil in India. The overall productivity of vegetable crops during the
two years of trial was significantly greater in plots treated with vermicompost applied
@ 6 tons/ha as compared to control. There was significant improvement in soil
quality of plots amended with vermicompost @ 6 tons / ha - reduction from initial
96.74 to 73.68 in sodicity (ESP) and increase from initial 336.00 kg/ha to 829.33 kg /
ha in available nitrogen (N) contents. The study also indicated that the requirement of
vermicompost for leafy vegetable crops like spinach was lower (4 tons/ha) whereas
that of tuber crops like potato and turnip was higher (6 tons/ha).
6.1. Our Studies on Some Potted and Farmed Cereal and Vegetable Crops
Our studies on cereal and vegetable crops done at University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and
Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar (under Collaborative Research Program) in India and
at Griffith University in Australia, has also testified and strengthened the views of other
workers. Application of vermicompost in potted and field crops displayed excellent growth
performances in terms of height of plants, colour and texture of leaves, appearance of fruiting
structures etc. as compared to chemical fertilizers and the conventional compost.
There is also less incidences of pest and disease attack and reduced demand of water for
irrigation. Agarwal, [6]; Bhatia, [66]; Bhatia et al, [67]; Sharma, [68]; Sinha et al, [2], [57];
Sinha et al, [69]. [70], [71]; Sinha et al, [72]; Sinha [7].
(A). Studies on Potted Crops (India and Australia)
1. Potted Wheat Crops (India)

This was designed to study the agronomic impacts of vermicompost on wheat crops and
compare with those on chemical fertilizers and conventional cattle dung compost.
Three treatments with four (4) replicas of each were prepared and one kept as control.
About 8 kg of near neutral soil devoid of any organic matter was used in each pot.
Vermicompost was prepared indigenously by mixed species of earthworms Eisinea fetida,
Perionyx excavatus and Eudrilus euginae feeding on kitchen waste and cattle dung.
Chemical fertilizers were used as urea for nitrogen, single super phosphate and murate of
potash. While vermicompost was applied only once, chemicals were applied three times
during the period of growth and maturation. Results are given in Table 7.
Important Observations and Findings

The potted wheat crops with ‘earthworms and vermicompost’ made excellent progress
from the very beginning - from seed germination until maturation. They were most healthy

and green, leaves were broader, shoots were thicker and the fruiting ears were much broader
and longer with average greater number of seed grains per ear.
Table 7. Agronomic Impacts of Earthworms and Vermicompost vis-a-vis Cattle Dung

Compost and Chemical Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Potted Wheat Crops
(Triticum aestivum Linn.)
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

Parameters Control Earthworms and CHEMICAL Cattle Dung
VERMICOMPOST FERTILIZER COMPOST
Number of seed germinated
(1) 50 90 60 56
out of 100
(2) Root length (Av. cm) 7.13 16.46 9.32 8.23
(3) Shoot length (Av. Cm) 22.1 59.99 25.2 23.1
(4) Ear length (Av. cm) 4.82 8.77 5.45 5.1
Total height of plant (Av.
(5) 34.16 85.22 39.97 37.30
cm)
(6) Leaf length (Av. cm) 12.73 26.37 14.19 13.45
Dry weight of ears
(7) 0.135 0.466 0.171 0.16
(Av. cm)
Number of seed grains per
(8) 11.8 31.1 19.9 17.4
ear (Average)
(9) Chlorophyll content (mg/l) 0.783 3.486 1.947 1.824
(10) Number of tillers per plant 1 2-3 1-2 1-2
Source: Bhatia [66] and Sharma [68] .
Key: Av. = Average; Chemical Fertilizer (N=1.40 gm Urea; P=2.50 gm Phosphate; K=1.04 Potash;
Earthworms = 50 Nos.; Vermicompost = 250 gm; Compost 250 gm.
Significantly, they were much better (nearly two-fold in growth and bored over 55%
more seed grains) over those grown on chemical fertilizers. This conclusively proves that
vermicompost store and retains more nutrients, have more beneficial microbes and other
growth promoting factors than the conventional compost over a period of time.
2. Potted Egg-Plants (India)

This was designed to study the agronomic impacts of vermicompost in exclusive dose
and also with worms added to vermicompost on vegetable crops and compare with those with
chemical fertilizers. There were three (3) treatments with five (5) replicas of each and a
control. Pots were organised as above. Results are given in Table 8.

Potted egg-plants grown on vermicompost with live earthworms in soil bored on average
20 fruits/plant with average weight being 675 gm. Whereas, those grown on chemical
fertilizers (NPK) bored only 14 fruits/plant with average weight being only 500 gm. Total
numbers of fruits obtained from vermicompost (with worms) applied plants were 100 with
maximum weight being 900 gm while those on chemicals were 70 fruits and 625 gm as
maximum weight of a fruit. Interestingly, egg-plants grown on exclusive vermicompost
(without worms) did not perform as with those with worms, but were significantly better over

those on chemical fertilizers. Presence of earthworms in soil made a significant difference in

development of fruits in egg-plants.
Table 8. Agronomic Impacts of Vermicompost, Earthworms and Vermicompost vis-a-

vis Chemical Fertilizer on Growth and Development of Egg Plants
Av. Vegetative Growth Av. No. of Av. Wt. of Total No. Max. Wt. of
Treatments
(In Inches) Fruits/ Plant Fruits/ Plant of Fruits One Fruit
Earthworms
1. (50 Nos.) + 28 20 675 gm 100 900 gm
VC * (250 gm)
Vermicompost
2. 23 15 525 gm 75 700 gm
(250 gm)
Chemical Fertilizer
3. 18 14 500 gm 70 625 gm
(NPK) (Full dose)
4. CONTROL 16 10 425 gm 50 550 gm
Source: Agarwal [6]; VC = Vermicompost.
(N.B. Value of vegetative growth was taken that was achieved on the 90th day of the study, while the
fruiting was estimated from the 45th day and ending with over 120 days).
3. Potted Lady’s Finger Plants (India)

Experimental pots were organised as above. Results are given in Table 9.

Potted lady’s finger plants grown on vermicompost (with live worms in soil) bored on
average 45 fruits/plant with average weight being 48 gm. Whereas, those grown on chemical
fertilizers (NPK) bored only 24 fruits/plant with average weight being only 40 gm.
Table 9. Agronomic Impacts of Vermicompost, Worms with Vermicompost vis-a-vis

Chemical Fertilizer on Growth and Development of Lady’s Finger Plants
Av. Vegetative Av. No. of Av. Wt. of Total No. Max. Wt. of
Treatment
Growth (In Inches) Fruits/ Plant Fruits/ Plant of Fruits One Fruit
Earthworms
1. 39.4 45 48 gm 225 70 gm
(50 Nos.) + VC*
Vermicompost
2. 29.6 36 42 gm 180 62 gm
(250 gm)
Chemical Fertilizer
3. 29.1 24 40 gm 125 48 gm
(NPK) (Full dose)
4. CONTROL 25.6 22 32 gm 110 43 gm
Source: Agarwal [6]; VC * = Vermicompost.
(N.B. Value of vegetative growth was taken that was achieved on the 90th day of the study, while the
fruiting was estimated after 45th day and ending with over 120 days.).
Total numbers of fruits obtained from vermicompost (with worms) applied plants were
225 with maximum weight being 70 gm while those on chemicals were 125 fruits and 48 gm
as maximum weight of a fruit. Again, okra plants grown on exclusive vermicompost (without
worms) did not perform as with those with worms, but were significantly better over those on

chemical fertilizers. Presence of earthworms in soil added with vermicompost made a

significant difference on the development of fruits of okra plants.
4. Potted Tomato Plants (Australia)

The objectives of the study were same as above. Additional fertilizer was added in the
experiment as composted cow manure. It had four treatments and a control with three replicas
of each. Treatment 1 had chemical fertilizers (NPK+Mg+S+Fe+B+Zn), treatment 2 had
composted cow manure, treatment 3 vermicompost and treatment 4 vermicompost with
earthworms. They were all done in flower pots with 7 kg soil. Results are given in Table 10.

Tomato plants on vermicompost and VC with worms maintained very good growth from
the very beginning. Number of flowers and fruits per plant were also significantly high as
compared to those on agrochemicals and conventional compost.
Table 10. Growth of tomato plants promoted by vermicompost, vermicompost with

earthworms, composted cow manure and chemical fertilizers (Average growth in cm)
Chemical Composted Cow Vermi- Vermi-compost

Parameters Studied Control Fertilizers (5 Manure (500 compost (250 gm) +
gm x 3 times) gm) (250 gm) Earthworms (50)
1) Avg. Growth
10 16 16 18 19
in 2 Wks.
2) Avg. Growth
30 49 35 60 60
in 4 Wks.
3) Number flowers
8 17 10 27 31
(Wk.5)
4) Avg. Growth
40 70 51 118 125
in 6 Wks.
5) Avg. Growth
48 108 53 185 188
in 8 Wks
6) Number of fruits
4 16 6 22 27
(Wk. 9)
7) Avg. Growth after
50 130 53 207 206
10 Wks
Source: Vermiculture Revolution; Sinha [7]; NOVA Science Publication, USA.
Presence of earthworms in soil made a significant difference in ‘flower and fruit

formation’ in tomato plants. Very disappointing was the results of composted cow manure
obtained from the market. It could not compete with vermicompost (indigenously prepared
from food waste) even when applied in ‘double dose’.
5. Potted Egg-Plants (Australia)

The objectives of the study were same as above. It also had four treatments and a control
with three replicas of each. Treatment 1 had chemical fertilizers (NPK+Mg+S+Fe+B+Zn),
treatment 2 conventional compost (composted cow manure), treatment 3 vermicompost and
treatment 4 vermicompost with earthworms. They were all done in flower pots with 7 kg soil.
Results are given in Table 11.

Table 11. Growth of egg-plants promoted by vermicompost, vermicompost with

earthworms, conventional compost (composted cow manure) and chemical fertilizers
(All seedlings measured 3.5 cm; Average growth, size of leaf and fruit in cm)
Chemical Vermicompost (250

Composted Cow Vermicompost
Parameters Studied Control Fertilizer (5 gm x gm) + Earthworms
Manure (500 gm) (250 gm)
3 times) (50)
1).Avg. Growth in 2
6 8 8 10 10
Wks
2). Avg. Growth in
10 20 18 28 26
4 Wks
3). Avg. Growth in
16 48 40 72 65
6 Wks.
4). No. of
Flowers(After Wk 0 1 1 3 4
6)
5). Av. Size of Leaf 6x10 10x13 8x11 15x22 13x18
6). Avg. Growth in
28 60 50 91 90
8 Wks
7). Avg. Growth
32 76 70 122 124
after 10 Wks.
8). Number of fruits
0 1 1 3 4
(Wk. 10)
9). Size of Av. Fruit 0 3x5 3x4 6x8 12 x 7

Egg-plants on vermicompost and vermicompost with worms maintained very good
growth from the very beginning. Leaves were broad and thick. Number of flowers and fruits
per plant were also better as compared to those on agrochemicals and conventional compost.
Presence of earthworms in soil did make some difference in ‘flower and fruit formation’. Size
of the fruit was significantly bigger. Again disappointing was the results of composted cow
manure. It again could not compete with vermicompost even when applied in ‘double dose’.
6. Potted Corn Crops (Australia)

This study was designed to compare the growth promoting abilities of vermicompost with
chemical fertilizers and also the earthworms when significantly present in the growth
medium.
It had three (3) treatments with three replicas of each and a control. Treatment 1 with 25
number of adult worms only; Treatment 2, with chemical fertilizers; and Treatment 3, with
vermicompost and also containing same number of worms. Soluble chemical fertilizers
‘Thrive’ was used. Approx. 8 gm of chemicals was dissolved in 4.5 L of water. It had total
nitrogen (N) 15 %, total phosphorus (P) 4 %, total potassium (K) 26 % and a combination of
essential micronutrients. Three applications were made during entire growth period while the
worms and vermicompost was applied only one time. Results are given in Table 12.

Table 12. Agronomic Impacts of Earthworms, Worms with Vermicompost vis-a-vis

Chemical Fertilizers on Corn Plants (Average Growth in cm)
Treatment – 1 Treatment – 3
Control Treatment - 2
Earthworms Earthworms +
Parameters Studied (No Input) Soluble Chemical
Only (25 Nos.) Vermicompost
Fertilizers
(Without Feed) (200 gm)
Seed Sowing 29th July 2007 Do Do Do
Seed Germination 9th Day 7th Day 7th Day 7th Day
Avg. Growth in 4 wks 31 40 43 43
44 47 61 58
Avg. Growth in 6 wks
None None Appearance of Male Appearance of Male
App. of Male Rep.
Reproductive Reproductive
Organ (In wk 12)
Organ Organ
Avg. Growth
46 53 87 90
in 12 wks
App. of Female Rep. Appearance of Female
None None None
Organ (In wk 14) Rep. Organ
53
Avg. Growth in15 wks 48 (Appearance of 88 95
Male Rep. Organ)
App. Of New Corn
None None None New Corn
(In wk 16 )
Color and Texture of Pale and thin Green, stout and broad
Green and thin Green and stout leaves
Leaves leaves leaves
Source: Vermiculture Revolution ;Sinha [7]; NOVA Science Publication, USA.

Corn plants with worms and vermicompost and those on chemical fertilizers exhibited
parallel growth for some weeks after which those on vermicompost picked up faster. While
those on chemicals grew only 5 cm in 7 weeks (wk 12 to 19) those on vermicompost grew by
15 cm within the same period. Once the worms build up the soil fertility, it enhances growth
rapidly. Earthworms alone (without feed) in soil could not promote growth well. They need
feed materials to produce growth promoting metabolic products (vermicast).
Another study was designed to test the growth promoting capabilities of earthworms
added with ‘feed materials’ and ‘vermicompost’, as compared to ‘conventional compost’.
Vermicompost was prepared indigenously while conventional compost was obtained from
local nursery. It had three (3) treatments with three (3) replicas of each. Crushed dry leaves
(400 gm) were used as feed materials. Results are given in Table 13.

Corn plants with vermicompost in soil achieved rapid and excellent growth and attained
maturity (appearance of male and female reproductive organs) very fast. Plants on
conventional compost could not achieve maturity until the period of study (week 14). Plants
with worms provided with ‘feed materials’ performed better than those on conventional
compost at the completion of study (Week 14). It infers that worms need sufficient ‘organic
residues’ in soil to feed upon and convert into vermicast which works as ‘storehouse’ of
nutrients and the growth promoting biochemical factors.

Table 13. Agronomic Impacts of Earthworms (with Feed), Vermicompost vis-a-vis

Conventional Compost on Corn Plants (Average Growth in cm)
Treatment – 1 Treatment – 3
Treatment - 2 Conventional
Earthworms (25) With
Parameters Studied COMPOST
Feed VERMICOMPOST
(400 gm)
(400 gm) (400 gm)
Seed Sowing 9th Sept. 2007 Do Do
Seed Germination 5th Day 6th Day 5th Day
Avg. Growth
41 42 53
In 3 wks
Avg. Growth
49 57 76
In 4 wks
App. of Male Rep. Organ None
None Male Rep. Organ
(In wk 6)
Avg. Growth
57 70 104
In 6 wks
Avg. Growth
64 72.5 120
In 9 wks
App. of Female Rep.
None None Female Rep. Organ
Organ (In wk 10)
App. of New Corn
None None New Corn
(In wk 11)
Avg. Growth
82 78 135
In 14 wks
Color and Texture of Deep green, stout, thick
Green and thick Light green and thin
Leaves and broad leaves
Doubling Dose of Vermicompost Doubles the Growth Performance

Most significant finding was that when the dose of vermicompost is doubled from 200
grams (Study 1) to 400 grams (Study 2), it simply enhanced total plant growth to almost two-
fold (from average 58 cm on 200 gm VC to average 104 cm on 400 gm VC). This was done
even without worms and within the same period of study i.e. 6 weeks. Corn plants with
double dose of vermicompost (but without worms) achieved maturity in much shorter time.
Male reproductive organs (spike) appeared after 81 days (in week 12) in plants grown on 200
gm of vermicompost, while in those grown on 400 grams, it appeared just after 39 days (in
nearly half of the time in week 6). The female reproductive organs and eventually the ‘new
corn’ appeared after 96 days (in week 14) and 111 days (in week 16) respectively in plants
grown on 200 grams of vermicompost, while it appeared only after 69 days (in week 10) and
75 days (in week 11) respectively, in plants grown on 400 grams of vermicompost.
However, there is an ‘optimal limit’ about the use of vermicompost for any crop after
which there is no significant improvement in crop growth and yield even if the amount of
vermicompost is increased substantially. After some years of continued application of
vermicompost, the soil becomes fertile enough (rich in humus and beneficial soil microbes) to
sustain same crop growth and yield in future even on lower doses of vermicompost. This is
contrary to the chemical fertilizers.
7. Potted Wheat Crops (Australia)

It was designed to compare the growth promoting abilities of vermicompost and
earthworms with conventional compost (composted cow manure) and chemical fertilizers on

wheat crops. About 7 kg of near neutral soil devoid or organic matter was used. It had three
(3) treatments with two (2) replicas of each and a control. Treatment 1 was with chemical
fertilizers (NPK + Mg+S+Fe+B+Zn), Treatment 2 with composted cow manure and
Treatment 3 with vermicompost and earthworms. Five (5) gm of chemicals was applied in
three (3) doses at three different times of growing period-first at the time of seed sowing,
second after a month and the third after another month. It had total nitrogen (N) 14.8%, total
phosphorus (P) 4.3% and potassium (K) as potassium sulphates 12.5%. Fifty (50) earthworms
and 500 gm of vermicompost and same amount of composted cow manure were applied only
once at the time of seed sowing. 5 x 3 gm of chemical fertilizers and 500 gm of composts
applied in 7 kg of soil is considered normal dose. Results are given in Table 14.
Table 14. Agronomic Impacts of Earthworms and Vermicompost vis-a-vis Chemical

Fertilizers and Composted Cow Manure on Growth and Development of Wheat Crops
(Average Growth in cm)
Treatment – 3
Control Treatment – 1 Treatment – 2
Earthworms +
Parameters Studied (No Input) Chemical Fertilizers Composted Cow
Vermicompost
(5 gm x 3 times) Manure (500 gm)
(500 gm)
Seed Sowing 11th Sep. 2008 Do Do Do
th th th
Seed Germination 5 Day 5 Day 5 Day 3rd Day
Appearance of Seed
None None None Yes
Ears in wk 10
Appearance of Seed
None Yes None Yes
Ears in wk 11
Appearance and Size of Grew bigger in
Yes. Small and Yes. Small but
Seed Ears Small, but healthy size and very
unhealthy healthy
(In Wk 12) healthy.

Wheat crops maintained very good growth on vermicompost and earthworms from the
very beginning and achieved maturity in just 12 weeks. The striking rates of seed germination
were very high, nearly 48 hours (2 days) ahead of others and the numbers of seed germinated
were also high by nearly 20%. Plants were greener and healthier over others, with large
numbers of tillers and long seed ears were formed at maturity.
Seeds were healthy and nearly 35-40% more as compared to plants on chemical
fertilizers. The total growth performances of wheat crops (in terms of health, color and texture
of shoots and leaves) on vermicompost and earthworms were significantly better over the

chemical fertilizers. What they achieved in 8-9 weeks, was achieved by those on chemicals in
12 weeks. More significant was that the pot soil with vermicompost was very soft and porous
and retained more moisture. Pot soil with chemicals were hard and demanded more water
frequently.
(B). Studies on Farmed Wheat Crops (India)

This facility was provided by Rajendra Ariculture University, Bihar, India. We studied
the agronomic impacts of vermicompost and compared it with cattle dung compost and
chemical fertilizers in exclusive application and also in combinations on farmed wheat crops.
Cattle dung compost was applied four (4) times more than that of vermicompost as it has
much less NPK values as compared to vermicompost. Vermicompost was prepared primarily
from ‘cattle dung’ mixed with ‘food and farm wastes’. That is the usual practice in India.
Results are given in Table 15.
Important Observations, Findings and Discussion

Exclusive application of vermicompost promoted yield of wheat crops in farms
significantly higher (40.1 Q/ha) over the chemical fertilizers (34.2 Q/ha) applied in full dose.
This was nearly 18% higher over chemical fertilizers. And when same amount of
agrochemicals were supplemented with vermicompost @ 25 quintal/ha the yield increased to
about 44 Q/ha which is only about 10% higher over the wheat crops grown on exclusive
application of vermicompost. This 10% increase in production do not make much economic
sense as it will be neutralized by the high cost of agrochemicals and hence the high cost of
crop production.
Table 15. Agronomic Impacts of Vermicompost, Cattle Dung Compost vis-à-vis

Chemical Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Farmed Wheat Crops
Treatment Input / Hectare Yield / Hectare

1) CONTROL (No Input) 15.2 Q / ha
2) Vemicompost (VC) 25 Quintal VC / ha 40.1 Q / ha
3) Cattle Dung Compost
33.2 Q / ha
(CDC) 100 Quintal CDC / ha
4) Chemical Fertilizers (CF) NPK (120:60:40) kg / ha 34.2 Q / ha
NPK (120:60:40) kg / ha + 25
5) CF + VC 43.8 Q / ha
Q VC / ha
NPK (120:60:40) kg / ha +
6) CF + CDC 41.3 Q / ha
100 Q CDC / ha
Source: Suhane [8].
Keys: N = Urea; P = Single Super Phosphate; K = Murete of Potash (In Kg / ha).
On cattle dung compost applied @ 100 Q/ha (4 times of vermicompost) the yield was just
over 33 Q/ha which is about 18% less than that on vermicompost and that too after using
400% more conventional composts.
Application of vermicompost had other agronomic, economic and environmental
benefits. It significantly ‘reduced the demand of water for irrigation’ by nearly 30-40%.

Test results indicated ‘better availability of essential micronutrients and useful microbes’
in vermicompost applied soils. Most remarkable observation was significantly ‘fewer
incidences of pests and disease’ attacks in vermicompost applied crops.
7. IMPORTANT FEEDBACKS FROM FARMERS IN INDIA

AND AUSTRALIA USING VERMICOMPOST
We interviewed some farmers in India using vermicompost for agriculture. Most of them
asserted to have switched over to ‘organic farming’ by vermicompost completely giving up
the use of chemical fertilizers in the last 5-6 years with very encouraging results, benefiting
both, their economy (reduced cost of inputs and significantly high outputs from good crop
production, sale of vermicompost and worms) and the environment (reduced use of chemical
pesticides, improved physical, chemical and biological properties of farm soil).
Some of them harvested three (3) different crops in a year (reaping 2-3 times more
harvest) due to their rapid growth and maturity and reduced harvest cycle. We also got some
feed backs from Australian farmers through emails whom we educated about use of vermi-
products.
Some of the important observations of farmers were:
Reduced use of ‘water for irrigation’ as application of vermicompost over successive

years improved the ‘moisture holding capacity’ of the soil;
Reduced ‘pest attack’ (by at least 75%) in crops applied with vermicompost.
Cauliflowers grown on vermicompost remains 95% ‘disease free’. Late Blight
(fungal disease) in banana was almost reduced by over 95%;
Reduced ‘termite attack’ in farm soil especially where worms were in good
population;
Reduced ‘weed growth’;
Faster rate of ‘seed germination’ and rapid seedlings growth and development;
Greater numbers of fruits per plant (in vegetable crops) and greater numbers of seeds
per ear (in cereal crops), heavier in weight-better in both, quantity and quality as
compared to those grown on chemicals;
Fruits and vegetables had ‘better taste’ and texture and could be safely stored up to 6-
7 days, while those grown on chemicals could be kept at the most for 2-3 days;
Wheat production increased from 35 to 40%;
Fodder growth was increased by nearly 50% @ 30 to 40 quintal/hectare;
Flower production (commercial floriculture) was increased by 30-50% @ 15-20
quintal/hectare. Flower blooms were more colourful and bigger in size;
Kale [73] also interviewed some farmers in India who has been applying vermicompost
on various crops for over 5-6 years. Opinions of farmers about growth impacts and amount of
vermicompost used are given in table 16 below. Growth impacts included total health of the
crops with flowering and fruiting.

Table 16. Farmers Observations on the Use of Vermicompost

on Various Crops in India
CROPS Doses of Vermicompost Applied Growth Impacts

1. Cereals 2 Tons /Acre
Oats Very Good
Rice Excellent
Maize Very Good
2. Pulses 2 Tons / Acre
Garden Pea Very Good
Black Gram Very Good
3. Oil Seeds 3 – 5 Tons / Acre
Sun Flower Very Good
Ground Nut Very Good
Soyabean Very Good
Mustard Very Good
4. Vegetables 4 – 6 Tons / Acre
Cabbage Excellent
Potato Excellent
Tomato Excellent
Carrot Excellent
Pumpkin Excellent
Cucumber Very Good
5. Fruits 2 – 3 Kg / Plant
Grapes Excellent
Banana Excellent
Water-melon Excellent
Custard apple Excellent
Pomegranate Excellent
Mango Very Good
6. Ornamentals 4 Tons / Acre
Roses Excellent
Chrysanthemum Excellent
Marigold Excellent
7. Other Crops 5 Tons / Acre
Sugarcane Excellent
Cotton Very Good
Tea Good
Coffee Very Good
Source: Kale [73].
8. NUTRITIONAL AND HEALTH PROTECTIVE VALUES OF ORGANIC

FOODS PRODUCED BY VERMICOMPOST
Organically grown fruits and vegetables especially on vermicompost have been found to
be highly nutritious, rich in ‘antioxidants’ than their chemically grown counterparts and can

be highly beneficial for human health. Organic foods have elevated antioxidants levels in
about 85 % of the cases studied with average levels being 30 % higher compared to
chemically grown foods. Studies indicate high mineral contents in organic foods. Antioxidant
vitamins in vegetables are some of the nutrients besides vitamins, minerals, flavonoids and
phytochemicals, which contribute greatly to human health protection. Studies indicate that
organic foods are high in ‘organic acids’ and ’poly-phenolic compounds’ many of which have
potential health benefits like antioxidants. A Japanese study indicated that organic vegetables
had 30 % to 10 times higher levels of ‘flavonoids’ as compared to chemical grown
counterparts and with very high ‘anti-mutagenic activity’. This is of great significance in
preventing some deadly diseases like cancers leading to tremendous health benefits. The
greatest anti-mutagenic activity was found in organic spinach. Sinha [7].
CONCLUSION AND REMARKS

All composts work as a ‘slow-release organic fertilizer’ - promoting the growth of
‘chemical-free safe organic foods; ‘restore and improve soil fertility and moisture holding
capacity’ – improving productivity and reducing water for irrigation; ‘protect crops’ against
pest and diseases – significantly reducing the use of chemical pesticides; ‘sequester
atmospheric carbon into the soil’ - reducing net GHG emissions from agriculture.
Vermicompost is a wonderful ‘soil amendment’ and works with greater efficiency giving all
above agronomic, social, economic and environmental benefits to mankind. Nelson [74].
‘Earthworms biomasses produced during vermicomposting come as an additional valuable
resource for the farmers. It is finding new uses in feed, pharmaceutical and detergent
industries and for promoting ‘poultry and fishery’ as they are rich in ‘proteins’. Some
‘bioactive compounds’ found in earthworms promises to produce modern medicines for
curing some deadly diseases of mankind.
Vermicompost performed significantly well over conventional composts and chemical
fertilizers in all experiments on field and potted crops. Vegetable crops performed
exceedingly well when ‘live earthworms’ were also present in soil along with its vermicast.
They made excellent impact on ‘fruit development’ justifying the beliefs of ancient Indian
vermiculture scientist Sir Surpala. Sadhale [78]. This definitely relates with secretion of
flowering hormones ‘gibberlins’ by earthworms which aids in flower formation and fruit
development Another significant matter is the ‘less incidence of pest and disease attack’,
better taste of fruits of vegetable crops grown on vermicompost.
Vermicompost contain large number of worm ‘cocoons’ which germinate into worms
eventually proliferating the population of earthworms in farm soil. Up to 3 cocoons per worm
per week are produced. From each cocoon about 10-12 tiny worms emerge. Studies indicate
that they double their number at least every 60 - 70 days. Given the optimal conditions of
moisture, temperature and feeding materials earthworms can multiply by 28 i.e. 256 worms
every 6 months from a single individual. Each of the 256 worms multiplies in the same
proportion to produce a huge biomass of worms in a short time. The total life-cycle of the
worms is about 220 days. They produce 300-400 young ones within this life period.
Worms significantly contribute nitrogen (N) contents to soil by over 85%. Earthworms
recycle nitrogen in the soil in very short time and the quantity recycled is significant ranging

from 20 to 200 kg N/ha/year. After 28 weeks soil with living worms contained 75 ppm of
nitrate nitrogen compared to the control soil without worms which contained 45 ppm. Worms
increase nitrogen levels in soil by adding their metabolic and excretory products (vermicast),
mucus, body fluid, enzymes and decaying tissues of dead worms. They also contribute
nitrogen indirectly through fragmentation of organic materials and grazing on soil
microorganisms. Earthworm tissues contain about 7.9 % N on a dry weight basis. Living
worms release nitrogen from their bodies and after death it is rapidly decomposed in about 4
days releasing all nitrogen into the soil. In a study with potted ryegrass, over 70 % of the N15
added was incorporated into plant shoots after 16 days. Study found that 50% of the N in dead
worm tissues was mineralized in 7 days while 70% in 10-20 days and the N was converted to
NO3-N which is bio-available form on nitrogen to crop roots. The release of mineral N after
death of earthworms could be significant since worm biomass can turn over up to 3 times a
year in farm soil. Study estimated direct flux of nitrogen through earthworm biomass in farm
soils ranging from 10-74 kg N/ha/year. In corn field mortality and decomposition of dead
earthworms could contribute 23.5 kg N /ha/year. In case of inorganic fertilizer-treated farm
soil it is only 15 .9 kg/ha/year.
One square meter of healthy soil contains 1,000 earthworms. One acre of land
can contain up to 3 million earthworms, the activities of which can bring 8 - 10 tonnes of
topsoil to the surface (in the form of nutrient rich vermicasts) every year. Earthworms’
population of 0.2 to 1.0 million per hectare of land can be established within 3 months.
Earthworms loosen the soil as they move through it. Their activity creates channels in the soil
for movement of air and water. Presence of worms improves water penetration in compacted
soils and can increase cumulative rainfall intake by up to 50%. Soils with a large healthy
worm population drain 4 - 5 times faster than soils with very few worms. Worm activity can
increase air-soil volume from 8 - 30% and increases the bioavailability of nutrients and trace
elements which are present in the soil. Earthworms can contribute between 20 to 40 kg
nitrogen/ha/year in soil, in addition to other mineral nutrients and plant growth regulators and
increase soil fertility and plant growth by 30-200%. In general a land inhabited and ploughed
by earthworms for 3 years will become high yielding farmland. According to the estimate of
an American researcher, 1,000,000 (one million) earthworms in a garden/farm plot provide
the same benefit as three gardeners/farmers working 8 hours in shifts all year round, and
moreover having 10 tons of manure applied in the plot.
As composts are made from ‘renewable biological resources’ they will be readily
available to mankind in future too. Chemical fertilizers are made from ‘non-renewable
geological resources’ and hence ‘depleting’ in future. While in the use of all kinds of compost
the environment is ‘benefited’ at all stages-from production (salvaging waste and diverting
them from landfills and reducing greenhouse gases) to application in farms (adding beneficial
microbes to soil and improving biochemical properties), in the use of chemical fertilizers the
environment is ‘harmed’ at all stages-from procurement of raw materials from mines and
industries to their production in factories (generating huge amount of chemical wastes and
pollutants) and their use in farms (adversely affecting soil’s physical, chemical and biological
properties and also emitting powerful greenhouse gas N2O from the rapid oxidation of
chemical nitrogen in soil).
Use of vermicompost and other vermiproducts (vermiwash and vermicompost tea) would
significantly reduce or even replace the use of ‘dangerous agrochemicals’ in agriculture and
also reduce the demand of water for irrigation thus benefiting the farmers and the economy

and ecology of the nation in every way. Vermicompost can truly be a ‘sustainable alternative’
to the chemical fertilizers which are proving destructive all on counts - socially (adverse
affects of chemically grown food on health), economically (increasing cost of fertilizers and
food production), agronomically (degrading soil properties) and environmentally (soil and
water pollution and greater emissions of greenhouse gases from chemical agriculture). It will
be a ‘recipe’ to restore the ‘degenerated and chemically contaminated soils’ of world
agricultural ecosystems resulting from the heavy use of agrochemicals in the wake of green
revolution.
Future researches about VERMICOMPOST use in AGRICULTURE should be directed
towards following studies:
1) Growth promotion activities in major crops (cereals, pulses, fruits and vegetables),
time taken for maturation and yield and with potential to replace ‘chemical
fertilizers’;
2) Incidence of pest and disease attacks on crops, ‘pest repellent and disease
suppressive’ activities of vermicompost, supported by the use of ‘vermiwash’ and
‘vermicompost tea’ and with potential to eliminate the use of ‘chemical pesticides’;
3) Nutritional quality and storage values of fruits and vegetables, protein values of
cereals and pulses produced by vermicompost;
4) Reduction in water for irrigation due to increased ‘water holding capacity’ of soils by
vermicompost; and
5) Mitigation of ‘global warming’ by reduction of GHG emissions during
vermicomposting of organic wastes, reduced ‘tillage’ of farm soil and sequestration
of atmospheric ‘carbon’ into soil by vermicompost.
REFERENCES
[1] V. Bombatkar, The Miracle Called Compost; The Other India Press, Pune, India (1996).
[2] R. K. Sinha, Sunil Herat, Dalsukh Valani and Krunal Chauhan: Vermiculture and
Sustainable Agriculture’; American-Eurasian J. of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences; ISSN 1818: 5 (S); 01- 55; IDOSI Publication (Special Issue) (2009).
[3] C.A. Edwards and I. Burrows: The Potential of Earthworms Composts as Plant Growth
Media. In Edward, C.A. and E.F. Neuhauser (Eds.), Earthworms in Waste and
Environmental Management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands;
ISBN 90-5103-017-7, 21-32. (1988).
[4] R.M. Atiyeh, S. Subler, C.A. Edwards, G. Bachman, J.D. Metzger and W. Shuster :
Effects of Vermicomposts and Composts on Plant Growth in Horticultural Container
Media and Soil; Pedobiologia; 44; 579-590.(2000).
[5] S. Subler, Edwards Clive and Metzger James: Comparing Vermicomposts and
Composts; Biocycle, 39: 63-66. (1998).
[6] S. Agarwal: Study of Vermicomposting of Domestic Waste and the Effects of
Vermicompost on Growth of Some Vegetable Crops; Ph. D Thesis Awarded by
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India. (Supervisor: Dr. Rajiv K. Sinha) (1999).

[7] R. K. Sinha: Vermiculture Revolution: The Technological Revival of Charles Darwin’s

Unheralded Soldier’s of Mankind; NOVA Science Publication, U.S.A. (Under
Publication) (2011).
[8] R.K. Suhane: Vermicompost (In Hindi); Pub. Of Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa,
Bihar; pp: 88 (www.kvksmp.org) (Email: info@kvksmp.org). (2007).
[9] S. Pajon: ‘The Worms Turn-Argentina’; Intermediate Technology Development Group,
Case Study Series 4, (Quoted in Munroe, 2007).
[10] R.K. Sinha, Dalsukh Valani, Vinod Chandran and Brijal K. Soni : Earthworms - The
Soil Managers: Their Role in Restoration and Improvement of Soil Fertility;
Agricultural Issues and Policies; NOVA Science Publishers, N.Y., USA; ISBN 978-1-
61122-514-3; (2011).
[11] X., Kuiwu and D. Xingting: ‘Culture and Utilization of Earthworms”, Nanjing
Publisher, China. (1988).
[12] Compost Australia: Compost for Soils; Publication of Compost Australia; (2011)
(www.compostforsoils.com.au).
[13] GRDC: Recycled Organic Fertilizer Fact Sheet; Grains Research and Development
Corporation (Australia); (www.grdc.com.au) (2010).
[14] H.I. Chaoui, C.A. Edwards, A. Brickner, S.S. Lee and N.Q. Arancon: Suppression of
the plant diseases, Pythium (damping-ff), Rhizoctonia (root rot) and Verticillium (wilt)
by vermicomposts; Proc. Of Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Pests and
Diseases; 2, 8B-3, 711-716. (2002).
[15] A. Mathew: Suppression of Soil-Borne Plant Diseases Using Compost; Paper Presented
at 3rd National Compost Research and Development Forum; Organized by COMPOST
Australia, Murdoch University, Perth. (2007).
[16] F.R. Magdoff: Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture’
(www.compostforsoils.com.au) (2004).
[17] H. Hoitink: Compost Use for Disease Suppression; In ‘On farm Composting Handbook’
(www.plantpath.osu.edu) (2008).
[18] UNEP/GEMS: The Contamination of Food; Publication of United Nation Environment
Program; Environment Library No. 5, Nairobi, Kenya. (1992).
[19] G. Baker, and V. Barrett: Earthworm Identifier; Publication of Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Division of Soil and Land Management,
Australia.(1994).
[20] Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/ Accessed 1 October 2009.
[21] Australian Greenhouse Office: National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005; Report of
Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. (2007).
[22] R. Follet,: Soil Management Concepts and Carbon Sequestration in Croplands Soils’;
Soil and Tillage Research; 61; pp. 77-92. (2001).
[23] M. Robbins: Carbon Trading, Agriculture and Poverty; Pub. Of World Association of
Soil and Water Conservation; (Special Pub. No.2); 48 pp. (2004).
[24] A. Leu: Mitigating Climate Change with Soil Organic Matter; Paper presented at Int.
Symposium on ‘Organic Matter Management and Compost Use in Horticulture’;
Adelaide, Australia, April 4-7, 2011; Organic Federation of Australia (leu@
austarnet.com.au).
[25] N.S. Bolan: Enhancing Soil Carbon Sequestration Utilizing Compost; Paper presented
at Int. Symposium on ‘Organic Matter Management and Compost Use in Horticulture’;

Adelaide, Australia, April 4-7, 2011; University of South Australia (Nanthi.bolan@

unisa.edu.au).
[26] R. Lal and J. Bruce: The Potential of World’s Croplands Soils to Sequester Carbon (C)
and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect; Environmental Science and Policy; 2; 177-185.
(1999).
[27] J. Biala and A. Kavanagh : Use Compost for Mitigating Climate Change; Paper
presented at Int. Symposium on ‘Organic Matter Management and Compost Use in
Horticulture’; Adelaide, Australia, April 4-7, 2011; (biala@optusnet.com.au).
[28] R.D. Kale. and K. Bano: Field Trials With Vermicompost. An Organic Fertilizer; In
Proc. of National Seminar on ‘Organic Waste Utilization by Vermicomposting’. GKVK
Agricultural University, Bangalore, India. (1986) (dr.rdkale@gmail.com).
[29] S.C. Tiwari, B.K. Tiwari and R.R. Mishra: Microbial Populations, Enzyme Activities
and Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium Enrichment in Earthworm Casts and in
Surrounding Soil of a Pineapple Plantation. J. of Biology and Fertility of Soils; 8, 178-
182. (1989).
[30] E. Nelson and A. Rangarajan: Vermicompost: A Living Soil Amendment; Publication of
Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S. (http://cwmi.css.cornell. edu/ vermicompost.htm)
(2010).
[31] S. Subler, Edwards Clive and Metzger James: Comparing Vermicomposts and
Composts; Biocycle, 39: 63-66. (1998).
[32] N.Q. Arancon, C.A. Edwards, P. Bierman, J.D. Metzger, S. Lee and C. Welch: Effects
of Vermicomposts on Growth and Marketable Fruits of Field-grown Tomatoes, Peppers
and Strawberries. Pedobiologia, 47: 731-735. (2003).
[33] N.Q. Arancon and C. A. Edwards): Effects of Vermicompost on Plant Growth; In:
Guerrero, R.D. and Guerrero-del Castillo, M.R. (Eds): Vermitechnologies for
Developing Countries; Philippine Fisheries Association, Laguna, Philippines; .32 - 65.
(2006).
[34] H.I Chaoui, L.M. Zibilske and T. Ohno, (2003): Effects of Earthworms Casts and
Compost on Soil Microbial Activity and Plant Nutrient Availability. J. of Soil Biology
and Biochemistry; 35 (2): 295-302.
[35] J.C. Buckerfield, T.C. Flavel, K.E. Lee and K.A. Webster: Vermicompost in Solid and
Liquid Forms as a Plant-Growth Promoter; Pedobiologia, 43: 753-759. (1999).
[36] J.N. Parle: A Microbiological Study of Earthworm casts. J of General Microbiology,
31: 13-23. (1963).
[37] S. Scheu: Microbial Activity and Nutrient Dynamics in Earthworms Casts. J. of
Biological Fertility Soils, 5: 230-234. (1987).
[38] P. Pramanik, G.K. Ghosh, P.K. Ghosal and P. Banik: Changes in Organic-C, N, P and
K and Enzyme Activities in Vermicompost of Biodegradable Organic Wastes Under
Liming and Microbial Inoculants. J. of Bioresource Technology, 98, 2485-2494. (2007).
[39] R.L. Neilson: Presence of Plant Growth Substances in Earthworms, Demonstrated by
the Paper Chromatography and Went Pea Test; Nature, (London); 208: 1113-1114.
(1965).
[40] V. Tomati, A. Grappelli and E. Galli: The Presence of Growth Regulators in
Earthworm-Worked Wastes; In Proceeding of International Symposium on
‘Earthworms’; Italy; 31 March-5 April, 1985; 423-436. (1987).

[41] A. Grappelli, V. Tomati, E. Galli and B. Vergari: Earthworm Casting in Plant

Propagation. Horticultural Science, 20: 874-876. (1985).
[42] R.M. Atiyeh, C.A. Lee Edward, N.Q. Arancon and J.D. Metzger: The Influence of
Humic Acids Derived from Earthworm-Processed Organic Wastes on Plant Growth; J.
of Bioresource Technology; 84: 7-14. (2002).
[43] Li, Kangmin, Peizhen and Li Hongtao: Earthworms Helping Economy, Improving
Ecology and Protecting Health; Int. J. Of Global Environmental Issues; In Rajiv K.
Sinha et al. (Eds.), Special Issue on ‘Vermiculture Technology’; 10; 354-365;
Inderscience Pub. (2010).
[44] L.P. Canellas, F.L. Olivares, A.L. Okorokova and R.A. Facanha: Humic Acids Isolated
from Earthworm Compost Enhance Root Elongation, Lateral Root Emergence and
Plasma Membrane H+-ATPase Activity in Maize Roots. In J. of Plant Physiology, 130:
1951-1957. (2000).
[45] Anonymous: Vermicompost as Insect Repellent; Biocycle, Jan. 01: 19. (2001).
[46] C.A. Edwards and N.Q. Arancon: Vermicompost Supress Plant Pests and Diseases
Attacks. In REDNOVA NEWS: http://www.rednova.com/ display/?id =55938 (2004).
[47] G. Hahn: ‘Chitin Rich Vermicompost Repels Pests and Suppress Plant Diseases;
(Personal Communication; Email: geohahn@gmail.com) (2011).
[48] C.A. Edwards and I. Burrows: The Potential of Earthworms Composts as Plant Growth
Media. In Edward, C.A. and E.F. Neuhauser (Eds.), Earthworms in Waste and
Environmental Management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands;
ISBN 90-5103-017-7, 21-32. (1988).
[49] K. Gunathilagraj: Earthworm: An Introduction; Indian Council of Agricultural
Research Training Program. Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore. (1996).
[50] S.D. Nighawan and J.S. Kanwar: Physico-chemical Properties of Earthworm Castings;
Indian J. of Agricultural Sciences; 22: 357-375. (1952).
[51] R.V. Krishnamoorthy and S.N. Vajranabhaiah: Biological Activity of Earthworm Casts:
An Assessment of Plant Growth Promoter Levels in the Casts; Proc. of Indian Academy
of Sciences (Animal Science): 95: 341-351. (1986).
[52] S. Palaniswamy: Earthworm and Plant Interactions; Paper presented in ICAR Training
Program; Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. (1996).
[53] V. Reddy and K. Ohkura: Vermicomposting of Rice Straw and its Effect on Sorghum
Growth; Tropical Ecology; 45 (2): 327-331. (2004).
[54] P. Roberts, G.E. Jones and D.L. Jones: Yield Responses of Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
to Vermicompost; Compost Science and Utilization; 15: . 6-15. (2007).
[55] R.D. Guerrero: Vermicompost Production and its Use in Crop Production in The
Philippines; Int. J. of Global Environmental Issues ; In Rajiv K. Sinha et. al., (Eds.)
Special Issue on ‘Vermiculture Technology’; 10; 378-383; Inderscience Pub. (2010).
[56] J.C. Buckerfield and K.A. Webster: Worm-Worked Waste Boost Grape Yield:
Prospects for Vermicompost Use in Vineyards; The Australian and New Zealand Wine
Industry Journal, 13: 73-76. (1998).
[57] R.K. Sinha, P.K. Singh, D. Valani and S. Agarwal: Earthworms Vermicompost: An
Economically Viable and Environmentally Sustainable Alternative to Destructive
Chemical Fertilizers: Some Experimental Studies on Potted and Farmed Cereal and
Vegetable Crops; In Justin A Daniels (Ed.) Advances in Environmental Research - 9

(Chapter 2); NOVA Science Publishers, N.Y., USA; ISBN: 978 – 1 – 61728 – 999 - 6.
(2009).
[58] N.Q. Arancon, C.A. Edwards, P. Bierman, C. Welch, and J.D. Metzger :
Influences of Vermicomposts on Field Strawberries: 1. Effects on Growth and Yields;
Bioresource Technology, 93, No. 2; 145-153. (2004).
[59] K.A Webster: Vermicompost Increases Yield of Cherries for Three Years after a Single
Application; EcoResearch, South Australia, (www.ecoresearch.com.au). (2005).
[60] R. Singh, R.R. Sharma, S. Kumar, R.K. Gupta and R.T.Patil: Vermicompost
Substitution Influences Growth, Physiological Disorders, Fruit Yield and Quality of
Strawberry (Fragaria ananassa Duch.); J. of Bioresoursce Technology; 99: 8507-8511.
(2008).
[61] V. Sarjolta: Use of Vermicompost in Apple Orchards in Himachal Pradesh, India;
Personal Communication (Email: vineet787@gmail. com). (2009).
[62] G. Munroe: Manual of On-farm Vermicomposting and Vermiculture; Pub. of Organic
Agriculture Centre of Canada, pp: 39. (2007).
[63] N. Karmegam and T. Daniel: Effect of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizer on
Growth and Yield of Hyacinth Bean (Lablab purpureas); Dynamic Soil, Dynamic
Plant; Global Science Books; 2 (2): 77-81. (2008).
[64] S. Suthar: Impact of vermicompost and composted farmyard manure on growth and
yield of garlic (Allium stivum L.); International Journal of Plant Production, 3(1), 1-12.
(2009).
[65] A.A. Ansari: Effect of Vermicompost on the Productivity of Potato (Solanum
tuberosum), Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) and Turnip (Brassica campestris); World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences; 4 (3); 333-336. (2008).
[66] S. Bhatia: Earthworm and Sustainable Agriculture: Study of the Role of Earthworm in
Production of Wheat Crop; Ph.D Thesis Awarded by University of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
India. (Supervisor: Rajiv K. Sinha). (2000).
[67] S. Bhatia, Sonu, R. K. Sinha and R. Sharma : Seeking Alternatives to Chemical
Fertilisers for Sustainable Agriculture: A Study on the Impact of Vermiculture on the
Growth and Yield of Potted Wheat Crops (Triticum aestivum Linn); International J. of
Environmental Education and Information; University of Salford, UK, 19 (4): 295-304.
(2000).
[68] R. Sharma: Vermiculture for Sustainable Agriculture: Study of the Agronomic Impact
of Earthworms and their Vermicompost on Growth and Production of Wheat Crops;
Ph.D. Thesis; Awarded by University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India (Supervisor: Dr. Rajiv
K. Sinha). (2001).
[69] R.K. Sinha, S. Agarwal, K.Chauhan and D. Valani : The Wonders of Earthworms and
its Vermicompost in Farm Production: Charles Darwin’s ‘Friends of Farmers’, With
Potential to Replace Destructive Chemical Fertilizers from Agriculture; J. of
Agricultural Sciences, 1 (2): 76-94; Scientific Research Publication, USA (2010).
[70] R.K. Sinha and Dalsukh Valani: Earthworms: Charles Darwin’s ‘Unheralded Soldiers
of Mankind and Farmer’s Friend’ Working Day and Night Under the Soil: Their Role
as Soil Managers; In Justin A Daniels (Ed.) Advances in Environmental Research - 9
(Chapter 8); NOVA Science Publishers, N.Y., USA; ISBN: 978 – 1 – 61728 – 999 - 6.
(2010).

[71] R.K. Sinha, D. Valani, K. Chauhan and S. Agarwal: Embarking on a Second Green
Revolution for Sustainable Agriculture by Vermiculture Biotechnology Using
Earthworms: Reviving the Dreams of Sir Charles Darwin; J. of Agricultural
Biotechnology and Sustainable Development; 2(7): 113-128; Academic Journals, USA;
(2010).
[72] R.K. Sinha, D. Valani, B. K. Soni and V. Chandran: Earthworms Vermicompost: A
Sustainable Alternative to Chemical Fertilizers for Organic Farming; Agricultural
Issues and Policies; NOVA Science Publishers, N.Y., USA; ISBN 978-1-61122-580-8.
(2011).
[73] R.D. Kale: Vermicompost – crown jewel of organic farming (A Memoir); N.D. Kale,
Malleswaram, Banglore, India; (dr.rdkale@gmail.com) (2006).
[74] E. Nelson: Vermicompost: A Living Soil Amendment; Publication of Cornell University,
Ithaca, U.S. (http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/ vermicompost.htm) (2010).
[75] N.Q. Arancon, C.A. Edwards, S. Lee: Management of plant parasitic nematode
population by use of vermicomposts; Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection
Conference on Pests and Diseases; 8B-2; 705–716. (2002).
[76] A. Jack: Suppression of plant pathogens with vermicomposts; In CA Edwards, NQ
Arancon, and RL Sherman (Eds.) ‘Vermiculture Technology: Earthworms, Organic
Wastes and Environmental Management’; Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press (US); p.623.
[77] R.D. Kale, B.C. Mallesh, B. Kubra, and D.J. Bagyaraj: Influence of
Vermicompost Application on the Available Macronutrients and Selected Microbial
Populations in a Paddy Field; Soil Biology and Biochemistry; 24 (12): 1317-1320.
(1992).
[78] N. Sadhale: Recommendation to incorporate earthworms in soil of pomegranate to
obtain high quality fruits. In Surpala’s Vrikshayurveda, Verse 131. The Science of Plant
Life by Surpala, 10th Century A.D. Asian Agri-History Bulletin; No. 1. Secunderabad,
India. (1996).
[79] N.Q. Arancon, P.A. Galvis, and C.A. Edwards: Suppression of insect pest populations
and damage to plants by vermicomposts; Bioresource Technology, 96(10): 1137-1142.
(2005).
[80] C. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Liu, D. Zheng, X. Liu, and S. Li : Earthworm polysaccharide and
its anti-bacterial function on plant-pathogen microbes in vitro; European J. of Soil
Biol.; 43: 135-142. (2007).
[81] W.H. Elmer: Influence of earthworm activity on soil microbes and soil-borne diseases
of vegetables; Plant Diseases; 93 (2): 175-179. (2009).
[82] S. Compant, B. Duffy, J. Nowak, C. Clement and E.A. Barka : Use of plant growth-
promoting bacteria (from soil) for bio-control of plant diseases; Principles, mechanisms
of action and future prospects; Appl. Environ. Microbiol; 71 (9): 4951 – 4959. (2005).

Chapter 10
THE STATUS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER IN

MALAYSIA: FOR EARTH’S SAKE
Hasnah Md. Jais

School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
Only 10% of the cropping system in Malaysia is using organic fertilizer. Organic
fertilizers are mainly applied on fruits and vegetable farms as a result of consumer’s
concern about the health hazards caused by excessive application of chemical fertilizer
and pesticide.
Furthermore, the use of organic fertilizers for fruit and vegetable crops has gained
momentum due to promotion by the government for more sustainable and better
management of natural resources.
The government promotes programs that encourage recycling and effective use of
agricultural wastes and other biomass. The abundance of organic waste provides huge
opportunities for production of value added products such as bio-fertilizer, organic
fertilizer, soil conditioner and high quality compost.
The use of these organic products is expected to reduce the dependence on chemical
fertilizers. The number of local manufacturers of organic fertilizers has also increased
over the past few years. More recently, organic fertilizers fortified with chemical
fertilizers have also been marketed for use in the plantation sectors. Although chemical
fertilizers will still play a major role in the overall cropping system of Malaysia, the
addition of organic fertilizer may be able to reduce unnecessary application of excessive
chemical fertilizer. Furthermore, with continued use of organic fertilizer, the soil health
will also improve.
The Ministry of Agriculture is also actively promoting organic farming through their
programs of certification under the Standard Organic Malaysia (SOM) and target to
increase the organic production areas in the country.
Keywords: Organic fertilizer; Chemical fertilizer; Organic waste
Corresponding author email: mjhasnah@usm.my.

208 Hasnah Md. Jais
THE HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE IN MALAYSIA

The early years of agriculture development in Malaysia started in the 60’s. The focus was
more on the production of food and export-oriented raw materials for industrialized nations.
However, in the 80’s and beyond, there was a robust economic growth which was stimulated
by the manufacturing sector. The nation began to transform from an agro-based to an
industrialized nation. Later, the approach expanded towards agriculture industry. This was
further strengthened when Malaysia bought over all the plantations from the British: Guthrie,
Sime Darby, Dunlop (IOI), Harrison and Crossfield (Golden Hope). Together with plantation
under Felda Holdings, the world's largest estate owner, which managed estates under the
Federal Reserve Land Authority, Malaysia has now become the major producer of rubber and
oil palm in the world. Felda which started as a humble development agency for land settlers,
now is one of the world’s largest plantation conglomerates [1].
Although agriculture industries based on oil palm and rubber has increased tremendously,
the food crop sector is still lagging behind. The seriousness of the government in ensuring
food security is proven in the establishment of the 3rd National Agriculture Policy (NAP). The
3rd NAP covers the period from 1998-2010 which is mainly guided by the National
Development Policy. The 3rd NAP focused on enhancing agriculture production, downstream
processing, and niche marketing.
Agriculture is no longer a conventional primary produce-based industry. The focus of
agriculture and forestry sectors has shifted from merely supplying food for the population and
raw materials for the manufacturing industries to sustaining the environmental aspects related
to it. This is critical since the country is going through a period of increasing competitiveness
both domestically and internationally.
In 2005, Malaysia launched the National Biodiversity Policy which involved the need to
transform agriculture sector to a greater height to increase productivity and yield of
agriculture produce. The 21st century is the beginning of the agriculture biotechnology. As a
result, agriculture production of crude palm oil has increased from 15, 824 M tons to 18, 900
M tons in 2010 [2]. Production of vegetables has also increased one fold during the same
period. The new agriculture era has strategically position agriculture sector as the 3rd engine
of economic growth in Malaysia.
FERTILIZER OUTLOOK IN THE MALAYSIA

AGRICULTURE SYSTEM
Malaysia import a huge sum of chemical fertilizer of about 4.16 million Metric Tons,
amounting to RM9.17 billion in 2008 [3]. The industrial crops accounted for 96.50% of the
total fertilizer use. Plantation industry in Malaysia is mainly dominated by the perennial crops
such as oil palm, rubber, cacao, timber and pepper. According the MPOB report, the acreage
of the oil palm estate in Malaysia grew by 4.5% to 4.7million ha in 2009 from 4.4 million ha
in 2008. In June 2010, Malaysia’s crude palm oil production has already reached 7.9 million
tons [3]. By 2020, the projected production of palm oil is expected to increase up to 35
million tons. To achieve this target, about 1.2 million hectares of new plantation will be
required.

The Status of Organic Fertilizer in Malaysia 209
Figure 1. Area, yield and production of palm oil fruit from 1961 to 2006 [5].
The new plantation is expected to include 600,000 hectares in Sabah/Sarawak, 400,000

hectares in peninsular Malaysia, and 200,000 hectares conversion from rubber and cocoa
plantations. With more expansion on commercial and intensive plantation, the requirement
for more chemical fertilizers is expected to increase. Fertilizers accounts for about 24 % of
the total agricultural cost of fresh fruit bunch (FFB) production [4].
Figure 1, shows the area of oil palm plantation, yield and production from 1960 to 2006.
The trend clearly shows that although the acreage has exponentially increased from 0.06
million ha to 5.10 million ha, the yield per hectare have stagnated after 1980s. This
observation did not reflect the technology and scientific research input that have been
invested in breeding new and high oil yield clone, improved agricultural practice and estate
management.
From ecological point of view, agriculture is an ecosystem and has to be managed as a
functional ecosystem of its own right. Agriculture has always been closely associated with the
environmental ecosystem therefore, agriculture activities should always be practiced based on
sustainable development to increase productivity. This is the basic principle that should be
hold in order to achieve the target for food self-sufficiency and to develop exports market in
an efficient and competitive manner.
In the plantation sector, an expansion and/or intensification of cultivation means an
increased need for more efficient use of agricultural inputs, particularly chemical fertilizers
and pesticides. The Statistics Department's record shows that per-ton price of all types of
fertilizers in Sabah rose from RM473 in 2002 to RM752 in 2007. The oil palm sector may no
longer be a very profitable industry if fertilizer prices continue to increase.
THE PROBLEM OF MALAYSIAN SOILS

Malaysian soils are highly leached due to the exposure to intense tropical weathering
caused by heavy rainfall and high temperature. As a result, most of the plant nutrients are
easily leached out. The soils are also strongly acidic and coarse-textured. The situation is

210 Hasnah Md. Jais
further aggravated by the low amount of soil organic matter (SOM), cation exchange capacity
(CEC) and exchangeable bases. The presence of organic matter is rapidly oxidized when
exposed to weathering, resulted in the soil becoming even poorer in fertility. These conditions
have resulted in soils having severe multiple nutrient deficiencies.
The low inherent fertility of the soil has resulted in high requirement for fertilizer input.
As an example, oil palm has high requirements for potassium and phosphorus due to fixation
by the mainly acidic soils. These problems have resulted in the excessive use of chemical
fertilizer to meet the demand for nutrients by the oil palm plantation.
In most cases, the excessive use of chemical fertilizers is primarily attributed to the lack
of knowledge about the alternatives and their source. Indiscriminate use of chemical
fertilizers has raised a serious concern related to soil degradation and pollution of water
sources.
On the contrary, organic fertilizers have been known to improve the biodiversity of the
beneficial micro flora and fauna in the soil. Organic nutrients increase the abundance of soil
organisms such as mycorrhiza which help plants in absorbing nutrients especially P and other
less mobile nutrients. The natural functioning of the residence microflora and fauna may be
able to help reduce excessive use of chemical input into the soil.
THE POTENTIAL OF CONVERTING ORGANIC

WASTE INTO ORGANIC FERTILIZER
Wastes produced from oil palm industry forms the largest portion of total agricultural
waste in Malaysia. In 2005 there were a total of 423 palm oil mills with a capacity of
processing about 89 million Tones of fresh fruit bunch (FFB) per annum. The production of 1
M Tons crude palm oil requires 5 M Tons of fresh fruit bunches (FFB). On average,
processing of 1 M Ton FFB in palm oil mills generates 230 kg empty fruit bunches (EFB) and
650 kg palm oil mill effluent (POME) as residues. Palm oil mill effluence (POME)
discharged from the oil mill has the potential of being used as organic fertilizers to enhance
soil fertility and facilitate the absorption of nutrient by plants As an example, for every ton of
crude palm oil production about 2.5 tons of palm oil mill effluent (POME) is generated [6, 7].
Ironically, most of these wastes are not recycled in situ and therefore, resulted in problems of
waste accumulation.
There is a big potential in converting these organic wastes into high quality organic
fertilizer or soil conditioner which may be reused in the plantation industries, to enrich the
soil organic matter content which was lost over the years. Although major nutrient content in
the organic fertilizers is low, it is rich in micro-nutrient and trace elements. Micro-nutrients
are essential nutrients which are required in small amount for plant health. With more
efficient management of mineral fertilizers, adoption of site-specific fertilizer management,
integrated farming and organic farming systems, the use of mineral fertilizers will be
optimized in the future.
In the oil palm plantation, it is a normal practice to heap pruned fronds in between rows
of plants. Nutrient release from pruned fronds has contributed to about 14% and 24% of the
annual N and K requirements in a high yielding mature oil palm plantation [8].

PROBLEMS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER

Several problems related to the use of organic fertilizers have to be addressed. The main
concern about using organic fertilizer is that the nutrient content, solubility, nutrient release
rates and hence, availability are typically lower than inorganic fertilizers. In general, the
nutrient content in organic fertilizer is both more dilute and also less readily available to
plants. Organic fertilizers from composts and other sources can also be quite variable in
nutrient content from one batch to the next.
The nutrient release from organic fertilizer may not occur at the right plant growth stage.
Organic fertilizers may also contain pathogens and other disease causing organisms if not
properly composted. Organic fertilizers are comparatively voluminous and can be too bulky
to deploy the right amount of nutrients that will be beneficial to plants.
PROBLEMS OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

Besides polluting the water sources, indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers can upset
the stability and availability of mineral nutrient ions in the soil. Continuous application of
chemical fertilizers only provide soil and plant with major nutrients such as N, P and K and
sometimes Mg and Ca. Therefore, it does not replace micronutrient elements in the soil which
become gradually depleted due to uptake by crops. Long term application of chemical
fertilizers will also upset the quality or the condition of the soil. It makes the soil hard and
acidic and this property affect the absorption of fertilizers, which later affect the quality of
plants. Soil acidity has been demonstrated to decrease at localized area within the palm circle,
in the oil palm plantation due to the application of acidic N fertilizer [9].
The cultivation of high yielding crop varieties which requires high and regular supply of
fertilizers to sustain yield and growth of plants, may add up to the problem of nutrient
imbalance in the soil. As much as 75% depletion in micronutrients was shown in fruits and
vegetables fertilized continuously with chemical fertilizers [10]. Large amount of chemical
fertilizers is also needed to cover a large area and therefore, there is no guarantee that the
trees would absorb enough fertilizers to ensure its growth. Furthermore, a lot of fertilizers are
also wasted because it is unable to dissolve due to soil fixation. Excessive nitrogen fertilizer
applications have also been shown to aggravate pest problems by increasing the birth rate,
longevity and overall fitness of rusty plum aphid on rice [11].
APPLICATION OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER

Chicken manure is the most popular organic fertilizers applied in vegetable and fruit
cultivations in Malaysia [12]. In fruit cultivation, chicken manure is applied in addition to the
normal application of mineral fertilizer. In established trees, chicken manure in bags is use
within the canopy areas. In marginal land such as tin tailings and sandy beach ridge soils,
higher rates of organic fertilizers is applied to sustain growth of vegetable and fruit crops.
In the replanting of oil palm, the old method of burning the tree trunks is hazardous to the
environment and wasteful due to loss of organic matter. Open burning is currently prohibited

212 Hasnah Md. Jais
in Malaysia. Zero burning is practiced in plantations where the felled trunks are cut into small
pieces. Zero burning techniques provide a clean environment, add organic matter, improve
physical property of soil and therefore, increase the fertility of the soil thereby reducing the
amount of inorganic fertilizer used. This technique also allows replanting process to proceed
immediately after felling and shredding. It also reduces the period of time the surface soil is
exposed [13]. Organic matter added on the oil palm field soil in the form of Empty fruit
bunch (EFB), has been shown to improve soil exchangeable K, Ca, Mg and the pH and
increase the fresh fruit bunch (FFB) yield [14].
PRODUCERS OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS IN MALAYSIA

There are at least 25 companies selling organic fertilizers in Malaysia [15]. Organic
fertilizers are sold in the form of liquid and solid formulations, compost, and processed
animal manure. The market is targeted for export and for the local consumption. The local
consumption is mainly for fruit, vegetable and ornamental plants.
The liquid organic fertilizer serves as a multipurpose fertilizer which mainly supplies
nutrients directly to the plant via foliar spray. The liquid fertilizer is made up of natural
botanical extracts and amino acids, sea weeds, activated enzymes and effective
microorganisms, which help to restore the fertility of the soil ecosystem and rejuvenate the
plants. Beside liquid formulation, organic fertilizer is also available in pellets and powder
forms. Some of the organic fertilizers are fortified with low level of chemical fertilizers.
Some are a mixture of chicken and goat dung, humic acid, zeolite and the beneficial
microbes.
Organic fertilizer are also prepared from fruit bunches of palm oil which contains the
NPK analysis of 0-3-25+2MgO+3CaO+Trace elements. It also contains a minimum of 20%
composted plant organic material. Other components also include palm kernel shells, fibers
and empty fruit bunches made from palm oil waste like empty fruit bunches (EFB), palm
kernel shells and fiber enriched with feather meal, blood meal and bone meal. Organic
Fertilizer from animal origin such as chicken, goat, cattle, duck, bat guano, chicken manure,
seabird guano phosphate and vermicompost are also available in Malaysia.
In the future, all organic fertilizers produced in Malaysia have to be certified as fitting the
Malaysian standard MS 1517:2001 Specification for organic fertilizers. The Malaysian
standard for organic fertilizer certification is still under revision in 2011, by the technical
committee on fertilizers under the authority of the Industry Standards Committee on
Chemicals and Materials, Malaysia.
ORGANIC FARMING
The Centre of Environment, Technology and Development, Malaysia (CETDEM) has
been involved in many conversions of farms, especially vegetable producing farms, into
organic farms. In a press release by New Strait Times on 20th September 2010, 37 farms have
been awarded the Organic Malaysia Logo, while 180 farms have registered to participate in

the scheme. This represents more than a sevenfold increase in the number of organic
enterprises compared with 1996.
Currently, research on organic/nature farming and use of organic fertilizers is being
conducted mainly by the University Pertanian Malaysia (UPM) and Malaysian Agricultural
Research and Development Institute (MARDI). The Department of Agriculture (DOA),
Farmers Organization Authority (FOA) and MARDI are examining the feasibility of using
insect netting for vegetable production. At least seven farms in Malaysia are now practicing
organic farming particularly for vegetable and fruit production. Two organizations that are
devoted to nature/organic farming were founded in 1990, i.e., the Malaysian Organic Farming
Network (MOFAN) and Asia-Pacific Natural Agricultural Network - Malaysia (APNAN-
Malaysia).
Production of organic palm oil is another opportunity for the Malaysian palm oil industry
to diversify palm oil products. The potential demand for organic palm oil will be driven by
the market development of organic foods in the future, which is likely to be influenced by the
demand for safer and healthier food and better environment conservation.
From the agronomy point of view, producing higher oil yields requires not only advanced
genetics in biotechnology but also good agronomic management practice which includes
good fertilizer use efficiency utilizing both organic and inorganic fertilizer sources [16].
TYPES OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER

Compost prepared from various agriculture waste in Malaysia showed alkaline pH values
and C:N ratio from 12 to 24 [12]. These properties make them suitable for use as soil
conditioners. Another type of organic fertilizer being promoted by the Department of
Agriculture Malaysia is the indigenous microorganisms (IMO) and effective microorganisms
(EM). At least one company is selling the inoculums of endomycorrhiza, a beneficial fungus
that form symbiotic association with most plants to help plants obtained nutrient from soil.
However concrete scientific data is required to confirm their beneficial claims.
Press release by The Borneo Post on 8 Dec 2010 reported that a company in Sarawak had
launched a product; bio-organic fertilizer made from oil palm waste. The aim is to treat waste
for nutrient recycling in the oil palm plantation (www.theborneopost.com). Another local
company has signed an agreement with an Indonesian company on 25th March 2010 to
produce organic aloe vera based organic fertilizer for export to South East Asian region. A
worm farm in Sarawak has started producing worm fertilizer since 2008
(http://bertuahagrobics.com). There are at least 13 companies that are consumers of organic
fertilizer on Malaysian market [15]. The latest purchase request has also come from Thailand,
Brunei, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. The future of organic fertilizer in
Malaysia is very bright either for domestic or international market.
THE MALAYSIAN STANDARD OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER

The Malaysian Standard, MS 1517:2001 Specification for Organic Fertilizers (SOM),
which was developed in 2001, has now been revised to include several clauses. These clauses

214 Hasnah Md. Jais
include the fact that by definition, organic fertilizers shall be fertilizers that contain a sizeable
proportion of biodegradable organic matter that are free of pathogens. Organic fertilizer shall
contain one or more of the major plant nutrients (N, P, K). The source of organic fertilizer
shall be declared and shall be of plant and animal origin. It shall not contain human and pig
waste. The percentage of organic matter content declared in the organic fertilizer, shall be
more than 50%. When tested, the permissible tolerance limit of organic matter shall not differ
more than 10% of the declared value. The nutrient content (in %) shall be declared and the
tolerance limit shall not differ more than 20% of the declared value. The percentage of N
should not be less than 1.5%, while the C:N ratio shall not be more than 25:1. When tested,
the tolerance limit shall not differ by more than 20% of the declared ratio.
THE PROSPECT OF ORGANIC FERTILIZERS

Organic Fertilizer Market in Malaysia: Business Report 2011, noted that prior to 2010,
Malaysia imported from China, Thailand and Netherland about 22 mill tons/a organic
fertilizer. However after 2010, Malaysia has started to produce its own organic fertilizer
amounting to about 9.86 million tons/a which is equivalent to about RM6.9 million. The trade
balance between import and export of organic fertilizer in Malaysia indicates a narrower gap
from 2008 to 2010. With the huge amount of organic waste generated by the agricultural
system, the potential of producing more organic fertilizer looks very promising.
In addition, interest in natural and organic farming has long been expressed by
individuals and NGOs who view that indiscriminate use of agricultural chemicals in farming
systems as a potential threat to the environmental ecosystem and human health. Nevertheless,
attempts to grow food crops by organic farming methods have proven to be uneconomical due
to low yields, increased labor requirements, high incidence of weed and insect infestations.
This is further aggravated by the inadequate supply of high quality organic amendments to
sustain the nutrient requirements of crops.
REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad Tarmizi, Global Oils and Fats, Malaysian Palm Oil Council, Vol 5(1), Kelana
Jaya; pp 6-1 (2008).
[2] Frost and Sullivan 2009, at http://www.palmoilhq.com/PalmOilNews/ malaysia-palm-
oil-slower-output-in-2009.
[3] S. Mohammad Ali, Evolution of fertilizer use by crops in Malaysia: Recent trends and
Prospects IFA Crossroad. Asia Pasific Kota Kinabalu 8-10 Dec (2009).
[4] K. J. Goh, C. B. Teo, P. S. Chew, and S. B. Chiu, Fertiliser management in oil palm:
Agronomic principles and field practices. In: Fertiliser management for oil palm
plantations, 20-21, September 1999, ISP North-east Branch, Sandakan, Malaysia: 44 pp
(1999).
[5] FAOSTAT, 2008. ResourceSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, at http://faostat.fao.org/u.ac.jp>

[6] Sulaiman, M. R. Zakaria, M. A. Hassan, Y. Shirai and Z. Busu, Am. J. Environ. Sci.,
5:639-646. DOI 10.3844/ajessp 2009.639.646 (2009).
[7] S. Yacob, Y. Shirai, M.A. Hassan, M. Wakisaka and S. Subash, Process Biochemistry,
41: 962-964 (2006)
[8] K. K. Kee and K. J. Goh, Efficient fertilizer management for higher productivity and
sustainability in oil palm production. In: Int. Planters Conf. 2006 on Higher
Productivity and Efficient Practices for Sustainable Plantation Agriculture, Vol. 1:
Technical Papers, ISP, Kuala Lumpur: 157 – 182 (2006).
[9] P. H. C. Ng, H. H. Gan and K. J. Goh, Soil nutrient changes in Ultisols under oil palm
in Johor, Malaysia. In: Oils and Fats International Congress (OFIC) 2004 in module on
Agriculture, Biotechnology and Sustainability (AB), 29-9 to2/10 2004, PWTC, Kuala
Lumpur.
[10] L. Felicity (2004). "214". In Kate Barker. Not on the Label. Penguin. p. 213.ISBN 0-14-
101566-7.
[11] G. C. Jahn, L. P. Almazan, J. Pacia, Environmental Entomology 34 (4): 938–943
(2005).
[12] Z. Aini and P. Vimala, Research and development of organic crop production in
Malaysia, Paper presented at 'Expert Group Workshop on Preparation of Technical
Guidelines on Organic Cultivation of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits ', 22-26 July
2002, INTAN BukitKiara, Kuala Lumpur
[13] T. Hashim, 2000. Golden Hope OPRS, Management of Crops towards Sustainable.
[14] K. C. Lim and A. R. Zaharah, J. Oil Palm Res. 12(2): 55–60 (2000).
[15] Organic Fertilizer Market in Malaysia: Business Report 2011.
[16] T. L. Roberts, Facing future food needs. CSA News Vol. 54(4): 20 (2009).

Chapter 11
ORGANIC FERTILIZERS AND THEIR IMPACT

ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Jay Prakash Verma1, and Rajhans Verma2

1
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
2
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural
Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
The post green revolution era witnessed a multiple nutrient deficiency because of
higher crop harvest in the intensively cultivated areas where use of organic manure had
declined while chemically pure fertilizers like urea, di-ammonium phosphate, murate of
potash and other micronutrients became the major source of plant nutrients. Due to
continuous use of chemical fertilizer soil became poorer due to the deficiency of
microbial contents of the soil. Agriculture devoid of organic manures / crop residues has
resulted in reduction of physicochemical and Biological properties of the soil. In other
way plant and animal byproducts or leftover organic waste from primary industry such as
fish emulsion, blood and bone meal, cottonseed meal and corn meal are all classified as
organic fertilizers. It increases the organic matter content of the soil along with the major
and minor organic nutrients. The combined interaction of the nutrient ingredients in
organic fertilizer integrates the soil with the full range of nutrients within a relatively
short time, and their effects last longer for the standing crop to benefit directly. By
improving overall physical characteristics of the soil and increasing soil organic level, it
prevents physical compaction of soil, improves soil aeration and prevents leaching losses.
It not only releases nitrogen, phosphate and potash in a manner easily absorbed by plants,
but interacts very positively with inorganic fertilizers as well. This interaction allows
better and greater utilization of nutrients, particularly nitrogen by at least 30%. Some
Indian soils being very poor in organic matter and major plant nutrients, addition of
regular doses of organic manures in requisite quantities can help restoration of soil health
and also compensate the loss of basic nutrients of every year from soil due to uptake of
Corresponding author email: verma_bhu@yahoo.co.in.

218 Jay Prakash Verma and Rajhans Verma
crops. Therefore, use of organic manure is extremely essential for better crop productivity
and maintaining the fertility of soil to enhance sustainable production.
Keywords: Organic fertilizer, soil health, sustainable agriculture
INTRODUCTION
The Green Revolution is a process of technological development of agricultural
techniques that began in Mexico in 1944 and has since spread throughout the world. The goal
of the Green Revolution was to increase the efficiency of agricultural processes so that the
productivity of the crops was increased, and to help developing countries face their growing
populations' needs. The Green Revolution has since started to face strong criticisms and is
being replaced in some cases by integrated farming or organic farming techniques. The major
development of the Green Revolution in this field was the use of chemical fertilizers to adjust
the soil pH balance and achieve the right levels of all the important chemical compounds
needed for the plant to grow. Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels,
making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products. Continuous use of chemical
fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide is a significant source of water pollution. Although the
dangerous, toxic and sometimes cancer-causing pesticides of the early half of the century
(like 2,4,5-T and DDT) have mostly been phased out of agricultural usage (although DDT
continues to be used in Third-world nations), their effects have often not been erased. The
Green Revolution destroys soil quality over the long range. This is a result of a variety of
factors, including increased soil salinity that results from heavy irrigation; "burning" of the
soil by heavy use of chemical fertilizers, killing off beneficial soil microbes and other
organisms; erosion of the soil; and loss of valuable trace elements. The Green Revolution
introduced major changes into a world where the majority of the people still depend on
farming for their livelihood. The result of many of these techniques was the encouragement of
large-scale industrial agriculture at the expense of small farmers, who were unable to compete
with the high-efficiency Green Revolution crops. The result has been massive displacement
and increasing urbanization and poverty amongst these farmers, and the loss of their land to
large agricultural companies, who are much more able to manage the considerable enterprise
involved in effectively exploiting Green Revolution techniques.
Organic fertilizer replenishes the soil naturally, without leaving chemical residues. The
plants end up healthier and safer than chemical fertilizer. Plant and animal byproducts or
leftover organic waste from primary industry such as fish emulsion, blood and bone meal,
cottonseed meal and corn meal are all classified as organic fertilizers. Unless they have come
from an organically operated establishment they will not be suitable for use on a certified
organic farm. These emulsions and meals are generally very good sources of nitrogen and
minerals. They are mixed with water and applied directly into the soil or sprayed onto foliage
and can be a great way to boost nutrient content in between more intensive fertilizing
practices. Introduction of high yielding varieties and increases in cropping intensity to meet
the increasing demand for food in India has resulted in a greater use of chemical fertilizers.
Inorganic fertilizers have largely replaced traditional practices such as recycling organic
materials, and in many areas application of organic resources has been neglected or

Organic Fertilizers and Their Impact on Agricultural Production System 219
abandoned (Parr and Papendick 1983; Parr et al. 1986). This has raised concerns about the
potential long-term adverse impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality (Sarkar
and Singh 1997; Clark et al. 1998). Incorporation of organic material either in the form of
crop residues or farmyard manure (FYM) enhances the organic carbon level of the soil
(Christensen 1986; Sarkar et al. 1988), which has direct and indirect effects on soil physical
properties and processes.
ORGANIC FERTILIZER
Organic fertilizers are animal or plant origin that’s naturally occurring organic fertilizers
include manure, slurry, worm castings, peat, seaweed, sewage, and guano. Green manure
crops are also grown to add nutrients to the soil. Naturally occurring minerals such as mine
rock phosphate, sulfate of potash and limestone are also considered. The title organic
fertilizer refers to materials used as fertilizer that occur regularly in nature, usually as a
byproduct or end product of a naturally occurring process. Inorganic or synthetic fertilizers
are produced artificially in a chemical refinery. Organic fertilizers such as manure have been
used in agriculture for thousands of years; ancient farmers did not understand the chemistry
involved, but they did recognize the benefit of providing their crops with organic material.
Only within the past 100 years have fertilizers containing essential micro and macronutrients
been synthesized in the laboratory. Mass production of synthetic fertilizers has greatly
increased crop yields and made the green industry more cost efficient. However, within the
past 10-20 years negative effects of fertilizer runoff on the environment have been identified,
and there is a renewed interest in organic fertilizers as an environmentally friendly alternative
to artificially synthesized chemicals. What, exactly, goes into an organic fertilizer? Like any
fertilizer, organic fertilizers typically provide the three major macronutrients required by
plants: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.
Types of Organic Fertilizer
1. Bulky organic fertilizer: it is contains low amount of plant nutrient
(i) Compost
(a) Village compost

(b) Town compost
(c) Water hyacinth compost
(d) Vermin-compost
(ii) Farm yard manure
(a) Cattle manures

(b) Sheep penning
(c) Poultry manures

(iii) Sewage and sludge
2. Green manures
(a) Leguminous plant

(b) Non leguminous plant
3. Concentrated organic fertilizers: It is contain higher percentage of major plant

nutrients.
(1) Oil cakes: richest sources of plant nutrient of all organic manures:
(a) Mustard cakes

(b) Groundnut cake
(c) Seasame cake
(d) Linseed cake
(e) Castor cake
(f) Neem cake
(g) Sunflower cake
(h) Mahua cake
(i) Karaja cake
(2) Waste products of slaughter house:
(a) Blood meal

(b) Bone meal
(c) Fish meal
4. Guano: A material obtains from the excreta and dead bodies of sea birds.
5. Biofertilizers: these are containing living cells of microorganism.
(1) Algal biofertilizer

(2) Fungal biofertilizer
(3) Bacterial biofertiliger or plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)
Details about Classification of Organic Fertilizers
Compost
Composting is organic manure artificially prepared from plant residues and animals
waste products. The process of making compost is known as composting. It is largely a
biological process in which aerobic and anaerobic microorganism decomposed organic matter
and lower the C: N ratio of the refuse. Village or rural compost is prepared from farm waste
like straw, crop stubbles, crop residue such as sugarcane trash, cowshed and hedge clippings.
This type compost contains 0.4-0.8% N, 0.3-0.6% P2O5 and 0.7-1.0% K2O. Town or urban

compost is prepared from town waste and night-soil. This type compost contains 1.0-2.0% N,
1.0% P2O5 and 1.5% K2O.
Beneficial Effect of Compost on Soils

Compost improves the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils. Sandy soils
are compacted and clay soils become loose. The water holding and heat absorbing capacity of
soils increase and thus compost improves the permeability of soils. The alkaline and saline
soils are also made less deleterious making plant growth easier in such soils. Compost are
made from plant refuse which contains all the nutrients needed by plant are made available to
plant, when compost are added to soils. The nutrients lost from the soils are again returned to
the soils for future use by plants. Besides this, compost contains these nutrients specially N,
P, K and Ca in organic combinations and when it decomposes, these nutrients are liberated in
available form for the use of plants. Compost is accelerating the microbial activities in
different process like ammonification, nitrification and nitrogen fixation. Compost especially
activates those fungi which live in close association with the roots of plants and trees, e.g.
mycorrhiza. They play important role in transferring certain essential plant nutrients and
accessory food from soil to the plant. Compost is supposed to contain small amount of growth
promoting substances which are known as hormones (Rai, 1965).
Vermicompost prepared by using of earthworms. Earthworms consume decomposed
solid waste of plant and animal origin; convert them to valuable biofertilizer by
dropping/casts. Vermicompost is superior type of compost manures which contain 1.0-1.5%
N, 1.8-2.2% P2O5 and 1.0-1.5% K2O. It is nowadays regarded as a very important of the
organic farming package. It is easy to prepare, has excellent properties and is absolutely
harmless to plants. It is rich in macro and micronutrients, vitamin, growth hormones and
immobilized microflora. Application of vermicompost facilitates easy availability of essential
plant nutrients to plants.
Farmyard Manure (F.Y.M.)

The farmyard manure is a mixture of the solid and liquid excreta of farm animals along
with litter (i.e. material used for bedding purposes of cattle) and left over material from
roughages or fodder fed to the cattle. FYM is one of the most commonly used bulky organic
manure. It is the oldest and most popular manure. Dung is the solid excreta of animals,
valuable plant nutrients in it come from the foods eaten by the animals.
Table 1. Average composition of fresh farmyard manures
Excreta of cattle Type of excreta N% P2O5 K2O

Cow and bullocks Dung 0.40 0.20 0.10
Urine 1.00 Trace 1.35
Sheep and Goats Dung 0.75 0.50 0.45
Urine 1.35 0.05 2.10
Horse Dung 0.55 0.35 0.40
Urine 1.35 Trace 1.25
Pigs Dung 0.55 0.50 0.40
Urine 0.40 0.10 0.45

Fresh dung contains 70-80% moisture and consists of insoluble and undigested residue of
the food along with certain materials obtained from digestive juices of the intestinal canal and
certain waste tissue of the alimentary canal. When the foods are eaten, most of these nutrients
are not retained by the animal but pass out in the excreta, the nitrogen and potassium mainly
in liquid urine and phosphorus in the solid faeces or dung (Vanstone, 1960).
Uses of FYM to Improve Soil Fertility

FYM is the traditionally organic manure. It is most readily available to the farmers. It is
generally applied in the soil by broadcasting method during land preparation. It should be
spread evenly and mixed with soil immediately after application. The nutrients of FYM are
not fully available to the crop in the year of application. Generally 30% N, 60-70% P2O5 and
75% K2O become available to the first crop and rest of nutrient become available to the
subsequent crops. This phenomenon of availability of plant nutrients to the subsequent crop is
known as residual effect (Gaur et al., 1995).
Sheep and Goat Manure

The dropping of sheep and goats are also a good organic manure of animal origin. It
contains higher nutrients than FYM and compost. In sheep penning method, goats and sheep,
especially sheep are allowed to stay over night in the field. The urine and faeces matters are
added to the soil and these are incorporated into the soil by shallow ploughing followed by
planking. The manure contain on an average 3.0% of N, 1.0% of P2O5 and 2.0% K2O. It is
suitable for application to all crops and on all soils.
Poultry Manures
Poultry manure is an extremely rich source of nitrogen and organic matter. Poultry
manures contain 1.0-1.8% of N, 1.4-1.8% of P2O5 and 0.8-0.9% of K2O. Poultry manure is an
important manure for all crops and soils. It is generally used as basal dressing at time of land
preparation.
Green Manures
Green manure is prepared by cultivation of some crops and afterward ploughing or
turning them into the soil. The practice of ploughing or turning into the soil undecomposed
green plant tissue for the purpose of improving physical condition as well as fertility of the
soil is referred to as green manuring and the manures obtained by this method is known as
green manures. The legumes used as green manuring crops provide nitrogen as well organic
matter to soils. The legume crops have ability of acquiring nitrogen from the air with the help
of its root nodules bacteria. Example of legume crops such as sunnhemp (Crotalaira juncea),
Dhaincha (Sesbania aculeata), moong (Phaseolus aureus), cowpea (Vigna catjang), lentil
(Lens esculenta), berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), Lucern (Medicago sativa), pea (Pisum
sativum) etc., which are used as green manuring. The non-leguminous crops such as mustard
(Brassica sp.), wheat (Triticum sp.), radish (Raphanus sativas), carrot (Dancus carota), jowar
(Sorghum vulgare), maize (Zea mays), sunflower (Helianthus annus) etc. used as green
manuring provides only organic matter to the soil. Green manuring is done in May-June and
turning of green manuring is done in July-August. It is done before the cultivation of kharif
crop. The seed of green manuring crop such as sunnhemp, dhaincha, cowpea etc. is sown in

barefallows land and is buried in kharif season. This practice is followed in Uttar Predesh,
Punjab, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. The best time for turning the
green manuring crop is when it is at flowering stage.
Beneficial Effect of Green Manuring

The green manure supply organic matter to the soil which helps to provide the stability of
soil structure needed for optimum plant growth and yield. Humas formed from green manures
increase the adsorptive capacity of soil, promote aeration, drainage and granulation which
help the plant growth.
Organic matter stimulates the activity of soil microorganism. All legume crops supplies
organic matter as well as additional nitrogen content in soil from air due to root nodules
bacteria (Rhizobium sp.). Green manuring crops make the availability of phosphorus and
other nutrients for succeeding crops. The organic matter stimulates the activity of
microorganism and they stimulate the biochemical changes in soils.
Oil Cakes
Oil cakes are the by-products of oilseeds crops. Oil cakes are the important and quick
acting organic nitrogenous manures. It also contains small amount of phosphorus and
potassium. A large variety of oil cakes are produced in the country and they can be grouped
into two classes, viz. (i) edible oil cakes are used for feeding cattle and it is feed to cattle as
concentrates, e.g. mustard oil cakes, groundnut cake, sesame or til cake, linseed cake, coconut
cake etc. (ii) non-edible oil cakes are not suitable for feeding to cattle and mainly used for
manuring crops, e.g. castor cake, neem cake, mahua cake, etc. All oil cakes have been found
to give good result with almost every crop and on all types of soil. Oil cake should be well
powdered before application so that the manure is spread uniformly (Daji, 1955).
Table 2. Amount of Nitrogen content of some green manure crops
Name of the Botanical name Growing Average yield of N% on green N added in

crops season green matter weight basis the soil
(q/ha) (kg/ha)
Sunnhemp Crotolaria juncea Kharif 152 0.43 84.0
Dhaincha Sesbania aculeata Kharif 144 0.42 77.1
Pillipesara Phaseolus trilobus Kharif 132 1.10 55.6
Moong Phaseolus aureus Kharif 57 0.53 38.6
Cowpea Vigna sinensis Kharif 108 0.49 56.3
Gaur Cyamopsis Kharif 144 0.34 62.3
teragonoloba
Senji Melilotus alba Rabi 206 0.51 134.4
Pea Pisum sativum Rabi 200 0.36 80.0
Khesari Lathyrus sativus Rabi 88 0.54 61.4
Berseem Trifolium Rabi 111 0.43 60.7
alexandrium
Source: Mirchandani and Khan, 1952.

Cottonseed Meal
Cottonseed meal is one common organic fertilizer. It is a byproduct of the cotton
manufacturing process. It is great for acid-loving plants, because it has an acidic reaction in
the soil. It generally contains about 7% nitrogen, 3% phosphorous, and 2% potash.
Cottonseed meal is usually used for flowering plants like azaleas and rhododendrons.
Blood Meal
Blood meal is the blood of cattle that is collected from slaughter houses and then dried
and powdered. It is high in nitrogen, and care must be taken to ensure it does not burn plants.
Their use should be very careful not to exceed the recommended dose, because this could
really harm your plants. Blood meal is also high in several trace elements like iron. It contains
10-12% highly available nitrogen, 1-1.5% phosphorus and 1.0% potassium.
Fish Emulsion or Fish Meal

Fish emulsion is a very popular organic fertilizer. It is made of a blend of decomposed
fish. It is a high-nitrogen fertilizer, and also contains a lot of trace elements than can be very
beneficial for plants. Fish emulsion is a nice, balanced fertilizer. It should preferable be
powdered before use. It contains 4-10% organic nitrogen, 3-9% phosphorus and 0.3-1.5%
potassium.
Sewage and Sludge

Sewage and sludge is the product of sewage system of sanitation, a modern system of
sanitation commonly adopt in cities. In general, sewage has two components, namely (i) solid
portion, technically known as sludge and (ii) liquid portion commonly known as sewage
water. Sludges are different types e.g. settele sludge, digested sludge, activated sludge,
digested activated sludge, and chemically precipitated sludge. Sludge contains average 1.5-
3.5% nitrogen, 0.75-4.0% phosphorus and 0.3-0.6% potassium. It is also made from recycled
material from sewage treatment plants. Sewage and sludge can profitably be used as organic
manure for producing crops.
Guano
The materials obtained from the excreta and dead bodies of sea birds are known as guano.
It contains 7.0-8.0 nitrogen, 11.0-14.0% phosphorus and 2.3-3.0% potassium. It is quick
acting organic manure and is suitable for application to all crops and all soils. It can apply a
few days prior to sowing or at sowing time or as a top dressing after the crop has made certain
amount of growth.
Bioferilizer
Biofertilizers mean the product containing carrier based (solid or liquid) living
microorganisms which are agriculturally useful in terms of nitrogen fixation, phosphorus
solubilization or nutrient mobilization, to increase the productivity of the soil and/or crop
(Yadav, 2006). Use of biofertilizers is one of the important components of integrated nutrient
management (INM) and organic farming, as they are cost effective and renewable source of
plant nutrients to supplement the chemical fertilizers for sustainable agriculture. The
biofertilizer classified into three groups on the type of microorganism a follows:

Algal Biofertilizer
Example: Azolla, blue green algae (BGA). Azolla (Azolla pinnata) is a water fern. It is
considered as aquatic weed commonly found floating in idle pond, tank, shallow ditches and
channels. Azolla is seen associated with rice field. A blue green algae (Anabeana azolla)
living in the epidermal cavity of the lower side of the leaf of azolla in symbiotic association,
fixes atmospheric nitrogen. This symbiotic association of Azolla pinnata and Anabeana
azolla is termed as AZOLLA ANABEANA COMPLEX. The alga fixes atmospheric nitrogen
for Azolla and in exchange the plant provides home and food to the algae. As this complex
fixes atmospheric nitrogen, it has a great potentiality for use in agricultural field as
biofertilizer and can be used as an alternative to nitrogenous fertilizers. Fresh Azolla contains
90-95% water.
Decomposed Azolla contains 4-6% nitrogen, 0.5-0.9% phosphorus, 2-6% potassium, 0.4-
1.0% calcium, 0.5% magnesium, 0.11-0.16% manganese, 0.06-0.16% iron and 9-10% total
ash. Azolla is grown by spreading 200-500 kg/ha of fresh Azolla in field. After 25 days, the
whole field will be covered by Azolla if condition is ideal like optimum temperature range
within 20-28 C. Green Azolla is incorporated by ploughing after dewatering the field. This
will add 30-40 kg of nitrogen per hectare. It also increase the organic matter content of the
field and thereby improves soil texture, structure, water holding capacity and soil fertility.
Paddy yield increases by 15-100% when Azolla is applied. The effect of green manuring of
Azolla on yield of paddy variety Pusa-2-21 as per the trials conducted at Bhubaneswar, Orissa
is given in table 3.
Fungal Biofertilizer
Mycofungicides and fungal biofertilizers have been promoted for agricultural use because
of their ability to control plant diseases and their ability to increase crop production in an
environmentally friendly manner. Several effective mycofungicides and fungal biofertilizers
have been formulated for commercial production. Formulation of mycofungicides includes
wettable powders and granules; these being applied to seeds, seedlings and mature plants.
Fungal biofertilizers include plant growth stimulating fungi e.g. Trichoderma, mycorrhizal
fungi (ectomycorrhiza e.g. Pisolithus tinctonus and arbuscular mycorrhizae e.g. Glomus
intraradices which form mutualistic associations with plants), enzymatic producing fungi for
compost production and P-solubilizing fungi and K-solubilizing fungi. Fungal biofertilizers
play an important role in promoting plant growth, health, productivity and improving soil
fertility. Mycorrhizae are fungi which form mutualistic relationships with roots of 90% of
plants (Das et al., 2007; Rinaldi et al., 2008). Mycorrhizae promote absorption of nutrients
and water, control plant diseases, and improve soil structure (Chandanie et al., 2006; Rinaldi
et al., 2008). The popular inoculants presently commercialized for increasing phosphorus
uptake through phosphorus solubilizing fungi (Penicillium and Aspergillus).
Table 3. Effect of green manuring of Azolla on yield of paddy variety Pusa-2-21
Treatment Grain yield (kg/ha) % increase over control

Control 1700 ----
Azolla 10 ton/ha 2120 24.7
Azolla 5 ton/ha+15 kg N/ha 2040 20.0

Bacterial Biofertilizer
Now a day’s bacterial biofertilizers have arrived with a new concept of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Bacteria able to colonize plant root systems and promote
plant growth are referred as PGPR (Kloepper and Schroth, 1978). PGPR are generally free-
living, soil-borne bacteria, isolated from the rhizosphere, when applied to seeds or crops,
enhanced the growth of the plant through at least one mechanism e.g., suppression of plant
disease (bioprotectants), improved nutrient acquisition (biofertilizers) or phytohormone
production (biostimulants) (Kloepper et al.,1980). The direct mechanisms of plant growth by
PGPR include the provision of phosphorus solubilization and its uptake by plants, biological
nitrogen–fixation, sequestration of iron for plant by siderophores, production of plant
hormones like auxins, cytokinins and gibberellins and lowering the plant ethylene level.
In last few decades a large array of bacteria including species of Pseudomonas,
Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter,
Burkholderia, Bacillus and Serratia have been reported to enhance plant growth (Kloepper et
al., 1989; Glick, 1995). Gram positive PGPR taxa include Coryneform bacteria, Bacillus
cereus, B. megaterium, B. cirulans, B. subtilis, Paenibacillus polymyxa and Bacillus spp,
while Gram negative PGPR include fluorescent as well as non- fluorescent Pseudomonas (P.
gladioli, P. aeruginosa, P. fluorescens and P. cepacia), Azotobacter, Azospirillum and
various members of the family Enterobacteriacae.
Presently biofertilizers are also available for increasing crop nutrient uptake of nitrogen
from nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with root (Azotobacter and Azospirillum), iron uptake
from siderophores producing bacteria (Pseudomonas), sulfur uptake from sulfur oxidizing
bacteria (Thiobacillus) and phosphorus uptake from phosphate mineral solubilizing bacteria
(Bacillus, Pseudomonas). Rhizobium spp. which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and form
root nodules on legumes, were the first biofertilizer identified and have been used
commercially as inoculants for legumes for over 100 years (Kannaiyan, 2002).
Nutrient Content in Different Organic Manure
Concentrated organic manures are those materials that are organic in nature and contain
higher percentage of essential plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potash as
compared to bulky organic manure. The concentrated manures are made from raw materials
of animal or plant origin (Das, 2008). The concentrated organic manure commonly used is
oil-cakes, blood meal, fish meal, meat meal and horn and hoof meal. Their average nutrient
content is given in the table 4.
Effect of Organic Material on Soil Fertility
Soil fertility plays an important role in the sustainable development of the terrestrial
ecosystem. Recently, concern regarding the long-term productivity and sustainability of agro-
ecosystems is centered on various bio-indices and the application of biological methods,
particularly the development and protection of soil resources (Svirskienė, 2003).

Table 4. Nutrient contents in organic manures
Name of manures Nutrient percentage

N P2O5 K2O
Bulky Organic Manures
Cow dung (Fresh) 0.3-0.4 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.3
Horse dung (Fresh) 0.4-0.5 0.3-0.4 0.3-0.4
Sheep dung (Fresh) 0.5-0.7 0.4-0.6 0.3-1.0
Night soil (Fresh) 1.0-1.6 0.8-1.2 0.2-0.6
Poultry manure (Fresh) 1.0-1.8 1.4-1.8 0.8-0.9
Sewage and sludge, dry 2.0-3.5 1.0-5.0 0.2-0.5
Sewage and sludge, activated dry 4.0-7.0 2.1-4.2 0.5-0.7
Urine, cattle 0.9-1.2 Trace 0.5-1.0
Urine, horse 1.2-1.5 Trace 1.3-1.5
Urine, human 0.5-1.0 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3
Urine, sheep 1.5-1.7 Trace 1.8-2.0
Farm yard manure (F.Y.M.) 0.5-1.5 0.4-0.8 0.5-1.9
Compost (Rural), dry 0.4-0.8 0.3-0.6 0.7-1.0
Compost (Urban), dry 1.0-2.0 1.0 1.5
Water hyacinth compost 2.0-3.0 1.0-2.0 3.0-4.0
Green manures (Various, average) 0.5-0.7 0.1-0.2 0.6-0.8
Dhaincha (Sesbania aculate) 0.62 0.15 0.58
Cowpea (Vigna rediata) 0.75 0.15 0.58
Sunnhemp (Crotolaria juncea) 0.75 0.12 0.51
Manures of animal origin
Dried blood 10.0-12.0 1.0-1.5 1.0
Fish manure 4.0-10.0 3.0-9.0 0.3-1.5
Bone meal (Raw) 2.0-4.0 20.0-25.0 -
Bone meal (Steamed) 1.0-2.0 25.0-30.0 -
Wood Ash
Ash household 0.5-1.9 1.6-4.2 2.3-12.0
Ash Coal 0.73 0.45 0.53
Ash babul 0.1 0.8-1.3 1.5-3.1
Ash wood 0.1-0.2 0.8-5.9 1.5-36.0
Crop residue
Paddy husk 0.3-0.5 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.5
Straw 0.36 0.08 0.71
Groundnut shell and stem 1.6-1.8 0.3-0.5 1.1-1.7
Banana straw and stalks, dry 0.61 0.12 1.0
Maize straw 0.42 1.57 1.65
Oil Cakes
Edible oil cakes
Mustard cake 5.1-5.2 1.8-1.9 1.1-1.2
Linseed cake 5.5-5.6 1.4-1.5 1.2-1.3
Til and sesame cake 6.2-6.3 2.0-2.1 1.2-1.3
Coconut cake 3.0-3.2 1.9-2.0 1.7-1.8
Safflower cake (Decorticated) 7.9 2.2 1.9
Cotton seed cake(Decorticated) 6.4 2.9 2.2
Groundnut cake 7.0-7.3 1.5-1.6 1.3-1.4
Non-edible cakes
Caster cake 4.3 1.8 1.3
Cotton seed cake (Undecorticated) 3.9-4.0 1.8-1.9 1.6-1.7
Karanja or honge cake 3.9 0.9 1.2
Mahua cake 2.5-2.9 0.8-0.9 1.8
Neem cake 5.2-5.3 1.0-1.1 1.4-1.5
Safflower cake (Undecorticated) 4.9 1.4 1.2

Nowadays, characteristic of soil fertility is integrating vitality of biota responsive to

environment changes (Dilly et al., 2007). Biota governs the soil role in metabolism processes
of materials and energy in ecosystems and represents an integrated index of soil physical-
chemical conditions (Schutter and Fuhrmann, 2001). Organic agriculture linked with
sustainable agriculture production system (Figure 1) because organic fertilizer is one of the
most important fertilizers which mixed with soil and maintain natural resources of soils as
well as enhanced crop productivity.
Soil enzymes are produced by plants, animals and microorganisms, and may be present in
dead cells and cell debris and also adsorbed by clay or incorporated into humic substances
(Allison, 2005). Hydrolytic enzymes make nutrients available to plants and soil
microorganisms from a wide range of complex substrates and are influenced by a wide range
of soil properties such as pH, organic matter and texture, and also by farming management
and anthropogenic impacts (Joanisse et al., 2008; Li et al., 2008).
Figure 1. Organic agriculture vs. Sustainable Development.
Application of organic matter reduced bulk densities of soil which is a vital soil
characteristic for successful root development (Kuchenbuch and Ingram, 2004). There were
no significant differences in the bulk densities of soils to which the two organic materials
were added. However, incorporation reduced soil bulk densities to a greater extent than
surface application. This could be attributed to the greater distribution of the organic biomass
within the soil profile by incorporation, which facilitates the development of soil pores (Kay
and Munkholm, 2004) and confirms similar reports on rice soils (Mandal et al, 2003).
Incorporation of organic matter increased soil moisture contents; again due to better soil pore
development. The greater impact of rice straw on soil moisture retention when compared to
Gliricidia leaves could be attributed to the slower microbial breakdown, due to the higher C:
N ratio. However, the organic matter or method of incorporation had no impact on soil
texture, and could be attributed to the short duration of this study; especially as long term
application of organic matter could have a beneficial impact on soils with poor textures
(Dexter, 2004).

Incorporation of organic material either in the form of crop residues or farmyard manure
(FYM) enhances the organic carbon level of the soil ( Sarkar et al. 1988), which has direct
and indirect effects on soil physical properties and processes.
Sustainable agriculture would ideally produce good crop yields with minimal impact on
ecological factors such as soil fertility. A fertile soil provides essential nutrients for crop plant
growth, supports a diverse and active biotic community, exhibits a typical soil structure, and
allows for an undisturbed decomposition (Paul Maeder, et al. 2002). Crop productivity in
organic farming is achieved by a combination of management strategies, among which the
development of an efficient and effective nutrient cycle plays an important role. This is due to
the large-scale export of nutrients through produce and stubble, which in conventional
systems is replaced by chemical fertilizers. In contrast, ex situ or in situ green manures,
animal manure, cover crops or different types of organic matter are used individually or in
combination to replenish exported nutrients in organic systems (Stockdale et al., 2000). In the
tropics, where soil fertility is generally low (Zingore et al., 2003), the decline in crop yields,
even in conventional cropping systems due to excess soil mining calls for the inclusion of
organic matter to maintain soil fertility (Eilitta et al., 2004). Hence the addition of organic
matter becomes very important in tropical organic cropping systems, the numbers of which
are increasing due the demand for chemical free products from the temperate developed
regions and due to the ever increasing prices of fertilizers.
The beneficial role of organic manure in increasing soil fertility, improving soil physical
conditions and microbiological conditions of soil as well as crop yield were recognized by
many investigators (Subba Rao 1977).
CONCLUSION
An organic fertilizer replenishes the soil naturally, without leaving chemical residues and
gives good crop yield under sustainable agricultural practices. The plants end up healthier and
safer than chemical fertilizer. Sustainable agriculture would ideally produce good crop yields
with minimal impact on ecological factors such as soil fertility under organic farming system.
A fertile soil provides essential nutrients for crop plant growth, supports a diverse and active
biotic community, exhibits a typical soil structure, and allows for an undisturbed
decomposition. Crop productivity in organic farming is achieved by a combination of
management strategies, among which the development of an efficient and effective nutrient
cycle plays an important role. Organic farming seems to be more appropriate as it considered
the important aspects like sustainable. Agriculture is the most important sector for ensuring
food security, alleviating poverty and conserving the vital natural resources that the world’s
present and future generation will be entirely dependent upon for their survival and well
being, in the name of development, the environmental resources have been beyond
comprehension. Intensive use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides has been an important
tool in the drive for increased crop production. In fact more fertilizers consumption is a good
indication of agricultural productivity but depletion of soil fertility is commonly observed in
soils. Organic Farming seems to be more appropriate as it considered the important aspects
like sustainable natural resources and environment. It is a production system, which favors
maximum use of organic materials like crop residues, FYM, compost, green manure, oil

cakes, bio-fertilizers, bio-gas slurry etc. to improve soil health from the different experiment,
microbial fertilizers like Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Blue green algae, Azolla etc. have increased
the yield and also played important role for minimizing the harmful effect of pesticides and
herbicides. Organic farming is a practical proposition for sustainable agriculture if adequate
attention is paid to this issue. There is urgent need to involve more and more scientist to
identify the thrust area of research for the development of eco-friendly production
technology.
REFERENCES
Allison, S. D. (2005). Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients constrain decomposition by microbial
enzymes in spatially structured environments. Ecol. Lett. 8: 626–635.
Chandanie, W.A., Kubota, M. and Hyakumachi, M. (2006). Interactions between plant
growth promoting fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and
induction of systemic resistance to anthracnose disease in cucumber. Plant Soil 286: 209-
217.
Christensen, B. T. (1986). Straw incorporation and soil organic matter in macro aggregates
and particle size separates. Journal of Soil Science 37, 125–135.
Clark, M. S., Horwarth, W. R., Shennan, C. and Scow, K. M. (1998). Changes in soil
chemical properties resulting from organic and low input farming practices. Agronomy
Journal 90, 662–671.
Das, A., Prasad, R., Srivastava, A., Giang, H.P., Bhatnagar, K. and Varma, A. (2007). Fungal
siderophores: structure, functions and regulation. In: Soil Biology Volume 12 Microbial
Siderophores(eds. A. Varma and S.B. Chincholkar). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg:
1-42.
Das, P.C. (2008). Manures and Fertilizers, Klyani Publication, Ludhiana, third edition.
Dexter, A. (2004). Soil physical quality: (I). Theory, effects of soil texture, density and
organic matter and effects on root growth. Geoderma, 120: 201 – 214.
Dilly, O., Munch, J. Ch. and Pfeiffer, E. M. (2007). Enzyme activities and litter
decomposition in agricultural soils in northern, central, and southern Germany. J. Plant
Nutr. Soil Sci. 170: 197–204.
Eilitta, M., Mureithi,J. and Derpsch, R. (2000). (eds). Green manure/cover crops systems of
smallholder farmers. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Gaur, A.C., Dargan, K.S. and Neelakantan., K.S. (1995). Organic manure. Publication and
Information Division, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India, 159 pp.
Glick, B.R. (1995). The enhancement of plant growth by free living bacteria, Can. J.
Microbiol., 41, 109–114.
Joanisse, G. D., Bradley, R. L., Preston, C. M. and Munson, A. D. (2008). Soil enzyme
inhibition by condensed litter tannins may drive ecosystem structure and processes: the
case of Kalmia angustifolia. New Phytolog. 175: 535–546.
Kaewchai, S., Soytong, K. and Hyde, K.D. (2009). Mycofungicides and fungal biofertilizers.
Fungal Diversity 38: 25-50.

Kannaiyan, S. (2002). Biofertilizers for sustainable crop production. In: Kannaiyan, S (ed)
Biotechnology and biofertilizers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, pp. 9-49.
Kay, B.D. and Munkholm, L.J. (2004). Management induced soil structure degradation –
Organic matter depletion and tillage. In . Managing soil quality: Challenges in modern
Agriculture.(P Schjonning, S. Elmholt, and B.T, Christensen eds.), pp 185 – 198. CABI,
Wallingford, U.K.
Kloepper, J.W. and Schrot, M., (1978). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on radishes,
Proc. Int. Conf. Plant Pathog. Bact., 2: 879-882,
Kloepper, J.W., Lifshitz, R. and Zablotowicz, R.M. (1989). Free-living bacterial inocula for
enhancing crop productivity, Trends Biotechnol., 7: 39–43.
Kuchenbuch, R.O. and Ingram, K.T. (2004). Effects of soil bulk density on seminal and
lateral roots of young maize plants (Zea mays L). Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil
Science, 167: 229 – 235.
Li, J., Zhao, B., L.I, X., Jiang, R. and Bing, H. S. (2008). Effects of Long-Term Combined
Application of Organic and Mineral Fertilizers on Microbial Biomass, Soil Enzyme
Activities and Soil Fertility. Agric. Sc. in China, 7: 336–343.
Mandal, U.K., Singh, G., Victor, U.S. and Sharma, K.L. (2003). Green manuring: Its effect
on soil properties and crop growth under rice-wheat cropping system. European Journal
of Agronomy, 19: 225 –237.
Mirchandani, T.J. and Khan, A.R., (1952). Green manuring, I.C.A.R., New Delhi, Review
Series No. 6.
Parr, J.F. and Papendick, R. I. (1983). Strategies for improving soil productivity in
developing countries with organic wastes. In Environmentally Sound Agriculture (Ed.W.
Lockertz), pp. 131–141. New York: Praeger Scientific.
Parr, J. F., Papendick, R.I. and Colacicco, D. (1986). Recycling of organic wastes for a
sustainable agriculture. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 3, 115–130.
Paul Maeder, Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. and Niggli, U. (2002). Soil
Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science, 2: 1694-1697.
Rai, M.M. (1965). Soil Science, Plant Chemistry, Manures and Fertilizers, pp.413-414.
Rinaldi, A.C., Comandini, O. and Kuyper, T.W. (2008). Ectomycorrhizal fungal diversity:
separating the Wheat from the chaff. Fungal Diversity 33: 1-45.
Sarkar, S., Rathore, T. R., Sachan, R.S. and Ghildyal, B. P. (1988). Effect of straw
incorporation and burning on pH and organic carbon status of Tarai soils. Journal of the
Indian Society of Soil Science 36, 158–160.
Sarkar, S. and Singh, S. R. (1997). Integrated nutrient management in relation to soil fertility
and yield sustainability under dryland farming. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science
67, 431–433.
Schutter, M. E. and Fuhrmann, J. J. (2001). Soil microbial community responses to fly ash
amendment as revealed by analyses of whole soils and bacterial isolates. Soil Biol. and
Biochem. 33: 1947–1958.
Stockdale, E.A., Lampkin, N.H., Hovi, M., Keating, R., Lennartsson, E.K.M., Macdonald,
D.W., Padel, S., Tattersall, F.H., Wolfe, M.S. and Watson, C.A. (2000). Agronomic and
environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in Agronomy, 70: 261–
327.

Subba Rao NS. 1977. Soil microorganisms and plant growth. Oxford and IBH publishing
Co.Pvt. Ltd. pp.192 - 207.
Svirskiene, A. (2003). Microbiological and biochemical indicators of anthropogenic impacts
of soils. Eurasian. Soil Sc. 36: 192–200.
Yadav A K. (2006). Glimpses of Biofertilizer Covered in fertilizer (Control) order, 1985.
(Amendment, March 2006). Biofertilizer News letter, National Centre of Organic
Farming Ghaziabad: 14 (2).
Zingore, S., Mafongoya, P., Nyamugafata, P. and Giller, K.E. (2003). Nitrogen mineralization
and maize yields following application of tree prunings to a sandy soil in Zimbabwe.
Agroforesty Systems,57: 199 – 211.

Chapter 12
WHEAT PRODUCTION UNDER CHEMICAL

AND ORGANIC AMENDMENT SYSTEM
Surendra Suthar and Mohd Kadir

School of Environment and Natural Resources,
Doon University, Dehradun, India
ABSTRACT
Organic farming has grown rapidly throughout the world in recent years. The
practice aims to protect human health and conserve, maintain or enhance natural
resources, with the goal to preserve the quality of the environment for future generations
while being economically sustainable. The aim of this study was to assess the
productivity of wheat field crops under conventional and organic farming system. To
achieve the aim a field study was conducted in organically managed field (7 – 8 years old
organic farm) and conventional farm (about 40 year’s conventional farming history)
located in Chamanpura village of Saharanpur district of UP State, India. The crop was
established by following standard cropping methods. At the time of harvesting the data of
plant production and yield (e.g., shoot length, root length, root/shoot ratio, number of
leaves/plant, number of ear/plant, number of grains/ear, crop yield/hectare) were recorded
in the field. On the basis of obtained data sets the hypothesis developed. Results thus
clearly indicate that organic farm was better in terms of wheat plant production and yield
data sets.
The production of wheat per hectare was relatively higher in organically-managed
wheat fields than conventional framing system. The results clearly suggest that after 6 -7
years of practices the production rate in organic farms are equivalent or more than
conventional farming systems. The initial low production of organic system than
conventional farming practices is reimbursed in the form of long-term ecological
benefits, consumer health security, quality of ecosystem services, food prices etc. The
organic farming system may be a tool of sustainable development to answer the challenge
of global environmental problems and food security and its sustainability.
Keywords: Organic farming, wheat, plant production, yield
Corresponding author email: suthariitd@gmail.com.

234 Surendra Suthar and Mohd Kadir
1. INTRODUCTION
Adverse effects of chemical-based agricultural practices have been well documented all
over the world. The heavy use of synthetic chemicals especially fertilizers and pesticides have
posed several issues of eco-sustainability and quality of services provided by our ecosystem.
On the other hand it has been realized that the consumption of chemical fertilizers has gone
up seven times in the last 20 years, but production has only increased a miserable two-fold.
The land degradation and soil organic matter depletion is another issue of modern concern.
The maintenance of adequate soil fertility at key crop growth periods is a major management
challenge in organic and low-input farming systems. Nitrogen is supplied in organic form, via
cover crops and manures, rather than as inorganic fertilizers as in conventional farming
systems. Large amounts of carbon are included in the mass of organic material required to
achieve adequate amounts of nitrogen in organic and low-input systems. Consequently, in the
long-term, organic matter-amended soils become carbon-rich, while those in conventional
farming systems may become carbon-deficient. The depletion of soil organic matter from
conventional farming system not only affects the soil physical structure but at the same time
also influences the natural soil detoxification efficiency. According to Roose and Barthes [1]
soil organic matter (SOM) plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of the main soil
properties and regimes related not just to the soil fertility. The whole functioning of soils is
profoundly influenced by SOM, its ability to provide conditions for plant growth, soil biota
functioning, reduction of greenhouse gases, modification of pollutants and maintenance of
soil physical condition. SOM level and SOM quality parameters are common indicators of the
effect of management practices on SOM change. Many common agricultural practices,
especially ploughing, disc-tillage and vegetation burning, accelerate the decomposition of soil
organic matter and leave the soil susceptible to wind and water erosion. On the other hand,
the conservation agriculture encompasses a range of such good practices through combining
no tillage or minimum tillage with a protective crop cover and crop rotations. It maintains
surface residues, roots and soil organic matter, helps control weeds, and enhances soil
aggregation and intact large pores, in turn allowing water infiltration and reducing runoff and
erosion. In addition to making plant nutrients available, the diverse soil organisms that thrive
in such conditions contribute to pest control and other vital ecological processes. The decline
in soil fertility and productivity due to excessive soil erosion, nutrient run-off, and loss of
SOM has stimulated interest in improving overall soil quality by the addition of organic
matter [2]. The organic matter accumulation in soils can be enhanced by such farming
techniques including zero tillage, organic farming, maintenance of permanent grassland and
cover crops, mulching, manuring with green legumes, application of farmyard manure,
compost, vermicompost, strip cropping and contour farming [3].
2. ORGANIC FARMING: A PARADIGM SHIFTING

FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Organic farming is one of the widely used methods, which are thought of as the best
alternative to avoid the ill effects of chemical farming. Organic agriculture disallows the use
of synthetic pesticide and fertilizers, relying instead on cultural, biological, or natural

Wheat Production under Chemical and Organic Amendment System 235
methods of pest control and fertility. A growing number of studies show that organic farming
leads to higher quality soil and more soil biological activity than conventional farming [4].
The National Organic Standards Board of US (1996) defines organic farming as: An
ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity,
biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and
on management practices that restore maintain and enhance ecological harmony”. Some of
the major characteristics of organic farming are: (1) no use of synthetic chemicals such as
fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, etc in agricultural production, (2) use of organic materials
such as compost and manure to maintain the organic matter balance of soil and as source of
nutrients, (3) use of nitrogen fixing as well as pest-resistant plant varieties, (4) incorporation
of soil management techniques such as mulching ,inter-cropping and crop rotation, (5) use of
agro-forestry systems, (6) use of bio-agro inputs such as bio pesticides, bio-control agents,
bio fertilizer and humic substances from vermicompost. Organic farming is an important
agricultural activity that is practiced in almost all countries of the world, and its share of
agricultural land and number of farms is growing. At the end of 2003, organic land area
worldwide was estimated at about 26.5 million ha, or 69% higher than in 1998, and was
managed by about 558000 farms. With 6.3 million ha of organic area, Europe ranks second,
behind Oceania (11.3 million ha), and ahead of Latin America (6.2 million ha), North
America (1.5 million ha), Asia (0.7 million ha) and Africa (0.4 million ha). Europe as a whole
represents more than 23% of the world organic area [5].
3. COMPOST AND VERMICOMPOST: A SUSTAINABLE

TOOL FOR SOIL RESTORATION
Compost serves as a growing medium, or a porous, absorbent material that holds
moisture and soluble minerals, providing the support and nutrients in which most plants will
flourish. Use of organic manure is extremely essential for better crop productivity and
maintaining the fertility of soil to ensure sustainable production. Application of organic
manures (farmyard manure or FYM, value-added composts, green manures, vermicompost
etc.) and bio-inoculants are the most important nutrient input management practices in
organic farming system. In contrast to chemical fertilizers, application of FYM meets one half
of nitrogen, one sixth of phosphate and about one half of potassium requirements of crops
during the first season. Several organic manures of animal origin are available for use (e.g.
night soil, bovine dung and urine, sheep manure, poultry manure, bat guano, silkworm wastes
and vermicompost).
On the other hand other community wastes (municipal solid wastes, crop residues, agro-
industrial by-products, industrial effluents etc.) contain a considerable amount of plant
nutrients which can be recycled using suitable low-cost technology [6, 7]. Unfortunately,
wastes of animal and plant origin are one of the major under-utilized resources in many
countries.
These wastes could not be fully exploited due to the non-availability of a viable
technology for their economic recycling. Composting, the biological oxidation of organic
matter, is an important process. However, traditional methods of composting result in losses
of organic matter and nitrogen.

Recent studies indicate the advantages of vermicomposting over traditional composting

system in terms of nutrient recovery and process durations. Vermicompost has been shown to
promote growth of a wide range of cereals, vegetable ornamental plants etc. [8, 9, 10]. Kale et
al. [11] carried out field trials on application of vermin compost to rice fields and observed
increase in population of beneficial microbes like N-fixing bacteria and mycorhizae over
control plots. Application of vermicompost reduces the dosages of NPK for crops.
Vermicompost along with judicious use of chemical fertilizers will not only bring down the
cost of cultivation but also present unique opportunity for sustainable agriculture [8]
4. WHEAT PRODUCTION UNDER CHEMICAL AND ORGANIC

AMENDMENTS SYSTEMS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
4.1. Background
Study was conducted in a cropping land located at Chamanpura village of Saharanpur

district of Uttar Pradesh. In this region few farmer communities warmly adopting organic
farming practiced as a result of encouragement of local government and social awareness.
Saharanpur is primarily an agricultural district. Roughly 70 % of the land is under
agricultural.
Agriculture plays an important role in the economy of the district. The study area is under
typical tropical climate with fare rainfall. The ambient temperature is recorded about 30 ºC in
the summers, though it gets really chilly in the winters. The humidity level ranges from 72 to
85 % in the monsoon and from 29 to 50 % in the summers in this region. The average annual
rainfall is about 800 mm and coupled with the abundance of water for irrigation the lands of
this region are considered to be highly fertile in terms of production of food grains, vegetables
and fruits. The major crops of this region are included: wheat, rice, maize, sugarcane, oilseeds
and cotton.
Study on wheat crop productivity under conventional and organic farming system was
conducted in a 40-45 years old farming system. The organic farming plot was selected in the
same cropping belt of the village which is turned into organic farm since 7-8 years back and
previously it was a kind of conventional farming lot. For this, paired farms were selected
(with similar environmental characteristics i.e., agro-climatic region, hydrologic unit,
landscape position, soil type, etc.) to conduct comparative study of conventional chemical-
based farming and organic farming practices. Depending upon the scope of inference,
replicate farms or fields were selected to avoid bias due to limited sampling.
4.2. Experimental Design
In conventional farming system the nutrient inputs is mainly of synthetic chemicals

(ammonium based fertilizers) and for pest management is also through chemical pesticides.
The detail of cropping history, chemical and other inputs in each study plot is described in
Table 1.

Table 1. Cropping history, inputs in both conventional and organic crop

of wheat in experimental field
S. No. Inputs Quantity (kg or liter/acre) Frequency Time

Organic farm – (Village: Chamanpur, farm no. CHO-1; organic farming history – since last 6 years; type
of farm- converted in to organic farm)
1 Compost 1000 kg/ac 1 after three month
2 Vermicompost 500 kg/ac 2 sowing time and after three
month
3 Vermiwash 5 litre/ac 2 sowing and flowering time
4 Agriculture waste 200 kg/ac 1 sowing time
5 Organic pesticide 5 litre/ac 2
6 Weed management - -
7 Soil supplement 5 kg/ac Organic marketed 1 sowing and flowering time
Conventional farm – (Village: Chamanpur, farm no. CHC-1; farming history – since last 40 years; type of
farm- modern chemical inputs since last 35 – 40 years)
1 Urea 50kg/ac 3 after two month
2 DAP 50 kg/ac 1 sowing time
3 Pesticide 1 litre/ac 2 During pest attack
4 Agriculture waste 300 kg/ac 1 sowing time
5 Weed management Chemically 1 -
6 Soil supplement 5 kg/ac 1 sowing time
7 Compost 1000 kg/ha 1 sowing time
4.3. Compost and Vermicompost: Preparation
In majority of cases the farmers have established a compost manufacturing units in their
own agriculture farms. The crop residues (paddy husk, wheat straw, weed biomass, sugarcane
residues, sugarcane trash, farmyard manure etc.) and cattle dung are being used as bedding
substrate for compost preparation. The pile or pit methods have been adopted by farmers to
prepare the compost. The methodology for compost preparation is simple thermal-based as
recommended by local experts (Plate 1). The compost ready within 6 months and compost is
then harvested and stored in cool and dry places for further use in field crops. The chemical
characteristics of compost are described in Table 2.
Domestic vermicomposting is the art of using captive earthworms to transform cattle
dunk into vermicompost. Vermicompost is extremely lively; it contains more than 100 times
as many beneficial bacteria and fungi as can be found in the surrounding soil. It also contains
plant growth factors and B vitamins, as well as high levels of soluble calcium, magnesium,
phosphorus and potassium. Vermicompost is concentrated and considered by many to be
nature's most perfect biofertilizer.
In this area vermicomposting has been practicing by local farmers in large scale. The
availability of local resources mainly required for establishment and running of a
vermicomposting unit, as well as minimum maintenance promotes the local farmers to take
advantage of this technology in this region. Livestock is an integral part of local agriculture
systems therefore, vermicomposting has been adopted as feasible tool manage excreta of the
livestock.

Plate 1. Preparation methods of composting of agricultural waste.
Plate 2. Preparation of compost and vermicompost in study areas for filed application.
Earthworm converts the cattle dung into a fine nutrient rich substance called
vermicompost. People of this region are using a variety of methods for vermicomposting
operation like windrow method, pile method and pit method (Plate 2). The vermicompost
ready for harvesting after few weeks and it should have a high proportion of worm castings
and all of the animal waste at least partially broken down.
All of the old bedding is pushed over to one side of the beds and new prepared bedding
with cattle dunk added to it is placed in the side. Additional cattle dunk is only placed in the
new bedding side to induce the worms to move over there. After a few weeks, all of the old
bedding material (worms included) is removed, placed in a clean container and left to age for
a few months.
Any remaining cattle dunk and bedding is converted by the worms and microorganisms
present to a high quality vermicompost with a large proportion of castings. After removal of
the old bedding, the new bedding material is spread out over the entire bottom of the beds.

Table 2. Chemical composition of compost and vermicompost used for experimentation
Parameter Compost Vermicompost

pH 7.8 7.4
Total Carbon (g/kg) 585.6 542.9
Total Nitrogen (g/kg) 23.5 62.4
Available P (g/kg) 8.56 12.85
Exchangeable K (g/kg) 15.9 23.5
Na+ (g/kg) 16.23 18.95
Ca2+ (mg/kg) 56.6 86.9
Mg2+ (mg/kg) 189.6 262.4
C:N ratio 24.9 8.70
4.4. Vermiwash Preparation
Vermiwash is a brown colored liquid fertilizer, which is collected after water passes via a
worm culture column and through the worm’s beds during vermicomposting. Vermiwash is
used as a foliar spray for crops. We prepare Vermiwash while maintaining high
concentrations of micro and macronutrients, plant hormones to ensure healthy development of
plants. The vermiwash was prepared by sparkling water over the surface of vermibed and
leachating substance was collected from the base drainage pipe of vermibed. The vermiwash
was used as foliar spray in field crop. In vermiwash the plant growth promotion substances
and its pesticidal activities have been documented in the literature [12, 13].
4.5. Weed Management
For weed management, the farmers mainly rely on same techniques as used in
conventional farming systems, but they much prefer nonchemical control strategies. The
primary weed control strategies for organic systems are hand sorting, mechanical weeding,
prevention etc. In conventional farming system chemicals have been used to eradicate the
weeds from commercial crops.
4.6. Observations and Analysis
The size of experimental plot selected for study was 1 x 1 hectare. At the time of
harvesting three sampling plots were fixed randomly in experimental plot in order to record
the growth and yield data of wheat plant in each type of farming system. Ten plants were ex-
rooted randomly from each sampling quadrate area. The plants were ex-rooted carefully and
whole plant was measured for physical characteristics: root length, shoot length, total plant
length, root /shoot ratio, number of leaves per plant, number of ear per plant, number of
grains per plant etc. The same parameters were measured in both conventional and organic-
input based crops of wheat. The production data was also calculated for both farming
systems. The obtained data were interpreted using standard statistical tools. The comparison
between data sets of conventional and organic farming system was made using SPSS®

statistical package (Window Version 13.0). All statements reported in this study are at the p <
0.05 levels.
In order to measure the chemical quality of soils of experimental plot samples of soil
were also collected from each experimental field station. The soil samples were collected
from three randomly selected sites from each experimental plot. The sample was divided into
two layers: topsoil (0 – 10 cm depth) and subsoil (10 – 25 cm depth). The sample was
collected as per standard method described by Sheppard and Addison [14].
The collected soil samples were brought to laboratory in polythene bags, stored in airtight
containers, and analyzed for different parameters. In lab sample was oven dried at 80 ° C and
sieved. The dried sample was then stored in dry plastic containers for further chemical
analysis. The pH was measured using a digital pH meter (Metrohm, Swiss-made) in 1:10
(w/v) aqueous solution (deionized water). Electrical conductivity (EC) was measured using a
digital conductivity meter. Total organic carbon (TOC) was measured after igniting the
sample in a Muffle furnace at 550 º C for 60 min by the method of Nelson and Sommers [15].
Extractable phosphorous was measured using the method described by Olsen et al. [16]. Total
exchangeable cations (K+ and Na+) were determined after extracting the sample using
ammonium acetate [17]. Nitrate was measured spectrophotomatrically after extracting
samples using 0.01 M CuSO4 solution [18]. Exchangeable and total phosphorous was
measured by following method as described by Olsen et al. [16]. Sulphate was measured
spectrophoto-matrically and soil acidity, total calcium, magnesium, chloride content were
analyzed using titration assembly following methods described by APHA [19].
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Soil Characteristics of Experimental Plots
The results of soil analysis for both farming system is described in Table 3. pH of soils in
the ranges of 7.4 – 7.5 in organic field and 7.1 – 7.2 in conventional filed. pH of soil indicates
overall chemical health of the cultivating soils and in this study the low pH in conventional
farm than organic system could be due to type of chemical inputs in the field. The use of
ready N-fertilizer in the form of urea and ammonium phosphate probably causes slight acidic
impact in soils. EC indicates the level of cations in soils and in this experiment EC was
comparatively higher in conventional farms than organic filed. It was mainly due to the
supply of inorganic fertilizers and more availability of dissolved forms of some key nutrients
like nitrate, sulphate and phosphate. In organic supplements such nutrient release gradually
and hence increases the rate of plant uptakes. Acidity is an important feature of soil health
and it directly indicates the adverse impacts of chemical fertilizers in the soils. In
conventional farming systems which receive heavy dose of N-fertilizer and other inorganic
nutrient supplements showed slightly more soil acidity value than organic farm. Several other
workers also have reported the problem of soil acidity in chemical-based farming systems
[20, 21].
Total organic carbon (TOC) is an important component of soil ecosystem and it reflects
the overall quality of the soil and productivity of agroecosystems. In this study the organic
carbon varied among different sampling stations.

Table 3. Chemical characteristics of soils under different farming systems
Parameters Faming system

Organic farm Conventional farm
Depth Depth
10cm 25cm 10cm 25m
pH 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.1
EC m 647 635 700 709
Acidity (ml/L) 63 61 66 63
TOC (%) 23 21 18 16
TP (mg/kg) 908 900 788 787
PO43-(mg/kg) 59.7 59.1 48.7 48.1
SO42- (mg/kg) 50.7 49.7 53.1 51.9
N-NO3- (mg/kg) 18.2 17.8 17.5 17.0
Ca 2+ (mg/kg) 792 781 751 450
Mg2+ (mg/kg) 159 152 155 154
Total Na (mg/kg) 113 111 110 109
Total K (mg/kg) 108 106 107 105
In this study TOC was higher in sampling plots which received organic amendments. The
TOC ranged 21 (10 – 25 cm depth) – 23 (0 – 10 cm depth) % in organic plot and 16 (10 – 25
cm depth) – 18 (0 – 10 cm depth) % in conventional farming system. Data suggests the
significant impact of organic amendments on carbon budget of the soils. Soil carbon
dynamics play a crucial role in sustaining soil quality, promoting crop production and
protecting the environment [22, 23, 24].
The soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, a significant indicator of soil quality, has many
direct and indirect effects on such quality. Increases in the SOC pool improve soil structure
and tilth, counter soil erosion, raise water capacity and plant nutrient stores, provide energy
for soil fauna, purify water, denature pollutants, enhance soil biodiversity, improve the
crop/crop residue ratio and mitigate the effects of climate [25]. Sombrero and de Benito [26]
reported a high TOC pool in soils of agriculture plot receiving conservative farming inputs.
They attributed the high TOC pool in soils to addition of organic residues to soils.
Nitrate is an essential component required for plant growth and development. Application
of inorganic N may influence soil structural properties through changes in root development,
microbial community composition and activity, SOC concentration, and soil chemical
properties (e.g., flocculation, zeta potential) [27]. The nitrate was relatively higher in
organically managed agroecosystems than the conventional farm. The ranges of nitrate in
soils of organic farming system was 17.8 (subsoil: 10- 25 cm depth) – 18.2 (topsoil: 0 – 10
cm depth) mg kg-1 while in conventional farm N-NO3- ranged between 17.0 (subsoil: 10- 25
cm depth) – 17.5 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1. The high nitrate in organic farming
system could be due to slow release of N-NO3- from organic pools through natural
mineralization processes. This process conserve N pools in soils while in chemical based
farming system readily available N sources either absorbed by plant systems or some fraction
is lost through surface runoff or deep soil leaching. The slow mineralization of nitrate in
compost material is of prime importance because it conserves the N-pool in the soils. The

high nitrate some time leach down to deep soil layers and consequently causes pollution to
groundwater.
Phosphate is important plant nutrient and essentially required for several plant functions
and soil microbial richness. The soil phosphate content did not varied drastically between the
conventional and organically managed agriculture plots, but in some areas the phosphate was
relatively high in organic farm soils. The phosphate in organically managed soils was 59.1
(subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 59.7 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1. In conventional farm
the phosphate ranged: 48.1 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 48.7 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg
kg-1 mg/kg. The chemical input of phosphate is the main source of phosphate in conventional
farming systems, while in organically managed agroecosystems compost as well as
vermicompost was applied at appropriate rate in order to meet the necessities of essential
plant nutrients in soils. Vermicompost contains a high range of plant available form of
phosphorous and hence acts as potential source of phosphate in soils [13, 28]. Plant-derived
wastes (farmyard manure, composted crop residues etc.) and animal excreta is important
source of phosphate in soils and majority of organic manures were prepared from either
animal excreta or crop residues spiked with cattle dung. Sulphate is very essential nutrient for
microbial growth and plant metabolism. The overall range of sulphate was relatively high in
soils of conventional farming systems than organically managed farm. In organic farming plot
the sulphate was 49.7 mg kg-1 in top soil and 50.7 mg kg-1 in subsoil while in conventional
farm soil sample sulphate ranged: 51.9 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 53.1 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm
depth mg kg-1 (Table 2). In general, in chemical based farming system sulphate is supplied
either by inorganic fertilizer or by crop residues after crop residues burning after harvesting.
But in organically managed agro-ecosystem industrial fly ash, compost and vermicompost
were the major source of sulphate in soils.
The calcium and magnesium were relatively higher in organic plot soils as compared to
conventional farm (Table 2). The calcium contents ranged 781 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) –
792 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1 in organic field soils and 450 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm
depth) – 751 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1 in conventional farm soils. The magnesium
plays an important role in soil metabolism and microbial activities in soil ecosystem. The
magnesium content in conventional farm was relatively high (ranged: 154 – 155 mg kg-1 in
different soil depths) than organically managed wheat farm (ranged: 152 – 159 mg kg-1 in
different soil depths). Major source of these nutrients in soils is irrigated water especially
river water irrigations. In general, people do not supply any material to agriculture plots for
fulfillment of calcium and magnesium need of the plant, although these materials are required
in micro quantity to plants. On the other hand plant residues and other post harvest plant
material also acts as another potential source of micronutrients in soils. However, organic
fertilizers especially vermicompost contains a significant amount of calcium due to secretion
of calcium in vermicomposted material by calcium glands of earthworms. Earthworm
mediated mineralization also enhance the level of some mutants like calcium and magnesium
in final products [13]. The biological communities usually high in organically managed soils
and hence adding of calcium through microflora especially by fugal hypae is also important.
The level of available cations (K+ and Na+) in soils was in plots those received organic
amendments than chemical based wheat farm. Available potassium content was in the ranges
of 106 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 108 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1 in organic field
and 105 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 107 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1 in conventional
farming systems, although different between both farming system was not significant.

Sodium in organic farm soils ranged: 109 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 110 (topsoil: 0 – 10
cm depth) mg kg-1 while in conventional farming system its range was slightly higher than
organic field soils: 111 (subsoil: 10 – 25 cm depth) – 113 (topsoil: 0 – 10 cm depth) mg kg-1
(Table 2). In general organic fertilizers especially vermicompost and compost contains a great
ranges of some readily available plant micronutrients which directly affects not only soil
quality but at the same time also influences the overall plant growth.
5.2. Wheat Growth and Yield
The wheat production showed significant variations among different farming systems.
Overall growth and production of wheat field crop is described in Table 4. The average shoot
length of individual plant was relatively higher in organic farm wheat (60.8 ± 3.01 cm) than
conventional wheat plant (59.9 ± 2.42 cm) (t-test: t = 1.536, p = 0.159). The average root
length in individual plant was the maximum (6.1 ± 0.74 cm) in plant from organically
managed farm and it was significantly higher than average root of plant from conventional
farm (5.70 ± 0.48 cm) (t-test: t = 8.214, p < 0.001). Root /shoot ratio of individual plant did
not any significant difference between both farming systems in wheat field crop. Numbers of
leaves/plant also showed vary in organic and conventional wheat field. The organic field
wheat showed more number of leaves/plant than sample obtained from conventional farm (t-
test: t = 3.204, p = 0.05) (Table 7). Number of ear/plant were more in organic wheat (5.30 ±
0.48) than conventional wheat (4.70 ± 0.48) and difference between both farming system was
statistically significant (t-test: t = 3.674, p = 0.005). The grains/ear is important parameters to
determine the overall productivity of the crop, although grain weight is important factor here.
In this study the grains/ear were high in organic wheat, i.e. 69.8 ± 1.25; significantly higher
than conventional wheat crop (64. 1± 0.74) (t-test: t = 2.898, p = 0.018).
Results thus, clearly suggested that plant growth and yield parameters were relatively
better in organically managed farm than conventional farming system. Earlier authors have
also reported significant impact of organic farming practices on plant productivity as well as
soil health. Compost, vermicompost or other green manures has excellent micro-nutrient and
physiologically important supplements which directly affects the growth and production in
field crops, if applied as substitute of chemical fertilizers. The worm-worked material, i.e.
vermicompost contains several plant growth substances. Ghobbour [29] stated that besides
microorganism, inorganic minerals and organic matter, the cast also contain enzyme such as,
proteases, amylases, lipases, cellulose and chitanases which continue to disintegrate organic
matter even after they have been execrated. Sharma and Madan [30] reported that earthworm
castings contain as much 5 times more nitrate nitrogen, 14 times more calcium, 11 time tomes
more potassium than that of 15 cm top soil. Shinde et al. [31] reported that vermicompost
contains more carbon and phosphorus than FYM, it had less K and micronutrients than FYM
and both had comparable contain of nitrogen. Vermicompost generally had C: N ratio as
compared to FYM. Hapse [32] observed that application of vermicompost @ 5Mg/ha
significantly increased total N, P, K and organic carbon and decrease ph over control.
Application of vermicompost also decreases the bulk density and increased the soil as
compared to control. Patil [33] studied the effect of application of vermicompost and FYM on
release of nutrients and their uptake and yield by maize in different texture soils. Their studies
revealed that application of FYM and vermicompost resulted into significant increase in

electrical conductivity, organic carbon, available N, P and K contents of all the types, whereas
, the Ph of all the soil types, significantly decrease. Grapple et al. [34] found that worm cast
that when used as manure increased height of plant, leaf area index, number of branches, stem
girth and yield in respect of plants like saliva and aster in pots. Palanisamy [35] studied the
effect of mixing10 to 20 per cent worm cast in the upper 30 cm of a sandy soil on growth
parameters and yield of wheat due to mixing of cast in 30 cm soil. Suthar [10] studied the
effect of vermicompost alone and with combination of NPK fertilizers on growth and yield of
field crop of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under semi-arid tropical climate. He reported that
integrated approach of nutrient supply in field crop by applying vermicompost along with
NPK fertilizer not only enhances the crop yield but at the same time also uplifts the SOM
level in cultivable soils. Apart to this vermicompost contains several chemical substances,
secreted by earthworm or earthworm-associated microbes, showing plant-hormone like
effects [36]. Studies have revealed that vermicompost also contains of plant hormones such as
auxins, gibberellins and cytokinin [37, 38]. The plant-growth-promoting compounds
elaborated by earthworm promote a significant increase in plant growth and N uptake. The
level of some important soil enzymes, e.g. dehydrogenases, urease, acid phosphatase and
alkaline phosphatases was significantly greater in plots receiving vermicompost than other
manures. Urease plays a key role in the N-cycle since it hydrolyses urea, yielding ammonia
and CO2, and is important in regulating the efficiency of urea as a nitrogen fertilizer.
Similarly, phosphates closely involved in bioconversion of phosphorus into readily acceptable
forms for plants.
In all experimental plots the average wheat production was relatively higher in
organically managed farms than conventional wheat. The overall production of wheat was in
the ranges of 2617 ± 127.86 kg/ha – 2843.7 ± 66.07 kg/ha in conventional farm and 2843.3 ±
86.19 kg/ha – 3259.0 ± 33.42 kg/ha in organic farming system. The production of wheat
(kg/ha) is described in Figure 2.
Now it is time to reanalyze the technological development on the cost of nature
destruction. Several mammoth problems related to soil structure and productivity is the
results of fossil fuel based energy inputs in intensive cultivations. Changes in the soil pH, soil
acidifications and lower humic acid contents are some key problems of overuse of synthetic
fertilizers. The poor soil respiration rate and complete vanishing of natural decomposer
communities from agro-ecosystems has questioned the land sustainability and future food
security [39].
Table 4. Growth and yield data of Tomato field crop in different farming systems
Parameter Organic Conventional t-test

Range Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD t-value F- value
Shoot length
(cm) 55 – 65 60.80 ± 3.01 57 – 64 59.9 ± 2.42 1.546 0.159
Root length
(cm) 5. 0 – 7.0 6.10 ± 0.74 5–6 5.70 ± 0.48 2.449 0.037
shoot/root ratio 7.86 – 11.40 10.09 ±1.26 9.50 – 12.0 10.58 ± 0.98 -1.745 0.115
No. of leaf/plant 9 – 12 10.50 ±1.08 9 – 11 9.70 ± 1.08 3.204 0.011
No. of ear/plant 5–6 5.30 ± 0.48 4–5 4.70 ± 0.48 3.674 0.005
No. of grain/ear 63 – 81 69.80 ±1.26 63 – 65 64.10 ± 0.74 2.898 0.018

Figure 2. The production of wheat (kg/ha) in both conventional and organically managed agro-
ecosystems.
Similarly, the escalation in the cost of chemical fertilizers, particularly that of N, coupled
with concerns about pollution have focused attention on the use of combined application of
nutrients through organic and inorganic source in crop production. Therefore, nutrient supply
in crop system should be economically viable, environmental friendly and socially acceptable
without affecting the gross plant production [40]. On the other hand sustainable management
of agricultural land simultaneously aims at maintaining or enhancing food production,
reducing the level of production risk, protecting the potential of natural resources and
preventing degradation of soils and water quality, while being economically viable and
socially acceptable [41, 42].
According to Pimentel et al. [43] organic agriculture is contributing to most of the points
listed and to a certain extent this is also true for integrated production systems. Soils play a
key role in the definition of sustainable land management since they represent the basis of
food production. If soils are eroded or degraded to a larger extent, a society may lose its
fundament of safety and self-sufficiency.
Organic agriculture disallows the use of synthetic pesticide and fertilizers, relying instead
on cultural, biological, or natural methods of pest control and fertility. A growing number of
studies show that organic farming leads to higher quality soil and more soil biological activity
than conventional farming [4]. However, plant growth is modified mainly indirectly by
changing soil-physical structure, mineralization process, hormone-like effects, and dispersal
of plant growth stimulating microorganism and dispersal of plant growth stimulating
microorganism and dispersal of microorganisms antagonistic to root pathogens [44, 45]. The
results clearly suggest that after 6 -7 years of practices the production rate in organic farms
are equivalent or more than conventional farming systems.
The initial low production of organic system than conventional farming practices is
reimbursed in the form of long-term ecological benefits, consumer health security, quality of
ecosystem services, food prices etc. The organic farming system may be a tool of sustainable
development to answer the challenge of global environmental problems and food security and
its sustainability.

CONCLUSION
Organic farming uses almost exclusively biological and natural materials and processes
to produce food. The practice aims to protect human health and conserve, maintain or
enhance natural resources, with the goal to preserve the quality of the environment for future
generations while being economically sustainable. This work provides an opportunity to
explore the field crop of wheat under conventional and organic farming systems. The field
crop of wheat was estimated in terms of plant productivity and yield in both types of farming
systems. Results thus clearly indicates that organically managed wheat not only have better
plant growth trends but at the same time the crop yield was also better as compared to
conventional farming system. The cost of per capita production was also low in organic
farming system than conventional farms mainly due to resources availability for organic
inputs (compost, vermicompost, vermiwash etc.). Organic farming may be a sustainable
solution to solve the problems of food security and ecosystem quality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors are highly thankful to farmers of Chamanpura village for allowing research team
to conduct field experiment and for kind cooperation during data collections.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Roose and B. Barthes, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61, 159–170 (2001).
[2] R. K. Bastian, J. A. Ryan, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. p. 217-
129 (1986).
[3] A. Roldan, J. R. Salinas-Garcia, M. M. Alguacil and F. Caravaca, Appl. Soil Ecol. 30,
11 –20 (2005).
[4] L. E. Drinkwater, P. Wagoner and M. Sarrantonio, Nature 396, 262-265 (1998).
[5] European Commission, Off. J. Eur. Common. L 202, 12 – 17 (2005).
[6] S. Suthar and S. Singh, International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 5(1), 99-106 (2008a).
[7] S. Suthar and S. Singh, Ecol. Engg. 33, 210 –219 (2008b).
[8] R. D. Kale, Earthworm Ecology. Ankeny, Lowa St. Lucie Press, New York, pp. 355–
373 (1998).
[9] C. A. Edwards, In: Earthworm Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 327–354
(1998).
[10] S. Suthar, Nat. Environ. Poll. Technol. 5 (2),197-201 (2005).
[11] R. D. Kale, B. C. Mallesh, B. Kubra and D. J. Bagyaraj, Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 1317–
1320 (1992).
[12] N.Q. Arancon, C.A. Edwards, R Dick and L Dick, BioCycle 11. 51 – 52 (2007).
[13] S. Suthar, Ecol. Engg. 36, 1089 – 1092 (2010).
[14] S. C. Sheppard and J. A. Addison, Soil sampling and Methods of Analysis. CRC Press,
New York, USA. , 39 – 49 (2008).

[15] D. W. Nelson and L. E. Sommers, Method of Soil Analysis. American Society of

Agronomy, Madison,, 539-579 (1996).
[16] S. R. Olsen, C. V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe and L. A. Dean, Circ. US Dept. Agric., 939
(1954).
[17] R. R. Simard, Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, Lewis Publisher, FL, USA, 39–
43 (1993).
[18] M. L. Jackson, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi (1975)
[19] APHA (American Public Health Association), APHA, AWWA, WPFC, New York 16th
Ed., (1998).
[20] O. T. Bouman, D. Curtin, C. A. Campbell, V. O. Biederbeck and H. Ukrainetz, Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 59, 1488-1494 (1995).
[21] P. Barak, B. O. Jobe, A. R. Krueger, L. A. Peterson and D. A. Laird, Plant and Soil
197, 61-69 (1997).
[22] A. Bauer and A. L. Black, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 185–193 (1994).
[23] J. W. Doran and T. B. Parkin, In: Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment.
SSSA Spec. Publ. 35 (1994). SSSA, Madison, WI.
[24] C. A. Robinson, R M Cruse and M Ghaffarzadeh, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 264–269
(1996).
[25] R. Lal, Soil Till. Res. 99 1 – 5 (2007).
[26] Sombrero and A de Benito, Soil and Tillage Research 107, 64–70 (2010).
[27] R. J. Haynes and R. Naidu, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 51, 123 – 137 (1998).
[28] S. Suthar, International Journal of Plant Production 3(1) 27-38 (2009 a).
[29] S. I. Ghabbour, Rev. Ecol. Bil. Soc. 3, 259 – 271 (1966).
[30] N. Sharma and M. Madan, Biological Wastes 25, 33 – 40 (1988).
[31] P. H. Shinde, R. K. Naik, R. B. Nazirkar, S K Kadam and V M Khaire, Proc. Nat. Semi.
Org. Fmg. MPKV, Pune (1992).
[32] D. G. Hapse, Proceedings of 43rd Annual Deccan Sugar Technologists Association,
Pune, part I, SA 37 SASI (1993).
[33] M. P. Patil, N. C. Humani, S. I. Athani and M. G. Patil, Adv. Agril. Res. Ind. 9, 39 – 42
(1993).
[34] A. Grappeli, V. Tomati and E. Galli, Horticulture Science, 20, 874-876 (1985).
[35] S. Palanisamy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (1996).
[36] J. G. Zaller, Biol. Agril. Horti. 24, 165 – 180 (2006).
[37] R. V. Krishnamoorthy and S. N. Vajrabhiah Proceedings of the Indian Academy of
Sciences (Animal Science) 95, 341–351 (1986).
[38] U. Tomati, A. Grappelli and E. Galli, Biol. Fertil. Soils 5, 288–294 (1988).
[39] S. Suthar, Environmentalist 28, 76 – 84 (2008).
[40] S. Suthar, Ecol. Engg. 35, 914-920 (2009 b).
[41] FAO, FESLM: An International Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land
Management. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome (1993).
[42] P. Schjønning, S Elmholt, and B T Christensen, (Eds.), Managing Soil Quality:
Challenges in Modern Agriculture.CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 368 (2004).
[43] D. Pimentel, U. Stachow, D. A. Takacs, H. W. Brubaker, A. R. Dumas, J. J. Meaney, J.
A. S. O’Neil, D. E. Onsi and D. B. Corzilius, Bioscience 42, 354–362 (1992).

[44] P. Lavelle, D. Bignell, M. Lepage, V. Wolters, P. Roger, P. Ineson, O. W. Heal and S.

Dhillion, Euro. J. Soil. Biol. 33, 159–193 (1997).
[45] S. Scheu, Pedobiologia 47, (2003).

Chapter 13
ORGANIC FERTILIZERS IN FORESTRY:

A GREEN TECHNOLOGY FOR RESTORATION
OF MINE SPOILS
Anuj Kumar Singh and Jamaluddin#

College of Forestry, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology,
Bhubaneswar, India
#
Emeritus Scientist (CSIR), Department of Bioscience,
R. D. University, Jabalpur, India
ABSTRACT
Mining and forestry comes together. Mining activity results in loss of essential soil
nutrients, organic matters and microbial population. It has long been recognized that soil
microorganisms are the major driving force behind nutrient transformation in soil, thus
they have a major role in soil fertility and ecosystem functioning. Microbial biomass is
both the agent of biochemical changes in soil and a repository of plant nutrients that are
more labile than the bulk of the soil organic matter. Soil microbial biomass is a critical
factor in recovery of mine spoils as it helps in the re-establishment of the nutrient cycles.
Development of a self sustained system on mine spoils need an integrated approach
comprised of site preparation, selection of species for plantation, microbial inoculation,
organic mulches and application of other organic supplements. For restoration of mined
out land , it is essential to establish biodiversity restoration potential of individual
plantation species and of combinations thereof by applying microbial inoculants in
combination with mulches and other suitable amendments. The application of native
microbial population which is will adapted and stress tolerant and plantation of fast
growing tree species amended with mulching treatments may ensure primary goal of re-
establishment of the soil’s natural biogeochemical cycles. Such progress, in turn, would
allow the natural invasion of multiple herbs, shrubs and tree species that would not only
help in soil stabilization but would enhance the soil's physico-chemical and nutritive
properties. In addition, integrating such microbial biofertilizers as Rhizobium,
Azospirillum, Phosphorus solubilising bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on to the
E-mail: ksanuj@live.com.

250 Anuj Kumar Singh and Jamaluddin
saplings would enable the plant species to become more tolerant to stress by ensuring
continuous supplies of nutrients during their early stages of growth. Application of
organic wastes and sewage sludge has also been recommended for soil organic matter
development on mine spoils. Adoption of such a green technology comprised of
application of microbial biofertilizers, organic mulches and organic wastes will definitely
provide an environmentally sustainable approach for restoration of degraded lands
without causing any environmental damage.
Keywords: Mine spoils, microbial biofertilizers, mulching, organic waste, restoration
INTRODUCTION
Due to mining, huge amount of material is disposed off adjacent to mining pit, which
create heaps of waste materials. The mine spoils, resulted from excavation and dumping
create stark hostile conditions for vegetatal growth and establishment. Mine spoils represent
very rigorous conditions for both plant and microbial growth because of low organic matter
content, low organic carbon, unfavorable pH, either coarse texture or compacted structures.
Mine overburden dumps are mostly inert materials highly deficient in essential soil nutrients.
As a result, the vegetation cover in and around mines is greatly reduced. The re-vegetation of
such degraded soil is difficult and time taking process. Regeneration through succession on
such highly degraded sites is very slow and mostly results in a low diversity of plant
communities and associated microbial populations. It is required to explore possibilities for
application of different biological tools to restore soil properties up to possible extent and
biologically rejuvenate the soil system for the development of a self sustained ecosystem. It is
essential to introduce organic fertilizers which may include microbial biofertilizers, organic
wastes and organic mulches on overburden dumps for effective nutrient mobilization.
Such degraded sites require an effective approach for establishment of nutrient supply
and development of long lasting and self sustainable ecosystem. This article reviews the role
of organic fertilizers including microbial biofertilizers, organic mulches and organic wastes,
in forestry practices and especially in bio-rejuvenation of mine overburden spoils of various
natures.
LIMITING FACTORS ON MINE SPOILS: A REVIEW

Mining activity causes loss of top soil, which is an exchange site and nutrient holding
capacity of mine spoils is drastically reduced. A major disadvantage of surface mined sites is
low inherent fertility status of the spoil material. Mine spoils are nutritionally and
microbiologically impoverished [1]. Soil forming processes are confined to the top few
centimeters even in older spoils [2-5]. Schafer Nielsen, and Nettleton found that organic
matter was present only in the upper few centimeters of a 53-year-old spoil [6]. Wittwer,
Carpenter, and Graves reported Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) as limiting factors in
revegetation of mine spoils in south-eastern Kentucky [7]. Iverson and Wali [8] observed
phosphorus as a major limiting nutrient during the colonization and early succession
processes for the surface mined lands in the North Dakota when Phosphorus was inadequate

Organic Fertilizers in Forestry 251
and plant growth was adversely affected [9]. Phosphorus was universally deficient in arid
western United States mine spoils [10-11]. Lack of mineralizable organic nitrogen and lower
mineralization rates affect the availability of nitrogen to plants in mine spoils [12].
Accumulation of organic matter in surface mine spoils is a slow process as, is the primary
succession on natural materials [13-14]. Soil organic matter contains N, P, K and other
essential nutrients. High levels of organic matter in mine spoils improve aggregation and
infiltration capacities and increase the availability of nutrients. Arnold, Gildon and Rimmer
[15] observed that reclamation success depends on biological activity of the surface horizons
in the long term. Carbon source is a critical factor to stimulate micro flora in mine spoils.
Nitrogen is equally important for vegetation establishment on mined spoils as Skeffington
and Bradshaw [16] suggested that a large pool of organic nitrogen and a high rate of
ammonification were necessary to sustain vegetation and to prevent nitrogen immobilization.
However, it is estimated that it may take up to hundreds of years of natural succession on
overburden for nitrogen pool to grow large enough to support a stable self sustaining plant -
soil system. Organic matter is generally absent and surfaces tend to crust after rain and dry
out rapidly. Surface temperatures are often high. Mulching materials can alter the surface
microclimate and conserve soil moisture during seedling establishment [17]. Organic
amendments assist plant establishment by improving moisture regime, moderating surface
temperature, decreasing erosion and improving fertility. The colonization of plant species on
coal mine spoils is influenced by the particle size of the soil derived from the overburden and
coal mine wastes. This was conclusively proved by Richardson, Shelton and Dicker [18].
They reported that with high clay content, the soil become water logged, whereas with silt
content, the soils become compact forming crust which often restrict seedling growth and
entry of water and air into the soil system. Revegetation of iron-ore mine areas of Madhya
Pradesh was studied by Prasad [19] who observed better growth performance of Dalbergia
sissoo, Albizia procera, Pongamia pinnata, etc. in the manured pits. The factors contributing
to the early colonization of mine dumps have given considerable attention by various
workers. Bradshaw [20], Byrnes and Miller [21] observed natural succession on coal mine
spoils a slow process due to surface mining altering physico-chemical properties. These spoils
present a special habitat where conditions are extremely unfavourable for plant growth and
establishment. Marrs and Bradshaw [22] studied the development of ecosystem of China clay
waste. Floristic diversity of lead mining wastes was studied by Clarke and Clarke [23], lead
and zinc by Kimmerer [24] and copper mining wastes by Goodman and Gemmel [25];
Veeranjaneyulu and Dhanaraju [26]. Mukherjee described about the land degradation
associated with surface and sub-surface mining [27]. Chadwick , Highton and Lindmn [28]
outlined the environmental implications of increased coal mining and utilization. While
Chaudhury dealt with the impact on mining activities on environment and also the
management and protection of the mined areas [29].
ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN RESTORATION OF MINE SPOILS

Addition of organic residues, usually results in improved plant growth and survival and
increase the potential for successful re-vegetation of disturbed sites. Addition of amendments
to mining wastes has a role in re-establishment of disturbed soil. The use of organic residues

on selected spoil is a critical component in the reconstruction of a functional plant and soil
microbial community. Visser [30] suggested the addition of amendments to stimulate soil
microbial activity. They examined the effect of soil amendments on soil microbial parameters
and VAM fungal colonization of grasses. Their work demonstrated that the addition of either
sludge or hay or top soiling at a depth of 30 cm increased the number of soil microorganisms,
enzyme activity and fungal genera distribution in non rhizosphere spoil. An Integrated
Biotechnological Approach for bioremediation of mine spoil dumps has been developed by
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, India. The
application of Integrated Biotechnological Approach for restoration of mine spoil dump of
iron ore mine has led to the development of supportive and nutritive rhizosphere and turned
the barren iron mine spoil dump into lush green vegetation within three years of plantation.
Increase in the height of the different plant species on dump site was due to the amendment of
spoil with soil, FYM and biofertilizer inoculum. Restoration of fertility and productivity of
manganese mine spoil dumps were carried out using press mud and endomycorrhizal fungi
[31].
Excavated sediment of ponds and tanks is an effective indigenous soil amendment
practice in India. Pond silt is not only productive but also a seed bank for a variety of grasses,
herbs, shrubs, and trees [32]. This silt, rich in organic material, can be used for preparation of
topsoil layer of about 30-50 cm over the mine waste and leveled pits. The silt layer increases
the productivity of the land and also helps in ground water recharge. Transporting the silt
away from ponds and using it for organic enrichment of mine spoil serves other purposes as
well including the safe disposal of excavated sediment and solid waste, ecological restoration
of mine-waste, and increased rainwater storage capacity for local people. In addition to the
above activity, in situ moisture conservation to encourage growth of vegetation over mine
spoils could be useful. For example, rehabilitation success to revegetate mine spoils in arid
regions in India was achieved using a combination of in situ rainwater harvesting, soil
amendments, and establishment of trees, shrubs and grasses [33-34]. In many cases toxicity of
mine spoils due to presence of metals affects the restoration plan. In such cases, one of the
methods that also can be applied along with sediment use is microbial enrichment of the ore
where ever feasible. Some arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AM fungi) native to limestone mine
spoils may play a critical role in rehabilitation of mine spoils in arid Rajasthan. AM-fungi
have positive role in improving the water and nutrient uptake and enabling the plants to
withstand high temperatures.
Sewage sludge has also been suggested as organic amendments for reclamation of surface
mine wastes. Municipal sewage sludge has been used in rehabilitation of such harsh sites. An
organic amendment to site-specific conditions is an important part of re-vegetation on mine
spoils and ecosystem recovery [35]. Schneider, Wittwer and Carpenter [36] tested the effects
of low and high metal sewage sludges on growth of many plant species and suggested that
sewage sludge can be used as an amendment for reclamation of coal mine spoils. It tends to
be high in nutrient contents and buffering capacity [37]. A covering of sewage sludge can
allow grass re-establishment [38]. Sewage sludge is enriched in nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium [39]. A successful application using 12 tree species is reported from Illinois by
Roth, Jaydo and Weaver [40]. Sopper and Seaker [41] have documented the beneficial effects
of digested municipal sewage sludge as a spoil amendment for revegetation. Addition of
sludge in spoil increased yield of Alfalfa [42]. Addition of sludge ameliorated the harsh mine
spoil conditions and resulted in a quick vegetational cover [43]. Application of sewage sludge

[44] had a positive influence on the physical properties and enhanced the growth of
vegetation. However, too much application of sewage sludge application may cause potential
risks due to pathogens and heavy metal toxicity. The advantages in using sludge include
enhancement of soil physical properties [45], stimulation of microbial activity [46], plant
growth performance and nutrient availability [47].
MICROBES AND NUTRIENT SUPPLY

The potential of soil microorganisms has been recognized widely in improvement of soil
quality, soil formation, aggregation and revegetation through their activities in litter
decomposition and nutrient cycling. Microbial activities such as phosphate solubilization,
nitrogen fixation, oxidation of various inorganic components of soil or mineralization of
inorganic components and mycorrhizal symbiosis are major beneficial activities that play a
very important role in soil system functioning. Soil microorganisms inhabiting the
rhizosphere environment interact with plant roots and mediate nutrient availability to the
plants. Implications of plants and their symbionts like mycorrhizal fungi, N-fixing bacteria
and free-living rhizosphere population of bacteria promote plants establishment and growth.
In addition to their effects on soil fertility, they also enhance soil structure by binding together
soil particles. An active soil microbial biomass is an essential factor in the long-term fertility
of soils. Microorganisms improve the nutrient status and texture by addition of organic matter
[48]. They also significantly contribute in improving status of soil nitrogen. Free living or
symbiotic nitrogen fixers improve the nitrogen status with micronutrients and growth
promoters. Microorganisms alter the pH of the habitat making it suitable for the establishment
of higher plants. Some of the microorganisms are being applied as biofertilizers and have
proved promising agent for the recovery of wastelands. The humic and fulvic acid fractions of
humus are known to chelate micronutrients like copper, iron, zinc and manganese and also
exert buffering action [49].
Microbial activity in the rhizosphere affects rooting patterns and the supply of available
nutrients to plants thereby modifying the quality and quantity of root exudates [50-51].
Nitrogen-fixing microbes can exist as free-living organisms in associations of different
degrees of complexity with other microbes and plants. The most abundant elements in the
atmosphere (N2) are very often the limiting element for the growth of most organisms. Many
soil organisms interact with each other to overcome of the limitation. Positive effects of
Rhizobium sp. inoculation in combination with Azotobacter sp. or Azospirillum sp. inoculants
have been reported for different forage and grain legumes. The role of microorganisms in
nutrient cycling is unique. An active biomass is an essential factor in the long-term fertility of
restored soil. It is therefore essential that microbes beneficial for plant growth have to be
introduced to the spoils. Among the different microbes vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi, nitrogen fixers and phosphate solubilizers are very important for any plant. Phosphorus
is an important plant nutrient next to nitrogen for plants growth. The most important aspect of
phosphorus cycle is microbial mineralization, solubilization and immobilization besides
chemical fixation of phosphorus in the soil. Phosphorus solubilising microorganisms convert
insoluble inorganic phosphate compounds into soluble form. A considerable higher
concentration of phosphate solubilising bacteria is commonly found in the rhizosphere soil.

Also the fungal genera with this capacity are Penicillium and Aspergillus [52-53].
Pseudomonas is a typical PGPR and their interactions with AM fungi mutually enhance each
other’s colonization and achieve additive plant growth enhancement. Another mechanism of
action of PGPR on plant growth is the production of siderophores. The siderophores are
produced by most fungi and bacteria including Pseudomonas, Rhizobium and Azotobacter
[54]. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi (AMF) which are an important group of soil-borne
microorganisms; contribute substantially to the establishment, productivity, and longevity of
natural or man-made ecosystems. These fungi form symbiotic association with most
terrestrial plant families. Due to the extensive network of external hyphae which function as
plant rootlets and increase Phosphorus uptake, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are considered as
beneficial microorganisms. The species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Aspergillus, Penicillium
etc. have been reported to be active in the bioconversion of insoluble phosphorus. These
organisms produce organic acids like citric, glutamic, succinic, lactic and tartaric acids which
are responsible for solubilization of insoluble forms of phosphorus. Phosphorus solubilising
microorganisms synergistically interact with N-fixing microorganisms. Taking this fact into
cognizance, the phosphorus solubilizing microorganisms are being exploited as biofertilizers
in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, agro-forestry [55] and the same needs to be extended for
afforestation and restoration forestry.
ORGANIC MULCHING
Mulch is any material that is used to cover the soil for beneficial purposes. Plants
growing in the forest are naturally mulched with a layer of fallen leaves, flowers, fruits, and
branches. Mulch protects roots from drying and temperature extremes, and it enhances the
soil conditions that improve plant growth and health. Mulch helps reduce competition from
grass and weeds around the base of landscape plants, resulting in improved growth, especially
during establishment of new plantings. Grasses and weeds compete for water and nutrients,
and some release chemicals that injure other plants. Research indicates that allowing turf to
grow over tree root zones reduces tree growth. Mulch also can protect plants from possible
injury from herbicide applied to surrounding turf. Mulches improve the quality of the soil in
the root zone by improving soil structure, especially by increasing porosity. When soil is
porous, water easily enters and percolates through it. With good porosity, more water is
absorbed and held in the soil, but drainage is also improved. Mulch protects the soil surface
from becoming sealed by the impact of raindrops, keeping it “open.” Mulch acts as a vapor
barrier to prevent rapid evaporation of water from the soil, which is especially useful in areas
prone to drought. Because mulching can improve water absorption and retention in the soil,
irrigation water can be conserved and maintenance time can be reduced. Organic mulches, as
they decompose, contribute to the soil organic matter content. Organic matter improves soil
structure and porosity by promoting soil aggregation. With improved soil structure, erosion
and cracking which breaks plant roots are reduced. Soil organic matter also contains plant
nutrients and provides food for beneficial soil microorganisms.
Organic mulches are derived from living sources. The best ones are woody, fibrous waste
materials that will degrade slowly and are in large enough pieces to allow for good air
circulation. Mulches are usually graded by size: fine, medium, or coarse. Medium and coarse

grades of organic mulch are excellent for use around plants. Suitable materials include
shredded bark and coconut husks, wood chips, and macadamia husks; these materials may be
partially composted before use. Coarse mulches will stay in place and don’t easily blow or
wash away. Fresh wood chips, such as those that are available from tree-trimming companies,
can be used effectively. Fine sawdust or freshly ground bark are less desirable than coarse
materials because they have a lot of surface area for their volume, causing them to react with
the soil, break down rapidly, and take nitrogen from the soil as they decompose. Fine
materials require frequent replacement. They also can pack and form a barrier to air and water
entering the root zone. The smaller particles blow or float away easily when dry. When
mulching with fine or fresh materials, nitrogen fertilizer should be added to the mulch after
application. Compost is organic material that has been allowed to decompose. Mature
compost, unlike most mulch materials, is decomposed to the point where its components are
no longer recognizable. Although mature compost has medium-fine texture, it will not tie up
soil nitrogen like fine or fresh materials do. Mulching requires fairly large amounts of
material, however, and mature compost may be better used mixed into the soil as a soil
amendment. A wide variety of materials are effective as mulch. The use of pulp fiber, straw,
sawdust, woodchips, hay, gravels and some chemicals has been recommended as mulching
materials [56]. Selection of mulching material depends on availability and proximity to the
area to be treated. Addition of organic wastes has been found to increase nitrogen fertility at a
surface coal mine reclamation site, which ultimately stimulated microbial activity and
improved the physical and chemical properties of the reclaimed soil. Mulching amendments
can change the microclimate of the rhizosphere spoil. Mulches protect the site by reducing the
impact of raindrops, soil erosion, water run off and increasing water infiltration into the soil.
Mulching treatments have been reported effective in lowering the soil temperature in the
rhizosphere [57]. Moreover, organic mulches after decomposition can improve the fertility
status of the spoils and help in growth and development of plants in disturbed sites.
MICROBIAL BIO-FERTILIZERS AND AFFORESTATION

Numerous studies have demonstrated that land rehabilitation benefits from plantations
because it allows jump start succession. The catalytic effects of plantations are due to
favorable microclimatic conditions, rhizosphere environment and microbial status (increased
soil moisture, reduced temperature, mineralization of nutrients due to increased microbial
activities etc.), increased vegetational structure complexity, development of litter and humus
layers and the soil physical and chemical environment and accelerating development of
diversity on degraded sites. Plantations have an important role in protecting the soil surface
from erosion and altering the accumulation of fine particles. Plantation can reverse
degradation process by stabilizing soil mass through development of extensive root systems.
The process of biological rejuvenation of mine spoil and mine land productivity and fertility
through amendment of biofertilizers can enable restoration of the degraded land ecosystem
and enhance ground water recharge .Plantation of suitable species speed up succession that
fulfills revegetation goal. Besides, controlling the leaching of nutrients through soil erosion
increases plant diversity. Sindelar [58] reported that seeded species, cultural practices and
weather influence plant succession on mine spoils. Earlier studies indicated that well adapted

plant species could be recommended to establish self-sustaining cover, which require little
maintenance activities [59-61]. In restoration, emphasis is given first to build soil organic
matter, nutrients and vegetation cover to accelerate natural recovery process. Plantation can
be used as a tool for mine spoil restoration as they have ability to restore soil fertility and
ameliorate microclimatic conditions. Trees can potentially improve soil through numerous
processes, including maintenance or increase of soil organic matter, biological nitrogen
fixation, uptake of nutrients from below the reach of roots of under story herbaceous
vegetation, increase water infiltration and storage, reduce loss of nutrients by erosion and
leaching, improve soil physical properties and soil biological activity [62]. An important goal
of restoration is to accelerate natural successional processes so as to increase biological
productivity, reduce rates of soil erosion, increase soil fertility and increase biotic control
over biogeochemical fluxes within the recovering ecosystems. Analysis of different natural
successions on natural and artificial substrates suggests that one of the important factors
limiting the rate of development is the process of immigration of flora. There are genuine
difficulties in appropriate species reaching a particular site. Artificial re-vegetation is often
used to facilitate the generally slow natural rehabilitation process.
As mycorrhizae may enhance the ability of the plant to scope with water stress conditions
associated to nutrient deficiency and drought, mycorrhizal fungi has been proposed as a
promising tool for improving restoration success in semi-arid degraded areas. By stimulating
the development of beneficial microorganisms in the rhizosphere, the use of VAM-infected
plants could reduce the amount of fertilizer needed for the establishment of vegetation and
could also increase the rate at which the desired vegetation becomes established by
stimulating the development of beneficial microorganisms in the rhizosphere. Degraded soils
are common targets of revegetation efforts in the tropics, but they often exhibit low densities
of AM fungi. This may limit the degree of mycorrhizal colonization in transplanted seedlings
and consequently hamper their seedling establishment and growth in those areas. Inoculation
of native and well adapted microbial flora may prove a proficient tool for restoration of
heavily degraded limestone mine spoils. Native beneficial microbial flora like arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi along with Phosphorus solubilising bacteria(PSB) and nitrogen fixing
bacteria were isolated, multiplied and re-inoculated in different important plant species viz
Pongamia pinnata, Jatropha curcas, Withania somnifera and Ailanthus excelsa. All the
inoculated plants exhibited enhanced growth and development as compared to uninoculated
ones. Moreover, inoculation with beneficial plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs)
changed the soil characteristics and also allowed increased invasion and natural succession on
planted spoil as compared to unplanted sites [63]. Similar results on enhanced growth of
planted specie with inoculation of G. mosseae in limestone mine spoils were also reported by
Rao and Tak [64]. The benefits of optimization (via inoculation) of AMF in production
systems with low indigenous inoculum or efficacy have included:
Increased plant nutrient uptake via the AM fungus e.g. Phosphorus

Increased tolerance of root pathogens by the plant system
Increased tolerance of water stress and adverse environmental conditions (e.g. heavy
metal pollutants)
Increased efficacy of N-fixation by Azospirillum,Azotobacter and other nitrogen
fixing bacteria

Increased rate of natural regeneration

Increased plant biodiversity in restored ecosystems
Increased stability of soils
CONCLUSION
The approach involves re-establishment of soil properties through inoculation of native
beneficial microbial flora and planting of suitable plant species, which can come up
successfully on such degraded sites. Planted species should have soil conservation value and
should be ecologically sound. Application of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorus
solubilising bacteria, nitrogen fixing bacteria is suggested. Selection of plant species is a very
important step in the restoration process. Plantation of fast growing nitrogen fixing legumes is
often recommended in such areas. Different mulching practices may also be exercised which
may prove very effective in soil moisture retention in degraded sites. Establishment of fast
growing plant cover is the best practice to aggregate the soil particles and equally important is
the establishment of below ground microbial flora for establishment of a self sustaining
ecosystem on mined degraded lands. The plantation supplemented with beneficial microbial
inoculants has greater influence on the natural regeneration process on mined spoil.
Consortium of bacterial inoculants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is supposed to accelerate
nitrogen fixation and phosphatase enzyme activity in the rhizosphere of plants which ensures
the supply of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil. More over, plant cover prevents soil from
erosion thus increasing the infiltration rate of the water in the soil. All these changes and
favorable alteration of soil characteristics causes immigration of surrounding native herb and
tree species and results into jump start succession on mined site. For reclamation of such
problematic mine spoils, microbial inoculants like phosphate solubilising microorganisms,
Azospirillum, Rhizobium and Vesicular - Arbuscular Mycorrhiza are recommended to use.
Fixation of atmospheric nitrogen and mobilization of essential micronutrients make them
easily accessible to plants. This approach leads to achieve the fertility, thus improving the
water holding capacity of soil and creating topsoil to sustain high quality vegetation cover.
The rejuvenation of mine spoil dump and mined land productivity and fertility through
amendment of these microbial inoculants would enable restoration of the degraded land and
creation of a self sustained ecosystem. Thus, the improvement in the physico-chemical and
microbial status of soil through organic blending, inoculation with biofertilizers, plantation of
suitable plant species and establishment of bio-geochemical cycle in the mine spoils are,
therefore, essential to achieve the objectives of restoration of land fertility, productivity and
over all biological rejuvenation of calcareous mined spoils. Application of biofertilizers has
great potential in preventing soil degradation and restoring soil fertility of drastically
disturbed lands.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Visser, J. Zak and D. Parkinson, 643-651, Ecology and coal resource development,
Vol.2, Wali, M. K. (ed.), Pergamon Press, New York (1979).

[2] R M Smith and E. H Tyner, West Virginia Agric. Experiment Station Bulletin,604 pp.,
(1971).
[3] F.C.Caspall, Proceedings of the 3 rd symposium on surface mining and reclamation,
221-228, (1975).
[4] D.W Anderson, Geoderma, 19: 11-19, (1977).
[5] D.L. Rimmer, J. Soil Science, 33: 567-579, (1982).
[6] W.M. Schafer, G.A. Nielsen, and W.D Nettleton, Soil Sci. Soc. America J., 4: 802-807,
(1980).
[7] R.F. Wittwer, S. B. Carpenter, and D. H Graves, Proceedings of the symposium on
surface mining hydrology, sedimentology and reclamation, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, (1981).
[8] L.R. Iverson and M.K. Wali, J. of Range Management, 35 (5): 648-652, (1982a).
[9] N.M. Safaya, and M.K. Wali, Soil Sci. Soc. America J., 43: 747-753, (1979).
[10] A. Bauer, W.A. Berg and W.C. Gould, Correction of nutrient deficiencies and toxicities
in strip- mined lands in semiarid and arid regions. In Reclamation of drastically
disturbed lands, Schaller, F.W (ed.), American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
Wisconsin, (1977).
[11] J.F. Power, F.M. Sandoval, and R.E. Ries, Restoration of productivity to disturbed land
in the Northern Great Plains, 33-49 : In The reclamation of disturbed arid lands,
Wright, R.A. (ed.), Mexico Press, Albuquerque, (1978).
[12] J.D.G. Reeder and WA. Berg, Soil Sci. Soc. America J., 41 (5):922-927, (1977).
[13] A.D. Bradshaw, and M.J. Chadwick, The restoration of land: the ecology and
reclamation of derelict and degraded land, 317pp., Black Well Scientific Publications,
Oxford, (1980).
[14] R. H. Marrs, R. D. Roberts, R. A. Skeffington, and A. D Bradshaw, J. Ecology, 69:
163-169, (1981).
[15] P.W Arnold, A. Gildon. and D.L. Rimmer, The use of soil in the reclamation of coal
mining wastes, 26.1-26.10: In proceedings of the symposium on the reclamation,
treatment and utilization of coal mining wastes. Durham, England, (1984).
[16] R.A Skeffington, and A.D. Bradshaw, Plant soil, 62: 439-451, (1981).
[17] W.H. Armiger, J.N. Jones and O.L. Bennett, Revegetation of land disturbed by strip
mining in Appalachia. ARS-NE-71,USDA, Washington, DC, 38pp, (1976).
[18] J.A. Richardson, B.K. Shelton, and R.J. Dicker, Landscape Reclamation, 1: 84- 99,
(1971).
[19] R. Prasad, J. Tropical Forestry, 5:109-116, (1989).
[20] A.D. Bradshaw, J. Applied Ecology, 20: 1-17. (1983).
[21] W.R. Byrens, and J.H. Miller, Natural revegetation and cast over burden properties of
surface-mined coal lands in southern Indian, 285-306: In Ecology and reclamation of
devastated land, Hutnik, R. J. and Davis, G. (eds.), Gordon and Breach, New York,
(1973).
[22] R.H Marrs, and A.D. Bradshaw, J. Applied Ecology, 17 :727-736,(1980).
[23] R.K. Clarke, and S.C. Clarke, New Phytologist, 87:799-815, (1981).
[24] R.W. Kimmerer, American Midland Naturalist, 111:332-341,(1984).
[25] G.T. Goodman, and R.P .Gemmel, J. of Applied Ecology, 15:875-883,(1978).
[26] K. Veeranjaneyulu, and R.M. Dhanaraju, Tropical Ecology, 33:59-65,(1990).

[27] R. Mukherjee, Indian J. of Landscape System and Ecological Studies, 11 (1) : 54-58,
(1988).
[28] M. J.Chadwick, N. H. Highton, and N. Lindman, , Environmental impact of coal mining
and utilization. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, (1987).
[29] A. B.Chaudhury, , Mine Environment and Management (An Indian Scenerio), Ashish
Publishing House. New Delhi, (1992).
[30] S. Visser, Management of microbial processes in surface mined land reclamation in
western Canada, 203-241: In Soil Reclamation Processes: Microbiological Analyses
and Applications, Tate III ,R. L. and Klein,D.A.( eds.), Marcel Dekkar, New York and
Basel, (1985).
[31] A.A. Juwarkar, H.P Jambulkar and S.K. Singh, , Proceedings of National Seminar on
Env. Engg. with special emphasis on Mining Environment, ISM, Dhanbad, (2004).
[32] D. N. Pandey, Beyond vanishing woods: participatory survival options for wildlife,
forests and people. CSD and Himanshu Publishers, New Delhi. pp 222, (1996).
[33] S. Kumar, K. Sharma, , B. K. Sharma, and L. P. Gough, Annals of Arid Zone 37:139-
145, (1998).
[34] [34] K. D. Sharma, S. Kumar, and L. P. Gough, Arid Land Research and Management,
15: 61-76, (2001).
[35] J.C. Zak, and D. Parkinson, Canadian J. Botany, 61:798-803, (1983).
[36] K. R. Schneider, R. F. Wittwer and S. B. Carpenter, Proceedings of the Symposium on
surface mining hydrology, sedimentology and reclamation, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, (1981).
[37] M.F. Jurgensen, Micro organisms and reclamation of mine wastes, 251-286: In Forest
soils and land use, Youngberg, C.T.(ed.), Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado,(1979).
[38] W. J. Rees, and G. H. Sidrak, Plant and Soil,8: 141-159. (1956).
[39] W. E. Sopper, and I. T. Kardos, J. Forestry, 70 (10):612-615, (1972).
[40] P.L. Roth, B.D. Jaydo, and G.T. Weaver, Initial survival and performance of woody
plant species on sludge treated spoils of the palzo mine. In Utilization of municipal
sewage effluent and sludge on forest and disturbed land, Sopper, W.E. and Kerr,
S.N.(eds.), Pennsylvania State University Press, (1979).
[41] W.E. Sopper and E.M. Seaker, A guide for revegetation of mined land in Eastern
United States using municipal waste water and sludge, 481-497: In Land reclamation
and biomass production with municipal waste water and sludge, Sopper, W.E. (eds.),
The Pensylvania State University Press, University Park, PA. (1982).
[42] D.J. Stucky, and T.S. Newman, J. Environ. Quality, 6: 271-274, (1977).
[43] W.E. Sopper, and S. Kerr, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Bull.,600/52:81-182. (1981).
[44] C.L. Cocke, and K.W. Brown, Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 6: 83-93,
(1987).
[45] T.D. Hinesly, K.E. Redborg, , E.L. Zlegler, and I.H. Rose- Innes, , Effects of chemical
and physical changes in strip-mined spoil amended with sewage sludge on the uptake of
metals by plants, 339-352 : In Land reclamation and biomass production with
municipal waste water and sludge, Sopper, W.E.. (eds.), The Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park, P.A.,(1982).
[46] P.R. Fresquez, and W.C. Lindemann, Soil Sci. Soc. America J., 46:751-755, (1982).

[47] K.F. Topper, and B.R. Sabey, J. Environ. Quality, 15: 44-49, (1986).
[48] S.P. Palaniappan, and Natarajan, Practical aspects of organic mater maintenance in
soils.23-41: In Organics in soil health and crop production, Thompson, P.K.(eds.),Tree
crops development foundation, India, (1993).
[49] P.S. Relan, S.S. Tekchand and R. Kumari, J. Indian Soc. Soil.Sci., 34:250,(1986).
[50] M. Gryndler, Interactions of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with other soil
organisms,239-262: In Arbuscular mycorrhizas: Physiology and function, Kapulnik, Y.
and Douds Jr, D.D. (eds.), Dordrecht Kluwer academic publishers, The Netherlands,
(2000).
[51] J.M. Barea, Rhizosphere and Mycorrhizae of field crops, In Biological Resource
Management, connecting science and Policy(OECD), Toutant, P., Balazs, E., Galante,
E. (eds.), INRA and Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, (2000).
[52] J. S. Suh, , S. K. Lee, , K.S. Kim and K. Y. Seong, JKSSF, 28(3):278-286, (1995).
[53] M.A. Whitelaw, R.J. Harden, and K.R. Helyar, Advances in Agronomy, 69:99-151.
(1999).
[54] R.J. Meyer, and R.G. Linderman, Soil Biol.Biochem.,18 (2):185-190, (1986).
[55] A.C. Gaur, Phosphate solubilizing bacteria as biofertilizer, 160-176: In Phosphate
solubilizing microorganisms as biofertilizers. Omega Scientific Publishers, New Delhi,
(1990).
[56] W.H. Armiger, J.N. Jones jr, and O.L. Bennett, Revegetation of land disturbed by strip
mining in Appalachia. ARS-NE-71, USDA, Washington, DC, 38pp, (1976).
[57] S.S. Prihar, and N.T. Singh, and B.S. Sandhu, In Soil physical properties and crop
production in the tropics, Lal. R. and Greenland, D.J.(eds.), John Wiley and sons, Great
Britain, (1979).
[58] B.W. Sindelar, Successional development of vegetation on surface mined land in
Montana, 550-556: In Ecology and coal resource development Vol. 2, Wali, M.K.(ed.),
Pergamon Press, New York,(1979).
[59] C.W. Cook, R.M. Hyde, and P.L. Sims, Range Science Series, 16: 70 pp, (1974).
[60] M.K. Wali, The structure, dynamics and rehabilitation of drastically disturbed
ecosystems, 163-183: In Perspectives in environmental management, Khosoo,
T.N.(ed.), Oxford Publications, New Delhi, India, (1987).
[61] E. F. Redente, T.B.Doerr, C.E.Grygiel, and M.F. Biondini, Reclamation and
Revegetation Research, 3: 153-165, (1984).
[62] D .Singh, and H.B.Vasistha, Indian Forester, April: 398-404,(2004).
[63] A K. Singh, and Jamaluddin, Mycorrhiza News, 21(3):31-33, (2009).
[64] A.V. Rao, R. Tak, J. Arid Environ. 51(1):113-119, (2002).

INDEX
amino acid(s), 73, 101, 181, 212

# ammonia, 67, 73, 106, 107, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122,
151, 155, 168, 244
20th century, 41
ammonium, 76, 109, 115, 122, 166, 167, 217, 236,
21st century, 99, 208
240
amylase, 38, 163, 176
A anaerobic bacteria, 118
anaerobic digesters, 106, 127
abiotic parameter, 88 anaerobic digestion, viii, 97, 99, 119, 128, 132
access, 3, 26, 69, 86, 117, 166, 180 anaerobic sludge, 118, 121
accessibility, 159 antagonism, 181
accounting, 67, 74, 158 aquaculture, 19
acetic acid, 71, 101, 151 aquatic systems, 66
acid, 29, 39, 41, 74, 98, 122, 142, 151, 178, 182, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, 249, 252, 253, 256,
183, 212, 224, 244, 253 257, 260
acidic, 73, 138, 209, 210, 211, 224, 240 Argentina, 168, 201
acidity, 170, 211, 240 aromatic compounds, 101
adaptation(s), 41, 88, 122 aromatic hydrocarbons, 98
additives, 112 aromatics, 122
adsorption, 73, 170 arrest, 75, 77
adverse effects, 2, 98, 112, 120, 124 ARS, 258, 260
Africa, vii, ix, 1, 18, 19, 21, 235 arsenic, 13
aggregation, 234, 251, 253, 254 arthropods, 180
air emissions, 106, 111 ascorbic acid, 178
air temperature, 91 Asia, ix, 69, 150, 213, 214, 235
albinism, 186 asparagus, viii, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146,
albumin, 88 147
alcohols, 101, 112 assessment, 28, 64, 76, 113, 124, 125, 126, 130
aldehydes, 118 assimilation, 72
alfalfa, 140 atmosphere, 34, 70, 107, 113, 117, 118, 123, 175,
algae, 66, 69, 150, 151, 152, 178, 225 226, 253
alimentary canal, 222 Austria, 104
alkalinity, 107, 109 auxins, 69, 163, 177, 178, 181, 226, 244
allergens, 114 awareness, 236
aloe, 213 azaleas, 224
alters, 102
AMF, 68, 254, 256
amines, 122
amino, 69, 73, 101, 181, 212

262 Index
B C
Bacillus subtilis, 78, 158 Ca2+, 239

bacterial strains, 64, 67 cabbage, 74, 160, 180
bacterium, 181, 183 cacao, 25, 208
Bangladesh, 213 cadmium, 13
base, 239, 254 Cairo, 83
batteries, 124 calcium, 66, 89, 166, 170, 171, 176, 177, 181, 225,
bedding, 91, 92, 139, 221, 237, 238 237, 240, 242, 243
beef, 115, 139 calcium carbonate, 171
beetles, 180 caliber, 8
beneficial effect, 64, 69, 71, 174, 252 CAM, 35
beneficial microbes, 172, 181, 182, 188, 199, 212, campaigns, 17
236 cancer, 173, 218
benefits, 16, 36, 37, 41, 65, 66, 100, 119, 133, 138, candidates, 138
151, 155, 165, 169, 177, 185, 195, 198, 233, 245, carbohydrates, 31
255, 256 carbon, x, 12, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42,
benign, 149, 153 44, 67, 90, 92, 93, 97, 98, 101, 103, 106, 112,
bias, 236 113, 114, 115, 119, 121, 151, 152, 164, 165, 166,
bioavailability, 33, 122, 199 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 198, 200, 219, 229, 231,
bioconversion, 244, 254 234, 240, 241, 243, 250
biodegradability, 108 carbon dioxide, x, 67, 90, 97, 98, 101, 112, 114, 119,
biodegradation, 36, 97, 102, 105, 164 169, 170
biodiesel, 103, 104 carcinogenicity, 112
biodiversity, ix, 17, 41, 64, 66, 68, 210, 235, 241, case study, 17, 18
249, 257 casting, 88
biogas, 90, 94, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, catabolized, 37
107, 108, 109, 118, 119, 129 catalyst, 99
biogeography, 76 catalytic effect, 255
biological activity(s), 34, 69, 166, 235, 245, 251, 256 cation, 122, 170, 210
biological control, 65, 152, 160 cattle, 4, 7, 8, 20, 24, 30, 89, 95, 103, 104, 115, 128,
biological systems, 109 129, 165, 167, 168, 169, 180, 187, 195, 212, 221,
biomass, ix, 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 223, 224, 227, 237, 238, 242
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, 72, 76, 87, 97, 101, CDC, 195
102, 103, 154, 155, 156, 159, 169, 175, 186, 198, CEC, 170, 210
199, 207, 228, 237, 249, 253, 259 cell membranes, 114
bioremediation, 252 cellulose, 180, 181, 182, 243
biotechnology, 85, 87, 130, 208, 213 certification, viii, 207, 212
biotic, 29, 123, 229, 256 challenges, 86, 99
birds, x, 93, 173, 220, 224 chemical characteristics, 106, 140, 145, 237
birth rate, 211 chemical properties, 63, 141, 159, 165, 230, 241,
blood, viii, 26, 137, 138, 139, 145, 152, 212, 217, 251, 255
218, 224, 226, 227 chemicals, viii, ix, 27, 36, 64, 93, 108, 123, 125, 153,
body fluid, 199 173, 179, 184, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196,
bonds, 171 214, 219, 234, 235, 236, 239, 254, 255
bone, viii, 152, 212, 217, 218 chicken, 153, 211, 212
Brazil, 150, 159 children, 124
breakdown, 122, 170, 228 China, viii, 64, 149, 150, 153, 154, 157, 159, 201,
breathing, 92 213, 214, 231, 251
breeding, 88, 209 chitin, 180, 181, 182
brominated flame retardants, 123 chitinase, 38, 41, 163, 176, 178, 180
Burkina Faso, 10, 20 chlorinated paraffin, 123
by-products, 24, 26, 105, 129, 223, 235 chlorine, 171

Index 263
chloroform, 112 configuration, 103

chlorophyll, 18, 68, 184, 186 Congo, 21
cholera, 2, 13 connectivity, 12
circulation, 119, 254 conservation, 10, 16, 64, 65, 69, 213, 234, 252, 257
city(s), 2, 16, 17, 89, 224 conserving, 229
civilization, x constant rate, 168
classes, 223 constituents, 38, 106
cleaning, 156 construction, 21, 179
cleanup, 86 consumers, vii, 1, 13, 14, 16, 118, 119, 124, 173, 213
climate, 2, 4, 34, 67, 107, 129, 175, 236, 241, 244 consumption, 16, 64, 99, 105, 107, 108, 116, 117,
climate change, 4, 34, 129, 175 129, 172, 212, 229, 234
clitellum, 88 consumption patterns, 99
clone, 209 containers, 240
CNS, 142 contaminant, 106, 120
CO2, x, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 67, 97, 101, contaminated soil(s), 123, 200
105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 114, 121, 165, 168, 174, contaminated water, 108
175, 176, 244 contamination, 9, 10, 13, 14, 36, 64, 98, 124
coal, 251, 252, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260 contour, 234
cobalt, 103 convention, 90
cocoa, 209 cooperation, 246
cocoon, 86, 88, 198 copper, 66, 181, 251, 253
coding, 72 correlation, 36, 39, 40, 79
coffee, 91, 92, 95 cortex, 123
collaboration, 3 cost, vii, 3, 9, 65, 90, 99, 110, 113, 153, 156, 163,
colonisation, 21, 172 164, 165, 173, 174, 195, 196, 200, 209, 219, 224,
colonization, 72, 181, 250, 252, 254, 256 235, 236, 244, 245, 246
color, 194 cotton, 33, 69, 72, 89, 224, 236
combined effect, 39 country of origin, 120
combustion, 34, 107, 108, 119 covering, 90, 93, 115, 252
commercial, 11, 30, 79, 123, 156, 157, 180, 196, crop production, 4, 9, 12, 13, 20, 26, 30, 41, 64, 66,
209, 225, 239 68, 69, 71, 73, 77, 79, 138, 139, 183, 195, 196,
commercial crop, 239 215, 225, 229, 231, 241, 245, 260
commodity, 174 crop residue, 24, 79, 86, 95, 101, 152, 217, 219, 220,
community(s), 13, 14, 29, 37, 65, 76, 77, 93, 229, 229, 235, 237, 241, 242
235, 236, 242, 244, 250 crop rotations, 30, 36, 234
compaction, 78, 109, 169, 217 crown(s), 141, 159, 205
competition, 156, 254 crust, 12, 171, 251
competitive advantage, 65 CSA, 215
competitiveness, 208 CSD, 259
compilation, ix cultivars, 18, 140, 147
complexity, 253, 255 cultivation, 77, 151, 160, 209, 211, 222, 236
composition, 31, 35, 36, 39, 64, 101, 102, 103, 109, cultural practices, 1, 255
120, 122, 149, 152, 221, 239, 241 culture, 19, 90, 160, 239
composting, viii, x, 4, 17, 20, 26, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, cyanide, 178
92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109, 110, cycles, 28, 29, 34, 39, 40, 235, 249
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, cycling, 23, 27, 28, 29, 38, 41, 65, 72, 76, 170, 253
123, 124, 129, 130, 135, 138, 167, 173, 179, 182, cytokinins, 69, 163, 177, 178, 181, 226
220, 235, 236, 238
compounds, x, 98, 100, 101, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112,
113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 125, 156, 167, D
198, 218, 244, 253
dairy industry, 104
comprehension, 229
damping, 172, 201
conductivity, 6, 12, 14, 152, 240, 244
data collection, 246

264 Index
data set, 27, 28, 233, 239 drainage, 12, 90, 115, 139, 153, 163, 170, 176, 223,
database, 124 239, 254
DDT, 172, 218 dream, 73
decay, 168 drinking water, 13
decomposition, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 87, 91, 92, 105, drought, 2, 86, 254, 256
109, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 158, 167, 199, 229, dry matter, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 70, 78, 101, 102,
230, 234, 253, 255 171, 184, 186
decontamination, 156 drying, 90, 108, 254
defence, 172 dumping, 250
deficiency(s), 65, 109, 122, 172, 210, 217, 256, 258 dusts, 114, 124
deforestation, 36
degradation, 23, 27, 28, 34, 41, 42, 101, 108, 109,
112, 123, 149, 175, 210, 231, 234, 245, 251, 255, E
257
early warning, 27
degradation process, 42, 108, 255
earthworms, viii, x, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94,
degraded area, 256
95, 164, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 176, 177, 178,
Delta, 21
179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190,
denitrification, 72, 114
191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 199, 205, 221, 237, 242
Denmark, 21, 104, 126, 128
East Asia, 213
Department of Agriculture, 147, 213
ecological processes, 234
deposition, 123
ecological restoration, 252
depth, 27, 88, 141, 181, 240, 241, 242, 252
ecology, 73, 149, 200, 258
derivatives, 105
economic growth, 208
destruction, 100, 244
economics, 108
detectable, 140
ecosystem, viii, ix, 28, 34, 36, 38, 138, 149, 151,
detection, 145
152, 156, 157, 174, 209, 212, 214, 226, 230, 233,
detergents, 16
234, 240, 242, 245, 246, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255,
detoxification, 234
257
developed countries, 153
effluent(s), 17, 104, 107, 120, 210, 235, 259
developing countries, 16, 17, 18, 67, 94, 156, 173,
egg, 188, 191
218, 231
electrical conductivity, 176, 244
developing nations, 173
electricity, 90, 99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 113, 116, 118
diarrhea, 13
electrons, 154
dibenzo-p-dioxins, 98, 122
elongation, 179
diffusion, 110, 230
emergency, 106
digestion, 87, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108,
emission, 16, 34, 105, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 118,
118, 119, 127, 128, 129, 139
119, 174
dioxin, 123
emulsions, 218
dioxin-like PCBs, 123
encephalopathy, 105
directives, 99
encouragement, 218, 236
diseases, ix, 4, 5, 9, 13, 63, 163, 164, 165, 172, 179,
endotoxins, 114, 124
180, 181, 182, 186, 198, 205, 225
energy, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 97, 99, 100, 103, 104,
displacement, 218
107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 151, 154, 156,
dissolved oxygen, 122
228, 241, 244
distilled water, 142
energy consumption, 108, 116
distribution, 26, 88, 125, 181, 228, 252
energy input, 244
diversity, 12, 37, 68, 76, 82, 86, 100, 125, 158, 170,
energy recovery, 99
177, 231, 250, 251, 255
England, 258, 259
DNA, 72
environment, vii, x, 2, 13, 17, 20, 31, 41, 42, 63, 64,
DOC, 36
66, 79, 85, 87, 93, 94, 99, 107, 111, 124, 125,
DOI, 215
126, 133, 151, 155, 163, 164, 174, 196, 199, 211,
dominance, 160
213, 219, 228, 229, 233, 241, 246, 247, 251, 253,
255

Index 265
environmental aspects, 208 factories, 167, 173, 174, 177, 199

environmental characteristics, 76, 236 family members, 153
environmental conditions, 28, 37, 89, 111, 116, 151, farmers, vii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 63,
256 77, 138, 150, 164, 168, 173, 174, 182, 186, 196,
environmental degradation, 63 198, 199, 218, 219, 222, 230, 237, 239, 246
environmental effects, 36, 64, 65 farming techniques, 218, 234
environmental impact, 23, 78, 86, 98, 100, 101, 113, farmland, 163, 175, 176, 199
125 farms, ix, x, 66, 153, 164, 165, 169, 172, 174, 175,
environmental issues, 65, 103 186, 195, 199, 207, 212, 213, 233, 235, 236, 237,
environmental management, 260 240, 244, 245, 246
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 98, 124, fat, 92
126, 131, 153, 158, 259 fatty acids, 98, 101
environmental quality, 27, 99, 219 fauna, 12, 171, 174, 210, 241
environmental resources, 229 Federal Reserve, 208
environmental stress(s), 28, 38, 63, 69 feedstock(s), 100, 101, 102, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113,
environments, 78, 79, 156, 230 116, 117, 121, 138, 139, 140, 145, 167, 172
enzymatic activity, 29, 38 fermentation, 108, 127, 139, 155
enzyme(s), 23, 24, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 69, 73, fertilization, 10, 11, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 63,
74, 87, 94, 101, 151, 152, 159, 163, 165, 176, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 102, 139, 151, 160
180, 199, 212, 228, 230, 243, 244, 252, 257 fiber(s), 114, 212, 255
epidermis, 123 field crops, 184, 187, 233, 237, 243, 260
equilibrium, 64, 123 field trials, 70, 72, 180, 236
equipment, 116, 119 filters, 91
ERA, 98, 124, 125 filtration, 28
erosion, 27, 41, 169, 171, 175, 179, 218, 234, 251, financial, 90
254, 255, 257 Finland, 104
ethanol, 103 fish, viii, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 24, 26, 151, 152, 160, 217,
ethers, 98 218, 224, 226
ethylene, 69, 178, 226 fishing, 15, 90, 104
Europe, ix, 103, 126, 132, 176, 235 fitness, 211
European Commission, 127, 129, 132, 134, 148, 246 fixation, 24, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 160, 175, 178,
European Community, 132 210, 211, 226, 253, 256
European Parliament, 105, 132 flame, 98
European Union (EU), 98, 99, 105, 120, 125, 126, flame retardants, 98
129 flavonoids, 198
evaporation, 64, 109, 171, 179, 254 flocculation, 241
evidence, viii, 16, 73, 75, 178, 179 flora, 63, 87, 149, 174, 210, 251, 256, 257
evolution, 34, 36, 159 flora and fauna, 149, 210
exclusion, 122, 149 flowers, 185, 190, 191, 254
excretion, 171 fluctuations, 38
exoskeleton, 180 flue gas, 107
experimental condition, 72 food chain, ix, 93, 98, 120, 124
experimental design, 76 food production, 65, 69, 78, 165, 173, 200, 245
exploitation, 17, 74 food security, vii, 208, 229, 233, 244, 245, 246
exports, 209 food web, 160
exposure, 105, 114, 120, 124, 125, 209 force, 249
external environment, 28 formation, 20, 34, 38, 107, 109, 110, 112, 179, 185,
extraction, 121 190, 191, 198, 253
extracts, 66, 145, 146, 178, 181, 212 framing, 233
France, 19, 150
fruits, 5, 8, 10, 116, 173, 181, 185, 186, 188, 189,
F 190, 191, 196, 197, 198, 200, 205, 207, 211, 236,
254
fabrication, 20

266 Index
fuel consumption, 113

fungi, 27, 34, 68, 69, 72, 86, 102, 114, 115, 153, 154,
H
160, 163, 167, 172, 176, 177, 178, 180, 183, 184,
habitat(s), 88, 92, 138, 149, 152, 172, 251, 253
221, 225, 230, 237, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257
half-life, 123
fungus, x, 139, 172, 180, 213, 230, 256
hardness, 170
fusion, 73
harmful effects, 79
harmony, 235
G harvesting, 169, 233, 238, 239, 242, 252
hazards, 106, 122, 124, 156, 207
garbage, 11, 89, 90 health, vii, viii, 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 23, 42, 46, 63, 68, 77,
Garoua, 19 90, 93, 108, 111, 112, 114, 122, 124, 129, 152,
gasification, 99, 102 156, 164, 166, 169, 170, 173, 194, 196, 198, 200,
genes, 72, 73, 74, 76 207, 210, 217, 218, 225, 230, 233, 240, 243, 245,
genetic diversity, 152, 159 254, 260
genetics, 213 health effects, 111, 124
genus, 70, 74 health problems, 114
Germany, 68, 77, 104, 107, 128, 230 health risks, vii, 1
germination, 68, 176, 178, 183, 187, 194, 196 heavy metals, vii, viii, 1, 10, 13, 17, 38, 93, 98, 100,
GHG, 97, 98, 107, 112, 113, 114, 118, 174, 175, 104, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 132, 147, 154, 179
198, 200 height, 70, 113, 141, 184, 187, 188, 208, 244, 252
ginger, 33 herbicide, 218, 254
GIS, 125 hermaphrodite, 88
global warming, x, 66, 67, 105, 112, 113, 164, 165, heterotrophic microorganisms, 157
175, 200 hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), 123
Glomus intraradices, 225 history, 41, 139, 233, 236, 237
glucose, 30, 40 hormone(s), 69, 177, 178, 198, 221, 226, 239, 244
glue, 169, 170 horse manure, 6, 7, 153
glycerin, 103, 104 horticultural crops, 138, 185
GNP, 16 host, 16, 66, 68, 71, 73
GPS, 15 House, 128, 259
grades, 255 human, vii, ix, x, 2, 13, 92, 98, 99, 100, 105, 120,
granules, 225 124, 125, 129, 158, 160, 164, 172, 174, 198, 214,
grass(s), 3, 37, 75, 89, 100, 101, 115, 139, 182, 183, 227, 233, 246
252, 254 human exposure, 124
grasslands, 88 human health, 2, 98, 100, 120, 160, 164, 198, 214,
gravity, 116 233, 246
grazing, 199 humidity, 2, 5, 182, 236
Great Britain, 260 humus, x, 39, 151, 163, 168, 170, 176, 178, 193,
Greece, 148 253, 255
green alga, 69, 150, 151, 157, 159, 160, 225, 230 Hungary, vii, 47
green revolution, ix, 65, 163, 164, 200, 205, 217, 218 hydrocarbons, 107
greenhouse, x, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 76, 97, 98, 100, hydrogen, 86, 101, 103, 143
129, 145, 152, 159, 160, 165, 168, 169, 170, 174, hydrogen sulfide, 101
175, 180, 199, 200, 234 hydrolysis, 101
greenhouse gas(s) (GHG), x, 66, 67, 97, 98, 100, hydrophobicity, 12
129, 165, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 199, 200, 234 hypothesis, 233
gross national product, 16
groundwater, 1, 14, 41, 107, 115, 122, 123, 153, 155,
164, 168, 242
I
growth hormone, 163, 165, 178, 181, 221
IEA, 129
growth rate, 86, 91
image, 156
guidelines, 13, 129, 147
immigration, 256, 257

Index 267
immobilization, 76, 93, 251, 253

immune response, 114
K
immune system, 172
K+, 240, 242
IMO, 213
Kenya, 201
in vitro, 72, 158, 205
ketones, 112, 118
incidence, ix, 159, 177, 180, 186, 198, 214
kinetics, 125
income, 1, 4, 11, 17
Kyoto protocol, 103
incubator, 113
India, vii, 20, 24, 46, 63, 64, 70, 72, 85, 87, 94, 95,
167, 171, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 195, 196, L
200, 202, 204, 205, 213, 217, 218, 230, 233, 247,
249, 252, 260 labeling, 76
indirect effect, 35, 219, 229, 241 landfills, x, 86, 99, 100, 165, 173, 174, 199
individuals, 114, 214 landscape, 27, 115, 236, 254
Indonesia, 213 lateral roots, 179, 231
induction, 230 Latin America, 235
industrial wastes, 128 laws, 104, 108
industrialization, 85 leaching, 27, 31, 64, 66, 79, 115, 122, 123, 164, 217,
industry(s), viii, x, 4, 99, 104, 130, 156, 198, 199, 241, 255
208, 209, 210, 213, 217, 218, 219 lead, 64, 65, 67, 75, 100, 116, 117, 175, 176, 251
infestations, 214 leakage, 153, 155
inflammation, 114 legislation, 64, 99, 103, 104, 120
ingest, 86, 153, 171 legume, 71, 72, 138, 150, 222, 223
ingestion, 122, 124 Lepidoptera, 18
ingredients, 172, 217 level of education, 4
inhibition, 39, 104, 106, 149, 230 LIFE, 129
injure, 254 life cycle, 130
injury, 254 light, 36, 154
inoculation, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 159, limestone, 141, 171, 219, 252, 256
181, 182, 183, 249, 253, 256, 257 lipases, 243
inoculum, 252, 256 liquid phase, 108, 112, 115
inositol, 74 livestock, 1, 2, 4, 9, 16, 39, 67, 86, 100, 237
insects, 6, 86, 139 loans, 3
Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), vii, 20 local conditions, 122
integration, 10, 119, 159 local government, 236
intensive farming, 63 longevity, 10, 211, 254
intestine, 87, 179
investment, 93, 108
ions, 73, 211 M
iron, 69, 75, 103, 181, 184, 224, 225, 226, 251, 252,
253 macronutrients, 66, 143, 144, 219, 239
irrigation, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, magazines, 92
102, 165, 169, 171, 174, 177, 187, 195, 196, 198, magnesium, 66, 89, 166, 167, 170, 176, 177, 181,
199, 200, 218, 236, 254 225, 237, 240, 242
Islam, 70, 80, 81, 82 magnitude, 35
isotope, 76 major issues, 3
Israel, 150 majority, 35, 73, 113, 218, 237, 242
issues, 2, 18, 79, 113, 234 Malaysia, vi, viii, 63, 72, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211,
Italy, 80, 104, 128, 202 212, 213, 214, 215
mammals, 93
man, 34, 254
J manganese, 75, 176, 184, 225, 252, 253
manipulation, 89
Jordan, 81, 132 manufacturing, 4, 9, 208, 224, 237

268 Index
marketplace, 13, 14 moisture, 30, 34, 36, 64, 86, 87, 91, 93, 102, 109,
mass, 29, 40, 108, 110, 115, 125, 234, 255 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 165, 171, 174, 179,
mass loss, 115 195, 196, 198, 222, 228, 235, 251, 252, 255, 257
matrix, 39, 100, 117, 123 moisture content, 86, 91, 102, 109, 112, 113, 116,
matter, vii, ix, 11, 12, 18, 23, 27, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 117, 119, 228
86, 88, 92, 109, 114, 151, 155, 169, 173, 198, molds, 114
210, 212, 214, 217, 222, 223, 228, 229, 231, 234, molecular weight, 74
235, 243, 249, 251, 254, 256 molecules, 67, 114, 154
measurement(s), 27, 34, 38 mollusks, 14, 16
meat, 92, 124, 152, 226 molybdenum, 103
media, 21, 79, 101, 122, 125 momentum, 207
medical, 14, 93 Montana, 260
medicine, 93, 130 mortality, 180, 199
Mediterranean, 41 mosaic, 181
melon, 160 MSW, viii, 30, 38, 98, 99, 100, 102, 109, 112, 113,
Metabolic, 36 116, 117, 120, 121, 124, 135, 141, 144, 146, 147,
metabolism, 38, 74, 109, 123, 228, 242 164, 165, 166, 173, 174, 178, 182, 183
metabolizing, 109 mucus, 88, 179, 199
metal salts, 156 multimedia, 125
metals, 75, 117, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 133, 252, municipal solid waste, 38, 98, 99, 127, 138, 139,
259 164, 165, 178, 182, 235
meter, 142, 169, 199, 240 mustard oil, 223
methane, x, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, mutation, 19
108, 113, 118, 119, 128, 174 mycorrhiza, 68, 70, 210, 221
methanol, 103 mycotoxins, 114, 115
methodology, 124, 237
methylene chloride, 112
Mexico, 218, 258 N
Mg2+, 239, 241
Na+, 239, 240, 242
microbial biofertilizers, ix, 81, 249, 250
NaCl, 104
microbial cells, 117
NAP, 208
microbial community(s), 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 76, 158,
naphthalene, 112
167, 231, 241, 252
National Research Council, 135
microbiota, 38
natural gas, 107
microclimate, 251, 255
natural resources, 207, 228, 229, 233, 245, 246
micronutrients, viii, 66, 72, 103, 122, 146, 147, 152,
Nd, 20
163, 164, 165, 167, 176, 177, 191, 196, 211, 217,
negative effects, 5, 36, 219
221, 242, 243, 253, 257
nematode, 158, 205
microorganism(s), viii, 12, 13, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37,
Netherlands, 128, 200, 203, 231, 260
38, 41, 67, 68, 69, 73, 76, 79, 103, 106, 109, 114,
neutral, 86, 175, 176, 187, 194
122, 138, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 177, 199,
New South Wales, 130
212, 213, 220, 223, 224, 228, 232, 238, 243, 245,
New Zealand, 179, 203
249, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 260
NGOs, 214
migration, 2
NH2, 35
mineralization, 28, 29, 34, 37, 38, 72, 76, 86, 97,
niche market, 208
121, 123, 138, 145, 147, 166, 232, 241, 242, 245,
niche marketing, 208
251, 253, 255
nickel, 103
missions, 100, 175
Nigeria, 20, 157
mixing, 103, 108, 111, 114, 116, 138, 171, 244
nitrates, 12, 122, 167, 177
MMA, 20
nitric oxide, 67
models, 125
nitrification, 72, 112, 115, 122, 155, 221
nitrifying bacteria, 122

Index 269
nitrogen fixation, 67, 69, 71, 72, 221, 224, 253, 256,
257
P
nitrogenase, 72, 73
Pacific, 213
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, 73, 176, 178
Pakistan, 18, 213
nitrosamines, 122
palm oil, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213
nitrous oxide, 113, 114, 168, 170, 174
parallel, 192
N-N, 12, 241
parasite(s), 13, 14, 102
nodules, 222, 223, 226
partition, 123
North America, 138, 235
pathogens, vii, viii, ix, 1, 13, 14, 16, 66, 87, 97, 100,
NPS, 153
105, 109, 123, 124, 152, 160, 172, 179, 180, 181,
nucleic acid, 74
205, 211, 214, 245, 253, 256
nutrient concentrations, 147
pathways, 123, 125
nutrient imbalance, 211
PCBs, 98, 100, 106, 122, 123
nutrition, 71, 74, 79, 138, 147, 178
PCDD/Fs, 123
nutritional status, 182
peat, 92, 219
nutritive compost, viii
peer review, 175
percolation, 153
O permeability, 179, 221
Perth, 201
occupational asthma, 114 pest populations, 205
Oceania, 235 pesticide, 23, 173, 179, 207, 218, 234, 237, 245
OECD, 260 pests, ix, 1, 2, 5, 63, 90, 163, 164, 165, 177, 179,
oil, 24, 72, 92, 152, 169, 175, 185, 208, 209, 210, 180, 181, 182, 196
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 223, 226, 227, 229, 234 petroleum, 174, 218
oil production, 210 pH, 12, 14, 19, 27, 34, 37, 64, 76, 79, 86, 87, 89, 91,
oilseed, 152 107, 109, 112, 118, 122, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143,
Oklahoma, 115 144, 166, 170, 171, 176, 182, 185, 212, 213, 218,
olive oil, 104 228, 231, 239, 240, 241, 244, 250, 253
omission, 41 pharmaceutical(s), x, 98, 198
operating costs, 108 phenol, 39, 41
operations, 117 phenolic compounds, 198
operon, 72, 73, 74 Philippines, 202, 203
opportunistic pathogens, vii, 1 phosphate(s), viii, 33, 72, 74, 76, 81, 87, 89, 115,
opportunities, 114, 207 137, 139, 155, 163, 168, 171, 177, 178, 181, 187,
optimization, vii, 69, 103, 256 212, 217, 219, 226, 235, 240, 242, 244, 253, 257
organic chemicals, viii, 124 phospholipids, 74
organic compounds, 38, 75, 98, 101, 112, 122, 123, phosphorous, 64, 66, 74, 103, 224, 240, 242
124, 132, 133 phosphorus, 6, 9, 21, 64, 69, 70, 79, 109, 115, 150,
organic food, 138, 173, 198, 213 151, 155, 156, 157, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
organic mulches, ix, 249, 250, 255 172, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 185, 191, 194, 210,
organic wastes, viii, ix, x, 24, 38, 87, 89, 97, 98, 100, 219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 237, 243, 250, 252,
101, 102, 103, 112, 118, 119, 120, 121, 132, 165, 253, 257
175, 200, 210, 231, 250, 255 photosynthesis, 31, 151, 154, 175, 176
organism, 34, 156 phthalates, 123
organs, 88, 193 phylum, 154
ornamental plants, 178, 212, 236 physical characteristics, 113, 117, 217, 239
oxidation, 70, 122, 168, 169, 170, 199, 235, 253 physical mechanisms, 12
oxygen, 87, 90, 92, 101, 109, 117, 122, 154, 167 physical properties, 12, 93, 219, 229, 253, 256, 260
ozone, 67, 112 physical structure, 234, 245
ozone layer, 67 Physiological, 204
pipeline, 66
pith, 24
plant diseases, 172, 181, 182, 201, 205, 225

270 Index
plant establishment, 251 proliferation, 179

plant parasitic nematodes, vii, 1, 172 promoter, viii, 74, 163, 164, 165
plasmid, 73, 156 propagation, 90, 159
poison, 164 proposition, 77, 230
policy, 16, 17, 99, 103, 158 prosperity, 152
policy makers, 16 protection, 19, 64, 177, 198, 226, 251
policymakers, 153 proteins, x, 64, 73, 92, 181, 198
pollen, 114 protons, 154
pollutants, 13, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 113, 115, 120, prototype, 150
121, 123, 124, 125, 154, 157, 199, 234, 241, 256 pruning, 24
pollution, viii, 23, 64, 65, 66, 71, 79, 85, 94, 99, 103, public health, 1, 2, 16, 17, 99
107, 111, 112, 115, 117, 119, 149, 150, 153, 154, public opinion, 156
155, 156, 157, 158, 174, 200, 210, 218, 242, 245 publishing, 232
polybrominated diphenyl ethers, 123 pulp, 25, 89, 94, 255
polychlorinated biphenyl, 100 purification, 17, 121
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, 100, 179 purines, 129
polyphenols, 104 pyrolysis, 99
polysaccharide, 179, 205
polythene, 240
ponds, 151, 160, 252 Q
pools, 33, 36, 42, 175, 241
quality of service, 234
POPs, 98, 120, 125
quantification, 36
population, ix, 2, 16, 36, 38, 40, 63, 64, 65, 66, 86,
quantitative estimation, 124
88, 94, 99, 124, 152, 159, 169, 170, 176, 177,
178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 196, 198, 199, 205,
208, 236, 249, 253 R
population growth, 2
porosity, 12, 34, 93, 111, 113, 151, 163, 169, 170, rainfall, 2, 115, 171, 199, 209, 236
176, 254 Ramadan, 20
positive relationship, 39 rangeland, 28
potassium, 6, 9, 64, 109, 115, 150, 158, 165, 166, rash, 89
167, 168, 170, 172, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, raw materials, 115, 120, 154, 155, 174, 178, 182,
185, 191, 194, 210, 219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 235, 183, 199, 208, 226
237, 242, 243, 252 reactions, 13, 38, 73
potato, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 101, 171, 176, 187 reception, 111
poultry, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 20, 24, 31, 39, 64, 66, 89, receptors, 125
94, 115, 165, 198, 235 reconstruction, 252
poverty, vii, 1, 2, 16, 218, 229 recovery, 76, 90, 95, 99, 100, 104, 236, 249, 252,
poverty alleviation, vii, 1, 16 253, 256
precipitation, 73, 156 recovery process, 256
predation, 172 recycling, ix, 12, 17, 24, 95, 99, 102, 109, 134, 138,
preparation, 222, 237, 249, 252 207, 213, 218, 235
prevention, 99, 239 redistribution, 102
principles, 130, 214 regenerate, 120
probability, 70, 124 regeneration, 5, 86, 165, 257
process control, 127 regulations, 103, 105, 130
process duration, 236 rehabilitation, 42, 252, 255, 260
procurement, 174, 199 reinforcement, 103
producers, 102, 138, 173 relevance, 29
production technology, 230 remediation, vii, 120, 121
profit, 10, 65, 71 repellent, 182, 200
project, 1, 4, 12, 21, 129, 180 reproduction, 20, 87, 94
prokaryotes, 82 reproductive organs, 192, 193

Index 271
requirements, 36, 69, 87, 90, 107, 108, 117, 129, seeding, 35
137, 138, 210, 214, 235 seedlings, 18, 68, 72, 78, 87, 191, 196, 225, 256
researchers, 3, 77, 138, 146, 150 segregation, 103
residuals, 155 selenium, 103
residues, 24, 30, 33, 100, 103, 105, 120, 158, 179, self-sufficiency, 209, 245
192, 210, 218, 220, 229, 234, 237, 241, 242, 251 senescence, 69, 141
resistance, 5, 9, 138, 152, 158, 163, 164, 179, 230 sensitization, 17
resources, 17, 26, 31, 35, 37, 180, 199, 218, 226, services, 17, 233, 245
229, 235, 237, 246 sewage, viii, ix, 30, 86, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108,
respiration, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129, 134, 219, 224,
41, 177, 244 250, 252, 259
response, 28, 35, 74, 124, 125, 138, 145, 146, 149, sex, 88
184 shade, 25, 26
restoration, ix, 9, 68, 149, 164, 217, 249, 250, 252, shape, 76, 88, 113
254, 255, 256, 257, 258 sheep, 4, 89, 139, 153, 222, 227, 235
restored ecosystem, 257 shelf life, 1, 11, 185
restrictions, 99, 104 shoot(s), 69, 70, 72, 185, 186, 188, 194, 199, 233,
Rhizopus, 115 239, 243, 244
rice field, 158, 225, 236 shortage, 2, 4, 7
risk(s), 2, 13, 71, 99, 105, 106, 160, 123, 124, 125, showing, 72, 124, 244
135, 245, 253 shrimp, 180
risk assessment, 124, 125 shrubs, 3, 249, 252
root growth, 70, 178, 179 side effects, 166
root hair, 69, 179 silkworm, 235
root rot, 159, 172, 201 skin, 114
root system, 69, 146, 226, 255 sludge, viii, ix, 30, 86, 94, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
root zones, 254 108, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129, 134, 139,
routes, 124, 134, 153 157, 220, 224, 227, 250, 252, 259
rubber, 208, 209 SO42-, 241
rules, 105, 129 socialization, 158
runoff, 115, 153, 155, 219, 234, 241 society, vii, 155, 163, 164, 173, 174, 245
rural population, 2 sodium, 109, 170, 171, 185
Russia, 68 software, 125, 142
soil erosion, 12, 27, 234, 241, 255
soil fertility, vii, viii, x, 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 17, 19, 27,
S 34, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 72,
85, 86, 139, 159, 163, 164, 165, 173, 192, 198,
safety, 1, 16, 103, 112, 155, 164, 245
199, 210, 225, 228, 229, 231, 234, 249, 253, 256,
salinity, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 14, 18, 88, 171, 172, 218
257
saliva, 244
soil organic matter (SOM), vii, 27, 97, 169, 175, 176,
salmonella, 105
210, 234
salts, 5, 8, 12, 64, 87, 171
soil particles, 123, 169, 170, 253, 257
SAS, 142
soil pollution, 93
savings, 26, 174
soil remediation, vii
sawdust, 90, 92, 255
soil type, 34, 70, 76, 77, 122, 147, 236, 244
scavengers, 92
solid waste, 20, 86, 93, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 108,
science, 260
117, 127, 132, 138, 221, 252
scope, 26, 65, 95, 236, 256
solubility, 122, 124, 211
secrete, 176, 177
solution, 30, 41, 64, 75, 113, 118, 122, 124, 125,
secretion, 198, 242
165, 179, 182, 240, 246
security, 164, 233, 245
solvents, 124
sediment, 252
sorption, 79, 123
seed, 68, 70, 75, 176, 178, 183, 187, 188, 194, 196,
Soviet Union, 150
222, 227, 252

272 Index
sowing, 194, 224, 237

Spain, viii, 42, 75, 97, 104, 129, 132
T
speciation, 121, 125
tanks, 10, 107, 252
species, ix, 3, 14, 16, 30, 35, 67, 69, 70, 76, 86, 87,
tannins, 104, 230
89, 90, 93, 125, 138, 159, 181, 182, 187, 226,
target, 79, 138, 207, 208, 209
249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259
taxa, 226
sperm, 88, 93
techniques, 19, 63, 76, 85, 97, 100, 101, 104, 108,
sponge, 92
112, 120, 212, 218, 235, 239
stability, 12, 23, 27, 36, 93, 109, 156, 211, 223, 257
technology(s), viii, ix, 23, 66, 85, 86, 94, 97, 98, 99,
stabilization, 30, 39, 87, 100, 105, 121, 123, 249
100, 102, 110, 116, 118, 119, 156, 209, 235, 237,
state(s), 31, 36, 64, 73, 94, 120, 128, 147, 151
250
sterile, 70
temperature, 30, 34, 36, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 101, 105,
stimulation, 31, 39, 253
107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 139, 165, 182,
stock, 66, 111, 167, 168
198, 209, 225, 236, 251, 254, 255
storage, 37, 103, 105, 113, 114, 170, 173, 179, 186,
terpenes, 112
200, 252, 256
territory, 67
stress, 11, 18, 35, 36, 37, 69, 75, 122, 178, 249, 256
testing, 149
structure, 12, 30, 38, 73, 76, 90, 97, 100, 111, 114,
texture, 27, 30, 87, 147, 187, 194, 196, 225, 228,
120, 151, 152, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 223, 225,
230, 243, 250, 253, 255
229, 230, 231, 241, 244, 253, 254, 255, 260
Thailand, 213, 214
substitution, 69
thermal energy, 119
substrate(s), 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 65, 76, 85,
thermal treatment, 102, 108
87, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 152, 156, 157, 158,
thermodynamic equilibrium, 125
178, 182, 183, 228, 237, 256
tin, 211
succession, 39, 250, 255, 256, 257
tissue, 93, 123, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146,
sucrose, 30
147, 222
sugar beet, 69, 101, 104
tobacco, 155, 181
sugar industry, 86, 94
toluene, 112
sugarcane, 70, 89, 171, 176, 220, 236, 237
tones, 6, 11
sulfate, 76, 155, 219
toxic chemicals, viii, 93, 179
sulfur, 75, 98, 103, 107, 111, 112, 113, 167, 226
toxic metals, 122
sulphur, 70
toxic substances, ix, 93, 123
supplementation, 129
toxic waste, 156, 174
supplier, 93
toxicity, 106, 112, 120, 122, 252, 253
suppression, 172, 180, 181, 226
toxin, 155
surface area, 10, 69, 71, 108, 176, 177, 255
trace elements, 103, 199, 210, 218, 224
surface layer, 87
trade, 214
surface mining, 251, 258, 259
traditional practices, 218
survival, 87, 88, 91, 103, 229, 251, 259
transformation, 28, 29, 94, 110, 123, 151, 249
susceptibility, 1, 10, 27, 172
transpiration, 123
sustainability, 12, 17, 40, 41, 46, 77, 85, 99, 120,
transplant, 159
133, 159, 215, 226, 231, 233, 234, 244, 245
transport, 27, 67, 74, 109, 123, 125, 157, 174
sustainable development, 63, 205, 209, 217, 226,
transportation, 103
228, 233, 245
treatment, 7, 10, 12, 31, 35, 37, 38, 98, 99, 100, 101,
sustainable energy, 102
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114,
Sweden, 104
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 137, 139, 140, 142,
Switzerland, 104, 123, 133
143, 144, 145, 147, 155, 180, 183, 190, 224, 258
symbiosis, 253
trial, 114, 177, 187
symptoms, 181
trimmings, 100, 117
synthesis, 12, 39, 109, 151
tungsten, 103
Turkey, 148
typhoid, 2, 13
tyrosine, 40

Index 273
waste disposal, 100

U waste management, x, 85, 86, 95, 97, 99
waste treatment, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 111, 114
UK, 20, 94, 104, 175, 204, 247
waste water, 2, 12, 13, 14, 259
UNESCO, 19
wastewater, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
United Nations, 214
94, 100, 103, 104, 108, 119, 120, 121, 123, 156
United States (USA), 64, 82, 115, 168, 190, 191,
water absorption, 254
192, 193, 194, 201, 204, 205, 246, 247, 251, 259
water quality, 10, 245
urban, vii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 24, 93, 120,
water shortages, 2
220
waterways, 122, 153
urbanization, 85, 86, 218
weakness, 93
urea, 33, 35, 70, 112, 159, 164, 168, 187, 217, 240,
weight loss, 121
244
wells, 13
uric acid, 112
West Africa, 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
urine, 222, 235
Western Europe, 108
USDA, 258, 260
wildlife, 153, 259
Uzbekistan, 77
Wisconsin, 131, 258
withdrawal symptoms, 164
V wood, 26, 89, 92, 94, 100, 107, 118, 227, 255
wood products, 92
valorization, 100, 135 wood waste, 107
vapor, 112, 254 workers, 31, 111, 124, 173, 184, 187, 240, 251
variables, 11, 28, 76 World Bank, 18
variations, 35, 243 World Health Organization (WHO), 13, 16, 173
varieties, 2, 10, 70, 144, 159, 211, 218, 235 worms, vii, 1, 13, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 173,
vector, 181 174, 176, 179, 180, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192,
vegetables, 1, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 102, 116, 147, 193, 196, 198, 199, 238
152, 173, 196, 197, 200, 205, 208, 211, 236
vegetation, 3, 15, 34, 76, 175, 234, 250, 251, 252,
X
256, 257, 260
ventilation, 111, 112, 121
xylem, 123
vessels, 102
Viking, 146
vinasse, 117 Y
viruses, 102, 114
vitamins, 181, 198, 237 Yaounde, 21
volatile organic compounds, 111
volatilization, 67, 112, 123
Z
W Zimbabwe, 21, 232

zinc, 66, 70, 176, 181, 184, 251, 253
Washington, 158, 258, 260 Zone 3, 259
waste composting systems, viii
View publication stats

OrganicFertilizer TypeProductionandEnivronmentalImpact

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

OrganicFertilizer TypeProductionandEnivronmentalImpact

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

See

Organic Fertilizers: Types, Production and

Book · July 2012

Rajeev Pratap Singh

The metagenomics of organic waste vermicompost View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

Complimentary Contributor Copy

RAJEEV PRATAP SINGH

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Complimentary Contributor Copy

NOTICE TO THE READER

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Chapter 8 A Prospectus for Bio-Organic Fertilizer Based on Microorganisms:

Complimentary Contributor Copy

It gives me enormous pleasure in writing the Foreword of this book edited by Dr R. P.

Professor Madhoolika Agrawal

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Another significant aspect of vermicompost is that it also acts as a BIOPESTICIDE

Dr. Rajiv K. Sinha

Complimentary Contributor Copy

At a time when a revolution on organic farming is going on throughout the world to

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Complimentary Contributor Copy

EFFECTS OF ORGANIC INPUTS IN URBAN

Saliou Niassy and Karamoko Diarra*

*Corresponding author email: karamoko.diarra@ucad.edu.sn.

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Keywords: Organic fertilizers, urban agriculture, wastewater, health risk, environment

Complimentary Contributor Copy

II. STUDY AREA

Figure 1. Map of the Niayes in the coastal area of Dakar [13].

III. THE IMPACTS OF ORGANIC MANUREs AND WASTEWATER USE

1. Impacts of Organic Manures in Crop Productivity

Complimentary Contributor Copy

1.1. The Different Types of Organic Manures

Figure 2. Rate of application of organic manure by farmers in the Niayes.

Complimentary Contributor Copy

1.1.1. Content in Soluble Salts in the Organic Manures

Complimentary Contributor Copy

1.2. Agronomic and Entomological Impacts of Manures

1.2.1. Effect on Plant health

Yield Damage Helicoverpa

Effects on sweet potato

Complimentary Contributor Copy

1.2.2. Effects on the Yield

Complimentary Contributor Copy

1.2.3. Effect on Fruit Size and Dry Matter

1.2.4. Survey of the Effect of Organic Manures on Beetroot

Complimentary Contributor Copy

Figure 8. Effects of organic manures on the yield of beetroot.

2. Agronomic Impact of Wastewater

Complimentary Contributor Copy

2.1. Description of a Water Refining Station

2.2. Agronomic Analyses