Land Application of Compostcompost.org/pdf/workshop_proceedings_2009/NS pdfs... · Land Application of Compost Issues and Benefits ... 1997 1999 c a ab ab bc Land ... 2463 3080 2654

Land Application of CompostIssues and Benefits

Compost Matters: March 3rd, 2009

Vernon Rodd, Philip Warman, John MacLeod, John Cline and Peter Hicklenton

2

Land Application of Compost/ Issues and Benefits

Outline of Presentation Definition of compost Types of compost Results of land application trials

3


Compost: a fertilizing material consisting largely of decayed organic material. (Merriam Webster)

or: a solid mature product resulting from composting which is a managed process of bio-oxidation of a solid hetrogeneous substrate including a thermophillic phase (CCME, CCC, BNQ, AAFC)

4


Compost Criteria in CanadaMaturityForeign MatterTrace ElementsPathogens

5


Maturity (must meet two of the following criteria)C:N ratio

6


Foreign material:Any material over 2 mm that results from human intervention and having organic or inorganic constituents that may be present in the compost but excluding mineral soils, woody material and rocks.

7


Trace Elements: Arsenic, Cadmium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Lead, Selenium, and Zinc. ** Criteria vary with individual elements and whether the compost meets Class A or B standard

8


Pathogens

9

Land Application of Compost/ Issues and BenefitsTypes of Composts

Discussed:

Fisheries Waste- fish offal with carbon source added. Typically aerated static pile.

Municipal Source Separated Solid Waste Compost- household waste, soiled paper products and yard waste. Typically composted either in-vessel or windrow

Agriculture- animal manure with bedding. Typically composted either windrow or aerated static pile.

10


0.2- 0.53.3- 7.61.0- 2.00.4- 0.82.0- 3.02.2- 4.7Total K

1.1- 3.12.2- 6.72.0- 2.20.2- 2.60.3- 0.54.0- 4.2Total P

2.6- 6.79.9- 20.12.0- 4.53.0- 4.00.6- 2.11.7- 2.1Total N

40- 6045- 6120- 3020- 3015- 2518.9- 25.0Dry Matter

Lobster or Crabx

SSMSWZPoultryYSwineYDairyY BeefZ%

WasteManure

Z Rodd et al. 2002. Comparison of N fertilizer, source-separated municipal solid waste compost and semi- solid beef manure on nutrient concentration in boot-stage barley and wheat tissue. Can. J. Soil Sci. 82: 33-43. Y Jones C. Comparisons of manure, compost and commercial fertilizers. Montana State University ExtensionX MacLeod et al. Utilization of seafood processing waste as a nutrient source for spelt and soybeans.

Major nutrients (%) in some starting materials.

11


Issues Nutrient release characteristics of the compost Foreign material present in the compost Heavy metals in the compost Presence of Persistent Organic Compounds

Benefits Increased C content of the soil Increased water holding capacity Better soil structure

12


Barley Yield.

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

0 50 100 150

Estimated Plant Available N (kg/ha)

Yield

(Mg/

ha)

CompostManure

Wheat Yield

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

0 50 100 150

Estimated Plant Available N (kg/ha)Yi

eld (M

g/ha

)

CompostManure

Effect of SSMSW compost and fresh semi-solid beef manure on barley and wheat yield.

Note: Plant Available N was considered to be 15% and 50% the total N in the compost and manure, respectively. At 50% PAN 33,650 and 4,700 kg/ha was applied to the barleyand 16,600 and 5,000 kg/ha was applied to the wheat in the form of compost and manure, respectively.

13


0

1

2

3

4

Control Compost Fresh Compost Fresh

Spel

t Yie

ld (t

/ha)

0

0.5

1

1.5

Control Compost Fresh Compost Fresh

Soyb

ean

Yiel

d (t/

ha)

____ ____ ________AutumnApplied

AutumnApplied

SpringApplied

SpringApplied

Effect of composted and fresh crab and lobster waste applied in the fall or spring on yield of spelt and soybean

From MacLeod et al.

140

1

2

3

4

5

6

NPK MSW 1 MSW 2 MSW 3 Mixture

Squa

sh Y

ield

(kg/

plan

t)

19971999

ca ab ab

bc


2500 MSW +60N- 40P15,00010,0005,000120-95-019983,000 MSW+ 60N- 28P- 21K18,00012,0006,000120-145-501997

12,000 MSW +60N- 44P- 25K72,00048,00024,000120-200-601996

MixtureMSW 3MSW 2MSW 1NPK

Effect of fertilizer and MSW compost application on squash yield

Warman et al. 2009 In Prep.

15


69.575.467.175.8% Class A36.639.08.558.65Carrots28.320.726.534.1Tomatoes5.167.368.557.46Y Beans4.223.578.055.33Broccoli

ConventionalOrganicConventionalOrganicCrop

_______1998______________1997_______

Yield of various horticultural crops under organic and conventional management.

Warman P.R. 1999. Plant growth and soil fertility comparisons of the long-term vegetable experiment: Conventional vs. compost amended soils. Proc. Inter. Composting Symp. 843- 853

Amendments applied since 1990.

16


7.306.648.158.318.387.97pH__________________________g/kg_______________________

~17:1~16:1~7:1~6:1~7:1~8:1C:N Ratio

15.015.834.430.035.729.9Total N

249247237167251247Organic C

HMC+ICIHMCHMPMC+ICIPMCPMParameter

_______________Amendment________________

Composition of fresh poultry and hog manure and composted poultry and hog manure with and without inclusion of ICI organics

Rodd et al. 1999. Comparison of N release from raw and composted hog and chicken manure, with and without inclusion of industrial, commercial and institutional organics. Proc. Inter. Composting Symp. pp 421- 434.

17


____________________Amendment__________________

0.00126.426.325.724.522.2NG(g/kg)

NBS (g/kg)

Yield(kg/ha)

26.6

2865

Compost +ICIN=24

0.001

0.573

F Prob.

25.724.424.119.2

2736265430802463

Compost N=24

ManureN=24

FertilizerN=12

CheckN=12

Effect of the amendments on barley yield, grain N content (NG) and boot stage N content (BS)


18


0.00127.725.727.224.225.024.024.119.2NBS(g/kg)

0.01326.226.527.225.426.824.624.522.3NG (g/kg)

0.70829842745264628262469283830802463Yield (kg/ha)

F ProbPMC+ICI

HMC+ICI

PMCHMCPMHM FertCheck

______________Amendments (N=12)______________

Effect of the various amendments on barley yield, nitrogen in the grain (NG) and boot-stage (NBS) tissue.


19


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 18.8 37.5 75 150Estimated Plant Available N (kg N/ha)

So

il N

itra

te-N

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/kg

)

FertilizerHog ManurePoultry ManureHog Manure CompostPoultry Manure CompostHog Manure+ ICI CompostPoultry Manure +ICI Compost

Effect of manure and compost application on soil nitrate- N in the fall of the year.

20

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 50 100 150

Plant Available N (kg N/ha)

Bulk

Den

sity

(g/c

m3 )

CompostManure

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 50 100 150Plant Available N (Kg N/ha)

Bul

k D

ensi

ty (g

/cm

3 )

CompostManure

Year 1 Year 2

Effect of compost and manure addition on soil bulk density


Rodd et al. 1999. Comparison of Source- Separated Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Solid Manure. Proc. Inter. Composting Symp. pp 773- 800.

21


0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 1.4 2.8 4.1 9 18 24Amount of Carbon Applied (t/ha)

Bu

lk D

ensi

ty (

g/c

m3 )

Compost ManureBoth

Effect of carbon application on the soil bulk density

22

Land Application of Compost/ Issues and BenefitsWheat Yield

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

0 50 100 150

Estimated Plant Available N (kg/ha)

Yiel

d (M

g/ha

)

CompostManure

Rodd et al. 1999. Comparison of Source- Separated Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Solid Manure. Proc. Inter. Composting Symp. pp 773- 800.

23

-295 to -433CH4 Formation7th

-120 to -240H2 Formation6th

-70 to -220HS- Formation5th

Second Stage

+170 to -180Fe+2 formation4th

+640 to +410Mn+2 formation3rd

+530 to +420Nitrate reduction2nd

+930 to 820O2 disappearance1stFirst Stage

Initial Redox Potential (mV)Main ReactionStep

Adapted from Russel 1977. Plant root systems: Their function and interaction with the soil.

Oxidation- reduction potentials at which reactions occur in typical soil systems.

24


3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Compost Manure Compost Manure

Barley Wheat

Boo

t Sta

ge T

issu

e C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

0 50 100 150

Estimated Plant Available N

Effect of Compost and Manure Addition on Boot-Stage Cu Concentration

Rodd et al. 2002. Comparison of N fertilizer, source-separated municipal solid waste compost and semi-solid beef manure on the nutrient concentration in boot-stage barley and wheat tissue. Can. J. Soil Sci. 82: 33-43.

25


5- 25 (Mills and Benton Jones)Plant Sufficiency Range 7- 11 (25) (NRC)Sheep 8 (100) (NRC)Dairy 8 (115) (NRC)Beef

20170Cu Conc. Yr 1100270 Yr 2----100CCME Guidelines

ManureCompost

5.675.54 Yr 24.204.74Max. Conc. Attained Yr 1

______mg/kg____

Rodd et al. 2002. Comparison of N fertilizer, source-separated municipal solid waste compost and semi-solid beef manure on the nutrient concentration in boot-stage barley and wheat tissue. Can. J. Soil Sci. 82: 33-43.

26


0.011

0.076

F Prob.

0.2858333339826397968751227431# Immature

0.352116319138889185764232639# Mature

F Prob.ManureCompostManureCompostYear 2Year 1

Residual earthworm populations post amendment application

Rodd et al. unpublished data

Documents

Land Application of Compostcompost.org/pdf/workshop_proceedings_2009/NS pdfs... · Land Application of Compost Issues and Benefits ... 1997 1999 c a ab ab bc Land ... 2463 3080 2654