Blog List

Monday, 13 June 2016

Effect of Plant Geometry on Growth and Yield of Corn in the Rice-Corn Cropping System

Title
Effect of Plant Geometry on Growth and Yield of Corn in the Rice-Corn Cropping System

Author 

Bhagirath S. Chauhan, Jhoana L. Opeña
Weed Science, Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Ba?os, Philippines..

The rice-corn cropping system is increasing in Asia in response to increased demand of corn for feed. A field study was conducted to evaluate the effect of plant geometry (row and plant to plant spacing: 50 × 20, 50 × 30, 75 × 20, and 75 × 30 cm) on growth and yield of corn. Plant height and leaf production per plant were not influenced by the plant geometry. Spacing, however, influenced leaf area, aboveground shoot biomass, and yield of corn per unit area. Highest leaf area, shoot biomass, and yield (8.2 t·ha-1) were produced by plants grown at 50 × 20 cm spacing. The results of this study suggest that narrow rows and plant to plant spacing may increase grain yield by increasing crop growth rates. Plant geometry could be modified to improve yield of corn in the rice-corn cropping system, and thereby increase productivity of the system.
Cite this paper
B. Chauhan and J. Opeña, "Effect of Plant Geometry on Growth and Yield of Corn in the Rice-Corn Cropping System," American Journal of Plant Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 10, 2013, pp. 1928-1931. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2013. 410237.
[1]M. C. R. Alberto, R. J. Buresh, T. Hirano, A. Miyata, R. Wassmann, J. R. Quilty, T. Q. Correa Jr. and J. Sandro “Carbon Uptake and Water Productivity for Dry-Seeded Rice and Hybrid Maize Grown with Overhead Sprinkler Irrigation,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 146, 2013, pp. 51-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.03.006
[2]J. Timsina, R. J. Buresh, A. Dobermann and J. Dixon, “Rice-Maize Systems in Asia: Current Situation and Potential,” International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, 2011, p. 235.
[3]D. G. Bullock, R. L. Nielsen and W. E. Nyquist, “A Growth Analysis Comparison of Corn Growth in Conventional and Equidistant Plant Spacing,” Crop Science, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1988, pp. 254-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1988.0011183X002800020015x
[4]R. B. Hunter, L. W. Kannenberg and E. E. Gamble, “Performance of Five Maize Hybrids in Varying Plant Populations and Row Widths,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, 1970, pp. 255-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1970.00021962006200020023x
[5]R. L. Nielsen, “Influence of Hybrids and Plant Density on Grain Yield and Stalk Breakage in Corn Grown in 15-Inch Row Spacing,” Journal of Production Agriculture, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1988, pp. 190-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jpa1988.0190
[6]D. L. Karlen and C. R. Camp, “Row Spacing, Plant Population, and Water Management Effects on Corn in the Atlantic Coastal Plain,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 77, No. 3, 1985, pp. 393-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1985.00021962007700030010x
[7]J. E. Board and B. J. Harville, “Explanations for Greater Light Interception in Narrowvs Wide-Row Soybean,” Crop Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1992, pp. 198-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200010041x
[8]M. J. Ottman and L. F. Welch, “Planting Patterns and Radiation Interception, Plant Nutrient Concentration and Yield in Corn,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 81, No. 2, 1989, pp. 167-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100020006x
[9]M. Tollenaar, A. A. Dibo, A. Aguilera, S. F. Weise and C. J. Swanton, “Effect of Crop Density on Weed Interference in Maize,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4, 1994, pp. 591-595. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600040003x
[10]B. S. Chauhan and D. E. Johnson, “Implications of Narrow Crop Row Spacing and Delayed Echinochloa colona and Echinochloa crus-galli Emergence for Weed Growth and Crop Yield Loss in Aerobic Rice,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 117, No. 2-3, 2010, pp. 177-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.02.014
[11]B. S. Chauhan and D. E. Johnson, “Row Spacing and Weed Control Timing Affect Yield of Aerobic Rice,” Field Crops Research, Vol. 121, No. 2, 2011, pp. 226-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.12.008
[12]J. R. Teasdale, “Influence of Narrow Row/High Population Corn (Zea mays) on Weed Control and Light Transmittance,” Weed Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1995, pp. 113-118.
[13]K. P. Gallo and C. S. T. Daughtry, “Techniques for Measuring Intercepted and Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation in Corn Canopies,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 78, No. 4, 1986, pp. 752-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1986.00021962007800040039x
[14]L. Kristensen, J. Olsen and J. Weiner, “Crop Density, Sowing Pattern, and Nitrogen Fertilization Effects on Weed Suppression and Yield in Spring Wheat,” Weed Science, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2008, pp. 97-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-07-065.1
[15]A. B. Mashingaidze, W. van der Werf, L. A. P. Lotz, J. Chipomho and M. J. Kropff, “Narrow Rows Reduce Biomass and Seed Production of Weeds and Increase Maize Yield,” Annals of Applied Biology, Vol. 155, No. 2, 2009, pp. 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2009.00331.x
[16]F. Forcella, M. E. Westgate and D. D. Warnes, “Effect of Row Width on Herbicide and Cultivation Requirements in Row Crops,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1992, pp. 161-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300004756

 For further details log on website :
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=37267
at No comments:

Effect of Rice Straw Biochar on Soil Quality and the Early Growth and Biomass Yield of Two Rice Varieties

Title
Effect of Rice Straw Biochar on Soil Quality and the Early Growth and Biomass Yield of Two Rice Varieties
DOI: 10.4236/as.2015.68077   
Author(s)    
Alie Kamara1*, Hawanatu Sorie Kamara2, Mohamed Saimah Kamara3

1Department of Soil Science, School of Agriculture, Njala University, Njala, Sierra Leone.
2Njala Agricultural Research Centre, Njala University Campus, Njala, Sierra Leone.
3Department of Agriculture, Ahmadiyya Secondary School, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Sustainable rice production in Sierra Leone faces serious constraints due to soil acidity, low cation exchange capacity, low nutrient contents accelerated mineralization of soil organic matter and soil loss by erosion (particularly on the uplands). One possible approach to addressing the soil constraints to rice production both on uplands and lowlands of Sierra Leone is the recycling of rice residues through biochar production and application to soils. A pot experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of application of biochar from rice residues on (i) soil physicochemical properties and (ii) the early growth characteristics of two rice varieties, NERICA L19 and ROK3. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomized design (CRD) with two biochar levels (0 and 15 g/kg soil) and two rice varieties in three replications. For the biochar treated soils (+biochar), 75 g rice straw biochar was applied to 5 kg air-dry soil (15 kg biochar/kg soil), mixed thoroughly and placed into perforated black polythene bags. Seeds of two rice varieties, NERICA L19 and ROK3 were planted on the treated and untreated soils for eight weeks. Application of biochar improved available phosphorus, exchangeable cations and cation exchange capacity in biochar treated soils compared to the control soil without biochar. Plant height, tiller number, and dry biomass weight of both rice varieties grown in soils amended with rice straw biochar were significantly higher than those on untreated soils. The most remarkable increase in plant growth characteristics as a result of biochar addition to soil was reflected in the biomass yield and tiller numbers. Dry shoot biomass for ROK3 rice variety varied significantly from a mean of 3.5 g (control) to 26.2 g (+biochar) while tiller numbers significantly varied from 10 (control) to 29.6 (+biochar). Similarly, for NERICA L19 rice variety, dry shoot biomass increased significantly from 4.5 g (control) to 22.7 g (+biochar) while tiller numbers increased significantly from a mean of 12.3 (control) to 30 (+biochar). Thus converting rice residues to biochar and applying to soil holds promise for improving rice production in Sierra Leone.
KEYWORDS
Rice Straw, Biochar, NERICA L19, ROK3, Rice Growth
Cite this paper
Kamara, A. , Sorie Kamara, H. and Saimah Kamara, M. (2015) Effect of Rice Straw Biochar on Soil Quality and the Early Growth and Biomass Yield of Two Rice Varieties. Agricultural Sciences, 6, 798-806. doi: 10.4236/as.2015.68077.

[1]Tipayarom, D. and Oanh, N.T.K. (2007) Effects from Open Rice Straw Burning Emission on Air Quality in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region. ScienceAsia, 33, 339-345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2007.33.339
[2]Chen, K.S., Wang, H.K., Peng, Y.P., Wang, W.C., Chen, C.H. and Lai, C.H. (2008) Effects of Open Burning of Rice Straw on Concentrations of Atmospheric Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Central Taiwan. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 58, 1318-1327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.58.10.1318
[3]Lai, C.H., Chen, K.S. and Wang, H.K. (2009) Influence of Rice Straw Burning on the Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Agricultural County of Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 21, 1200-1207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62404-3
[4]Kamara, A., Mansaray, M.M., Kamara, A. and Sawyerr, P.A. (2014) Effects of Biochar Derived from Maize Stover and Rice Straw on the Early Growth of their Seedlings. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2, 232-236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20140205.14
[5]Singh, B., Singh, B.P. and Cowie, A.L. (2010) Characterisation and Evaluation of Biochars for Their Application as a soil Amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 516-525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR10058
[6]Lehmann J., Rillig, M.C., Thies, J., Masiello, C.A., Hockaday, W.C. and Crowley, D. (2011) Biochar Effects on Soil Biota—A Review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43, 1812-1836.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
[7]Zimmerman, A.R. (2010) Abiotic and Microbial Oxidation of Laboratory-Produced Black Carbon (Biochar). Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 1295-1301.
[8]Baldock, J.A. and Smernik, R.J. (2002) Chemical Composition and Bioavailability of Thermally Altered Pinus resinosa (Red Pine) Wood. Organic Geochemistry, 33, 1093-1109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(02)00062-1
[9]Antal Jr., M.J. and Grønli, M. (2003) The Art, Science, and Technology of Charcoal Production. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42, 1619-1640.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie0207919
[10]Amonette, J. and Joseph, S. (2009) Characteristics of Biochar: Micro Chemical Properties. In: Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S., Eds., Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology, Earthscan, London, 33-52.
[11]Krull, E.S., Skjemstad, J.O., Graetz, D., Grice, K., Dunning, W., Cook, G. and Parr, J.F. (2003) 13C-Depleted Charcoal from C4 Grasses and the Role of Occluded Carbon in Phytoliths. Organic Geochemistry, 34, 1337-1352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(03)00100-1
[12]Lehmann, J. (2007) A Handful of Carbon. Nature, 447, 143-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/447143a
[13]Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S. (2007) Agronomic Values of Green Waste Biochar as a Soil Amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 45, 629-634.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR07109
[14]Atkinson, C.J., Fitzgerald, J.D. and Hipps, N.A. (2010) Potential Mechanisms for Achieving Agricultural Benefits from Biochar Application to Temperate Soils: A Review. Plant and Soil, 337, 1-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5
[15]Cornelissen, G., Martinsen, V., Shitumbanuma, V., Alling, V., Breedveld, G.D., Rutherford, D.W., Sparrevik, M., Hale, S.E., Obia, A. and Mulder, J. (2013) Biochar Effect on Maize Yield and Soil Characteristics in Five Conservation Farming Sites in Zambia. Agronomy, 3, 256-274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy3020256
[16]Liu, J., Schulz, H., Brandl, S., Miethke, H., Huwe, B. and Glaser, B. (2012) Short-Term Effect of Biochar and Compost on Soil Fertility and Water Status of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under Field Conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 175, 698-707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100172
[17]Schulz, H. and Glaser, B. (2012) Effects of Biochar Compared to Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Quality and Plant Growth in a Greenhouse Experiment. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 175, 410-422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100143
[18]Asai, H., Samson, B.K., Stephan, H.M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y., Inoue, Y., Shiraiwa, T. and Horie, T. (2009) Biochar Amendment Techniques for Upland Rice Production in Northern Laos: 1. Soil Physical Properties, Leaf SPAD and Grain Yield. Field Crops Research, 111, 81-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.10.008
[19]Shafie, S.T., Salleh, M.A., Hang, L.L., Rahman, M. and Ghani, W.A.W.A.K. (2012) Effect of Pyrolysis Temperature on the Biochar Nutrient and Water Retention Capacity. Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment, 1, 293-307.
[20]Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S. (2008) Using Poultry Litter Biochars as Soil Amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 46, 437-444.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR08036
[21]Joseph, S.D., Camps-Arbestain, M., Lin, Y., Munroe, P., Chia, C.H., Hook, J., Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., Singh, B.P., Lehmann, J., Foidl, N., Smernik, R.J. and Amonette, J.E. (2010) An Investigation into the Reactions of Biochar in Soil. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 501-515.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR10009
[22]Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D.W. and Niandou, M.A.S. (2009) Impact of Biochar Amendment on Fertility of a Southeastern Coastal Plain Soil. Soil Science, 174, 105-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SS.0b013e3181981d9a
[23]Zimmerman, A.R., Gao, B. and Ahn, M.Y. (2011) Positive and Negative Carbon Mineralization Priming Effects among a Variety of Biochar-Amended Soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43, 1169-1179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.005
[24]Van Vuure, W., Odell, R.T. and Sutton, P.M. (1972) Soil Survey of the Njala Area. Agronomy Department, Njala Uni versity College, Njala.
[25]Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. (1934) An Examination of Degtjareff Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and a Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Science, 37, 29-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
[26]Milford, M.H. (1997) Introduction to Soils and Soil Science Laboratory Exercises. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque.
[27]Ahmedna, M., John, M.M., Clarke, S.J., Marshal, W.E. and Rao, R.M. (1997) Potential of Agricultural By-Products Based Activated Carbons for Use in Raw Sugar and Decolourization. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 75, 117-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199709)75:1<117::AID-JSFA850>3.0.CO;2-M
[28]Naeem, M.A., Khalid, M., Arshad, M. and Ahmad, R. (2014) Yield and Nutrient Composition of Biochar Produced from Different Feedstocks at Varying Pyrolytic Temperatures. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 51, 75-82.
http://www.pakjas.com.pk
[29]Gaskin, J.W., Steiner, C., Harris, K., Das, K.C. and Bibens, B. (2008) Effect of Low-Temperature Pyrolysis Conditions on Biochar for Agricultural Use. Transactions of the ASABE, 51, 2061-2069.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.25409
[30]Kuo, S. (1996) Phosphorus. In: Sparks, D.L., Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis: Chemical Methods. Part 3. Chemical Methods, SSSA Book Series, Madison, 869-919.
[31]Wu, W.X., Yang, M., Feng, Q.B., McGrouther, K., Wang, H.L., Lu, H.H. and Chen, Y.X. (2012) Chemical Characterization of Rice Straw-Derived Biochar for Soil Amendment. Biomass and Bioenergy, 47, 268-276.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.034
[32]Masulili, A., Utomo, W.H. and Syechfani, M.S. (2010) Rice Husk Biochar for Rice Based Cropping System in Acid Soil 1. The Characteristics of Rice Husk Biochar and Its Influence on the Properties of Acid Sulfate Soils and Rice Growth in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Agriculture Science, 3, 25-33.
[33]Milla, O.V., Rivera, E.B., Huang, W. J., Chien, C.C. and Wang, Y.M. (2013) Agronomic Properties and Characterization of Rice Husk and Wood Biochars and Their Effect on the Growth of Water Spinach in a Field Test. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 13, 251-266.
[34]Lehman, J., da Silva Jr., J.P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W. and Glaser, B. (2003) Nutrient Availability and Leaching in an Archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon Basin: Fertilizer, Manure and Charcoal Amendments. Plant and Soil, 249, 343-357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022833116184
[35]Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Kinyangi, D., Grossman, J., O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O., Thies, J., Luizao, F.J., Peterson, J. and Neves, E.G. (2006) Black Carbon Increases Cation Exchange Capacity in Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70, 1719-1730.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0383
[36]Valerie, G., Dorais, M. and Menard, C. (2013) Organic Potted Plants Amended with Biochar: Its Effect on Growth and Pythium Colonization. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 93, 1217-1227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjps2013-315
[37]Solaiman, Z.M., Murphy, D.V. and Abbott, L.K. (2012) Biochars Influence Seed Germination and Early Growth of Seedlings. Plant Soil, 353, 273-287.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1031-4
[38]Jones, D.L., Rousk. J., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T.H. and Murphy, D.V. (2012) Biochar-Mediated Changes in Soil Quality and Plant Growth in a Three Year Field Trial. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 45, 113-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012
[39]Major, J., Rondon, M., Molin, D., Riha, S.J. and Lehmann, J. (2010) Maize Yield and Nutrition during 4 Years of Biochar Application to a Colombian Savanna Oxisol. Plant Soil, 333, 117-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0327-0
[40]Lehmann, J. and Rondon, M. (2006) Bio-Char Soil Management on Highly Weathered Soils in the Humid Tropics. In: Uphoff, N., Ed., Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, 517-530.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420017113.ch36
[41]Xie, Z., Xu, Y., Liu, G., Liu, Q., Zhu, J., Tu, C., Amonette, J.E., Cadisch, G., Yong, J.W.H. and Hu, S. (2013) Impact of Biochar Application on Nitrogen Nutrition of Rice, Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Two Paddy Soils of China. Plant Soil, 370, 527-540.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1636-x
[42]Carter, S., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., Suy T.B. and Haefele, S. (2013) The Impact of Biochar Application on Soil Properties and Plant Growth of Pot Grown Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Cabbage (Brassica chinensis). Agronomy, 3, 404-418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy3020404

 For further details log on website :
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=58859
at No comments:

Composting of rice straw with effective microorganisms (EM) and its influence on compost quality

Title

Composting of rice straw with effective microorganisms (EM) and its influence on compost quality

Author 
  • Mohd Lokman Che JusohEmail author, 
  • Latifah Abd Manaf and 
  • Puziah Abdul Latiff
Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering201310:17
DOI: 10.1186/1735-2746-10-17
©  Jusoh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 4 February 2013
Accepted: 5 February 2013
Published: 7 February 2013

Abstract

This study aims to assess the effect of EM application on the composting process of rice straw with goat manure and green waste and to evaluate the quality of both compost treatments. There are two treatment piles in this study, in which one pile was applied with EM and another pile without EM. Each treatment was replicated three times with 90 days of composting duration. The parameters for the temperature, pH, TOC and C/N ratio, show that decomposition of organic matter occurs during the 90-day period. The t-test conducted shows that there is a significant difference between compost with EM and compost without EM. The application of EM in compost increases the macro and micronutrient content. The following parameters support this conclusion: compost applied with EM has more N, P and K content (P < 0.05) compared to compost without EM. Although the Fe in compost with EM is much higher (P < 0.05) than in the compost without EM, for Zn and Cu, there is no significant difference between treatments. This study suggests that the application of EM is suitable to increase the mineralization in the composting process. The final resultant compost indicated that it was in the range of the matured level and can be used without any restriction.

Keywords

Effective microorganisms (EM) Rice straw Composting Nutrients contents Heavy metals contents

Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa) is the most important staple food for a large part of the world’s human population, especially in East and South Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the West Indies. It is the grain with the second-highest worldwide production, after maize (corn) [1]. In Malaysia, it is the main source of carbohydrate and covers about 10% of total plantation area. Besides producing rice seed, it also produces a large amount of waste by-product of which one is rice straw residue. It is estimated that from 700,000 hectares of rice plantation area in Malaysia, two million metric tonnes of rice straw will be produced in every planting season [2]. A major portion of this agricultural waste is disposed of by burning or is mulched in the rice fields. These wastes, if not properly handled, will cause many problems to farmers as well as to the environment. If rice straw is left in the field without proper management, it can cause the spreading of disease, which originates from the rice straw, such as stem disease and can also encourage the breeding of pests, especially rats. Burning is not the best way to deal with such waste, as it is harmful to the environment.
The abundance of rice straw as an organic waste can be converted to fertilizer throughout the process of composting. According to Tiquia and Tam [3], composting is a biological treatment that is cost-effective to treat different types of organic waste. Composting was the first concept for using effective microorganisms (EM) in environmental management. Crop residues and animal wastes have been effectively composted to produce biofertilizers. EM was developed by Professor Dr Teruo Higa in the 1970s at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa, Japan. Basically, this microbial solution was developed for natural or organic farming systems, however, with further research its uses have been expanded to resolve some environmental issues, through which it facilitates the reuse of most waste [4]. Research in Holland [5] and in Costa Rica [6] has highlighted that there is potential for compost from the waste of animals or crops from which the results are increasing yields of crops supplied with this material compared to the output of traditional organic systems. Composting of rice straw using effective microorganisms as an accelerator to speed up the composting process and increased nutrients in the compost has not been well documented. Therefore, it is essential to study the effect on the physical and chemical parameters during the process.
The aim of this study is to assess the effect of EM application on the composting process of rice straw with goat manure and green waste and also to evaluate the nutrient and heavy metals at the end of composting. This study is based on the hypothesis that the application of EM on rice straw will increase the microbial activity and thus, increase the composting rate. It also increases the mineralization process of compost through the enhanced microbial colonization and activity. To test these hypotheses, compost from rice straw residue was produced with applications of EM and compared to non-EM treatment.

Materials and methods

Composting process and sampling

In this study, rice straw is used as the main material for composting together with goat manure and green waste (vegetable and fruit waste from the market). The shredded rice straw was soaked in the water for 24 hours before the composting process. All of the raw materials were analysed for physiochemical, nutrients and heavy metals. Composting was carried out in a shaded area at the premises of Premium Agro Products Sdn. Bhd. In this experiment, there are two treatments—compost piles with EM (C1) and compost piles without EM (C2) for control. The mixtures used for all piles were arranged with the ratio as follows: 50% rice straw + 30% goat manure + 20% green waste, in which10 kg of rice straw was mixed with 6 kg of goat manure and 4 kg of green waste, and each treatment was replicated three times. In this study we used commercial EM (EM•1®), which contains lactic acid bacteria, yeast and phototrophic bacteria. The EM solution is required for the production of EMAS. EMAS is actually an activated EM suspension in a mixture of molasses (sugar cane) and non-chlorinated water or rice rinse water (which provides the minerals for the multiplication of the microorganisms). For the activation of EM · 1®, one part EM · 1® microbial inoculants and one part of molasses were mixed with 20 parts of chlorine-free water. This solution was then stored for three to five days in an air tight expandable container for fermentation. Built up gas was released once daily.
For piles with inoculation with EM, a 5% EM solution was applied to constitute 20% of the amount of water to be added to a given mixture. Water was then added until the moisture content reached 60% (wet basis) in each composting mixture. To retain the moisture and prevent excessive loss of heat, the heaps of composting material were then covered using plastic sheets. The moisture content was maintained at 50–60% by the addition of water throughout the active composting period by frequent checking. The mixtures were turned at 3-day intervals to maintain porosity and were composted for 90 days. The temperature was measured daily with a digital thermometer at random depths.
Compost samples were taken from each treatment at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 days of the composting and were analysed for changes in the physical and chemical properties throughout the composting process. The samples taken from the piles were divided into two portions. One portion was dried to constant weight (60°C for 2 days) for chemical analysis. The dried samples were ground in mortar to pass through a 2 mm sieve and were stored in screw capped jars. The other portion was analysed for pH and total carbon.

Physiochemical analysis

Moisture content was determined using the gravimetric method. Five grams of compost was dried in an oven for 24 h at 105°C (weighed and re-weighed until a constant weight was reached). The samples were then allowed to cool at room temperature before the final weight was taken. The preparation for pH was conducted according to Sundberg et al.[7] and the pH was determined using a digital electrode pH meter. The total carbon was determined by loss of weight using the ignition method and the total nitrogen was determined using the Kjeldahl method [8]. The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) was determined by wet digestion in K2Cr2O7 with concentrated H2SO4, digested on a 150°C preheated block for 30 minutes, and titrated for excess Cr2O2−7 with ferrous ammonium sulphate after cooling. The contents of the mineral elements for Zn, Cu and Fe were determined using the ISO11466 [9] standard method (aqua regia digestion method) and analysed by Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). Determination of P and K was conducted using the In-House Method at ESPEK Research and Advisory Services.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0. All results were tested for normal distribution and then analysed by using the paired-sample t-test.

Results

To promote the growth of microbial populations as a way to increase the decomposition of organic matter during composting, a favourable environment or condition must be provided. The favourable conditions and appropriate loading of microbial nutrients, as well as the non existence of harmful toxic compounds, are essential to reach high microbial degradation. The physical and chemical characteristics of composting raw materials are presented in Table 1. In general, most of the values for the parameters for rice straw are within the ranges obtained by Iranzo et al.[10] except for the Cu for which the values are a little high. The pH values of rice straw (7.6) were also in a similar range as obtained by previous studies[11, 12], as were the pH values for goat manure (7.1) and green waste (8.4), which indicates that these residues are non-acidic.
Table 1
Chemical and physical properties of raw feedstock (dry weight basin)
Parameter
Rice straw
Goat manure
Green waste
pH
7.60 ± 0.08
7.10 ± 0.08
6.50 ± 0.48
TOC (%)
39.20 ± 0.95
35.60 ± 1.20
15.30 ± 0.91
C/N ratio
61.30 ± 2.61
13.00 ± 1.11
8.40 ± 0.21
MC (%)
11.43 ± 0.77
58.00 ± 0.84
79.00 ± 1.35
N (%)
0.64 ± 0.07
2.55 ± 0.28
2.90 ± 0.35
P (%)
0.21 ± 0.02
0.24 ± 0.03
0.18 ± 0.04
K (%)
1.12 ± 0.11
1.81 ± 0.15
0.95 ± 0.06
Zn (mg kg−1)
38.40 ± 2.20
65.20 ± 2.03
64.30 ± 0.51
Cu (mg kg−1)
9.30 ± 0.67
19.30 ± 0.67
1.32 ± 0.26
Fe (mg kg−1)
129.20 ± 1.90
1003.00 ± 12.49
145.20 ± 1.70
TOC: Total Organic Carbon, C/N ratio: Carbon/Nitrogen ratio, MC: Moisture Content, N: Nitrogen, P: Phosphorous, K: Potassium, Zn: Zinc, Cu: Copper, and Fe: Iron.
The temperature profiles of two different composting treatments are shown in Figure 1. All treatments show an increase in temperature right after composting started. On Day 1, the temperature rose to 43.1°C from 30.6°C for treatment with EM (C1) and 41.0°C from 31.0°C for treatment without EM (C2). The piles treated with EM reached the highest peak values of 58.2°C on Day 10 compared to composting treatment without EM, for which it was 56.2°C on Day 11. This shows that all the composting treatments reached thermophilic temperature (>40°C). The thermophilic phase lasted for 23 days for treatment C1, whereas treatment C2 lasted for 30 days. Figure 1 shows that the temperature gradually decreased afterwards and finally stabilized near the ambient temperature at 30–35 days for composting treatment C1and 48–52 days for composting treatment C2.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1
Changes in temperature during composting process.

The minimum pH recorded was around 6.25 for C1 and 6.41 for C2 on Day 2 decreasing from the initial values from 6.85 for C1 and 6.98 for C2. According to Figure 2, the initial pH values for both treatments tended to decrease in the first week and gradually increased and reached the highest peak, which was 8.16 on day 15 for compost C1 and 7.90 on day 30 for compost C2. Following that, the pH value declined to stabilize with the end result at 90 days being 7.55 for composting treatment C1 and 7.62 for composting treatment C2. This indicates a good quality compost and within the suggested range of 6–8.5, as has been reported by several studies [13].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2
Changes in pH of composting mixtures with days.

The TOC concentration (Figure 3) declined slightly for both treatments. The initial values of TOC were 48.6% for C1 and 47.6% for C2. Between the initial day of the composting period until Day 15 the decreasing values of TOC in both treatments were quite similar to each other, and, afterwards, C1continued to decrease sharply until Day 30, while in C2, the decrease in rates were slower. The decreasing percentage for C1 was 49.1% and 36.3% for C2.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3
Changes in TOC of composting mixtures with days.
One of the often used parameters to assess the rate of decomposition in the composting process is the C/N ratio, since it can reflect the maturity of the compost. Figure 4 shows the decrease in C/N values in both treatments due to the mineralization of organic matter. The initial C/N ratio for C1 was 32.4, while for C2 it was 34.0, and the final values of total C/N ratio after the 90-day composting period were 10.3 for C1 and 16.1 for C2. These results compare favourably with those of other research, such as Makan et al.[14], Roca-Peréz et al.[15] and Tumuhairwe et al.[16]. A C/N ratio of less than 20 is considered as mature and can be used without any restriction. Although a C/N ratio of 10 to 20 normally indicates as being in the range of the mature level, the higher ratio cannot be concluded, as the compost is not mature enough. This is because sometimes C is not in an available form. The C/N ratio in C1 compost drops 68% compared to C2, which is 53%. The t-test that was conducted indicates that there is a significant difference (p < 0.05) between compost treatments.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4
Changes in C/N ratio of composting mixtures with days.

The nutrient content for both of the treatments showed that N and K experienced an increase in the percentage at the end of composting while P showed a decreasing trend. The initial value of N in early composting was 1.5% for C1 and 1.4% for C2. At the end of composting both treatments showed an increase in total N content where C1 was 2.4% and C2 was 1.8% (Figure 5). The initial P value was 0.23% for C1 and 0.21% for C2. It was observed that the P content in the compost declined at the end of the composting period for both treatments. At the end of the composting the values for C1was 0.22% and 0.17% for C2 (Figure 6). The initial value of the K percentage on the initial day was 1.1% for C1 and 1.2% for C2. Between these two treatments, C1 achieved the highest values of K on day 45, which was 2.0%. At the end of the composting period, the K value in C1 was 1.7% and 1.4% for C2 (Figure 7).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5
Changes in N content in composting mixtures with days.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6
Changes in P content in composting mixtures with days.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig7_HTML.jpg
Figure 7
Changes in K content in composting mixtures with days.

The heavy metal (micronutrients) content in both of the treatments showed an increase in the amount except for the Cu, which decreased. The initial value for Zn was 203 mg kg−1 for C1 and 170 mg kg−1 for C2 (Figure 8). The final Zn value for C1was 207 mg kg−1 and 180 mg kg−1 for C2. For the Cu trend in compost C1, the Cu values (110 mg kg−1) decreased from the early days of composting to the end of the composting period (62 mg kg−1) (Figure 9). Whereas for the C2, the initial value was 107 mg kg−1 and decreased to 54 mg kg−1 at the end of composting. The increasing trend in Fe is shown in the initial value of 560 mg kg−1 in C1 and 650 mg kg−1 for C2with the result of 2624 mg kg−1 for C1 and 2379 mg kg−1 for C2 (Figure 10).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig8_HTML.jpg
Figure 8
Changes in Zn of the composting mixtures during composting period.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig9_HTML.jpg
Figure 9
Changes in Cu of the composting mixtures during composting period.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1735-2746-10-17/MediaObjects/40201_2013_Article_55_Fig10_HTML.jpg
Figure 10
Changes in Fe of the composting mixtures during composting period.

Discussion

The increase in temperature during the composting process was caused by the heat generated from the respiration and decomposition of sugar, starch and protein by the population of microorganisms. The increment in temperature is a good indicator that there is microbial activity in the compost pile, as a higher temperature denotes greater microbial activity [17]. The temperature pattern showed that there is a rapid progress from the initial mesophilic phase to the thermophilic phase for both these treatments, which points to a high proportion of readily degradable substances, e.g. vegetables and fruits (contained in a green waste material). According to Haug [18], the composting temperature has to be above 55°C for three consecutive days to kill the pathogen. Although both the compost pile treatments met the requirement, pile C1 has the longest period of time above 55°C, that is, for 6 consecutive days, while C2 only remained for three consecutive days. Even though no microbial test was done on the sample, it can be assumed that the compost treatment with EM (C1) has high microbial activity compared to C2 based on the high temperature achieved.
The declining TOC value, which was 49% for C1 and 36% for C2, is similar to that reported by Benito et al.[19]. According to Tumuhairwe et al.[16], large TOC losses suggest pronounced microbial activity in the former. The t-test indicated that the EM application had a significant difference (p < 0.05) on the compost, which means that treatment C1 lost more carbon (C) than C2 during the composting process. Rice straw is a material that consists of high C content. Diaz et al.[17] reported that during composting, C is a source of energy for microorganisms to build up cells. Almost all of the C is absorbed by the microorganisms and transformed to CO2 during the metabolism process of the cells. The left over C will be changed into membrane and protoplasm form. Throughout the composting process this organic matter is decomposed by microorganisms through which the organic carbon will be oxidized in aerobic condition to CO2 gas to the atmosphere and thus lower the C/N ratio.
The increase in the total nitrogen (N) contents at the end of the composting process differs from the values obtained by Tognetti et al.[20] who found that total N decreases overtime. According to Viel et al.[21] the increase in total N may be due to the dry mass net loss as the loss of organic C as CO2during composting. In addition, the N values might also increase due to the nitrogen-fixing bacteria activity that commonly occurs at the end of composting [22]. Although a decrease of N can occur due to leaching of NO−3-N and ammonia volatilization, in this experiment, both piles were covered with plastic to retain the moisture and avoid moisture from outside, which could lead to the result obtained. Moreover, in high technology composting, where they can control the leaching problem, the resultant compost achieves an increment in total N [23, 24]. The dependent pair t-test done on the treatments showed that the application of EM also had a significant (P < 0.05) positive effect on the net mineralization of N. The increase in the N value at the end of the composting period might occur due to the usage of N by microorganisms to build up cells, thus reducing the N, and some of the organisms will eventually die, which will be recycled as N and thus contribute to the increase [25]. The increased amount of N at the end of composting is due to this stored source of N.
The phosphorus (P) content decreases in both treatments where the P value in the C1 compost dropped by 4.3% while C2 dropped by 19%. These results are in accordance with other previous reports [26, 27, 28]. According to Tumuhairwe et al.[16], the loss of P during the composting process is possibly due to the leaching of P in the soluble organic solute. In contrast, there are other reports that obtain an increase in P value [29, 30, 31, 32]. From these studies, there is a significant (P < 0.05) difference between the two treatments. Although both piles decrease in P value, the final output of C1 treatment has the potential to produce compost with a P value higher than the C2 treatment.
K is known as the element that is easily leached out [25]. However, in this study the K value increased to 55% in the C1 compost compared to 17% in C2, which shows that the compost with EM are significantly (P < 0.05) higher than without EM. The use of rice straw as a medium that can absorb moisture and maintain its structural integrity and porosity, might avoid the loss of K in compost [31]. Both treatments (C1 = 1.7; C2 = 1.4) pass the recommended value of K in compost, which is 1%. K plays an important role in plant growth where its function is to increase the elongation of the root, control ion balance, improve protein synthesis, encourage enzyme reaction, and improve the photosynthesis process and food development [33].
The accumulation of heavy metal (Zn and Fe) increases during composting, except for Cu whereas the values decrease proportional to the time. The increase of Zn and Fe are in line with previous research done by Paré et al.[34]. According to both reports, during composting the accumulation of nutrient and heavy metals significantly increased, which indicates the maturity of the product. Pare et al.[34] also concluded that the stability of biosolid compost can be correlated with the accumulation of heavy metals and nutrients, and, thus extractability and exchangeability of heavy metals.
In both treatments, the final Zn value increased but varied between the initial days until the end. A small increment was achieved by these two treatments, which are only 2% for C1 and 6% for C2. However, both composts are in the safe limit set by the European Standard [35] for heavy metals in compost, that is, in the range of 210–4000 mg kg−1. The decrease in Cu values in this study is similar to the result obtained by Md Sabiani [33]. Both treatments show that the decline of Cu is proportional to the days of composting, however, for the C2 treatment, there is an increase for day 45 before it decreases again, which differs from pile C1where the Cu increases a bit at the end of the composting period. The Fe values increased in both treatments, and it was found that the Fe contained in C1 was much higher with a range of 560–2624 mg kg−1 during the composting process. This could occur due to the longer exposure to high temperature above 55°C for C1 compared to C2. The high temperature increases the loss in moisture content and C in C1 whereas in C2, the Fe accumulation is low with the range of 650–2379 mg kg−1. The low temperature achieved during the composting process compared to C1 contributed to the low accumulation of Fe. This happened due to the final resultant compost still being high in moisture content, which encourages the leaching process to occur, and, thus, reduces the Fe value. This theory correlates with the finding of Md Sabini [33] in which compost that loses its moisture content and C accumulate more Fe. The Fe also increases when there is a reduction of substrate pH in the early composting period, which increases the solubility of metals, including metallic microelements [36]. The t-test conducted on the heavy metals showed that there is no significant difference between the treatment with EM and without EM on the value of heavy metals except for Fe. The compost applied with EM shows a significant (P < 0.05) difference in Fe accumulation.
Compost usually contains heavy metals based on their initial raw material. Generally, these heavy metals (micronutrients) are required by the plant for perfect growth. The heavy metals present in the compost, such as Zn, Cu and Fe, are absorbed by plants during the fertilizing process. In a small quantity, these trace elements are necessary for plant growth but in large quantities they can cause phytotoxicity [37]. Kabata-Pendias and Pendias [38] also described in their research that Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe are useful as trace elements for crop growth. However, constant and intense application of organic compost containing heavy metals will lead to accumulation in the soil and an increase in toxic levels.

Conclusion

In general, all the composting parameters show that both treatments have a similar pattern. All the parameters measured indicate that a decomposition process occurs in both treatments. The parameters for the temperature and pH show that the decomposition of organic matter occurs during the 90-day period. The decrease in TOC values and C/N ratio also shows that an organic compound is being consumed by microorganisms. The t-test conducted shows that there is a significant difference between the compost treated with EM and the compost without EM. The application of EM in compost increased the macro and micronutrient content. The following parameters support this conclusion: compost applied with EM has more N, P and K content (P < 0.05) compared to compost without EM. While the Fe in compost with EM is much higher (P < 0.05) than compost without EM. However, for Zn and Cu, there is no significant difference between treatments. All of the micronutrient (heavy metals) values are below the standard limit of heavy metals in compost.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges receipt of the National Science Fellowship (NSF) from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia.

References 

  1. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Production statistic. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx#ancor,
  2. BERNAMA, Petani digalakkan jual jeramipadi untuk hasil tambah nilai. http://web6.bernama.com/client/fama/newsbm.php?lang=&id=250311,
  3. Tiquia SM, Tam NFY: Characterization and composting of poultry litter in forced-aeration piles. Process Biochem. 2002, 37: 869-880. 10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00274-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sangakkara UR: The technology of effective microorganisms – case studies of application. http://www.emnz.com/index.php/file/display/26/,
  5. Van Bruchem J, Lantinga EL, Overvest J, Jovink JPM: Environmental tuning of agriculture in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming: 1998; Bangkok. Edited by: Senanayake YDA, Sangakkara UR. 1999, 233-245.Google Scholar
  6. Shitani M: Organic fertilizer – Managing banana residues with Effective Microorganisms. Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference of IFOAM: 28 to 31 August 2000; Basel. Edited by: Alfoeldi T, Lockerezt W, Ninggli U. 2000, 08-28.Google Scholar
  7. Sundberg C, Smars S, Jonsson H: Low pH as an inhibiting factor in the transaction from the mesophilic to thermophilic phase in composting. Bioresour Technol. 2004, 95: 145-150. 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.01.016.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Alban LA, Kellogg M: Methods of soil analysis as used in the OSC soil testing laboratory. Agricultural experiment station. 1959, Corvallis: Oregon State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  9. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 11466-Soil Quality-Extraction of Trace Elements Soluble in Aqua Regia. 1995, Switzerland,Google Scholar
  10. Iranzo M, Cañizares JV, Roca-Perez L, Sainz-Pardo I, Mormeneo S, Boluda R: Characteristics of rice straw and sewage Sudge as composting materials in Valencia (Spain). Bioresour Technol. 2004, 95: 107-112. 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.01.013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujio Y, Kume S, Ueda S: Correlation between physical and chemical changes of rice straw as a major constituent under composting. Jpn Ferment Technol. 1986, 64: 351-354. 10.1016/0385-6380(86)90131-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Abdelhamid MT, Horiuchi T, Oba S: Composting of rice straw with oilseed rape cake and poultry manure and its effects on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) growth and soil properties. Bioresour Technol. 2004, 93: 183-189. 10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Fogarty A, Tuovinen O: Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. Microbiol Rev. 1991, 55: 225-233.Google Scholar
  14. Makan A, Assobhei O, Mountadar M: Effect of initial moisture content on the in-vessel composting under air pressure of organic fraction of municipal solid waste in morocco. Iran J Environ Healt. 2012, 10: 3-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Roca-Peréz L, Martinez C, Marcilla P, Buloda R: Composting rice straw with sewage sludge and compost effects on the soil-plant system. Chemosphere. 2009, 75: 781-787. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.12.058.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Tumuhairwe JB, Tenywa JS, Otabbong E, Ledin S: Comparison of four low-technology composting methods for market crop waste. Waste Manag. 2009, 29: 2274-2281. 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.015.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL, Golueke CG: Composting and recycling municipal solid waste. 1993, United State of America: Lewis PublishersGoogle Scholar
  18. Haug RT: Compost engineering: principles and practice. 1980, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  19. Benito M, Masaguer A, Moliner A: Chemical and microbial parameters for the characterization of the stability and maturity of pruning waste compost. Biol Fert Soils. 2003, 37: 184-189.Google Scholar
  20. Tognetti C, Mazzarino MJ, Laos F: Improving the quality of municipal organic waste compost. Bioresour Technol. 2007, 98: 1067-1076. 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.04.025.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Viel M, Sayag D, Andrre L: Compost: production, quality and Use. Optimisation of agriculture industrial waste management through in-vessel composting. Edited by: Bertoldi I. 1987, M. Essex: Elsevier Applied Sciences, 230-237.Google Scholar
  22. Bishop PL, Godfrey C: Nitrogen transformations during sludge composting. BioCycle. 1983, 24: 34-39.Google Scholar
  23. Bernal MP, Paredes C, Sánchez-Monedero MA, Cegarra J: Maturity and stability parameters of compost prepared with a wide range of organic wastes. Bioresour Technol. 1998, 63: 91-99. 10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00084-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Goyal S, Dkull SK, Kapoor KK: Chemical and biological changes during composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity. Bioresour Technol. 2005, 96: 1584-1891. 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.12.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Polprasert C: Organic waste recycling. Technology and management. 1996, West Sussex, England: IWA PublishingGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiquia SM, Wan JHC, Tam NFY: Extracellular enzyme profiles during co- composting of poultry manure and yard trimmings. Process Biochem. 2001, 36: 813-820. 10.1016/S0032-9592(00)00281-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Perkinson R, Gibbs P, Burchett S, Misselbrook T: Effect of turning regime and seasonal weather conditions on nitrogen and phosphorus losses during aerobic composting of cattle manure. Bioresour Technol. 2004, 91: 171-178. 10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00174-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Ogunwande GA, Osunade JA, Adekalu KO, Ogunjimi LAO: Nitrogen loss in chicken litter compost as affected by carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning frequency. Bioresour Technol. 2008, 99: 7495-7503. 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.020.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Vourinen AH, Saharinen MH: Evolution of microbiological and chemical parameters during manure and straw co-composting in a drum composting system. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1997, 66: 19-29. 10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00069-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sommer SG: Effect of composting on nutrient loss and nitrogen availability of cattle deep litter. Eur J Agron. 2001, 14: 123-133. 10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00087-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Iyengar SR, Bhave PP: In-vessel composting of household wastes. Waste Manag. 2005, 26: 1070-1080.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Tai HS, He WH: A novel composting process for plant wastes in Taiwan military barracks. Resour Conserv Recy. 2007, 51: 408-417. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.10.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Md Sabiani NH, Asaari F: Kajian perbandingan kualiti kompos daripada sisa tanaman menggunakan pelbagai kaedah pengkomposan. 2004, Pulau Pinang: Universiti Sains MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  34. Paré T, Dinel H, Schnitzer M: Extractability of trace metals during co-composting of biosolids and municipal solid wastes. Biol Fert Soils. 1999, 29: 31-37. 10.1007/s003740050521.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Brinton WF: Compost quality standards & guidelines: an international view (final report). 2000, New York: Woods End Research Laboratory, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Gorski R, Kleiber T: Effect of effective microorganisms (EM) on nutrient content in substrate and development and yielding of roses (Rosa x hybrida) and gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii). Ecol Chem Eng. 2010, 17: 506-512.Google Scholar
  37. Whittle AJ, Dyson AJ: The fate of heavy metals in green waste composting. Environmentalist. 2002, 22: 13-21. 10.1023/A:1014563807198.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Kabata-Pendias A, Kabata F: Trace element in solid and plant. 1992, Florida: CRC PressGoogle Scholar


For further details log on website :
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...