Advertisement

Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 1821–1831 | Cite as

Bioconversion of Residue Biomass from a Tropical Homestead Agro-Ecosystem to Value Added Vermicompost by Eudrilus Species of Earthworm

  • George V. ThomasEmail author
  • Ancy E. Mathew
  • Grace Baby
  • M. K. Mukundan
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Homestead farming systems generate in addition to the economic produce, huge quantities of diverse agro-wastes, which are resources containing significant levels of plant nutrients and organic carbon. This biomass resource is either grossly underutilized or completely unutilized, posing disposal or environmental problems. To utilize these organic wastes effectively, a study was undertaken on bioconversion of residue biomass with different characteristics to value added vermicompost for use in crop production.

Methods

Physico-chemical characteristics of residue biomass were determined. Vermicomposting experiment was carried out with residue biomass from 14 crops/trees taken individually and cow dung in the ratio of 10:1 using an indigenous epigeic earthworm belonging to Eudrilus species. Quality and maturity parameters of vermicompost obtained were assessed.

Results

The bioconversion efficiency and the earthworm multiplication varied significantly among the residue biomass of different crops/trees. The biomass materials from banana, arecanut palm, coconut palm, rubber, teak, and cassava plants as well as weeds were vermicomposted with a conversion efficiency of > 60%. During the vermi-stabilization process, carbon loss was < 20% from the residues of rubber and mango and > 50% from residues of teak, banana, wild jack fruit tree, coconut palm and cocoa. Bioconversion resulted in an increase in pH, electrical conductivity and major plant nutrients (N, P) while C:N and C:P ratios decreased in all crop residues. Significant relationship between major plant nutrients in crop residues with maturity parameters of vermicompost was demonstrated.

Conclusion

Vermi-stabilization holds promise as a biological tool for management of residues of crops/trees in homestead farming system. However, certain residues were not efficiently converted to vermicompost and might require pretreatments or mixing of residues to achieve higher efficiency of bioconversion.

Keywords

Bioconversion Ligno-cellulosic biomass Homestead farming Earthworms Eudrilus Vermicomposting Vermicompost quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Kerala for funding the Emeritus Scientist Scheme on “Bioconversion of residues from major crops of Kerala and food processing to value added organic resource for sustainable farming” in which this work was carried out. We are grateful to the Director, Council for Food Research and Development, Konni, Kerala for providing facilities to carry out this work. We also thank Mr. C. H. Amarnath, Formerly Technical Officer, ICAR-CPCRI Kasaragod for statistical analysis of the data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G., Swift, M.J.: Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science. 277(5325), 504–509 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smil, V.: Crop residues: agriculture’s largest harvest. BioSci. 49, 299–308 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sidhu, A.S., Sekhon, N.K., Thind, S.S., Hira, G.S.: Residue management for sustainable crop production in summer moong–maize–wheat sequence. J. Sust. Agric. 22(2), 43–54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adi, A.J., Noor, Z.M.: Waste recycling: utilization of coffee grounds and kitchen waste in vermicomposting. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 1027–1030 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvarenga, P., Clarisse, M., Farto, M., Palma, P., Sengo, J., Morais, M.-C., Cunha-Queda, C.: Quality assessment of a battery of organic wastes and composts using maturity, stability and enzymatic parameters. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 7, 455–465 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris, G.D., Platt, W.L., Price, B.C.: Vermicomposting in a rural community. BioCycle. 31(1), 48–51 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Logsdon, G.: Worldwide progress in vermicomposting. BioCycle. 35(10), 63–65 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prabhu, S.R., Subramanian, P., Biddappa, C.C., Bopaiah, B.M.: Prospects of improving coconut productivity through vermiculture technologies. Indian Coconut J. 29, 79–84 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gopal, M., Gupta, A., Thomas, G.V.: Opportunity to sustain coconut ecosystem service through recycling of the palms leaf litter as vermicompost: Indian Scenario. Coconut Res. Dev. (CORD). 26(2), 42–55 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas, G.V., Palaniswami, C., Gopal, M., Gupta, A.: Recycling coconut leaf-agro wastes mixture using Eudrilus sp. and growth promotion properties of coconut leaf vermicompost. Int. J. Innov. Hort. 1(2), 113–118 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chatterjee, R., Bandyopadhyay, S., Jana, J.C.: Evaluation of vegetable wastes recycled for vermicomposting and its response on yield and quality of carrot (Daucus carota L.)., Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-014-0060-4 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandes, E.C.M., Nair, P.K.R.: An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical home gardens. Agric. Syst. 21, 279–310 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacob, J., Joy, M.: Integrated approach towards coconut-based farming systems. In: Thampan, P. K., Vasu, K. I. (eds.) Coconut for rural welfare, pp. 109–116. Asian and Pacific Coconut Community, Jakarta (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swaminathan, M.S.: The promise of agro-forestry for ecological and nutritional security. In: Steppler, H. A., Nair, P. K. R. (eds.) Agroforestry: a decade of development, pp. 25–41. International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peter, K.V., Prasada Rao, G.S.L.V.: Homestead farming in the warm humid. Kerala Calling 2005, 30–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walkley, A., Black, I.A.: An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37, 29–37 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kjeldahl, J.: A new method for the estimation of nitrogen in organic compounds. Z Anal. Chem. 22, 366 (1883)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bray, R.H., Kurtz, L.T.: Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 59, 39–45 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanway, J.J., Heidel, H.: Soil analysis method as used in Iowa state college soil testing laboratory. Iowa State Coll. Agric. 57, 1–31 (1952)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zucconi, F., Pera, A., Forte, M., de Bertoldi, M.: Evaluating toxicity of immature compost. BioCycle. 22, 54–57 (1981)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suthar, S.: Nutrient changes and biodynamics of epigeic earthworm during recycling of some agricultural wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 1608–1614 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haimi, J., Huhta, V.: Comparison of composts produced from identical wastes by vermistabilization and conventional composting. Pedobiology. 30(2), 137–144 (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fares, F., Albalkhi, A., Dec, J., Bruns, M.A., Bollag, J.M.: Physicochemical characteristics of animal and municipal wastes decomposed in arid soils. J. Environ. Qual. 34(4), 1392–1403 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma, S.: Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresour. Technol. 90(2), 169–173 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jadia, C.D., Fulekar, M.H.: Vermicomposting of vegetable waste: a bio-physicochemical process based on hydro-operating bioreactor. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 7(20), 3723–3730 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raghavendra, M.A., Bano, K.: Studies on the manorial value of vermicompost from different green leaves. Curr. Res. 30(3/4), 35–37 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kale, R.D.: Earthworms: nature’s gift for utilization of organic waste. In: Edwards, C.A. (ed.) Earthworm ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dominguez, J.: State-of-the-art and new perspectives on vermicomposting research. In: Edwards, C.A. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, 2nd ed., pp. 401–424. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bernal, M.P., Alburquerque, J.A., Moral, R.: Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment—a review. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 5444–5453 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bansal, S., Kapoor, K.K.: Vermicomposting of crop residues and cattle dung with Eisenia foetida. Bioresour. Technol. 73(2), 95–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chauhan, A., Joshi, P.C.: Composting of some dangerous and toxic weeds using Eisenia fetida. J. Am. Sci. 6, 1–6 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tognetti, C., Mazzarino, M.J., Laos, F.: Composting biosolids and municipal organic waste: effects of process management on stabilization and quality. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 43, 387–397 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghosh, G.N., Chattopadhyay, K., Bara, l.: Transformation of phosphorus during vermicomposting. Bioresour. Technol. 69, 149–154 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manyuchi, M.M., Phiri, A., Muredzi, P., Chitambwe, T.: Comparison of vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers from vermicomposting waste corn pulp. Int. J. Biol. Biomol. Agric. Food Biotechnol. Eng. 7(6), 389–392 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blouin, M., Hodson, M.E., Delgado, E.A., Baker, G., Brussaard, L., Butt, K.R., Dai, J., Dendooven, L., Peres, G., Tondoh, J.E., Cluzeau, D., Brun, J.J.: A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 64, 161–182 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jouquet, E.P., Bloquel, E., Thu, D.T., Ricoy, M., Orange, D., Rumpel, C., Tran, D.T.: Do compost and vermicompost improve macronutrient retention and plant growth in degraded tropical soils? Compost. Sci. Util. 19, 15–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Degefe, G., Mengistou, S., Mohammed, S.: Physico chemical evaluation of coffee husk, wastes of enset (Enset ventricosum), vegetable and khat (Catha edulis) through vermicomposting employing an epigeic earthworm Dendrobaena veneta (Rosa, 1886). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 15(20), 884–890 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suthar, S., Singh, S.: Vermicomposting of domestic waste by using two epigeic earthworms (Perionyx excavatus and Perionyx sansibaricus. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5(1), 99–106 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ananthakrishnasamy, S., Gunasekaran, S., Manimegala, G.: Fly ash-lignite waste management through vermicomposting by indigenous earthworms Lampito mauritii. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 5, 720–724 (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Song, X., Liu, M., Wu, D., Griffiths, B.S., Jiao, J., Li, H., Hu, F.: Interaction matters: synergy between vermicompost and PGPR agents improves soil quality, crop quality and crop yield in the field. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 89, 25–34 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Edward, C.A.: The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of organic wastes. In: Edward, C.A. (ed.) Earthworm ecology, pp. 327–354. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    CCQC: Compost maturity index. California Compost Quality Council, Nevada City (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morais, F.M.C., Queda, C.A.C.: Study of storage influence on evaluation of stability and maturity properties of MSW compost. In Advances for a sustainable Society Part II: proceedings of the fourth international conference of ORBIT association on biological processing of organics, Perth, Australia, 2003Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hand, P., Hayes, W.A., Frankland, J.C., Satchell, J.E.: The vermicomposting of cow slurry. Pedobiology. 3, 199–209 (1988)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yan, C.H., Ahmed, O.H., Kassim, S., Majid, N.M.A.: Co-composting of pineapple leaves and chicken manure slurry. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2, 23–31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Arancon, N., Pant, A., Radovich, T.J.K., Potter, J.K. and. Converse, C.E.: Seed germination and seedling growth of tomato and lettuce as affected by vermicompost water extracts (teas). HortScience. 47(12), 1722–1728 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., Greytak, S.: Effects of vermicompost teas on plant growth and disease. Biocycle. 47, 28–31 (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gopal, M., Gupta, A., Sunil, E., Thomas, G.V.: Amplification of plant beneficial microbial communities during conversion of coconut leaf substrate to vermicompost by Eudrilus sp. Curr. Microbiol. 59, 15–20 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Savy, D., Cozzolino, V., Vinci, G., Nebbioso, A., Piccolo, A.: Water-soluble lignins from different bioenergy crops stimulate the early development of maize (Zea mays L.). Molecules. 20, 19958–19970 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Savy, D., Cozzolino, V., Antonio, N., Drosos, M., Nuzzo, A., Mazzei, P., Piccolo, A.: Humic-like bioactivity on emergence and early growth of maize (Zea mays L.) of water-soluble lignins isolated from biomass for energy. Plant Soil. 402, 221–233 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • George V. Thomas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ancy E. Mathew
    • 1
  • Grace Baby
    • 1
  • M. K. Mukundan
    • 1
  1. 1.Council for Food Research and DevelopmentKonniIndia

Personalised recommendations