Back to Content

MEKARN Conference 2010
 
Live stock production, climate change and resource depletion

Effect of composts made from the wastes of animal production using microbial method on growth of maize grown in sandy soil

Nguyen Van Hung and Nguyen Tat Canh

Research Affairs and International Cooperation Office, Hanoi University of Agriculture
*
Faculty of Agronomy, Hanoi University of Agriculture
nvhungcatd@hua.edu.vn

 

Abstract

 

In Vietnam, more than 36% of agricultural soils were classified as light textured soil that have a low inherent nutrient supplying capacity, low organic matter content and limited water, fertilizer holding capacity, poor productive ability. To improve sandy soil, compost application has been recommended. Because adding compost to soil is one of the fastest ways to increase soil organic matter and improve soil quality. However, quality and effects of compost will greatly depend on the source materials and the management of the composting method. The research has carried out to determine the best kind of compost made from the wastes of animal production processed by the different methods and effect of applying compost on growth of  maize grown in sandy soil. Three experiments were conducted in Hanoi Univeristy of Agriculture in 2010. Experiment No1 and No2 were designed in split-plot with two factors: the source materials (Swine manure, cow manure, chicken manure), the composting methods (Earth worms, microbial method, thermophilic method) and three replications. LVN10  maize cultivar was used as test crops. The datas of decomposition speed of compost piles, nutritional contents of composts (N%, P2O5%, K2O%), the growing measurements such as plant height, leaf area, dry matter were recorded. Experiment No3 was designed in randomized complete block (RCBD) with five compost levels applied for  maize (0, 20, 40, 60, 80g/kg soil) and three replications. The growing parameters of  maize also were recorded. Soil samples before and after implementing the experiment were taken and analysed for nutritional contents. The research results showed that the different material sources had great effect on  incubation time, quality and effect of compost (table 1, 2). Composting time of cow manure and swine manure (40 days) were faster than composting time of chicken manure (60 days). The nutritional value gained the highest in chicken compost (N%: 0.69, P2O5%: 0.61, K2O%: 0.53), then swine compost (N%: 0.55, P2O5%: 0.31, K2O%: 0.21), and  the lowest in Cow compost (N%: 0.22, P2O5%: 0.15, K2O%: 0.65). The different composting methods also effected on incubation time as well as quality of compost (table 1, 2). The highest effect gained at microbial method which was on a par with earth worms. Thermophilic method had the lowest effect (long incubation time, lower nutritional contents). The similar conclusions also obtained when applied the different composts which processed from the different material sources applied the different composting methods for  maize grown in sandy soil (table 3). Compost application had good effect on growth of  maize grown in sandy soil such as increased plant height, leaf area, dry matter as well as improved fertile of sandy soil which were compared with control (non compost application). Suitable applied compost amount for  maize grown in sandy soil was 60g compost per kg soil corresponding with 120 tons compost/ha (Figure 1).  

Keywords: Compost, microbial method, thermophilic method, earth worms, maize, sandy soil

 


 

Table 1: Effect of the different composting methods and different manure sources on decomposing speed of compost pile

Order

Experimental formulas

 

Decomposing speed of compost pile (g/day) after composting day

10 days

20 days

30 days

40 days

50 days

60 days

I

Manure kind

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1

Swine

0.19

0.39

0.37

0.31

0.27

0.23

1.2

Cow

0.24

0.42

0.39

0.33

0.28

0.24

1.3

Chicken

0.09

0.14

0.15

0.17

0.20

0.18

 

LSD5%

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.008

0.007

0.02

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

II

Composting method

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1

EW (Earth worms)

0.14

0.29

0.29

0.27

0.25

0.22

2.2

TC (Thermophilic Composting)

0.13

0.27

0.26

0.23

0.24

0.20

2.3

EM (Preparation of EM solution)

0.24

0.41

0.36

0.30

0.26

0.22

 

LSD5%

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.008

0.007

0.02

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.41

III

Composting method * Manure

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.1

EW-Swine

0.16

0.38

0.37

0.33

0.28

0.23

3.2

EW-Cow

0.21

0.41

0.40

0.34

0.29

0.25

3.3

EW-Chicken

0.05

0.08

0.10

0.15

0.18

0.18

3.4

TC-Swine

0.14

0.31

0.32

0.27

0.24

0.21

3.5

TC-Cow

0.20

0.35

0.34

0.28

0.26

0.23

3.6

TC-Chicken

0.07

0.13

0.13

0.16

0.21

0.19

3.7

EM-Swine

0.26

0.49

0.41

0.32

0.28

0.24

3.8

EM-Cow

0.32

0.52

0.43

0.35

0.30

0.26

3.9

EM-Chicken

0.16

0.21

0.22

0.21

0.21

0.17

 

CV%

13.2

6.0

4.6

3.2

2.9

11.0

 

LSD5%

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.04

 

Prob

0.47

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.56

 

Table 2: Effect of the different composting methods and different manure sources on nutritional value of compost fertilizer

Order

Experimental formulas

DM(%)

N(%)

P2O5(%)

K2O(%)

I

Manure kind

 

 

 

 

1.1

Swine

32.2

0.55

0.31

0.21

1.2

Cow

28.6

0.22

0.15

0.65

1.3

Chicken

41.4

0.69

0.61

0.53

 

LSD5%

1.1

0.02

0.02

0.03

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

II

Composting method

 

 

 

 

2.1

EW (Earth worms)

33.6

0.52

0.39

0.51

2.2

TC (Thermophilic Composting)

37.4

0.41

0.33

0.37

2.3

EM (Preparation of EM solution)

31.2

0.54

0.35

0.51

 

LSD5%

1.1

0.02

0.02

0.03

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

III

Composting method * Manure

 

 

 

 

3.1

EW-Swine

32.4

0.63

0.35

0.26

3.2

EW-Cow

28.3

0.25

0.17

0.76

3.3

EW-Chicken

40.2

0.67

0.65

0.52

3.4

TC-Swine

35.4

0.44

0.27

0.16

3.5

TC-Cow

30.1

0.20

0.13

0.51

3.6

TC-Chicken

46.6

0.60

0.58

0.45

3.7

EM-Swine

28.8

0.57

0.31

0.21

3.8

EM-Cow

27.5

0.22

0.15

0.70

3.9

EM-Chicken

37.5

0.82

0.59

0.63

 

CV%

3.2

5.1

7.1

6.4

 

LSD5%

1.9

0.04

0.04

0.52

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.55

0.00

 

Table 3: The growing measurements of  maize applied with the different composts

 

Order

Formula

Height

(cm)

Leaf area

(cm2)

Dry weight

(g)

I

Manure kind

 

 

 

1.1

Swine

95.8

2465.6

31.6

1.2

Cow

76.0

2195.3

22.7

1.3

Chicken

110.7

2654.2

34.4

 

LSD5%

1.9

12.4

0.7

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

II

Composting method

 

 

 

2.1

EW (Earth worms)

97.9

2504.4

30.9

2.2

TC (Thermophilic Composting)

86.1

2296.4

26.6

2.3

EM (Preparation of EM solution)

98.4

2514.2

31.2

 

LSD5%

1.9

12.4

0.7

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

III

Composting method * Manure

 

 

 

3.1

EW-Swine

105.0

2572.5

34.5

3.2

EW-Cow

78.7

2245.8

24.1

3.3

EW-Chicken

110.0

2695.0

34.1

3.4

TC-Swine

85.3

2362.5

27.9

3.5

TC-Cow

72.0

2129.2

20.3

3.6

TC-Chicken

101.0

2397.5

31.5

3.7

EM-Swine

97.0

2461.7

32.4

3.8

EM-Cow

77.3

2210.8

23.7

3.9

EM-Chicken

121.0

2870.0

37.6

 

CV%

2.0

2.5

2.5

 

LSD5%

3.3

21.4

1.3

 

Prob

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

Figure 1