MEKARN Conference 2010 |
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).
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 |