4 páginas, 1 figura, 4 tablas, 4 referencias.-- European Commission International Symposium.The recycling of the organic wastes from different industries could satisfy the increasing demand for organic materials in agriculture and horticulture.Peer reviewe

Cabrera, Francisco

Díaz Blanco, M. J.

López Núñez, Rafael

Madejón, Engracia

Murillo Carpio, José Manuel

Digital.CSIC

Sugarbeet Fertilization with Three (Sugarbeet) Vinasse Composts MADEJÓN, E.*, DÍAZ, M.J.**, LÓPEZ, R.**, MURILLo, J.M.** and CABRERA, E** 111e recycling of lhe organic wastes from different industñes could satisfy lhe increasing demand for organic materials in agriculmre and horticulmre. Beet molasses are used as raw material for production of alcohol by distilla-tion. For each litre of alcohol, nearly fifteen litres of a dark brown effluent known as vinasse are generated. 111e high salt content of lhe vinasse produced in lhe south of Spain limits its use for animal feeding. 111erefore the use of lhis waste as fertilc izer is being smdied at present (López et al., I 993).Vinasse has three major prob-lems for direct application as fertilizer. (i) high salt content (EC 250-300 dS m21), (ii) low P content (PPs 0.012%) and (iii) its liquid dense character (I.3g cm23). 111ese problems may be overeome through lhe co-composting of vinasse with agrio culmraJ-solid wastes, thus obtaining a compost which can be used as fertilizer. In this paper, the effect of deep fertilization with three vinasse composts as an alternative to traditional mineral fertilizer on sugarbeet is considered. Nutñtional staros, yield and quality of sugarbeet cultivated in a sandy loam soil fertilized with three vinasse composts and a mineral fertilizer were compared. Three mixrures of vinasse and agriculmral solid wastes were co-composted in static piles with foreed aeraiion during four monlhs. The initial proportion of solid wastes and vinasse were: Compost O: grape marc (82%) + sugarbeet factory lime (1 %) + vinasse (17%); Compost O: olive pressed cake (76%) + sugarbeet fac-tory lime (1 %) + leonardite (6%) + vinasse (17%); Compost C: conon gin trash (47%) + sugarbeet factory lime (l %) + leonardite (3%) + vinasse (49%). 111e chemica! anal ysis of lhe three composts is shown in Table 1. Sorne relevant characteristics of lhe soH at two different deptbs (20 and 40 cm) are givén in Table 2. Field experiments were carried out in duplicated plots of 10 X 15 rn, in which five treatrnc;nts were tested. Each plot were subdivided in four subplots from where plants anil roots samples were taken.111e following doses for treatrnents were applied: TG 14,000 kg ha- I ofO; TO 22,000 kg ha- I ofO, TC 15,000 kg ha- I of C; TF 600 kg ha- I of a 9-18-27 N-P-K mineral fertilizer. Treatrnents TO and TC\vere comp1emented )Vilh 158 and 122-x:g ha-1 ofPp5 as superphosphaIe, respectiVe1y>A treatrnent, TB, without fertilization was used as control AH treatrnents, except TB, received two top dressings of urea (46% N), -,". . . EBRO AGRICOLAS S.A. Apdo. 9,41300 S. José de la Rinconada, Sevilla, Spain. Instituto de Recursos Natumlcs y Agrobiologla de Scdlla (CSIC). Apdo. 1052, 41080 Sevilla, Spaln. 1212 THE SClENCE OF CDMPQSTlNG equivalentto 2 x 90 kg ha -l. Sugarbeet c.v. Taurus was the test variety used fOl the experimenL Plant material was collected at 33 and 164 days after sowing. Mineral elements in leaves were analyzed acording to Jones et al., (1990). The data were analyzed by ANOVA and fue differences between treatments were como pared by Tukey's test. Table 1 Chemical composiricn of ¡he compost (Oven-dry basis) COMPOST G O e Moisture % 31 25 18 N-Kjeldahl % 2.10 t.00 2.60 Plo5 % 0.70 0.13 0.28 K20 % 1.30 0.90 2.10 OM % 50 ·70 51 Ha % t.70 1.30 2.40 Ca % 2.80 1.90 1.30 Mg % 0.30 0.20 0.40 , C!N % 12 34 8.2 The nutrients contents in leaves at 33 days after fue sowing did not differ signifi-cantly arnong treatments (data not shown). The N, P, K, Ca, Mg and Ha contents in leaves at 164 days after fue sowing are shown in Table 3. The nutrient contents in composts and mineral fertilizer treatments were higher than for TB treatment. For the campost treatments. the sodium contents were similar to that of the mineral treatment, despite fue high Ha contents of the composts. Nutrient contents were within the usual ranges reported for similar climate conditions (Cantos, 1988). Table 2 Analytical characreristics of lhe soil DEPTH(cm) PARAMETERS 0-20 20-40 Sand (%) 79.4 81.3 Silt (%) 10.6 9.7 CIay (%) 10 9 pH (H,O) 8.1 8.2 CaCO) (%) 8.8 7.2 OM (%) 0.8 Kjeldahi-N rngkg- I 676 675 Available-P mgkg- I 16 Available-K rngkg- I 175 205 , Sugarbeet root yields for all treatments are shown in Figure 1. There was an apparent treatment effect on sugarbeet root yield. Plots fertilized wifu eifuer of fue composts or fue miperal fertilizer gave significantly higher yieJds !han plots wifu-out fertilization .. For treatments TG, Te and TF, sugarbeet roo! yields were three-fold higher !han for treatmen! TB, while the sugarbee! root for treatments ro was only two-fold higher fuan for treatmen! TB. No significan! differences on sugar-beet root yield were observed between each of fue three campos! treatments and .. , ., SUGARBEET FEIml.lVJION 1213 lhe mineral fertilizer treatment. The production of sugar followed lhe same pattem, where lhe highest sugar production was obtained for treatment TG (Figure 1). Parameters indicating the quality of sugarbeet juice for sugar production were determined following tbe standard metbods of tbe British Sugar Company (Table4). Table 3 Nutritional content in the ear leafat 164 days afrer the sowing TREATMENTS ·N P K Ha Ca Mg % % % % % % TB 3.93 a 033 a . 3.30 a 281a 1.11 a 0.90 a TG 4.83 e OA1 e 4.34c 3.68b 1.28 a 1.41 e TO 4.60 be 0.37 ab 4.53 ab 437c 1.13 a 1.08b TC 4.88 e 0.40 be 3.94 be 432 e 1.03 a 133c TF 4.53 be' 038 be 4.09 be 4.08c LIl a 1.18 b Values following by the same letter in the sane colwrm do. DOI differ signjficant1y (P < 0.05). Table 4 Sugarbeet quaJity '. . TREATMENTS Red.sugar* Sugar Na K et-aminoacid % % meq/lOOg meq/lOOg meq/lOOg TB 0.17a 15.9a 2.67 a 5.71 a 0.55 a TG 0.I5a 15.8a 3.07 a 6.41 be 1.45 ab TO 0.18 a 163 a 2.71 a 5.79 ab 1.30 ab TC 0.16a 16.6a 3.01 a 7.01 e 2.01 b TF 0.14a 16.6 a 3.50 a 6.6Oc 2.06b Values following by the sane lener in lhe sane column do nol differ significantly (P < 0.05). ,.. Reducing sugar. ?' " . ' .. -" Ji 60000 ~ 40000 c:::JSugarl>eet roo! IiI!il'iEiI' Suga< b 20000 • •• a TItOImeDI ;; . : :." :FI~ l· Yieldof sugaIbeet root and $UPr for the diffr:rmr: trc:atmentso Means of data colwnns roe' . each yield witb samc 1eners are no< significanlly diff=nl (P ,0.05). . . . .... ,',',' ' .. ,. . . . .; 1214 mE SClENCE OF COMPOSTING There were not signifieant differenees among trealment on the pereentage of redueing sugar, sugar and Ha eontents in beet rool. For trealments TG, TC and TF,!he K eontents were signifieantly higher than for TB. The negative influenee !hat high N fertilization may produce on the teehnolog-ieal sugarbeet quality (Drayeott, et al., 1977) was not apparent sinee the a-aminoacid contents for composts and mineral fertilizer treatments were lower than the normal value (6.4 meq/lOOg) for sugarbeet under similar climate eonditions (Cantos, 1988). Results highlighted the use of eompost as an a1ternative of traditional mineral fertilizer. Compost of vinasse and agroindustrial wastes had not detrimental effeets on sugarbeet (yield, nutritional status and quality). Best results were observed for vinasse-grape mare eompos! (G). References , Cantos, M. (1988), Calidad tecnol6gica de la remolacha azucarera de siembra otoñal en la zona sur de Andalucía Occidental. Ph. D. University of Cardaba, Spain. Draycott, A.P., Durrant. MJ. and Last, PJ. (974). Effect offertilizers on sugnr beet quality. 1m. Sugar J. 76, 355-358. Iones. J.B.Jr .. Eck, H.V. y Voss. R. (1990). Plant analysis as ao aid in fertilizing sugarbeet. In Westermen. R.L. (ed.) 'SoU testing and plant analysis'. Chapo 16 Madison. SSSA. López, R., Cabrera, F. y Murillo. 1.M. (1993). Effect ofbeet vinasse on radish seeding emergence and fresh weight production. Acta Horticulture 335, 115-119. 

Sugarbeet fertilization with three (Sugarbeet) vinasse composts

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital.CSIC

Crossref