Bernat Juanós, Carles

Casado, D.

Fernando, C.

Paulet, S.

Pujolà Cunill, Montserrat

Soliva Torrentó, Montserrat

English

UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC

Publicat al llibre d'actes de 9thWorkshop of the Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial residues inAgriculture1COMPOST, MANURE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE APPLIED TO A CROP ROTATIONBERNAT, C.; CASADO, D.; FERRANDO, C.; PAULET, S.; PUJOL, M.; SOLIVA, M.Escola Superior d’Agricultura de BarcelonaComte d’Urgell, 187  -  08036 BARCELONAABSTRACTThe disposal of organic wastes specially from urban origin is a very serious problem. The recycling throughagriculture is certainly one of the best solutions but it means a thorough control of the composition and dosesapplied, as well as the response of the crops, in production and quality. In this paper we deal with compost ofsolid urban residues, sewage sludge, and cow manure as a known reference, on a crop rotation of barley, rapeseed, wheat and sorghum. The experience is planned on the basis of N crop needs, considering that manure andcompost mineralize 60% the first year and 40% the second after their application, while sewage sludge does it75% and 25%. Crop composition has not shown any significant difference between treatments, and a rather highproduction increase comparing with the testimony plot.INTRODUCTIONWithin the frame of two CICYT research projects (AMB 92-0577 and AGF 06-0966) theDepartment of Agronomy of the Escola Superior d’Agricultura de Barcelona (ESAB), hasdone several experiences of comparative application of three organic wastes (manure,compost and sewage sludge) in horticultural and extensive crop rotations in order to detectbehaviour differences and to be able to define how to use and dosify them. There is, at this moment, an special interet in the application of organic wastes onsoils in order to facilitate their management. It seems, again, necessary to recover oldapplication and dosage systems, employed years ago, but taking into account their greatvariation in composition, and the present environmental legislation (BOE 262, 1990; ECCDirective, 91/676; Llei Reguladora de Residus, 1993; BOE 131, 1998)MATERIALS AND METHODS Experience design. The plot in which we have worked (875 m2) is located in the ESABexperimental farm, in a zone of alluvial indifferentiated terraces. Soil  is sandy loam andbelongs to a xerochreft (Josa et al., 1984). Table 1 shows the soil general characteristics at thebeginning of the experience. 7 treatments were applied with 4 repetitions in a random blocksdesign. These treatments correspond to a testimony (T), a treatment with only a mineralfertilizer (M), two treatments with compost (HDC and LDC), two with cow  manure (HDMand LDM) and one with sewage sludge (LDS).The fertilization, for the different treatments, was planned on the following propositions andhypothesis:· waste dosage would be calculated on the basis of crops N needs;· some treatments, considered high dose (HD) would supply all N needed from the differentorganic wastes;· other treatments, considered low dose (LD) would supply 50% of N from the wastes andthe other half as a mineral fertilizer;Publicat al llibre d'actes de 9thWorkshop of the Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial residues inAgriculture2·  the needed quantities of P and K not supplied by wastes would be completed with mineralfertilizer;· we consider that manure and compost would mineralise 60% the first year and 40% thesecond while sewage sludge would do it 75% and 25%. Former experiences have detecteda higher mineralisation of sewage sludge compared with manure and compost;· to calculate the fertilizing dose of 2nd and 3rd crops we considered the residual effects ofthe former waste applications, as said in previous hypothesis;· mineralised N in periods between crops is supposed to be lost by leaching;These propositions and hypothesis might be disputable and too simple, but the idea was toplan experiences in order to facilitate comparisons and balances.The crops on rotation are barley, rape seed, wheat and sorghum. The experience hasbeen planned on the basis of N crop needs. The last crop (sorghum) did no receive anyfertilization Materials. Manure came from the cow shed of the ESAB experimental farm (cow manure,chosen as a positive and well known comparison material) ; the sewage sludge, from theresidual urban waters depuration plant; and the compost from the two different compostingplants (Mataró that works with non selected MSW and Torrelles de Llobregat which treats theorganic fraction (OF) of municipal solid wastes (MSW) proceeding from selective collection).There are important differences between wastes in the following parameters: water content,electric conductivity, organic, ammoniacal and non hydrolyzable N, stability level, nutrientsand heavy metal content. Regarding these, the levels are within acceptable limits according tothe spanish present legislation (BOE 131, 1998 and 3rd draft of CEE working document onsludge). It is necesary to point out that the Mataró MSW compost  besides being very littlestabilized  has a higher content of heavy metals. It presents, as well, lower contents of organicmatter and plant nutrients.Figure 1 shows the applied dose of organic wastes. The total amount of residues tosupply depends on their N content and their humidity. The manure amounts have been biggerbecause of their higher water content. This affects the transport and the spreading.Figure 2 shows the total amount of heavy metals applied along the rotation. Thetreatments HDC and SSLD supply the higher quantities. Figure 3 shows the amounts of heavymetals applied along the rotation in HDC treatment; it is clearly seen that the higher supplycorresponds to barley for two reasons: in the first crop, the supply was higher and it had aworse quality because the compost applied was from Mataró. Methods. Residues were weighted in the field and hand spread, and buried with a rotarycultivator. We must point out the greater facility of compost spreading due to its granulometryand low water content.Representative samples of soil were taken before wastes applications and at the end ofthe crops to analyze the general characteristics and total contents of heavy metals. Samples ofthe crops were taken in order to determine the production and to make the correspondinganalysis.RESULTSPublicat al llibre d'actes de 9thWorkshop of the Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial residues inAgriculture3 Regarding soil. The soil initial and final general characteristics are shown in table 1. Figure4, shows the changes in organic matter content of the soils of different treatments. We mustpoint out the small differences in the final content of OM, and that this content is significantlyhigher in the MHD treatment. As we thought treatments M and T present lower values. Asignificative increase has appeared in the assimilable P levels in the MHD treatment, but no inthe K levels, even if there are important increases in MHD and M treatments.Table 2 illustrates the heavy metals contents at the end of the rotation compared withthe mean values of the soil at the beginning. No significative differences have been found. Regarding crop production. In figure 5 we find the grain production results of the firstthree crops. Shorgum is not included as we controlled the whole plant production, whichoscilated between 21 (T treatment) and 29 ton/ha (MLD and CHD). Such a high productionseems due to irrigation.Differences in production have been very much related to climate conditions, and tothe fact of having had, or not, irrigation. The testimony, as it was thought, has had a clearlydecreasing production. The mineral fertilizer application, in the correct moment, has had agreat influence in the rape seed, in which the higher production corresponds to treatment M.In this study we have had a special interest in the behaviour of the N coming from thedifferent wastes, and how to calculate doses.  For this, we have taken into account the residualeffect of each application and its influence in future crops. Figure 6 shows, as an example, theorigin of N received by wheat; we must point out the important amounts from the precedingcrop (rape seed) in treatments CHD and MHD.Regarding grain composition. Due to length limitations Table 3 shows only the graincomposition of the rape seed. For wheat, little differences have been found in N content, withhigher values in treatments M and SSLD, which we relate with the more assimilable forms ofthe applied N. For rape seed the differences found between treatments are smaller, beingspecially low the value of the grain of T treatment. In wheat significative differences haveappeared amongst which the higher values for treatments SSLD and lower values fortreatments T y CHD. We suppose that CHD treatment has mineralized less N than expected.No differences have been found for P and K contents. For rape seed we studied the oil contentin seeds, founding differences significatively higher for the T and MHD treatments which werelate with the lower N contents.Table 4 shows the heavy metals levels in the grain of the same crop and it is possibleto observe no significant differences. From grain analysis and production we made theextractions calculations to estimate their relation with the hypothesis of mineralization.Figures 7a, b, and c, compare the extractions of Nitrogen of the first three crops withorganic and mineral  nitrogen applied or estimated for three treatments.TRANSPORT, HANDLING AND SPREADINGThe great problem is, now, if the farmers, in general, will accept the use of these residues as anormal part of their agronomic practice. On one hand, we know it is more “easy” to rely onchemical fertilizer; we have mentioned, also, the normal scarcity of organic matter in most ofour soils and there is no doubt about the need of O.M. for the correct management of a soil.At this moment we know several examples of modified manure spreaders (with four, or evensix, vertical axis distributors at the far end of the box, two rotating plates of large diameter atPublicat al llibre d'actes de 9thWorkshop of the Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial residues inAgriculture4the bottom of those and a good hydraulically driven transportation chain) which are doing aquite satisfactory job.An important part of the job is handling the material: discharging, keeping it for a timewithout generating problems, charging the spreader. It is not very complicate but it needs acertain amount of space for maneuvers, a consistent pavement and an efficient system foreffluent recovery, and this, of course, has a cost.For transportation the cost is, mainly, a matter of distance, but also, if the most appro-priate lorries are used, for quite a number of hours or kilometers per year, the cost can be kept“reasonable”. If we consider the general structure of most, or many, of our farms, their size orconditions do not allow them to consider, on their own, to have the appropriate material forthis operation. The ones that could do it, or that have the materials needed, are the dairyfarms, for example, and they have their own OM. If the farm has to set the premises and buythe machinery, in most cases, the cost would be too high. An if they try to save on machineryor installations their rate of work will be much lower thus increasing the operation cost.The only, or one of the possible, solutions seems to be to offer the farmers the product“spread on field”. There are some contractors, and some composting plants directly, that offerthis service. They can have a certain amount of help from administrations and can reach lowenough prices by means of scale economy.CONCLUSIONSThe different characteristics presented by the wastes employed do affect the application dosesand the velocity of nitrogen mineralizationThe behaviour detected for the different treatments seems to confirm different mineralizationvelocities for the three materials and certainly different of the one estimated for compost.The effects on soil appear in parameters such as OM, P and K content, mainly in the manuretreatments. There are no significative differences in heavy metals content.The differences found in production are more due to the crop conditions than to the differenttreatments. No important differences in grain composition have been detected, mainly inheavy metal content.In order to facilitate the correct use of this kind of materials more should be studied of theircharacteristics and their behaviour, besides the possibility to keep their composition within areasonable rank. The interest for the farmers to apply these wastes will depend greatly on their being offeredat a reasonable cost, considering transport, handling and spreading.REFERENCESALMANSA,M. 2000. Valoració del comportamnet de residus orgànics mitjançant incubació i aplicació en unarotació de cultius extensius. PFC. ETSEA de Lleida.BOE  nº 131.1998 Orden de 22 de mayo de 1998 sobre fertilizantes y afines.pp 18028-18072.BOE nº 262, 1990. Real Decreto 261/1996, del 29 d’octubre, por lo que se regula la utilización de los lodos dedepuradora en el sectro agrario. MAPA. Madrid.Publicat al llibre d'actes de 9thWorkshop of the Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial residues inAgriculture5CASADO, D.; FERRANDO, C. 1999. Influència de l’aplicació de residus orgànics (compost de R.S.U., fangs dedepuradora i fems de vaquí) sobre el sòl i sobre un cultiu de blat. TFC. ESAB.DIRECTIVA DEL CONSEJO de 26 de abril  de 1999, relativa al vertido de residuos (1999/31/CE).FERNÁNDEZ,M. 2000. Mineralització del Nitrogen de residus orgànics  amb diferents  graus de maduresa.TFC.ESAB.JOSA,R., A. HERETER, J.BECH. 1984. Els sòls de la finca Torre Marimón: exemple d'un estudi de sòls en el VallèsOccidental. Arxius ESAB.6.LLEI 6/1993 reguladora de residus DOGC 1776-28-7-1993.pp5249-5261NAVARRO,M., PUJOLA,M., SOLIVA,M., GARAU,MA. 1989  Nitrogen mineralization study in compost. ActaHorticulturae, 302.PAULET S. 1999. Composició de l’ordi i de la colza segons tipus d’adobament (mineral i/o orgànic). TFC.ESAB.Table 1. General characteristics of initialand final soil of different treatments.Treatments pH EC,dS/M% OM ppm P Olsenppm KSolubleInitial soil 8,1-8,2 101-109  1,9-2.0 22-27 50-65CHD 8,17 a   115 b   2,06 ab 38,0 b 82 aCLD 8,14 a   115 b   2,17 ab 36,2 b 84 aMHD 8,13 a   122 ab    2,28 a 54,9 a 109 aMLD 8,19 a   135 a   2,00 ab 38,6 b 96 aSSLD 8,01 a 127 ab   1,98 ab 39,9 b 94 aM 8,15 a 127 ab 1,85 b 35,9 b 112 aT 8,20 a    98  c 1,82 b 27,5 c 54 bTable 3. Macronutrients content in rapeseed oil.Treatments % N %P % K %OilCHD  2,97 ab  0,71 ab 0,75 a 39,6 bCLD  2,96 ab  0,69 ab 0,68 a 40,1 bMHD 2,74 b   0,73 a 0,73 a 43,8 aMLD 3,17 a  0,71 ab 0,75 a  40,7 abSSLD 3,15 a  0,70 ab 0,71 a  40,9 abM 3,16  a 0,66  b 0,71  a 38,2 bT 2,62 b  0,72 ab 0,69 a 44,1 aTable 2.  Heavy metals level (ppm) in thesoils of different treatments at the end ofthe extensive crop rotation.Treatments Cu Cr ppb Cd Ni Zn PbCHD 19 a 7 b 139 a 6 a 59 a 12 aCLD 19 ab 7 b 125 b 6 a 55 a 12 aMHD 18 ab 7 b 125 b 6 a 54 a 12 aMLD 18 ab 7 b 117 b 6 a 53 a 12 aSSLD 19 ab 9 a 148 a 6 a 54 a 12 aM 18 ab 8 b 123 b 6 a 53 a 11 aT 17 b 7 b 121 b 6 a 52 a 11 aInitial soil 17 7 140 6 44 12Table 4. Heavy metal content (ppm on drymatter) in wheat grain.Treatments Zn Cu Cr Ni Pb Cd (ppb)CHD 21 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.9 a 0.5 a <50 aCLD 22 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.7 a 0.5 a <50 aMHD 22 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.8 a 0.5 a <50 aMLD 24 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.8 a 0.5 a <50 aSSLD 23 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.9 a 0.5 a <53 aM 21 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.9 a 0.5 a <50 aT 18 a 5 a <0.5 a 0.9 a 0.5 a <50 a020406080100120140160kg/ha1 2 3 4 5 6Figure 7a: Amount and form of N application in the CLD020406080100120140160kg/ha1 2 3 4 5 6Figure 7b: Amount and form of N application in the MLD61. Total organic N 2. Organic hydrolysable N3. Mineral N applied with residue 4. Mineral fertilizer N5. Organic N we estimated to have been mineralized6. N extracted. CLD; Compost Low Dose. MLD;Manure Low Dose; SSLD; Sewage Sludge Low Dose.020406080100120140160k g / h a1 2 3 4 5 6Figure 7c: Amount and form of N application in the SSLD6Figure 1. Supply of residues along therotation, expressed in terms of fresh anddry matter.Figure 3. Total estimated supply of heavymetals along the extensive crops rotation inthe CHD treatment.0200040006000800010000Zn Cu Cr Ni Pb Cdg/haBarley Rape seed WheatFigure 5. Grain production for thedifferent studied crops, in kg per ha.Figure 2. Total estimated supply of heavymetals along the extensive crops rotation.0200040006000800010000CHD CLD MHD MLD SSLD MTreatmentsg/haZn Cu Cr Ni Pb CdFigure 4. Evolution of OM content alongthe extensive crops rotation00,511,522,5CHD CLD MHD MLD SSLD M TTreatmentsOM%Final OM% Initial OM%Figure 6. Origin of the organic N suppliedto wheat, in %.0%20%40%60%80%100%CHD CLD MHD MLD SSLD MTreatments%Supply to barley Supply to rape seedSupply to wheat Mineral fertilisers0150003000045000600007500090000105000CHD CLD MHD MLD SSLDTreatmentsKg of residue/haFresh matter Dry matter010002000300040005000CHD CLD MHD MLD SSLD M TTreatmentsKg/haBarley Rape seed Wheat

Compost, manure and sewage sludge applied to a crop  rotation

UPCommons

https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/2117/9649/1/9thWorkshop%20of%20the%20Network%20on%20Recycling%20of%20Agricultural%2c%20Municipal%20and%20Industrial%20residues%20inagriculture.pdf

Compost, manure and sewage sludge applied to a crop rotation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC

UPCommons