Compost from cashew leaf litter and cashew apple waste

Introduction

Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri districts were considered to include the maximum area and production of cashew in Maharashtra state. Cashew is an important plantation crop in sindhudurg and Ratnagiri district. Due to its high dietary value and increasing affordability by the consumers, demand for cashews many farmers in the sector are planting cashews. The present production of cashew is less which requires adopting new technology for improving productivity. In Cashew plantations a grown-up cashew tree produces huge cashew biomass waste per year (biomass waste -cashew leaf litter, pruning's, waste cashew apples, etc.). Disposal of waste has become one of the major complications for farmers. Natural decomposition of cashew biomass it will occur nearly 9 month due to the presence of many complex molecules like poly saccharides, Polyphenols, Amino compounds, lignin, etc. There is a chance of catching fire due to long time exposure to waste in the natural decomposition. Composting, a controlled process for stabilization of organic matter, can turn organic waste into a valuable soil amendment. Compost can return nutrients and organic matter to the soil, a proven practice for soil health enhancement. It can improve crop growth and provide environmental benefits by improving soil tilth and the soil's capacity to absorb and hold water and plant nutrients. A properly managed composting process can destroy weed seeds, plant pathogens, and human pathogens. Compost analysis helps assure buyers of bulk compost they are receiving good value for their money.

Materials and Methods

Cashew leaf litter available in cashew garden is collected before the Pre. Monsoon season during harvest of the crop. Cashew apple waste after extraction of juice was used for preparation of compost. It is heaped in a cement chamber constructed specially for the compost. Size of the Chamber was 2 m in length, 1 m in width and 1 m in height. Out of which 1 m height is equally divided into 6 layers of 15 cm each. At the base layer 5 Kg cashew leaf litter is spread evenly and to that cow dung slurry was sprinkled. The 15 litter cow dung slurry was prepared by mixing 10 kg of cow dung with 5 litter water. This 15 litter cow dung slurry was equally sprinkled on all the six layers. The second layer was filled with 50 kg cashew apple waste and cow dung slurry was sprinkled. The same set of these two layers is repeated thrice. At the same time the decomposition media was also spread in equal quantity in all the six layers. The seven different media were used in seven pits as per treatments. All the seven treatments were replicated thrice. In total one pit contains the total weight of 15 kg cashew leaf litter, 150 kg cashew apple waste and 15 kg cow dung slurry. Top of the material was covered with coconut leaves. After 45 days first turning of the biomass was done for uniform decomposition. After that turning was done weekly. In every turning water was sprinkled to wet the biomass. The compost was removed after complete decomposition. The period required for decomposition was differ as per the treatments from 118 to 146 days accordingly.

Results and Discussion

Initial material was analysed for the parameters which are TC, N, P, K. The results are presented in Table 1. Total carbon content of the material is important in deciding the ultimate quality ofcompost. Carbon provides both energy and serve as the basic building blocks of the microbial cells. (about 50% of the microbial cellmass). The substrates recorded carbon content of 27.4 to 43 per cent. The high carbon containing material proves its suitability for better decomposition by the living organism provided other substrates are available. The manurial value of compost is dependent on the content of N, P, K. Based on the substrate the elemental composition will vary in the matured compost. N content in the substrate, registered a value between 0.67 to 1.82per cent. The maximum value obtained for cashew apple waste 1.82 per cent followed by cow dung slurry 0.96 per cent. With respect to P content, the value ranged from 0.31 to 0.35 per cent. The maximum value of P content was obtained for cow dung slurry 0.35per cent.

Nutrient analysis of compost

Similar to the initial analysis on nutrient status of the substrate the matured compostobtained from the seven treatments was analysed for the parameters which are TC, N, P, K. The results are presented in Table 2.The values for Total carbon in different compost treatments ranged between 23.42 and 28.57 percent. It was highest for the T 6 treatment (28.57%). This is at par with T 4 , T 5 and T 7 rest of other treatments. The lowest value of total carbon was recorded for the treatment T 1 (23.42%). In all the compost materials the carbon status showed a significant reduction as compared to the initial level. However the data among the treatments is statistically non -significant. The values for C:N ratio in different compost treatments ranged between 14.64 to 20.17. It was highest for the treatment T 1 (20.17).

The lowest value of C:N ratio was recorded for the treatment T 7 (14.64).

Results on the major nutrient content are given in Table 3. Among the major nutrients nitrogen is very critical in the composting process since its content in the composted material is directly related to the source. The N content of the composted material ranged from 1.17 to 1.93 per cent.

The compost obtained from T 7 contains more amount of N (1.93%) as compared to other treatments and the data is statistically significant. The data given in Table 3. Revealed that the compost from T 6 (1.69%) was superior in terms of P and general range was from 0.91 to 1.69 per cent. The amount of K contained in the matured compost was higher than the initial status with T 6 registering the highest value of 1.92 per cent which is at par with T 2, T 3 and T 7 rest of other treatments and T 4 the lowest 1.59 per cent. However the data is statistically significant. The Treatment T 7 shows significantly increased in the microbial population such as Bacteria and Actinomyctes as compared to control. The bacterial population increased due to the combine effect of SSP, Urea and rock phosphate which activates bacterial population. The addition of Pleurotus sajor-caju along with combine effect of nutrients increased fungal population. The Actinomyctes always dominate and actively involved during compost formation in presence of higher amounts of nutrients which shows their importance.

Maturity period of compost

Maturity of compost is an important factor which decides its suitability for application to the soil. Compost is considered matured when energy and nutrient containing material have been combined into stable mass. The time required to obtain matured compost is vested with many factors and may range from a couple of weeks to more than one year. The result obtained on maturity period of composting is furnished in Table 4. Significant difference was noticed with respect to the treatments on maturity period. In general average maturity Period varied from 118 to 146 days. Fastest maturity was attained in the treatment T 6 (118 days) where different plant residues, organic manures and microbes were included. Treatment T 1 took the maximum time to attain maturity of 146 days.

Microbial population of compost

The Treatment T 7 shows significantly increased in the microbial population such as Bacteria and Actinomyctes as compared to control. The bacterial population increased due to the combine effect of SSP, Urea and rock phosphate which activates bacterial population. The addition of Pleurotus sajor-caju along with combine effect of nutrients increased fungal population. The Actinomyctes always dominate and actively involved during compost formation in presence of higher amounts of nutrients which shows their importance.

References

1. Aira M, Domínguez J. Microbial and nutrient stabilization of two animal manures after the transit through the gut of the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2009;161:1234-1238.
2. Aira M, Monroy F, Domínguez J. Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) modifies the structure and physiological capabilities of microbial communities improving carbon mineralization during vermicomposting of pig manure. Microbial Ecology. 2007;54:662-671.
3. Ansari AA, Ismail SA. Vermitechnology in organic solid waste management. Journal of Soil Biology and Ecology. 2001;21:16-20.
4. Ansari AA. Organic waste: reduce, recycle and management through vermitech. In: Urban planning and environment-strategies and challenges. Advance Research Series. India; 2007.
5. Ansari AA. Vermitech: an innovation in organic solid waste management. Journal of Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection. 2011;1(1):107-113.
6. Anastasi A, Varese GC, Filipello Marchisio V. Isolation and identification of fungal communities in compost and vermicompost. Mycologia. 2005;97:33-44.
7. Ansari AA. Worm powered environmental biotechnology in organic waste management. International Journal of Science. 2011;6(1):25-30.
8. Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger JD, Shuster W. Effects of vermicomposts and compost on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia. 2000;44:579-590.
9. Raja KP, Ramalingam R. Utilization of cashew leaf litter and sugar mill waste pressmud for the culture of a compost earthworm Eudrillus eugineae (Kinberg). The Bioscan. 2007;2(1):37-40.
10. Pushpalatha PB. Morphophysiological analysis of growth and yield in cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.). PhD thesis. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2000.
11. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. 4th ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1985. p. 347.
12. Nair N. Enrichment of coir pith compost through organic amendments. MSc (Ag) thesis. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 1997. p. 89.
13. Kumar DP, Hegde M. Recycling of plant nutrients through cashew leaf litter. The Cashew. 1999;12(2):2-8.
14. Kutty NMC. Development pattern, storage behaviour and variability in processing characters of cashew apple. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2000.
15. Mandal RC. Cashew production and processing technology. Tamil Nadu: Agro Botanica; 1997.
16. Piper CS. Soil and plant analysis. Bombay: Hens Publishers; 1966. p. 368.
17. Richards NK. Cashew tree nutrition related to biomass accumulation, nutrient composition and nutrient cycling in sandy red earths of Northern Territory, Australia. Scientia Horticulturae. 1992;52(1-2):125-142.
18. Smith VC, Bradford MA. Litter quality impacts on grassland decomposition are differently dependent on soil fauna across time. Applied Soil Ecology. 2003;24:197-203.
19. Sobhana A, Mathew J, Mini C, Pushpalatha PB. Technologies for cashew apple utilization on commercial scale. Souvenir, National Conference on Cashew; 2013; 20-21.
20. Sushama PK, Smitha John K, Gopinathan R. Chemistry of composting. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2010. p. 78.
21. Tian G, Kang BT, Brussaard L. Biological effects of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical conditions: decomposition and nutrient release. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1992;24:1051-1060.
22. Usha KE. Integrated nutrient management in cashew in relation to yield and quality. PhD thesis. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2001.
23. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science. 1934;37:29-37.
24. Zibilske LM. Composting of organic waste. In: Sylvia DM, Fuhrmann JJ, Hartel PG, Zuberer DA, editors. Principles and applications of soil microbiology. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1999. p. 482-497.