Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of plant-friendly vermicompost using novel biotechnological methods

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For the first time in the world, raw tea waste from tea plants was mineralized by rapid biotechnological methods using beneficial worms, enzymes (protease, lipase, dehydrogenase, hydrolase, urease, nitrogenase, cellulase) and microorganisms (Aspergillus flavus, Bifidobacterium spp. Bacillus subtilis, Rhodotorula spp., Lactobacillus, Rhodopseudomas spp.). Thus, biocompost technology was developed to create an exclusive organic tea fertilizer. The biocompost product was developed in a plant-friendly format for sustainable use of local resources. It was rich in organic material and free from diseases and pathogens, according to organic farming methods. It was also reliable in terms of heavy metal content. In the biocompost study, the application of five different compost mixtures and three different application methods were investigated. Worm + Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria + enzymes accelerated the mineralization of the compost among the studies, and the lowest C/N and OM % ratio was obtained. The other physical and chemical parameters were also in accordance with the ideal values determined in the literature. Also, the increase of nitrogen without nitrogen loss during the composting process shows that mineralization was successfully completed. In concluded, it can be suggested that the developed organic worm compost fertilizer can be used on agricultural land and in regenerative agriculture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

(F1) :

Factor 1

(F2):

Factor 2

(F3):

Factor 3

(FD):

Fertilizer Diversification

(OM):

Organic matter

(IC):

Initial composting

(OC):

Organic Carbon

(TP):

Total Phosphorus

References

  1. Gunes A, Karagoz K, Turan M, Kotan R, Yildirim E, Cakmakci R, Sahin F (2015) Fertilizer efficiency of some plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for plant growth. Res J Soil Biol 7(2):28–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Karlidag H, Yildirim E, Turan M, Pehluvan M, Donmez F (2013) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mitigate deleterious effects of salt stress on strawberry plants (Fragaria× ananassa). HortScience 48(5):563–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turan M, Gulluce M, von Wirén N, Sahin F (2012) Yield promotion and phosphorus solubilization by plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria in extensive wheat production in Turkey. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175(6):818–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Zanten HH, Herrero M, Van Hal O, Röös E, Muller A, Garnett T, Gerber PJ, Schader C, De Boer IJ (2018) Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob Change Biol 24(9):4185–4194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. LaCanne CE, Lundgren JG (2018) Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6:e4428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shelef O, Weisberg PJ, Provenza FD (2017) The value of native plants and local production in an era of global agriculture. Front Plant Sci 8:2069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schreefel L, Schulte R, De Boer I, Schrijver AP, Van Zanten H (2020) Regenerative agriculture–the soil is the base. Glob Food Sec 26:100404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pawan M, Minkashi V (2014) Organic agricultural crop nutrient. Res J Chem Sci 4(4):94–98

    Google Scholar 

  9. Elevitch CR, Mazaroli DN, Ragone D (2018) Agroforestry standards for regenerative agriculture. Sustainability 10(9):3337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. White RE, Andrew M (2019) Orthodox soil science versus alternative philosophies: a clash of cultures in a modern context. Sustainability 11(10):2919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Teague W (2018) Forages and pastures symposium: cover crops in livestock production: whole-system approach: managing grazing to restore soil health and farm livelihoods. J Anim Sci 96(4):1519–1530

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Rhodes CJ (2012) Feeding and healing the world: through regenerative agriculture and permaculture. Sci Prog 95(4):345–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haas B, Hoekstra N, Schoot JR, Visser EJ, Kroon H, Nv E (2019) Combining agro-ecological functions in grass-clover mixtures. AIMS Agric Food 4(3):547–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rhodes CJ (2017) The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci Prog 100(1):80–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Provenza FD, Kronberg SL, Gregorini P (2019) Is grassfed meat and dairy better for human and environmental health? Front Nutr 6:26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sambell R, Andrew L, Godrich S, Wolfgang J, Vandenbroeck D, Stubley K, Rose N, Newman L, Horwitz P, Devine A (2019) Local challenges and successes associated with transitioning to sustainable food system practices for a West Australian context: Multi-sector stakeholder perceptions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(11):2051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tahat MM, Alananbeh MK, Othman AY, Leskovar ID (2020) Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 12(12):4859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Makoi JH, Ndakidemi PA (2008) Selected soil enzymes: examples of their potential roles in the ecosystem. Afr J Biotechnol 7(3)

  19. Dotaniya M, Meena V (2015) Rhizosphere effect on nutrient availability in soil and its uptake by plants: a review. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India Sect B: Biol Sci 85(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gianfreda L, Rao MA (2014) Enzymes in agric sci: OMICS Group Int Foster

  21. Stirling G, Hayden H, Pattison T, Stirling M (2016) Soil health, soil biology, soilborne diseases and sustainable agriculture: a guide: Csiro Publishing

  22. Dotaniya M, Aparna K, Dotaniya C, Singh M, Regar K (2019) Role of soil enzymes in sustainable crop production. Enzymes in food biotechnology. Elsevier, pp 569–589

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Singh JS, Pandey VC, Singh DP (2011) Efficient soil microorganisms: a new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agr Ecosyst Environ 140(3–4):339–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tutunchian S, Altınbaş M (2022) Assessment of an appropriate integrated waste management plan targeting the Circular Economy based on the LCA method. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage, 1–23

  25. Aoki-Suzuki C (2016) Exploring potential policy motivation and approaches to improve resource efficiency in emerging Asia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 18(1):57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saad Kheir AM, Abouelsoud HM, Hafez EM, Ali OAM (2019) Integrated effect of nano-Zn, nano-Si, and drainage using crop straw–filled ditches on saline sodic soil properties and rice productivity. Arab J Geosci 12(15):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Aynehband A, Gorooei A, Moezzi AA (2017) Vermicompost: an eco-friendly technology for crop residue management in organic agriculture. En Procedia 141:667–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding Z, Kheir AM, Ali OA, Hafez EM, ElShamey EA, Zhou Z, Wang B, Ge Y, Fahmy AE, Seleiman MF (2021) A vermicompost and deep tillage system to improve saline-sodic soil quality and wheat productivity. J Environ Manage 277:111388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nurhidayati N, Machfudz M, Murwani I (2018) Direct and residual effect of various vermicompost on soil nutrient and nutrient uptake dynamics and productivity of four mustard Pak-Coi (Brassica rapa L.) sequences in organic farming system. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 7(2):173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Di W, Yanfang F, Lihong X, Manqiang L, Bei Y, Feng H, Linzhang Y (2019) Biochar combined with vermicompost increases crop production while reducing ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from a paddy soil. Pedosphere 29(1):82–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ibrahim MM, Mahmoud EK, Ibrahim DA (2015) Effects of vermicompost and water treatment residuals on soil physical properties and wheat yield. Int Agrophysics 29(2):157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gupta M, Srivastava PK, NIRANJAN A, TEWARI SK, (2016) Use of a bioaugmented organic soil amendment in combination with gypsum for Withania somnifera growth on sodic soil. Pedosphere 26(3):299–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Deng Z, Wu C, Li Q, Li W (2017) Effect of vermicompost on soil enzyme activity of coastal saline soil in water spinach plantation. 2017 6th international conference on energy, environment and sustainable development (ICEESD 2017). Atlantis Press, The Netherlands, pp 419–422

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wasewar KL, Atif M, Prasad B, Mishra I (2009) Batch adsorption of zinc on tea factory waste. Desalination 244(1–3):66–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Topal M (2013) Kompost standartları üzerine bir derleme. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 2(2):85–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Method Soil Anal: Part 3 Chem Method 5:961–1010

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rhoades J (1996) Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. Method Soil Anal: Part 3 Chem Method 5:417–435

    Google Scholar 

  38. FCQAO B (1994) Methods Book for the Analysis of Compost. Compost information No 230 BGK ed

  39. McLean E (1983) Soil pH and lime requirement. Method Soil Anal Part Chem Microbiol Prop 9:199–224

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bremner JM (1996) Nitrogen-total. Method Soil Anal: Part 3 Chem Method 5:1085–1121

    Google Scholar 

  41. Olsen SR (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate: US Department of Agriculture

  42. Mertens D (2005) AOAC official method Plants preparation of laboratuary sample Official Methods of Analysis, 18th (edn) Horwitz W, GW Latimer, (Eds), 20877–22417

  43. Anderson C, Black C (1965) Separation of organic and inorganic phosphorus in soil extracts by mechanical and chromatographic filtration. Soil Sci Soc Am J 29(3):255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Singh S, Singh J, Kaur A, Kaur J, Vig AP, Bhat SA (2019) Nutrient recovery from pigeon dropping by using exotic earthworm Eisenia fetida. Sustainable Chem Pharm 12:100126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li W, Bhat SA, Li J, Cui G, Wei Y, Yamada T, Li F (2020) Effect of excess activated sludge on vermicomposting of fruit and vegetable waste by using novel vermireactor. Biores Technol 302:122816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pramanik P, Safique S, Jahan A, Bhagat RM (2016) Effect of vermicomposting on treated hard stem leftover wastes from pruning of tea plantation: A novel approach. Ecol Eng 97:410–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sharma K, Garg V (2017) Management of food and vegetable processing waste spiked with buffalo waste using earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(8):7829–7836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pigatin LBF, Atoloye IA, Obikoya OA, Borsato AV, Rezende MOO (2016) Chemical study of vermicomposted agroindustrial wastes. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 5(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Alidadi H, Hosseinzadeh A, Najafpoor AA, Esmaili H, Zanganeh J, Takabi MD, Piranloo FG (2016) Waste recycling by vermicomposting: maturity and quality assessment via dehydrogenase enzyme activity, lignin, water soluble carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and other indicators. J Environ Manage 182:134–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Parthasarathi K, Balamurugan M, Prashija KV, Jayanthi L, Ameer Basha S (2016) Potential of Perionyx excavatus (Perrier) in lignocellulosic solid waste management and quality vermifertilizer production for soil health. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 5(1):65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tripathi G, Bhardwaj P (2004) Comparative studies on biomass production, life cycles and composting efficiency of Eisenia fetida (Savigny) and Lampito mauritii (Kinberg). Biores Technol 92(3):275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Dahlin S, Kirchmann H, Kätterer T, Gunnarsson S, Bergström L (2005) Possibilities for improving nitrogen use from organic materials in agricultural cropping systems. AMBIO: J Human Environ 34(4):288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Suthar S (2008) Bioconversion of post harvest crop residues and cattle shed manure into value-added products using earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae Kinberg. Ecol Eng 32(3):206–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Garg V, Gupta R (2011) Optimization of cow dung spiked pre-consumer processing vegetable waste for vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74(1):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Singh J, Kaur A, Vig AP (2014) Bioremediation of distillery sludge into soil-enriching material through vermicomposting with the help of Eisenia fetida. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 174(4):1403–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shak KPY, Wu TY, Lim SL, Lee CA (2014) Sustainable reuse of rice residues as feedstocks in vermicomposting for organic fertilizer production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21(2):1349–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Suthar S (2010) Pilot-scale vermireactors for sewage sludge stabilization and metal remediation process: comparison with small-scale vermireactors. Ecol Eng 36(5):703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Komilis DP, Ham RK (2006) Carbon dioxide and ammonia emissions during composting of mixed paper, yard waste and food waste. Waste Manage 26(1):62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ndegwa PM, Thompson S (2000) Effects of C-to-N ratio on vermicomposting of biosolids. Biores Technol 75(1):7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hogg D, Eaviono E, Caimi V, Amlinger F, Devliegher W, Brinton W, Antler S (2002) Comparison of composts standards within the programme (WARP). Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lim SL, Wu TY, Clarke C (2014) Treatment and biotransformation of highly polluted agro-industrial wastewater from a palm oil mill into vermicompost using earthworms. J Agric Food Chem 62(3):691–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lasaridi K, Protopapa I, Kotsou M, Pilidis G, Manios T, Kyriacou A (2006) Quality assessment of composts in the Greek market: the need for standards and quality assurance. J Environ Manage 80(1):58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sharma K, Garg VK (2019) Recycling of lignocellulosic waste as vermicompost using earthworm Eisenia fetida. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(14):14024–14035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yuvaraj A, Karmegam N, Tripathi S, Kannan S, Thangaraj R (2020) Environment-friendly management of textile mill wastewater sludge using epigeic earthworms: bioaccumulation of heavy metals and metallothionein production. J Environ Manage 254:109813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yadav A, Garg V (2016) Vermiconversion of biogas plant slurry and parthenium weed mixture to manure. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 5(4):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lukashe NS, Mupambwa HA, Green E, Mnkeni PNS (2019) Inoculation of fly ash amended vermicompost with phosphate solubilizing bacteria (Pseudomonas fluorescens) and its influence on vermi-degradation, nutrient release and biological activity. Waste Manage 83:14–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ozdemir S, Turp GA (2022) The impact of the pyroligneous acid-assisted biomass ash vermicompost on dry beans through climatic and agroecosystem changes. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 1–11

  68. Sharma S (2003) Municipal solid waste management through vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Biores Technol 90(2):169–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Biruntha M, Mariappan P, Karunai Selvi B, John Paul JA, Karmegam N (2020) Vermiremediation of Urban and agricultural biomass residues for nutrient recovery and vermifertilizer production. Waste Biomass Valorization 11(12):6483–6497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Negi R, Suthar S (2018) Degradation of paper mill wastewater sludge and cow dung by brown-rot fungi Oligoporus placenta and earthworm (Eisenia fetida) during vermicomposting. J Clean Prod 201:842–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Thomas GV, Mathew AE, Baby G, Mukundan M (2019) Bioconversion of residue biomass from a tropical homestead agro-ecosystem to value added vermicompost by Eudrilus species of earthworm. Waste Biomass Valorization 10(7):1821–1831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Deolalikar A, Mitra A, Bhattacharyee S, Chakraborty S (2005) Effect of vermicomposting process on metal content of paper mill solid waste. J Environ Sci Eng 47(2):81–84

    Google Scholar 

  73. Yadav A, Garg V (2009) Feasibility of nutrient recovery from industrial sludge by vermicomposting technology. J Hazard Mater 168(1):262–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Whittle AJ, Dyson AJ (2002) The fate of heavy metals in green waste composting. Environmentalist 22(1):13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. More B, Patole S (2012) Bioaccumulation of heavy metals through earthworms from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassifes Solm) contaminated vermicompost. J Environ Res Dev 7(2A):1047–1051

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

“This research was funded by General Directorate of Agricultural Research And Policies, Turkey, grant number” TAGEM/ 17 / AR-GE / 17.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Karabük University, 78050, Karabük, Turkey

    Ayhan Kocaman

  2. Department of Agricultural Trade and Managemet, Faculty of Economy and Administrative Science, Yeditepe University, 34755, Istanbul, Turkey

    Metin Turan

  3. Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil, Yuzuncu Yil University, 65080, Van, Turkey

    Şefik Tüfenkçi

  4. Department of Biology Education, Gazi Education Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Hikmet Katırcıoğlu

  5. Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutriton, Faculty of Agriculture, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Adem Güneş

  6. Institute of Earth and Marine Sciences, Gebze Technical University, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Nurgül Kıtır

  7. Ihsangazi Vocational Collage, Kastamonu University, 37150, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Gülay Giray

  8. Department of Biology Education, Gazi Education Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Burak Gürkan

  9. Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Department of Plant and Animal Production, Organic Agriculture Programme, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

    Nilda Ersoy

  10. Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Ertan Yıldırım

Authors
  1. Ayhan Kocaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Metin Turan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Şefik Tüfenkçi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hikmet Katırcıoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adem Güneş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nurgül Kıtır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gülay Giray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Burak Gürkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nilda Ersoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ertan Yıldırım
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayhan Kocaman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication, and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. As Corresponding Author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kocaman, A., Turan, M., Tüfenkçi, Ş. et al. Development of plant-friendly vermicompost using novel biotechnological methods. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25, 2925–2936 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01726-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01726-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation