Effectiveness of vermicomposting for bioconversion of grape marc derived from red winemaking into a value-added product

  • María Gómez-BrandónEmail author
  • Marta Lores
  • Hugo Martínez-Cordeiro
  • Jorge Domínguez
Earthworm and Soil Pollution


Grape marc, the main solid by-product of the wine industry, can be used as a nutrient-rich organic amendment if treated appropriately before its application into soil. In this study, we evaluated the potential of vermicomposting to process grape marc derived from the red winemaking of Mencía grapes in order to yield a high-quality, polyphenol-free organic vermicompost that could be used as an environmentally friendly fertiliser. We observed that the grape marc from this cultivar appears to be an optimum substrate for feeding earthworms providing optimum conditions for growth and reproduction, and sufficient energy to sustain large populations. Moreover, earthworm activity favoured the stabilisation of the grape marc resulting in a final vermicompost characterised by a higher concentration of macro- and micro-nutrients and a reduced polyphenol content after 112 days of vermicomposting. Lower values of microbial activity, indicative of stabilised materials, were recorded at the end of the process. These findings highlight vermicomposting as an environmentally sound management system for processing grape marc that could easily be scaled up for industrial application.


Grapes Wine production Eisenia andrei Epigeic earthworms Soil fertiliser Vermicompost Polyphenols 



The authors thank Paul Fraiz for his valuable help in English editing.

Funding information

This study was supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (grant numbers CTM2013-42540-R and AGL2017-86813-R) and the Xunta de Galicia (grant numbers ED431B2016/043, ED431B 2017/04 and ED431F 2018/05). MGB received support from the Programa Ramón y Cajal (RYC-2016-21231; Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad).


  1. Aira M, Monroy F, Domínguez J (2006) Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) activates fungal growth, triggering cellulose decomposition during vermicomposting. Microb Ecol 52:738–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali U, Sajid N, Khalid A, Riaz L, Rabbani MM, Syed JH, Malik RN (2015) A review on vermicomposting of organic wastes. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 34:1050–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez-Casas M, García-Jares C, Llompart M, Lores M (2014) Effect of experimental parameters in the pressurized solvent extraction of polyphenolic compounds from white grape marc. Food Chem 15:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amico V, Napoli EM, Renda A, Ruberto G, Spatafora C, Tingali C (2004) Constituents of grape pomace from the Sicilian cultivar ‘Nerello Mascalese’. Food Chem 88:599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bi YM, Tian GL, Wang C, Feng CL, Zhang Y, Zhang LS, Sun ZJ (2016) Applications of leaves to induce earthworms to reduce phenolic compounds released by decomposing plants. Eur J Soil Biol 75:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bustamante MA, Moral R, Paredes C, Perez-Espinosa A, Moreno-Caselles J, Perez-Murcia MD (2008) Agrochemical characterisation of the solid by- products and residues from the winery and distillery industry. Waste Manag 28:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christ KL, Burritt RL (2013) Critical environmental concerns in wine production: an integrative review. J Clean Prod 53:232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cjevik J, Miljic U, Puškaš V (2017) Extraction of bioactive compounds from grape processing by-products. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Handbook of grape processing by-products: sustainable solutions. Academic Press, Elsevier, London, pp 105–135Google Scholar
  9. Dávila I, Robles E, Egüés I, Labidi J, Gullón P (2017) The biorefinery concept for the industrial valorization of grape-processing byproducts. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Handbook of grape processing by-products: sustainable solutions. Academic Press, Elsevier, London, pp 29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devesa-Rey R, Vecino X, Varela-Alende JL, Barral MT, Cruz JM, Moldes AB (2011) Valorization of winery waste vs. the costs of not recycling. Waste Manag 31:2327–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domínguez J, Edwards CA (2011) Biology and ecology of earthworm species used for vermicomposting. In: Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Sherman RL (eds) Vermiculture technology: earthworms, organic waste and environmental management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 25–37Google Scholar
  12. Domínguez J, Martínez-Cordeiro H, Álvarez-Casas M, Lores M (2014) Vermicomposting grape marc yields high quality organic biofertiliser and bioactive polyphenols. Waste Manag Res 32:1235–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Domínguez J, Martínez-Cordeiro H, Lores M (2016) Earthworms and grape marc: simultaneous production of a high-quality biofertilizer and bioactive-rich seeds. In: Morata A, Loira I (eds) Grape and wine biotechnology. Intech Open Science, Rijeka, Croacia, pp 167–183Google Scholar
  14. Domínguez J, Sánchez-Hernández JC, Lores M (2017) Vermicomposting of wine-making products. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Handbook of grape processing by-products: sustainable solutions. Academic Press Elsevier, London, pp 55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Domínguez J, Lores M, Álvarez-Casas M, Martínez-Cordeiro H (2015) Procedimiento para la obtención y aislamiento de un fertilizante orgÁnico y de semillas de uva a partir de residuos de uva. Patent number: ES2533501. Date of granting: 30th of November 2015. Head entities: University of Vigo and University of Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  16. Drosou C, Kyriakopoulou K, Bimpilas A, Tsimogiannis D, Krokida M (2015) A comparative study on different extraction techniques to recover red grape pomace polyphenols from vinification byproducts. Ind Crop Prod 75:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fermoso FG, Serrano A, Alonso-Fariñas B, Fernández-Bolaños J, Borja R, Rodriguez-Gutiérrez G (2018) Valuable compound extraction, anaerobic digestion, and composting: a leading biorefinery approach for agricultural purposes. J Agric Food Chem 66:8451–8468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fontana AR, Antoniolli A, Bottini R (2013) Grape pomace as a sustainable source of bioactive compounds: extraction, characterization, and biotechnological applications of phenolics. J Agric Food Chem 61:8987–9003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galanakis CM (2012) Recovery of high added-value components from food wastes: conventional, emerging technologies and commercialized applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 26:68–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Jares C, Vazquez A, Lamas JP, Pájaro M, Álvarez-Casas M, Lores M (2015) Antioxidant white grape seed phenolics: pressurized liquid extracts from different varieties. Antioxidants 4:737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrido J, Borges F (2013) Wine and grape polyphenols - a chemical perspective. Food Res Int 54:1844–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giusti MM, Wrolstad RE (2001) Characterization and measurement of anthocyanins by UV-visible spectroscopy. In: Wrolstad RE, Acree TE, An H, Decker EA, Penner MH, Reid DS, Schwartz SJ, Shoemaker CF, Sporns P (eds) Current protocols in food analytical chemistry, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, pp F1.2.1–1.2.13Google Scholar
  23. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis, Agr. Handbook No. 379. Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, USDAGoogle Scholar
  24. Gómez-Brandón M, Domínguez J (2014) Recycling of solid organic wastes through vermicomposting: microbial community changes throughout the process and use of vermicompost as a soil amendment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44:1289–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez-Brandón M, Lazcano C, Lores M, Domínguez J (2011) Short-term stabilization of grape marc through earthworms. J Hazard Mater 187:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OIV (2014) International organisation of vine and wine: OIV. Accessed 31 Oct 2018
  27. ISO16072 (2002) Soil quality laboratory methods for determination of microbial soil respiration. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Jilani G, Mahmood S, Chaudhry AN, Hassan I, Akram M (2008) Allelochemicals: sources, toxicity and microbial transformation in soil - a review. Ann Microbiol 58:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee J, Durst RW, Wrolstad RE (2005) Determination of total monomeric anthocyanin pigment content of fruit juices, beverages, natural colorants, and wines by the pH differential method: collaborative study. J AOAC Int 88:1269–1278Google Scholar
  30. Luo G, Li L, Friman V-P, Guo J, Guo S, Shen Q, Ling N (2018) Organic amendments increase crop yields by improving microbe-mediated soil functioning of agroecosystems: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 124:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma W, Guo A, Zhang Y, Wang H, Liu Y, Li H (2014) A review on astringency and bitterness perception of tannins in wine. Trends Food Sci Technol 40:6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masciandaro G, Macci C, Doni S, Ceccanti B (2010) Use of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) to reduce phytotoxicity and promote humification of pre-composted olive oil mill wastewater. J Sci Food Agric 90:1879–1895Google Scholar
  33. Monroy F, Aira M, Domínguez J, Velando A (2006) Seasonal population dynamics of Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826) (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) in the field. C R Biol 329:912–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muhlack RA, Potumarthi R, Jeffery DW (2018) Sustainable wineries through waste valorisation: a review of grape marc utilisation for value-added products. Waste Manag 72:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Negro C, Tommasi L, Miceli A (2003) Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity from red grape marc extracts. Bioresour Technol 87:41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nogales R, Cifuentes C, Benítez E (2005) Vermicomposting of winery wastes: a laboratory study. J Environ Sci Health B 40:659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paradelo R, Moldes AB, Barral MT (2013) Evolution of organic matter during the mesophilic composting of lignocellulosic winery wastes. J Environ Manag 116:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potvin C, Lechowicz MJ, Tardif S (1990) The statistical analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from experiments involving repeated measures. Ecology 71:1389–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Puértolas E, López N, Saldaña G, Álvarez I, Raso J (2010) Evaluation of phenolic extraction during fermentation of red grapes treated by a continuous pulsed electric fields process at pilot-plant scale. J Food Eng 98:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singleton VL, Rossi JA Jr (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic 16:144–158Google Scholar
  41. Soto-Vázquez E, Río Segade S, Orriols Fernández I (2010) Effect of the winemaking technique on phenolic composition and chromatic characteristics in young red wines. Eur Food Res Technol 231:789–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spigno G, Marinoni L, Garrido G (2017) State of the art in grape processing by-products. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Handbook of grape processing by-products: sustainable solutions. Academic Press, Elsevier, London, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  43. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Gómez-Brandón
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marta Lores
    • 2
  • Hugo Martínez-Cordeiro
    • 1
  • Jorge Domínguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ecoloxía e Bioloxía AnimalUniversidade de VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Investigación y Desarrollo de Soluciones Analíticas (LIDSA), Departamento de Química Analítica, Nutrición y Bromatología, Facultad de QuimicaUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations