IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i3p69-d330162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food-Based Composts Provide More Soil Fertility Benefits Than Cow Manure-Based Composts in Sandy Soils

Author

Listed:
  • Alicia Kelley

    (Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida-Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS), Gainesville, FL 32608, USA)

  • Ann C. Wilkie

    (Soil and Water Sciences Department, UF-IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

  • Gabriel Maltais-Landry

    (Soil and Water Sciences Department, UF-IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

Abstract

Nutrient concentration and availability vary substantially among composts depending on the materials used and the production process. Composts produced from agricultural operations typically utilize animal wastes such as manures, whereas composts produced in urban areas mainly incorporate food and yard waste. Our objective was to assess how different composts affect nutrient availability and cycling, mostly carbon (C) and nitrogen (N). In a laboratory incubation, we compared three composts derived from cow manure (composted dairy manure solids, vermicompost made from those manure solids, and Black Kow TM ) and two composts derived from food waste (composted food waste from the UF-IFAS Compost Cooperative and Ecoscraps TM ). We used two sandy soils from Gainesville, FL: one from an area under perennial grasses and a second heavily-tilled soil lower in organic matter. Incubations were conducted for eight weeks at 24 and 30 °C, i.e., the annual and July mean soil temperature for the area. The composted and vermicomposted cow manure solids had the greatest CO 2 emissions relative to the unamended soils. Soil nitrate was highest with composted food waste, whereas all three cow manure-derived composts resulted in lower soil nitrate compared to the unamended soils. This suggests that N was immobilized with cow manure-derived composts, consistent with the high CO 2 emissions measured with these amendments. We found similar results for both soils. Our results indicate a greater potential for food-waste compost as a nutrient source than compost derived primarily from cow manure solids, which could be more beneficial to building soil C.

Suggested Citation

  • Alicia Kelley & Ann C. Wilkie & Gabriel Maltais-Landry, 2020. "Food-Based Composts Provide More Soil Fertility Benefits Than Cow Manure-Based Composts in Sandy Soils," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:69-:d:330162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/3/69/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/3/69/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J. Eckelman & Weslynne Ashton & Yuji Arakaki & Keisuke Hanaki & Shunsuke Nagashima & Lai Choo Malone-Lee, 2014. "Island Waste Management Systems," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(2), pages 306-317, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mary Lalremruati & Angom Sarjubala Devi & Anil Pratap Singh, 2022. "Effect of Municipal Solid Waste Compost Treatment on Physico-Chemical Properties of Garden Soil," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 8(4), pages 293-298, 10-2022.
    2. Rajesh Babu Katiyar & Suresh Sundaramurthy & Anil Kumar Sharma & Suresh Arisutha & Moonis Ali Khan & Mika Sillanpää, 2023. "Optimization of Engineering and Process Parameters for Vermicomposting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Ewelina M. Marek-Andrzejewska & Anna Wielicka-Regulska, 2021. "Targeting Youths’ Intentions to Avoid Food Waste: Segmenting for Better Policymaking," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cordier, Mateo & Uehara, Takuro & Baztan, Juan & Jorgensen, Bethany & Yan, Huijie, 2021. "Plastic pollution and economic growth: The influence of corruption and lack of education," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Roxana Popescu & Hélène Beraud & Bruno Barroca, 2020. "The Impact of Hurricane Irma on the Metabolism of St. Martin’s Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Dominik Noll & Christian Lauk & Willi Haas & Simron Jit Singh & Panos Petridis & Dominik Wiedenhofer, 2022. "The sociometabolic transition of a small Greek island: Assessing stock dynamics, resource flows, and material circularity from 1929 to 2019," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 577-591, April.
    4. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J., 2020. "The self-(in)sufficiency of the Caribbean: Ecosystem services potential Index (ESPI) as a measure for sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    5. Mateo Cordier & Takuro Uehara & Juan Baztan & Bethany Jorgensen, 2020. "Plastic pollution and economic growth: the influence of corruption and the lack of education," Working Papers hal-02862787, HAL.
    6. Guittard, Alice & Akinsete, Ebun & Demian, Elias & Koundouri, Phoebe & Papadaki, Lydia & Tombrou, Xenia, 2022. "Tackling Single-Use-Plastic in small touristic islands to reduce marine litter: co-identifying the best mix of policies," MPRA Paper 122106, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alice Guittard & Ebun Akinsete & Elias Demian & Phoebe Koundouri & Lydia Papadaki & Xenia Tombrou, 2022. "Tackling Single-Use-Plastic in small touristic islands to reduce marine litter: co-identifying the best mix of policies," DEOS Working Papers 2236, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Hsin-Tien Lin & Kenichi Nakajima & Eiji Yamasue & Keiichi N. Ishihara, 2018. "Recycling of End-of-Life Vehicles in Small Islands: The Case of Kinmen, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:3:p:69-:d:330162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.