See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/215641565

Vermial and Microbial Composting of Leaf Litter Waste

Article  in  Indian Journal of Ecology · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 54

2 authors:

Kandasamy Perumalsamy Roobak Kumar

Enbio Innovations Central Coffee Research Institute
13 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of mass rearing technique for two major predators of red spider mites View project

1. Development of mass rearing technique for two major predators of red spider mites. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roobak Kumar on 16 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Journal
Indian J. Eco/. (2009) 36(1) : 45-49 of Ecology

Vermial and Microbial Composting of Leaf Litter Waste

*K. Perumalsamy and A. Roobak Kumar
Post-Graduate and Research Department of Zoology,
Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College (Autonomous), Sivakasi - 626124, Tamil Nadu, India
. E-mail: perumalsamy1982@yahoo.co.in

Abstract: Composting of leaf litter using the epigeic, exotic earthworm Eisenia fetida and the microbial kinetizer (Quikompost) was carried
out In order to compare their efficacies in waste management. The quantity of leaf litter com posted and the biomass (earthworm/microbial)
rocovered after composting were increased with increasing the quantity of earthworm/microbial kinetizer. The production of compost was
compamtlvely higher in microbial composting. Both the compost showed a stabilization pH of about 7.8 and 7.9. The electrical conductivity
and moisture content were slightly higher in vermicompost than in microbial compost. The organic carbon content in vermicompost and
microbial compost were increased with increasing number of earthworms and microbial kinetizer respectively. The value of nitrogen,
phosphorous and potash were lesser in the microbial compost compared to vermicompost. However, the C/N ratios were more or less the
slime in both the types of compost. The quantity of leaf litter composted and earthworm/microbial biomass recovered with reference to
Increasing quantity of leaf litter showed 200 g leaf litter as the optimum capacity for 100 worms/100 mg microbial kinetizer.

Koy Words: Composting, Earthworm, Microbial kinetizer, Leaf litter

Earthworms along with the other soil micro flora bring Trichoderma lignorum, Trichoderma resei, Paecilomyces,
out the decomposition of organic matter and there by improve Streptomyces, Phanerochaete, Chrysosoporiumand Bacillus
the nutrient status of the soil. They breakdown the complex polymyxa per gram. The microbial slurry was prepared by
organic materials into available nutrient forms and maintain mixing 100 g of leaf litter, 1000 g rock phosphate (Rajphas)
the physico-chemical <;Ind biological properties of the soil in 5 I of water to make the mix damp. Mixing was carried out
(:;harmn and Madan, 1983). Composting is a biodegradative in shade with porous gunny bags and kept over night. The
process in which organic wastes are transformed and experiment to asses the optimum number/quantity of
stabilized by the metabolic activities of a succession of mixed earthworms/microbial kinetizer needed to compost a known
mlcroblul populations (Grag and Bhuriguvanshi, 2003). quantity of leaf litter was carried out with 100 g of the pre-
Composting can be viewed as a solution for environmental digested leaf litter and the earthworm were introduced in
pollution due to waste disposal and for recycling of organic increasing number as 25, 50, 75 and 100 and microbial
waste. In recent years, the methodology of solid waste
kinetizer was added in increasing quantity as 250, 500, 750
management has shifted from conventional disposal
and 1000 ml, respectively. The second experiment, to assess
strategies, such as, incineration, landfill, etc., to conversion
the optimum quantity of the leaf litter composted with constant
of wastes into value added products (Liang et al., 2003).
number/quantity of earthworm/kinetizer, was carried out. The
Intensive research has been focused in recent years on the
,leaf litter was added in increasing quantity as 100, 200, 300
potontial uses of microbes in stabilization of organic residues
and 400 g, with 100 earthworms in each trough for
as an eco-frlendly technique implying no pollution threat and
vermicomposting and 1000 m1 of !11icrobialslurry added into
hence Is considered to be the most suitable technique for
each experimental trough for microbial composting. A trough
solid waste disposal. The present study is aimed at comparing
maintained without earthworms/slurry served as control. All
vermial and microbial management of leaf litter wastes.
the troughs were maintained by sprinkling water, regular
MATERIAL AND METHODS mixing and turning of the contents once in three days. After
The leaf litter wastes were collected from college 40 days, the vermicompost was recovered and the number
campus, shade dried and subjected to pre-digestion. of worms and their weight were recorded. The vermicompost
Composling beds were prepared in plastic troughs of uniform and the microbial compost were air dried, sieved and analyzed
size bolll for vermialand microbial composting. A soil base for pH, EC, organic carbon (Modified Walkley and Black
was prepared by using cow dung and sieved soil (1:1). The method), nitrogen (Microkjeldhal method), phosphorus
exolic, epigeic earthworm Eisenia fetida and the Quikompost (colorimetric method) and potassium (flame photometric
(Microblul Kinetizer) were used for vermial and microbial method) and C/N ratio. The microbial colony forming units
compostlng, respectively. The Quikompost contained 1 x 109 (CFU) of bacteria (Nutrient agar media x 106 g'1)were also
spores of Aspergillus, Penicilllium, Chaetomium globosum, recorded.
46 K. Perumalsamy and A. Roobak Kumar

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION applied @ 100 earthworms and 1000 ml Quickompost,

The compost obtained from vermial microbial composting respectively (Table 1). Similarly, they contained 49.0 and 41.0
of leaf litter showed substantial variations in pH, EC, organic per cent moisture content with reference to increase in the
carbon, N, P, K and C/N ratio when compared to the control. quantity of leaf litter. This increase of water retention capacity'

The quantity of compost produced was higher in the case of in the vermicompost indicates the presence of more organic
matter that holds water.
microbial composting (90 %) than from vermicomposting (55
%) (Table 1). While, the quantity of compost produced from The pH value of vermicompost and the microbial compost
leaf litter waste with reference to increasing quantity of leaf were 7.8 to 7.9 with reference to increase in the number of
litter indicated 200 g of leaf litter as the optimum capacity for earthworms and microbial slurry. However, the pH value of
100 earthworms and also for 1000 ml of microbial kinetizer the compost with the reference to increase in the quantity of
(Table 2). The higher quantity of the compost produced in leaf litter was found to be higher in vermicompost (8.2) than
microbial composting could be either due to a selective bias in the microbial compost (8.1). Several researches reported
to organic matter of higher nutrient status (Syers and that the vermicomposts are more neutral and this may be
Springett, 1984) and/or due to the greater surface area due to the fact that the earthworms neutralize soli as It passes
exposed to be microbial population by maceration, which through them by secretions of the calciferous glands from
facilitate further decompositions (Lee, 1985). The microbes the intestine and ammonia (Salisbury, 1925). However, the
in Quickompost, when directly added into the leaf litter increase of pH in compost may be due to the conversion of
germinate to produce hyphae or cells. The hyphal tips of the organic N to ammonia with consequent consumption of H'
fungi produce an array of powerful enzymes like cellulases, ions as material pass through the gut of earthworm (Basker
proteases and amylases. These enzymes act as biological et al., 1994).
drills by penetrating the raw compost and convert the cellulose The electrical conductivity (Ee) of vermicompost was
to sugar intermediates. Thus, the Quikompost microbes help 1.1lJmhos cm-1 while 0.97 IJmhos cm,1 in microbial compost
in rapid digestion of the leaf litter. with reference to increasing number of earthworms/slurry.
The performance of the earthworms indicated that the The EC value of the compost with reference to increase In
biomass could increase up to 82 per cent with the increase the quantity of leaf litter was found to be higher (1.54 IJmhos
in the number of earthworms employed from 25 to 100 (Table cm-1) in vermicompost than in the microbial compost
1). Accordingly, the earthworm biomass recovered with (1.40IJmhos em-') (Table 2). This may be due to the presence
reference to increase in the quantity of leaf litter showed an of more exchangeable ions such as, calcium, ma~Jnesium
increase of 17.02 per cent with 200 g leaf litter and 100 worms and potassium in the worm cast (Bhatnagar and Paltn, 1996).
(Table 2). Many environmental factors affect the growth and The percentage of organic carbon with reference to Increase
reproduction of earthworm. Hence, the growth rate declines in the number of earthworms/slurry was reduced in the
or increase at different time interval and this variation in the microbial compost (5.9) than in vermicompost (10.88). The
biomass may be due to the nutritional, microbial content and organic carbon content of compost with reference to Increase
palatability of the substrates (Guild, 1995). The variation in in the quantity of leaf litter was also found to be higher (16.42)
the growth rate of E. fetida in the present study might probably in vermicompost than the microbial compost (12.84). Such
be due to changes in temperature and soil moisture (Sinha type of reduCtion might have been brought by the respiratory
et al., 2003). The microbial biomass also showed an increase activities of microbes (Daniel and Karmegam, 1999).

from 7...5x105 to 8.5 X 106CFUg-1 with increasing quantity of The NPK values showed remarkable increase In all the
microbial kinetizer used from 250 to 1000 ml (Table 1). experimental troughs compared to the control. The maximum
Similarly, the microbial colony forming units were increased NPK contents of the vermicompost were 0.94, 0.065 and
to 8. 7 X 106CFUg-1 with 200 g of leaf litter and 1000 ml of 0.097 percent and in microbial compost 0.51,0.065 and 0.095
kinetizer. Such an increase in microbial growth can cause percent respectively with increase in the number of wormsl
increase in the stability of the compost. Because, bacterial slurry (Table 1). The corresponding values of NPK content of
cells or colonies can form wet coats to which day particles the compost with reference to increase in the leaf litter were
can adhere forming micro-aggregates (Foster, 1978) while, found to be higher in vermicompost (1.4,0.080 and 0.092%)
fungi tend to bind particles directly with their hyphae and grow than microbial compost (1.1, 0.067 and 0.078 %) (Table 2).
on the outside of aggregates, thus stabilizing macro- The increase of nitrogen may be due to the addition of urine
aggregates (Tisdall and Dades, 1982). The compost into the casts and also by the addition of mucoproteins
produced by the earthworm and microbial kinetizer contained secreted from the body wall of the earthworm (Graft, 1971).
maximum of 48.4 and 28.8 per cent moisture content when Higher moisture, C and N contents and C: N ratio In the
 ~ ~"-<,

Table 1. Effect of increasing number of earthworms and quantity of microbial kinetizer on physico -chemical characteristics and quantity of compost.

Treatment Leaf litter Increase of earthworms/ Moisture pH EC OC N P K C:N

composted microbial biomass (%) (IJmhoscm-') (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)/(CFUg-')
T1-lnitial 0 4.5x105 17.5 8.2 1.2 2.23 0.25 0.03 0.058 8.92
(Soil base only) §:
T2-Control 10.0 4.5x105 18.8 7.9 1.0 4.70 0.47 0.04 0.060 10.0 OJ
::J
Q.
(Soil base +100 9 leaf litter)
T3-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 20.0 12.0 45.0 7.8 1.0 6.57 0.57 0.05 0.085 11.53 o'
+25 earthworms
a
0-
H-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 32.0 18.0 47.6 7.8 1.0 7.67 0.66 0.06 0.093 11.62 §:
C)
+50 earthworms 0
3
44.0 36.0 48.0 7.8 1.1 10.91 0.88 0.07 0.095 11.58 "0
T5-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 0
CI)
+75 earthworms g.
55.0 82.0 48.4 7.8 1.1 10.88 0.94 0.065 0.097 11.57 co
T6-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 0
....
+100 earthworms r-
([)
T7-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 50.0 7.5x105 20.6 7.9 0.9 5.31 0.47 0.05 0.088 11.29 OJ
....
+250ml microbial kinetizer
r-

T8-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 60.0 6.5x106 23.5 7.8 0.94 5.49 0.48 0.06 0.090 11.43 ..,
([)

+500ml microbial kinetizer

CI)
T9-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 80.0 7.5x106 23.6 7.8 0.99 5.91 0.51 0.06 0.093 11.58 (j)
+750ml microbial kinetizer
T10-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 90.0 8.5x106 28.8 7.8 0.97 5.96 0.51 0.065 0.095 11.69
+1000ml microbial kinetizer

EC-Electrical conductivity; OC-Organic carbon; N-Nitrate; P-Phosphorus; K-Potash: C: N-Carbon nitrogen ratio: CFU-Colony forming unit

~
.....
 .j>.
OJ

Table 2. Effect of increasing quantity of leaf litter on physico -chemical characteristics and quantity of compost

Treatment Leaf litter Increase of earthworms/ Moisture pH EC DC N P K C:N

composted microbial biomass (%) (IJmhoscm") (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)/(CFUg")
T1-lnitial 0 4.5x105 17.5 8.2 1.2 2.23 0.25 0.03 0.06 8.92
(Soil base only)
T2-Control 10.0 4.5x105 18.8 7.9 1.0 4.70 0.47 0.04 0.06 10.00
?\
(Soil base +100 9 leaf litter) \J
<D
T3-Soil base+ 100 9 leaf litter 100.0 235 45.0 8.0 1.5 16.12 1.40 0.08 0.09 13.68 2
+100 earthworms :3
Q)
100.0 228 47.6 8.2 1.5 16.42 1.30 0.08 0.10 12.40 Ci)
T4-Soil base+200 9 leaf litter Q)
+100 earthworms
Q)
T5-Soil base+300 9 leaf litter 96.0 240 . 48.0 8.1 1.4 14.16 1.00 0.07 0.09 12.16 ::J
Q.
+100 earthworms ;t:.
T6-Soil base+400 9 leaf litter 80.0 222 48.4 8.1 1.4 14.10 1.00 0.07 0.09 12.20 :u
O'
+ 100 earthworms 0
0-
Q)
T7-Soil base+100 9 leaf litter 50.0 8.5x106 41.0 7.9 1.4 12.20 1.10 0.07 0.07 11.09 :>;-
+1000 ml microbial kinetizer E-
60.0 8.7x106 40.0 7.8 1.5 12.84 1.10 0.07 0.08 11.67
:3
T8-Soil base+200 9 leaf litter Q)
..,
+1000 ml microbial kinetizer
T9-Soil base+300 9 leaf litter 80.0 5.3x106 39.0 7.8 1.4 11.00 0.98 0.07 0.07 11.57
+1000 ml microbial kinetizer
T10-Soil base+400 9 leaf litter 90.0 4.6x106 36.0 7.8 1.4 11.42 0.95 0.05 0.07 11.65
+1000 ml microbial kinetizer

EC-Electrical conductivity; DC-Organic carbon; N-Nitrate; P-Phosphorus; K-Potash: C: N-Carbon nitrogen ratio: CFU-Colony forming unit
 Vermial and Microbial Composting of Leaf Litter Waste 49

compost provides a favourable habitat for microbial actNity Bhatnagar, RK. and Palta, R.K. (1996) Earthworm - Venniculture
and Vennicomposting. Kalyani Publishers. Ludhiana.
(Lee, 1985). Exchangeable K was significantly higher in soil
Daniel, T. and Karmegam, N. (1999) Bio-Conversion of selected leaf
with earthworms than from without earthworms (Basker et
litters using an African Epigeic earthworm, Eudrilus eugenlae. .
a/., 1992). They concluded that the increase was due to the
Ecol. Envir. Cons. 5 (3): 271.-275.
release of K from the non-exchangeable K pool as soil
Foster, RC. (1978) Ultramicromorpology of some south Australian
material passed through the worm gut. A good quality soils. In: w.w. Emersion, R D. Bond and A R Dexter (eds)
decomposed waste should have a C: N ratio of 8 to 12 Modification of Soil Structure. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
(Bharadwaj and Gaur, 1985). The C: N ratio of the Graft, O. (1971) Phosphorus contents of earthworm casts. Land farch
vermicompost varied from 10.0 to 11.2 and that of microbial volkennod. 20: 33-36.

compost ranging from 10.0 to 11.69 with reference to increase Grag, N. and Bhuriguvanshi, S.R(2003) Composting of mango peel.
Indian J. Environ. Prot. 23:838-840.
in the number of worms/slurry (Table 1). The C: N ratio of
the vermicompost was 13.68 and that of microbial compost Guild, WJ. Mc.L. (1995) Earthworms and soil structure. In: D.K. Keven
and Mc. E. Butterworths (eds) Soil Zoology. London. pp. 83-98
was 1.67. The physico- chemical and biological characteristics
of both the compost indicates the high nutrient quality and Lee, K.H. (1985) Earthworms, Their Ecology and Relationship with
Soils and Use. Academic Press, Sydney, pp. 173-228.
this method can be used for the management of leaf litter
Liang, C., Das, K.C. and McClendon, R W. (2003) The influence of
wastes successfully.
temperature and moisture content regions on the aerobic
microbial activity of a biosolids-composting blend. Bioresor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Tech. 86:131-137.

The authors are grateful to Dr. L. Isaiarasu, Reader, Sinha, M.P., Srivastava, R, Kumar, M., Gupta K., and Kumarl, S.
Department of Zoology of AyyaNadar Janaki Ammal College, (2003) Secondary production of earthworm Perionyx
sansibaricus (MICHAECSEN) in a garbage site at Ranchi,
Sivakasi for his valuable suimestions and encouragement.
Jharkhand. J. Sci. Tech. 14&15 (A): 39-45.

REFERENCES Salisbury, E.J. (1925) The infl'uence of earthworm on soil reaction

. . and the stratification of undistributed soil. J. Linn. Boc. 46: 415-
Basker, A., Macgregor, A.N. and Kirkman, J.H. (1992) Influence of 425.
soil ingestion by earthworms on the availability of potassium in
soil: An incubation experiment. BioI. Ferti. Soil 4: 300-303. Sharma, N. and Madan, M. (1983) Earthworm for soil health and
pollution control. Sci. Ind: Res.42: 575-583.
Basker, A, Krikman, J.H., and Macgregor, AN. (1994) Changes in
potassium availability and other soil properties due to soil Syers, J.K. and Springett, L.A. (1984) Earthworms and soil fertility.
ingestion by earthworms. BioI. Ferti. Soils17: 154-158. PI. Soil 76: 93-104.

Bharadwaj,K. Rand Gaur,AC. (1985) Recycling of Organic Wastes. Tisdall, J.M. and Oades, J.M. (1982) Organic matter and water stable
ICAR, New Delhi. aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 33: 140-163.

Received 25 November, 2008; Accepted 24 April, 2009

View publication stats