This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]

On: 30 January 2014, At: 04:35

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compost Science & Utilization

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Farm Compost Application: Effects on Crop Performance

a b a a ab b
T. D'Hose , M. Cougnon , A. De Vliegher , K. Willekens , E. Van Bockstaele & D. Reheul
a
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research ILVO, Merelbeke, Belgium
b
Department of Plant Production, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
Published online: 23 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: T. D'Hose, M. Cougnon, A. De Vliegher, K. Willekens, E. Van Bockstaele & D. Reheul (2012) Farm Compost Application:
Effects on Crop Performance, Compost Science & Utilization, 20:1, 49-56, DOI: 10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737022

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737022

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 49

Compost Science & Utilization, (2012), Vol. 20, No. 1, 49-56

Farm Compost Application:

Effects on Crop Performance
T. D’Hose1, M. Cougnon2, A. De Vliegher1, K. Willekens1, E. Van Bockstaele1,2 and D. Reheul2
1. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research ILVO, Merelbeke, Belgium
2. Department of Plant Production, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
*E-mail contact: tommy.dhose@ilvo.vlaanderen.be

Compost application can contribute to agricultural sustainability. Municipal solid waste compost has been
the subject of most of the research done so far. Farm compost (FC) has a different composition. It is made
of varying ingredients available on the farm, e.g., wood chips and bark, manure, straw, crop residues and
surplus grass and soil. Information is currently lacking on the agronomic value and environmental impact
of FC. Therefore, a long-term field experiment was established to quantify the effect of FC application on
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014

crop performance and soil quality in a crop rotation of potatoes, fodder beet, forage maize and Brussels
sprouts. This paper presents the results of the first four years of the ongoing field trial. In the fourth year
of the experiment, the annual FC amendment resulted in a significant increase in dry matter yield for all
four crops. Our results suggested that the positive effect of continual FC application was based on a com-
bination of a slow release of nitrogen and providing better growing opportunities to the crops. Results on
the effect of FC on the residual nitrate content in the soil, disease suppression and DM content of the crops
are not yet decisive.

Introduction SOM, improving water holding capacity and other

Intensification of agriculture has increased the
productivity and efficiency of agricultural systems
over the past decades. This has led to significant in-
creases in food production. However, agricultural in-
tensification can also have negative consequences
such as increased erosion, nutrient losses, lower soil
fertility and reduced biodiversity (Matson et al. 1997).
Indeed, more frequent tillage and low inputs of or-
ganic materials balanced with the use of mineral fer-
tilizers have contributed to a general reduction in soil
organic matter (SOM) content of cultivated land
worldwide (Baritz et al. 2004, Sleutel 2005, Wells et al.
2000). This reduction results in an inevitable decline in
the quality of agricultural soils as a high SOM status in
the topsoil is crucial for sustainable long term land
use. SOM has multiple beneficial effects on soil struc-
ture (e.g., water holding capacity, aeration and per-
meability), soil fertility, crop production and overall
soil sustainability (Freixo et al. 2002, Lal and Kimble
1997, Madrid et al. 2007, Reeves 1997, von Lutzow et al.
2002, Weil and Magdoff 2004).
Applying compost can contribute to agricultural
sustainability. Adequate use of compost with prop-
er management has been shown to have many ad-
vantages. These advantages include adding an array
of nutrients to soils (Tejada et al. 2001), increasing
physical properties of soil such as bulk density, pen-
etration resistance and soil aggregation (Wells et al.
2000, Zebarth et al. 1999), increasing beneficial soil
organisms, reducing plant pathogens (Abawi and
Widmer 2000) and beneficial effects on the growth of
a variety of plants (Atiyeh et al. 2002, Butler et al.
2009, Montemurro et al. 2006, Sarwar et al. 2008).
Most of the research on compost done so far has fo-
cused on the use of municipal solid waste compost
(MSWC). MSWC improves plant growth. It supplies
nutrients to plants (Togun and Akanbi 2003), affects
the levels of nutritional elements in soil (Giusquiani
et al. 1998), and generally improves the soils’ physi-
cal properties (SerraWittling et al. 1996, Sikora and
Yakovchenko 1996).
Farm compost (FC) is another type of compost
made from ingredients available on the farm. It con-
tains wood chips and bark, manure, straw, crop
residues and surplus grass and soil (Leroy 2008). Or-
ganic farmers often use FC, and interest in FC is
growing among non-organic farmers. However, in-
formation is lacking on FC’s agronomic value and
environmental impact. This research aims to quanti-
fy farm compost’s effect on soil and crop quality in a
crop rotation of potatoes, fodder beet, forage maize
and Brussels sprouts. Data were collected over a pe-
riod of four years.

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2012 49

49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 50

T. D’Hose, M. Cougnon, A. De Vliegher, K. Willekens, E. Van Bockstaele and D. Reheul

Materials and Methods

Soil

The experiment was conducted during 2004-2007

on a loamy sand soil at Gent University’s experimen-
tal farm in Melle (50°59’N, 03°49’E, 11m above sea lev-
el). The clay (< 2 µm), silt (2-20 µm), fine sand (20-200
µm) and coarse sand (200-2000 µm) content is 86, 116,
758 and 40 g.kg-1, respectively. The initial pH-KCl of
the soil was 6.3, and the carbon content 0.93 % (Walk-
ley and Black). Phosphate status of the soil was high
(0.22 mg P g-1 dry soil).
Weather data (average monthly temperatures, to-
tal radiation and total precipitation) of the experimen-
tal site were registered for the period 2004 – 2007.
Growing conditions were fairly close to the norm (av-
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014

erage values for the period 1907-2007).

Experimental Design

The experimental design was a strip-split plot

design (Gomez and Gomez 1984) with three repli-
cates. During the experimental period, crops were
the horizontal factor, fertilizer nitrogen (N) the ver-
tical factor and farm compost the subplot factor. N
and compost treatments remained fixed in location
FIGURE 1. Experimental design of the experiment. Crop alloca-
whereas the crop changed within the plots as the ro- tion is for 2004.
tation cycled through. Individual plot size was
6,5m*9m (Figure 1). Four crops were grown in the TABLE 1.
following succession: fodder beet (FB, cv. ‘Bolero’), Composition of the farm compost applied in the years
forage maize (FM, cv ‘Frenetic’ in 2004, cv ‘LG 2004-2007, expressed on dry matter (DM) basis.
32.15’ from 2005 on), Brussels sprouts (BS, cv. 2004 2005 2006 2007
‘Cyrus F1’) and potato (P, cv. ‘Escort’). Varieties Dry matter content (%) 64.9 47.3 45.9 43.6
stayed the same during the entire trial except for Organic content (%) 25.0 16.0 37.9 26.0
forage maize, as the variety ‘Frenetic’ was no longer Nutrients (mg.kg DM-1)
commercially available after 2004. Plots received 0, N 6350 6700 9880 8667
100 or 200 kg N.y-1.ha-1, applied as ammonium ni- P 1870 1450 5730 2033

trate 27% N. Plots received 0 or 50 m 3 FC y -1.ha -1; K

Ca
5175
19625
3838
4848
5950
16550
4900
17633
these are called no compost (FC0) and compost Mg 3368 1665 2800 3500
(FC1) plots, respectively. Na 4325 270 2800 300
Prior to each application, we analyzed the com- C 138667 88889 210778 144222
C:N 21.8 13.3 21.3 16.6
post. This revealed substantial differences in composi-
tion from year to year (Table 1). We strove for equal P
and K fertilization for each plot. No compost plots re- Agronomy and Data Analysis
ceived 332 kg K.ha-1.y-1 from muriate of potash (33.2 %
K). The extractable K content in the compost was com- Soil was usually tilled in mid-April. The field was
pleted with muriate of potash up to 332 kg K.ha-1.y-1 then rotary-harrowed once the soil was dry. Fertilizers
on compost plots. and farm compost were then spread by hand on the
Compost was the only phosphate source for the plots and incorporated in the soil by rotary-harrowing.
compost plots. No compost plots received triple su- Forage maize and fodder beet were sown, pota-
perphosphate (19.6 % P) in an amount equivalent to toes planted, between 20 April and the beginning of
the extractable amount applied with the farm compost May. Brussels sprouts were planted by the end of
on compost plots. May. Weeds were controlled by use of appropriate

50 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2012

49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 51
Farm Compost Application: Effects on Crop Performance
herbicides. Fungicides in Brussels sprouts and potato,
and insecticides in Brussels sprouts, were applied ac-
cording to good agricultural practice.
The forage maize was sown at 103,000 seeds/ha
with a row spacing distance of 0.75 m. The forage
maize was harvested when the dry matter (DM) con-
tent of the whole plant was approximately 30%. Sub-
plots in the middle of the individual plots (4 rows of 2
m) were harvested manually. The ears were separated
from the vegetative plant parts, and both were
weighed. Vegetative plant parts were chopped and a
sample was dried for 12 h at 75°C. The whole ears
were dried for 8 h at 75°C and for 4 h at 105°C.
The potatoes were planted at 68 cm between the
rows and 40 cm within the rows. Two weeks before
harvest (in the first half of September), a herbicide was
applied for desiccation. Forty-five individual plants
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014
from the middle of the plots (5 rows of 9 plants each)
were harvested and weighed. The harvested potatoes
were calibrated using a 40 mm sieve and the propor-
tion of potatoes smaller than 40 mm was calculated
(proportion < 40 mm). From the fraction > 40 mm, 10
tubers were randomly selected, washed, cut in pieces
of approximately 1 cm3 and dried for 8 h at 75°C and
for 4 h at 105°C to obtain the DM content. A second
sample of 5 kg was selected and washed to calculate
the soil tare and to measure the underwater weight
(UWW). The latter sample was also used to determine
the infection by common scab (Streptomyces scabies). In
2005 and 2006 some potatoes were affected by black
scurf (Rhizoctonia solani). The proportion of infected
potatoes was calculated (proportion scurf). After har-
vesting the potatoes, a cover crop (Italian Ryegrass)
was sown at a density of 40 kg/ha. The cover crop was
destroyed mechanically in the following spring.
Fodder beet was sown at 50 cm between the rows
and 5 cm within the rows. Later, the number of plants
was brought to approximately 85,000 beets/ha. At the
end of October, 10 rows of 2 m were harvested manu-
ally from the middle of the plots. The beets were sep-
arated from the foliage, and both were weighed. Ten
beets and their foliage were randomly selected. Those
10 beets were washed to determine the soil tare, and a
lengthwise section was cut from both the beets and
their foliage, then both were dried. Beets were dried
for 8 h at 75°C and for 4 h at 105°C; foliage was dried
for 8h at 75°C.
Brussels sprout plants (2-leaf stage) were planted
at 68 cm between the rows and 40 cm within the rows.
At the end of November, 25 plants from the middle of
the plots were harvested and weighed. The sprouts of
10 randomly selected plants were separated from the
stems and leaves and were weighed separately. These
sprouts were sorted in four classes, i.e., > 40 mm, 35-
Compost Science & Utilization
40 mm, 29-35 mm and < 29 mm according to market
categories. Each fraction was weighed separately. Fi-
nally, a sample of sprouts was cut in four and dried
for 8 h at 75°C. The stems and leaves of the selected
plants were chopped mechanically and a representa-
tive sample (about 2 kg) was dried 8h at 75°C to de-
termine DM content.
After each harvest, all of the aboveground crop
residue (potato foliage, beet leaves and the stems and
leaves of the Brussels sprout plants) was removed
from the experimental field.
Each year, between 1 October and 15 November,
soil samples were taken to determine the nitrate con-
tent in the soil in the layers 0-30, 30-60 and 60-90 cm
soil depth. Using a gauge auger, three samples were
taken randomly per plot. A bulked sample was com-
posed per treatment and analysed. These results
were compared with the Flemish legislative limit,
i.e., less than 90 kg NO -N.ha-1 should be measured
3
in the soil profile up to 90 cm of depth measured be-
tween 1 October and 15 November in order to reduce
nitrate leaching.
The nitrogen fertilizer replacement value (NFRV)
(Bullock and Bullock 1994, Nevens 2003) of the com-
post was calculated for each crop in each year. The
minimum adequate model was used to describe the
DM yield response to applied mineral N and the
NFRV was determined by solving for x in the no com-
post yield response curve, at y equalling to the crop
yield on N-unfertilized compost amended plots. This
NFRV determines the amount of mineral fertilizer N
that should be applied on a plot without compost to
reach an equal DM yield as on a compost plot. Besides
the NFRV of the compost, we examined the possibili-
ty of a non-N contribution effect of the compost. To es-
timate this effect, we noted the yield (or other para-
meter) bonus for the crops growing on a compost
enriched soil under non-N limiting circumstances (i.e.,
at high mineral N fertilizer rates). This non-N contri-
bution effect may be due to healthier plant roots, bet-
ter soil structure, a sounder soil food web, etc.
Statistical analyses were performed using R. When
the effect of compost on the yield or a quality parame-
ter of a specific crop was analysed in a specific year, the
experiment was analysed as a split-plot design with N
as main plot factor and FC as subplot factor.
Before performing ANOVA, the assumptions for
ANOVA (equal variances and normal distribution)
were checked. An ARCSINE transformation (y’= 2*
arcsin[sqrt(y)]) was applied on data expressing a pro-
portion before performing ANOVA.
A quadratic model was used to describe the DM
yield response to applied mineral N when calculating
the NFRVs. Regressions were also performed using R.
Winter 2012 51
49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 52

T. D’Hose, M. Cougnon, A. De Vliegher, K. Willekens, E. Van Bockstaele and D. Reheul

TABLE 2.
Tuber DM yield of potato (P), total DM yield of forage maize (FM), beet DM yield of fodder beet (FB)
and sprout DM yield of Brussels sprouts (BS). All yields are expressed as kg.ha-1.
N 2004 2005 2006 2007
Crop (kg.ha-1)
FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1

0 8548 10129 8436 7563 8863 7915 11664 12658

P 100 12287 12974 10860 10353 9888 10353 12688 13533
200 14353 15031 12618 12934 11649 11949 13871 15419
mean 11729 12711 10638 10283 10133 10072 12741 13870

Statistical significance N *** (L) ** (L) ** (L) * (L)

FC ns ns ns *

0 21006 18947 18979 20323 14851 14770 17097 19350

FM 100 25146 24638 21287 22435 20169 20823 21276 22457
200 26049 27520 24279 24620 21501 21502 21617 23751
mean 24067 23702 21515 22459 18841 19032 19997 21853

Statistical significance N *** (L) ** (L) ** (L) * (L)

FC ns ns ns *
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014

0 17367 19967 13363 14160 14167 15148 11390 13284

FB 100 21951 23196 19187 18334 18178 19395 17737 19138
200 22372 23140 18009 20016 17739 18431 19858 20372
mean 20564 22101 16853 17503 16695 17658 16328 17598

Statistical significance N ** (L) *** (Q) ** (Q) *** (Q)

FC ns ns ns *

0 2869 3252 2645 2275 1998 1891 1474 1785

BS 100 4532 4700 4878 4700 3406 3133 3333 3942
200 5554 5126 6076 6541 5306 5168 5202 5259
mean 4318 4359 4533 4506 3570 3397 3336 3662

N ** (L) * (L) *** (L) *** (L)

Statistical significance
FC ns ns ns *
ns, *, **, *** indicates non-significant (ns) or significant at the 5% (*), 1% (**) or 0.1 % (*** ) levels, respectively. (L) = linear effect, (Q) = quadratic effect. No
significant N*FC interaction occurred in none of the years.

Results TABLE 3.
The effect of farm compost application on tuber
Effect of Farm Compost on DM Yields DM yield of potato (P), total DM yield of forage maize
(FM), beet DM yield of fodder beet (FB) and sprout
Table 2 shows DM yield of the potato tubers, forage DM yield of Brussels sprouts (BS) expressed as percent
maize, sprouts of Brussels sprouts and beet of fodder of the yield of the FC0 treatments.
beet. There was no effect of compost application on the Crop
-1
N (kg.ha ) 2004 2005 2006 2007
DM yield in 2004, 2005 and 2006, but the effect of FC P 0 18.5 -10.4 -10.7 8.5
was significant for all crops in 2007. As expected, the ef- 100 5.6 -4.7 4.7 6.7
fect of N was significant in every year for all crops. 200 4.7 2.5 2.6 11.2
Table 3 illustrates the yield increase or decrease on mean 8.4 -3.3 -0.6 8.9
compost plots expressed as a percentage of the no FM 0 -9.8 7.1 -0.5 13.2
compost plots. A mean yield decrease is noticed in 100 -2.0 5.4 3.2 5.6
200 5.6 1.4 0.0 9.9
2004 for forage maize and for Brussels sprouts and
mean -1.5 4.4 1.0 9.3
potato in 2005 and 2006. In 2007, values for every crop
FB 0 15.0 6.0 6.9 16.6
and every nitrogen fertilizer level became positive. 100 5.7 -4.4 6.7 7.9
200 3.4 11.1 3.9 2.6
Effect of Farm Compost on DM Content of the Crops mean 7.5 3.9 5.8 7.8
BS 0 13.4 -14.0 -5.4 21.1
Compost had a significantly positive effect on DM 100 3.7 -3.6 -8.0 18.3
content and underwater weight (UWW) of potato in 200 -7.7 7.7 -2.6 1.1
mean 0.9 -0.6 -4.8 9.8
2004 and 2007. For 2004 and 2007, the DM content was

52 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2012

49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 53

Farm Compost Application: Effects on Crop Performance

19.6% (FC0) vs. 20.9% (FC1) and 19.8% (FC0) vs. 20.7%
(FC1), respectively; UWW in 2004 and 2007 was 357 g.5
kg-1 (FC0) vs. 381 g.5 kg-1 (FC1) and 349 g.5 kg-1 (FC0)
vs. 362 g.5 kg-1 (FC1) respectively. N had a significant
lowering effect on DM content and UWW in 2005.
Effect of Farm Compost on the
Residual Nitrate Content in the Soil
The residual nitrate content in the soil mostly did
not fulfil the assumption of equality of variances and
normality needed to perform ANOVA. The nitrate
residue was mostly below the Flemish legislative lim-
it of 90 kg NO3-N/ha for all treatments. In 2005 this
limit was exceeded for all potato plots and for some
Brussels sprouts objects but no consistent effect of
farm compost could be observed. Within the same
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014
2007 where the quadratic model was used. The values
show high variability between the four crops and be-
tween the different seasons. In some cases NFRVs are
even negative, indicating that the compost application
reduced yield in comparison with unamended plots.
In 2007, NFRV’s are positive for the four crops with
potato showing the highest value.
Effect of Farm Compost on Potato Diseases
FC had no significant effect on either proportion
of potatoes affected by common scab or the propor-
tion of potatoes affected by black scurf.
Effect of Farm Compost on Potato Size
The calibration of the potato tuber yield is pre-

year, and within the same crop, the effect was some- sented in Table 5.
times positive and sometimes negative. The effect of N on the size of potatoes was clearly
positive, and was significant in 2004, 2006 and 2007.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Replacement Value (NFRV) The effect of compost was significant and resulted in a
of Farm Compost higher proportion of < 40 mm potatoes in 2004 and
2006. The inverse effect was observed in 2007: a sig-
The calculated NFRVs of the farm compost for the nificantly lower proportion of < 40 mm potatoes was
four crops, derived from the DM yield response observed on the compost plots.
curves are given in Table 4. For most crop x year com-
binations, the minimum adequate model was the lin- Effect of Compost on Soil Tare of Beet
ear model except for fodder beet in 2005, 2006 and
No significant effect for N or FC could be detected
TABLE 4. in any of the four years.
Nitrogen fertilizer replacement values (kg.ha-1) and
standard errors of farm compost for different crops during Discussion
the period 2004-2007.
Potato Fodder Beet Forage Maize Brussels Sprouts The characteristics and quality of the compost dif-
fered according to the components used and their pro-
2004 44.9 ± 17.6 (L) 76.2 ± 64.5 (L) -103.1 ± 6.8 (L) 20.6 ± 27.6 (L)
portions. The total N concentration of the compost
2005 -47.1 ± 50.2 (L) -1.2 ± 20.9 (Q) 55.0 ± 34.7 (L) -31.6 ± 5.8 (L)
2006 -59.2 ± 6.2 (L) 13.4 ± 36.5 (Q) -56.3 ± 28.5 (L) -1.6 ± 12.5 (L)
ranged from about 3.2 g/kg of fresh weight to about
2007 131.2 ± 24.8 (L) 28.1 ± 2.2 (Q) 71.4 ± 42.4 (L) 16.7 ± 9.6 (L)
4.5 g/kg fresh weight (Table 1). These are rather low
values in comparison with local Flemish reference val-
(L) = linear model, (Q) = quadratic model

TABLE 5.
Proportion of potato tuber yield falling through a 40 mm sieve during the period 2004-2007.
2004 2005 2006 2007
-1
N (kg.ha ) FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1 FC0 FC1
0 14.5 17.6 12.0 15.5 12.1 20.4 7.8 5.5
100 9.8 12.5 11.2 14.4 8.8 8.8 7.0 5.8
200 8.0 9.5 13.3 13.1 8.1 9.0 6.9 4.9
Mean 10.8 13.2 12.2 14.3 9.7 12.7 7.2 5.4

Statistical Significance
N * (L) ns * (L) * (L)
FC * ns * *

ns, * indicates non-significant (ns) or significant at the 5% (*) level, respectively. (L) = linear effect. No significant N*FC interaction occurred in none of the
years.

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2012 53

49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 54
T. D’Hose, M. Cougnon, A. De Vliegher, K. Willekens, E. Van Bockstaele and D. Reheul
ues of 7 to 12 g of total N/kg of fresh compost weight
(Anonymous 2010). The average organic matter con-
tent (13.1% of fresh weight) was below the Belgian
federal reference value (16% of fresh weight). The C:N
ratio of compost affects the decomposition rate, the in-
field mineralization and the amount of nutrients re-
leased by the compost (Singh 1987). It is common
knowledge that the application of organic material
with a high C:N ratio reduces plant available N owing
to an enhanced assimilation of microbial N following
the high import of organic matter with compost (Crec-
chio et al. 2004). In compost with low C:N values, a
small percentage of compost total N, usually 5 to 15%,
becomes plant-available during the first year after ap-
plication (Dick and McCoy 1993, Sikora and Szmidt
2001, Tester 1989). An optimal C:N ratio is difficult to
define but Eriksen et al. (1999) mentioned a reference
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014
range of 9 to 15. As the C:N ratio of the applied farm
compost in our experiment (on average 18.2) exceed-
ed this reference range, negative yield effects owing to
high N immobilization could be expected.
In 2004, the compost effect on the DM was not sig-
nificant. This is in accordance with findings of Nevens
(2003), who reported that compost supplies less avail-
able N to the plants during the first season after appli-
cation than inorganic mineral fertilizers. Furthermore,
a negative NFRV for forage maize was observed
(Table 3) which may be attributed to high N-immobi-
lization as indicated by Elliot et al. (1981) and Crecchio
et al. (2004). However, Naeini and Cook (2000) regis-
tered an increase of the dry matter yield of forage
maize in the first year following compost (C:N ratio:
8.5) application. It is therefore important to keep in
mind that variations in compost composition, C:N ra-
tio, soil type, pH and climatic conditions will influ-
ence the rate of N-mineralization and crop response.
Significant positive yield effects from compost
were still lacking in 2005 and 2006. On the contrary,
TABLE 3 shows that the application of compost led to
a mean yield decrease for Brussels sprouts and potato.
This is also reflected in negative NFRVs in 2005 and
2006 (Table 4). In other words, upon application of
farm compost, additional mineral N fertilization was
required to reach the same crop yields as in conditions
where no such compost was amended. These findings
contradict Nevens (2003), who found a significant in-
crease in crop yield of forage maize in the second year
after VFG-compost (vegetable, fruit and garden waste
compost) application. His response suggests an in-
crease in plant-available N mineralization owing to
the compost applied in the previous year. This is clear-
ly not the case in our experiment, most probably be-
cause of the rather high C:N ratio of the farm compost
in comparison with the C:N ratio (on average 10.2) of
54 Compost Science & Utilization
the VFG-compost (which is a more nutrient rich com-
post) in Nevens’ experiment. After all, Janssen (1996)
showed that the net mineralization of substances lin-
early decreased with increasing C:N ratio of the or-
ganic material. So the negative NFRVs in the first
years of the experiment can be explained by the high
C:N ratio of the farm compost. We observed no corre-
lation between the C:N ratio of the farm compost and
the size of the NFRVs, probably due to the large vari-
ability of the NFRVs.
In 2007, the effect of compost amendment on crop
yield became significant, illustrating that farm com-
post amendments can increase crop yields over time.
As the weather data (precipitation, irradiation and
temperature) for 2007 were comparable with the pre-
vious years, the climatic conditions were very unlike-
ly to have differently influenced the yield compared to
previous years. Indeed, the continuous application of
compost is expected to result in considerable amounts
of residual organic N which contribute to the accumu-
lation of organic N in the soil (Sörensen and Amato
2002) and consequently to its fertilizer N value on the
longer term (Whalen et al. 2001). This was confirmed
by positive NFRVs for all crops in 2007. The value for
potato was particularly high (153 kg N/ha), which
may explain the positive effect of farm compost on
potato size in 2007, since it is well known that the
amount of N positively influences potato size (Arse-
nault et al. 2001).
Averaged over the four crops, the DM yield bene-
fit of farm compost in 2007 was 14.9, 9.6, and 6.2% at
additional mineral N fertilization levels of 0, 100 and
200 kg N/ha, respectively (TABLE 3). The continually
positive effect at the highest N rate indicates that the
positive yield effect of the farm compost was not only
a N-contribution effect. This contradicts the findings
of de Kok (1996) and de Haan and Lubbers (1984),
who concluded that compost’s positive crop yield ef-
fects could be explained merely as nitrogen effects.
However, our findings suggest that a yearly compost
application not only supplies extra N, it also offers bet-
ter growing opportunities to the crop, probably by
changing the physical (water uptake, aeration,…),
chemical (organic matter content, pH,...) and biologi-
cal properties (enhanced soil food web) of the soil.
In 2004 and 2007, compost application increased the
DM percentage of potato. Since also NFRVs for potato
were positive in 2004 and 2007 (TABLE 3) one might
presume that the higher DM percentage might be an N-
effect. However, Leroy (2008) suggested a higher DM
content when nutrient availability is limited.
In our experiment, farm compost did not show a
significant effect on the presence of common scab and
black scurf on potato. The potato variety ‘Escort’ has a
Winter 2012
49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 55
Farm Compost Application: Effects on Crop Performance
low to medium resistance to common scab (Europota-
to 2010), so the non-effect of the compost cannot be at-
tributed only to the resistance of the variety. Disease
suppressive conditions have been obtained in soils af-
ter addition of certain composts. This has been true in
production systems in greenhouses (Hoitink and
Boehm 1999) and under field conditions (Keener et al.
2000). Lumsden et al. (1986) suggested that both in-
creased soil microbial activity and the high concentra-
tion of some organic components (i.e., acetic, propi-
onic, isobutyric, butyric and isovaleric acids) caused
the suppression of soil-borne pathogens. Conn and
Lazarovits (1999) reported a significant reduction in
potato scab and black scurf after the application of dif-
ferent types of manure. However, there has been no
definitive work linking biological control in soil to ap-
plications of organic amendments. Furthermore, the
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014
quality and composition of compost cannot be stan-
dardized. The effect of organic amendments on dis-
ease control is thus highly variable. Erhart et al. (1999)
tested 19 different types of compost (MSWC, bark
compost, and several others) for suppression of Pythi-
um ultimum. Only one type of compost was strongly
suppressive, while the others were mildly suppressive
or even conducive.
Conclusions
Benefits of an annual high-rate farm compost ap-
plication on crop yield became significant after the
fourth annual application. The positive effect of con-
tinual compost amendment is attributed both to a
slow-release of N and to non-nitrogen effects. Influ-
ences of farm compost on the residual nitrate content
in the soil, disease suppression and DM content of the
crops are not yet conclusive.
This experiment is still ongoing. We will continue
to test crop performance and link it to physical, chem-
ical and biological characteristics of the soil.
References
Abawi, G.S. and Widmer, T.L. 2000. Impact of soil health
management practices on soilborne pathogens, nema-
todes and root diseases of vegetable crops. Applied Soil
Ecology, 15 (1): 37-47.
Anonymous. 2010. Compost en het mestdecreet. Alles wat je
moet weten over compostgebruik in de land- en tuin-
bouw. (in Dutch). Compost and the Flemish manure de-
cree. Everything you should know about the use of com-
post in agriculture and horticulture. Vlaco, Mechelen,
Belgium.
Arsenault, W.J., LeBlanc, D.A., Tai, G.C.C. and Boswall, P.
2001. Effects of nitrogen application and seedpiece spac-
ing on yield and tuber size distribution in eight potato cul-
tivars. American Journal Of Potato Research, 78 (4): 301-309.
Compost Science & Utilization
Atiyeh, R.M., Lee, S., Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q. and
Metzger, J.D. 2002. The influence of humic acids derived
from earthworm-processed organic wastes on plant
growth. Bioresource Technology, 84 (1): 7-14.
Baritz, R., De Neve, S., Barancikova, G., Gronlund, A.,
Leifeld, J., Katzensteiner, K., Koch, H.-J.P.C., Romanya, J.
and Schaminee, J. 2004. Land use practices and SOM. Van
Camp, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A.R., Jones, R.J.A., Mon-
tanarella, L., Olazabal, C., and Selvaradjou, S.-K. (Eds).
Reports of the technical working groups established un-
der the thematic strategy for soil protection. EUR 21319
EN/3, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 439-465.
Bullock, D.G. and Bullock, D.S. 1994. Quadratic and qua-
dratic-plus-plateau models for predicting optimal nitro-
gen rate of corn - a comparison. Agronomy Journal, 86 (1):
191-195.
Butler, T.J., Weindorf, D.C., Han, K.J. and Muir, J.P. 2009.
Dairy manure compost quality effects on corn silage and
soil properties. Compost Science & Utilization, 17 (1): 18-24.
Conn, K.L. and Lazarovits, G. 1999. Impact of animal ma-
nures on verticillium wilt, potato scab, and soil microbial
populations. Canadian Journal Of Plant Pathology, 21 (1):
81-92.
Crecchio, C., Curci, M., Pizzigallo, M.D.R., Ricciuti, P. and
Ruggiero, P. 2004. Effects of municipal solid waste com-
post amendments on soil enzyme activities and bacterial
genetic diversity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 36 (10):
1595-1605.
De Haan, S. and Lubbers, J. 1984. Huisvuilcompost en zuiver-
ingsslib als organische meststoffen voor bouwlandge-
wassen op een zware rivierkleigrond in de Bommeler-
waard, in vergelijking met stalmest, groenbemesting en
turfmolm (Refuse compost and sewage sludge as organic
manures for arable crops on a heavy fluviatile clay in the
Bommelerwaard, compared with farmyard manure, green
manure and peat moss). Rapport nr 15-84, Instituut voor
Bodemvruchtbaarheid, Haren, The Netherlands, pp. 47.
De Kok, V.P.H.M. 1996. De gebruikswaarde van GFT-com-
post in de akkerbouw en groenteteelt in de vollegrond.
(Effects of urban organic waste compost on yield and
quality of arable crops and vegetables and on the behav-
iour of nitrogen in the soil). Publicatie nr 225, Proefsta-
tion voor de Akkerbouw en de Groenteteelt in de Volle-
grond (PAGV), Lelystad, The Netherlands, pp. 44.
Dick, W.A. and McCoy, E.L. 1993. Enhancing soil fertility by
addition of compost. Hoitink, H.A.J. and Keener, H.M.
(Eds). Science and Engineering of Composting. Renais-
sance publications, Worthington, OH, pp. 622-644.
Elliot, L., Cochran, V.L. and Papendick, R.I. 1981. Wheat
residues and nitrogen placement effects on wheat growth
in green house. Soil Science, 131 (48-52.
Erhart, E., Burian, K., Hartl, W. and Stich, K. 1999. Suppres-
sion of Pythium ultimum by biowaste composts in relation
to compost microbial biomass, activity and content of
phenolic compounds. Journal Of Phytopathology, 147 (5):
299-305.
Eriksen, G.N., Coale, F.J. and Bollero, G.A. 1999. Soil nitro-
gen dynamics and maize production in municipal solid
waste amended soil. Agronomy Journal, 91 (6): 1009-1016.
Europotato. The European Cultivated Potato Database (va-
riety: Escort). http://www.europotato.org/display_de-
scription.php?variety_name=Escort. Consulted on 19-
11-2010.
Winter 2012 55
49-56 D'Hose 3/12/12 10:02 AM Page 56
T. D’Hose, M. Cougnon, A. De Vliegher, K. Willekens, E. Van Bockstaele and D. Reheul
Freixo, A.A., Machado, P.L.O.D., dos Santos, H.P., Silva,
C.A. and Fadigas, F.D. 2002. Soil organic carbon and frac-
tions of a Rhodic Ferralsol under the influence of tillage
and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. Soil &
Tillage Research, 64 (3-4): 221-230.
Giusquiani, P.L., Concezzi, L., Businelli, M. and Macchioni,
A. 1998. Fate of pig sludge liquid fraction in calcareous
soil: agricultural and environmental implications. Journal
Of Environmental Quality, 27 (2): 364-371.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (Eds). 1984. Statistical Proce-
dures For Agricultural Research, Second Edition. A Wi-
ley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Chichester, UK, p. 680.
Hoitink, H.A.J. and Boehm, M.J. 1999. Biocontrol within the
context of soil microbial communities: a substrate-depen-
dent phenomenon. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 47,
427-446.
Janssen, B.H. 1996. Nitrogen mineralization in relation to
C:N ratio and decomposability of organic materials. Plant
and Soil, 181 (1): 39-45.
Downloaded by [Aston University] at 04:35 30 January 2014
Keener, H.M., Dick, W.A. and Hoitink, H.A.J. 2000. Compost-
ing and beneficial utilization of composted by-product
materials. Power J.F.et al (Eds). Beneficial uses of agricul-
tural, industrial and municipal by-products. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 315-341.
Lal, R. and Kimble, J.M. 1997. Conservation tillage for car-
bon sequestration. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 49
(1-3): 243-253.
Leroy B. 2008. Soil food web, C and N transformations and
soil structure: interactions and feedback mechanisms as a
function of the quality of exogenous organic matter. PhD
thesis, Ghent University, Gent, p. 246.
Lumsden, R.D., Millner, P.D. and Lewis, J.A. 1986. Suppres-
sion of lettuce drop caused by sclerotinia-minor with
composted sewage-sludge. Plant Disease, 70 (3): 197-201.
Madrid, F., Lopez, R. and Cabrera, F. 2007. Metal accumula-
tion in soil after application of municipal solid waste
compost under intensive farming conditions. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 119 (3-4): 249-256.
Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G. and Swift, M.J. 1997.
Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties.
Science, 277 (5325): 504-509.
Montemurro, F., Maiorana, M., Convertini, G. and Ferri, D.
2006. Compost organic amendments in fodder crops: ef-
fects on yield, nitrogen utilization and soil characteristics.
Compost Science & Utilization, 14 (2): 114-123.
Naeini, S.A.R.M. and Cook, H.F. 2000. Influence of munici-
pal compost on temperature, water, nutrient status and
the yield of maize in a temperate soil. Soil Use and Man-
agement, 16 (3): 215-221.
Nevens F. 2003. Nitrogen use efficiency in grassland, silage
maize and ley/arable rotations. PhD thesis, Ghent Uni-
versity, Gent, p. 231.
Reeves, D.W. 1997. The role of soil organic matter in main-
taining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil
& Tillage Research, 43 (1-2): 131-167.
Sarwar, G., Schmeisky, H., Hussain, N., Muhammad, S.,
56 Compost Science & Utilization
Ibrahim, M. and Safdar, E. 2008. Improvement of soil
physical and chemical properties with compost applica-
tion in rice-wheat cropping system. Pakistan Journal of
Botany, 40 (1): 275-282.
SerraWittling, C., Houot, S. and Barriuso, E. 1996. Modifica-
tion of soil water retention and biological properties by
municipal solid waste compost. Compost Science & Uti-
lization, 4 (1): 44-52.
Sikora, L.J. and Yakovchenko, V. 1996. Soil organic matter
mineralization after compost amendment. Soil Science So-
ciety Of America Journal, 60 (5): 1401-1404.
Sikora, L.J. and Szmidt, R.A.K. 2001. Nitrogen sources, min-
eralization rates, and nitrogen nutrition benefits to plants
from composts. Stoffella P.J. and Kahn B.A. (Eds). Com-
post utilization in horticultural cropping systems. Lewis
Publ., Boca Raton, FL., pp. 287-305.
Singh, C.P. 1987. Preparation of high-grade compost by an
enrichment technique. 1. Effect of enrichment on organic-
matter decomposition. Biological Agriculture & Horticul-
ture, 5 (1): 41-49.
Sleutel S. 2005. Carbon sequestration in cropland soils: re-
cent evolution and potential of alternative management
options. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Sörensen, P. and Amato, M. 2002. Remineralisation and
residual effects of N after application of pig slurry to soil.
European Journal of Agronomy, 16 (2): 81-95.
Tejada, M., Dobao, M.M., Benitez, C. and Gonzalez, J.L.
2001. Study of composting of cotton residues. Bioresource
Technology, 79 (2): 199-202.
Tester, C.F. 1989. Tall fescue growth in greenhouse, growth
chamber, and field plots amended with sewage-sludge
compost and fertilizer. Soil Science, 148 (6): 452-458.
Togun, A.O. and Akanbi, W.B. 2003. Comparative effective-
ness of organic-based fertilizer to mineral fertilizer on
tomato growth and fruit yield. Compost Science & Utiliza-
tion, 11 (4): 337-342.
von Lutzow, M., Leifeld, J., Kainz, M., Kogel-Knabner, I. and
Munch, J.C. 2002. Indications for soil organic matter qual-
ity in soils under different management. Geoderma, 105
(3-4): 243-258.
Weil, R. and Magdoff, F. 2004. Significance of soil organic
matter to soil quality and health. Magdoff, F. and Weil, R.
(Eds). Soil organic matter in sustainable agriculture. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, pp. 1-58.
Wells, A.T., Chan, K.Y. and Cornish, P.S. 2000. Comparison of
conventional and alternative vegetable farming systems
on the properties of a yellow earth in New South Wales.
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 80 (1-2): 47-60.
Whalen, J., Chang, C. and Olson, B. 2001. Nitrogen and
phosphorus mineralization potentials of soils receiving
repeated annual cattle manure applications. Biology and
Fertility of Soils, 34 (5): 334-341.
Zebarth, B.J., Neilsen, G.H., Hogue, E. and Neilsen, D. 1999.
Influence of organic waste amendments on selected soil
physical and chemical properties. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, 79 (3): 501-504.
Winter 2012