food quality compost dl guelph jan 2005

8/8/2019 Food Quality Compost DL Guelph Jan 2005

1/40


2/40

Manure and compost use..

A HOT topic!


3/40

FOOD QUALITY ISSUES

AROUND USE OFMANURE AND COMPOST USE

1. NUTRIENTS

2. GM DNA

3. FECAL PATHOGENS


4/40

Composting is:

A managed process of biological oxidation,including a thermophilic phase, of a solid

heterogenous organic substrate.

CAN/

CGSB,2004


5/40

Composting

A managed processOrganic materialsare -

Mixed

Piled

Heatedabove 55oC

Cured


6/40

On-farm composting systems

vary in terms of:

Scale

Methods

Feedstocks

Compostingobjective

Intended marketoruse


7/40

Draft Canadian Standards

CAN/CGSB, 2004. Part I (Principles), 5.3.7

Manure and soil amendments Broadprinciplesregardingappropriateuseof

manu

reandcompostsetc.

CAN/CGSB, 2004. Part II (Guidance), 5.4.2.

Un-composted farmyard manure mustbe

appliedatleast 60 days priortoharvest,..100days wherecrop edible portioncontactssoil.

Liquid Manure, or manure runoff..must

notbeappliedtocropsintendedforhumanconsum tion.


8/40

NUTRIENTS


9/40

Predictingcompost N releasedifficultNdyagamiyeetal.,1997

Janssen,1996

Variabilityincompost quality

Roddetal., 2002

Sikoraand Enkiri, 2001

UnfavourableratioofPK to N

Eghballand Power, 1999

Reideretal., 2000

Challenges with compost use


10/40

Conservenutrientsduringcomposting

Combinecompostandlegumes

Gaugesoilnutrientavailability

Challenges with compost use

some possible solutions


11/40

Crop: Timothyor timothy & clover mixture

Treatments: Fertilizer,dairy manure,composts

Lynchetal., 2004

Combining composts with legumes


12/40

0

50

100

150

200250

300

350

Timothy

Timothy/Clover

Timothy Timothy/Cloverkg N ha-1

Forage quality

------------Composts------------Manure-

--Fert--


13/40

Varieties: Shepody,A90586-11

Amendments N applied (kg N/ha)Control 0

Nutriwave manure 300; 600

Compost 300; 600

Manure and Compost

Use in Organic PotatoProduction


14/40

Biomass sampling

Amendment application

HarvestSoil N and moisture

Manure and Compost use

in Organic Potato Production


15/40

Gauging Soil N Availability

NH4+

NH4+

NH4+NO3-

NO3-

NO3-

NH4+

NH4+NO3-

Anions Cations

Soil Particle

10 cm

PlantRootSimulator (PRS) Probes


16/40

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

Control

Manure

300

Manure

600

Compost

300

Compost

600

A90586-11

Shepody

A90586-11 Shep d

`

Yields -2003

T ha-1

Kentdale 2003


17/40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Control

Manure

300

Manure

600

Compost

300

Compost

600

A90586-11

Shepody

A90586-11 Shep d

`

Yields -2004

T ha-1

Kentdale 2004


18/40

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

Control

Manure

300

Manure

600

Compost

300

Compost

600

N conc. (%)

N conc. (%)

Tuber Quality

Shepody


19/40

1.05

1.06

1.07

1.08

1.09

1.1

Control

Manure

300

Manure

600

Compost

300

Compost

600

Sp. Gravity

Sp. Gravity

Tuber Quality

Shepody


20/40

0

500

1000

1500

2000

3 10 16 23 30

Days after planting

AvailableNsupply(ugcm-

Manure 600

Manure 300

Control

Comp. 300

Comp. 600

Gauging Soil Available N:

PRS Probe N Flux

Kentdale 2003


21/40

Kentdale 2003

Can we predict N needs of crop?

Relationship between plant N uptake

and N sorbed on PRS probes (0-30 d).

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

N sorbed on probes (ug cm-2 d-1)

PlantN

uptake

k

/ha

Relationship between plant N uptake

and N sorbed on PRS probes (0-3d)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

N sorbed on probes (ug cm-2

d-1)

PlantN

uptake

k

/ha

R2= 0.98; y=58.76 + 23.8x R2= 0.98; y=66.68 + 13.76x


22/40

GM DNA


23/40

GM in plant residues

Is composting a useful met od for t e

elimination oftransgenic DNA from GM plant

residues?

Rasmussen et al., 2004


24/40

In-vessel

composter

Rasmussen et al., 2004

Degradation of GM-DNA

with time


25/40

GM DNA and Conventional Manure

on Organic Farms

Dotransgenes from geneticallymodified (GM)

corn and soybean fed to animals, survive in

manure and composted manure?

Martin, R., Van Acker, R. and McLean, N. 2005.


26/40

Feed and manure from 4 farms:

1) conventional dairy2) organic dairy

3) conventional poultry

4) organic poultry

Manure samples composted bystandard and vermi-composting

methods

Composting lasted 16 weeks andsamples collected every 4 weeks for

DNA analysis.


27/40

DNA was extracted from feed, manure and

compostPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used

to amplify:

- a 101 base pair sequence unique to the35S promoter (from cauliflower mosaic

virus)

- a 151 base pair sequence unique to the

nos terminator (from Agrobacterium)

Both sequences are found in most GM

plants


28/40

As expected, both GM DNA sequences

were detectable in 100% of theconventional feed samples

Unexpectedly, feed samples from anorganic poultry farm showed that 6 of 8

tested samples, amplified one of the GM

sequences.

There were similar results in 4 of 7 feed

samples from other organic farms.


29/40

In manure, the DNA from feed was not

always degraded. The 101 bp sequencefrom the 35S promoter region was

amplified in 3 of 9 poultry samples and

in 1 of 4 dairy manure samples.

In poultry manure, it was possible that

the GM DNA originated from uneaten

feed that was spilled onto manure.

However, the dairy manure was

collected directly from the cow.


30/40

In compost, GM DNA sequences were notdetected in any of the dairy compost

samples. However, 3 of 15 poultry compost samples

had low levels of the 35S promotersequence of DNA. Two were from 3-month

compost and one from 2-month compost. Poultry vermicompost also tested positive

for the 35S sequence at 4 months.

Further tests could determine if these

segments are part of functional genes.

Manure contaminated by feed might bemore resistant to degradation duringcomposting. A concern for farmers wanting

to compost conventional poultry manure.


31/40

Fecal Pathogens


32/40

Fecal Pathogens

E.coli 0157

Salmonella

Campylobacter

Cyrptosporidium

Giardia

Salmonella

E.coli 0157

Woods End Laboratory, 2005

http://www.woodsend.org/


33/40


34/40

PotentialSurvivalof Fecal

Pathogensinthe Environment

Material Temp. Salmonella E-coli

Soil Cold (5C)

Warm (30C)

12-28 weeks

4 weeks

100 days

2 daysCattle

Manure

Cold (5C)

Warm (30C)

12-28 weeks

4 weeks

100 days

10 days

Liqu

idManure

13-75 days

10-100 days

Compost 7-14 days 7days


35/40

SurvivalofFecal Pathogensinthe

Environment

Cote and Quesy, 2003.

Evaluated recommendations of Canadian

Horticulture Council

Contaminated liquid hog manure applied in

carrot, cabbage and cucumber production.

E.coli undetectable in soil after 60d, and not on

vegetables.

Islam et al., 2004.

In re-contaminated compost Salmonella and

other atho ens ersisted >1 0d.


36/40

Compost Tea

and Fecal Pathogens

aspecialconcern?


37/40

US Research by - Ingram USDA-ARS, Belltsville,

- Brinton et al. (2004) , Woods End

US Compost Tea TaskF

orce recommendations- Test teas for E.coli IF

(1) tea contains nutrient additives

(2) are to be used > 1 hr after production

and are to be used on

(3) food crops harvested


38/40

Fecal Pathogensand

Organic ProduceMinnesota study of produce in fields of 32

organic and 8 conventional farms

Analyzed unwashed. tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage,

cucumbers, broccoli, strawberries, apples

Ordinary E.coli levels on produce:

Conventional: 1.6%

Certified organic: 4.3%

Organic: 11.4%

Mukherjee et al., 2004, J. Food Prod.


39/40

Fecal Pathogensand

Organic Produce

No E.coli 0157:H7 or other pathogenic strains

found.

Ordinary E.coli incidence was 19 times higher

when manure or compost was < 1 year old.

Lower incidence in certified farms attributed to

guidelines re. composting and interval between

manure application and harvest.

Mukherjee et al., 2004, J. Food Prod.


40/40

What is Organic?

Thank you!

www.organicagcentre.ca

food quality compost dl guelph jan 2005

Documents