Productionofbio Fertilizersfromvermicomposting

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/256381099
Production of Bio-Fertilizers from Vermicomposting of Waste Corn Pulp

Blended with Cow Dung as a Solid Waste Management Approach
Book · August 2013
CITATIONS READS
2 1,585
1 author:
Mercy Manyuchi
University of Johannesburg
126 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Feasibility for constructing a sanitary landfill for the Town of V View project
Vermicomposting technology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mercy Manyuchi on 12 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PRODUCTION OF BIO-FERTILIZERS FROM
VERMICOMPOSTING OF WASTE CORN PULP
BLENDED WITH COW DUNG AS A SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
MUSAIDA MERCY MANYUCHI
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PROCESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
HARARE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

To: Celine, Danielle, Ethan and Sean
i|Page
PREFACE
Vermicomposting is increasingly becoming popular as an organic solid waste

management strategy. In this bio-conversion process, earthworms feed on the organic
waste to produce vermicasts and vermiwash as products. The vermicasts also termed
vermicompost are rich in nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) as well as
trace elements. Vermiwash is obtained as a leachate during the vermicomposting
process and is also a liquid bio-fertilizer. Although vermicomposting has been done on
several organic wastes, no studies have focused on the possibility of vermicomposting
waste corn pulp blended with cow dung manure and the optimum operating conditions
required. Furthermore, there was need to quantify and compare the nutrient
composition and physicochemical properties from this vermicompost and vermiwash. In
addition, the effect of these bio-fertilizers when applied to the soil still had to the
understood. Furthermore, the potential of using these bio-fertilizers for growing Zea
Mays, which is a staple food in Southern Africa, had to be investigated.
Waste corn pulp was blended with cow dung manure in the ratio of 6:1 and
vermicomposted for 30 days in a vermi-bin using Eisenia Fetida earthworm species.
Temperature, pH, moisture content and electrical conductivity were daily monitored. An
average of 68mls of vermiwash was collected on a daily basis. 500-1000g of the bio-
fertilizers was applied to 4kg soil of loamy-sandy soil over 40 days to note their effect on
the soil. Furthermore, the bio-fertilizers were applied over 40 days to Zea Mays and the
effect on the growth and reproduction noted.
An odorless dark brown vermicompost was produced with an NPK composition of

4.19%, 1.15% and 6.18% respectively. Vermiwash with NPK composition of 1.58%,
7.53% and 1.26% respectively was also produced. The vermicomposting process was
optimal at pH (5.5-7.7), temperature (19-25◦C) and moisture content (27.68-52.41%).
Addition of the bio-fertilizers altered the soil physicochemical properties due to the
microbial activity from the bio-fertilizers. Zea Mays showed an enhanced growth and
reproduction rate upon application of the bio-fertilizers. Vermicomposting can be used
as a waste corn pulp management strategy and at the same time obtain bio-fertilizers
which are environmentally friendly.
ii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................................... ii
CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................ iii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO VERMICOMPOSTING ................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: VERMICOMPOSTING LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 4
2.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Vermicomposting products ................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Earthworms................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Vermicompost ........................................................................................................... 9
2.1.3. Vermiwash .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil properties.......................................... 13
2.3 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on plant growth ............................................. 13
CHAPTER 3: VERMICOMPOSTING HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.1: Research hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Materials ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.4 Experimental Design ......................................................................................................... 19
3.4.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil properties . 20
3.4.2 Effect of Zea Mays vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea
Mays plants ........................................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 4: VEMICOMPOSTING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 23
4.1 Vermicompost production and effect of process parameters ..................................... 24
4.1.1 Changes in ash content, volatile matter and fixed carbon ............................... 24
iii | P a g e
4.1.2 Variations of process parameters ........................................................................ 25
4.1.3 Nutrient composition of the vermicompost from corn pulp ............................... 28
4.2 Comparison of vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers ...................................... 29
4.2.1 Physicochemical characteristics of the vermicompost and vermiwash .......... 29
4.2.2 Primary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash .................... 30
4.2.3 Secondary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash ............... 31
4.2.4 Micronutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash ......................... 32
4.2.5 Sodium salt content in vermicompost and vermiwash ...................................... 33
4.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil physicochemical

properties and primary nutrients .................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil pH .............. 33
4.3.2 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil electrical

conductivity ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil nitrogen

content................................................................................................................................. 38
4.3.4 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application duration on soil

phosphorous content ........................................................................................................ 40

potassium content ............................................................................................................. 42
4.4: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil micronutrients ... 44
4.4.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on zinc content ..... 44
4.4.2: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on copper content

.............................................................................................................................................. 47
4.4.3: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on manganese

content................................................................................................................................. 49
4.4.4: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on iron content .... 52
4.5: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on growth of Zea Mays 56
iv | P a g e
4.5.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays plant
height....................................................................................................................56
4.5.2 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays leaves
production .............................................................................................................58
4.5.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays cob
weight .................................................................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS .............................................................. 63
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix 1: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermicompost......................... 72
Appendix 2: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermiwash .............................. 73
Appendix 3: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil pH and

electrical conductivity ...................................................................................................... 74
Appendix 4: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil macro

nutrients............................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix 5: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil

micronutrients ................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix 6: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on Zea Mays

growth and production..................................................................................................... 77
v|Page
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO VERMICOMPOSTING
Vermicomposting technology is increasingly becoming popular as a solid waste

management technique (Abbasi et al., 2009; Shweta, 2011; Tharmaraj et al., 2011;
Gomez-Brandon et al., 2012). Vermicomposting is the bioconversion of organic waste
into a bio-fertilizer due to earthworms’ activity (Abbasi et al., 2009; Shweta, 2011;
Tharmaraj et al., 2011; Gomez-Brandon et al., 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2012; Manyuchi et
al., 2013a). The earthworms feed on the organic waste and the earthworms’ gut acts as
a bioreactor whereby the vermicasts are produced (Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010). By the
time the organic waste is excreted by the earthworms it will be rich in nitrogen (N),
phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) content as well as trace elements depending on the
feedstock type used (Muthukumaravel et al., 2008; Palsania et al., 2008; Tharmaraj et
al., 2011; Manyuchi et al., 2013a). This bioconversion process is a mesophillic process
and operating conditions such as temperatures, pH, electrical conductivity and moisture
content levels must be optimized. Normally, the vermicomposting process takes place in
vermi-reactors which include plastic, earthed pots and wood worm bins (Manyuchi et al.,
2013b).
Various earthworms have been used for vermicomposting and these include
Megascolex Mauritii, Eisenia Fetida, Eudrilus Eugeniae, Perionnyx Excavatus, Lampito
Mauritii, Eisenia Andrei, Lampito Rubellus and Drawida Willis (Singh et al., 2005; Nair et
al., 2006; Muthukumaravel et al., 2008; Palsania et al., 2008; Chanda et al., 2011;
Shweta, 2011; Tharmaraj et al., 2011; Gomez-Brandon et al., 2012; Manyuchi et al.,
2012). However Eisenia fetida has been noted as the earthworm of choice for
vermicomposting and is adaptable to changing conditions and has lower chances of
compromising on the vermicompost process (Ndegwa et al., 2000; Ndegwa and
Thompson, 2000; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001; Sinha et al., 2002; Aira et al., 2007;
Nath et al., 2009; Suthar, 2009; Ansari and Jaikishun, 2010; Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010;
Hatti et al., 2010; Indrajeet et al., 2010; Ansari, 2011; Garg et al., 2011; Garg and
Gupta, 2011; Leon-Anzueto et al., 2011; Liu and Price, 2011; Srivastava et al., 2011;
Ansari and Rajpersaud, 2012; Nath and Singh, 2012; Singh and Suthar, 2012;
1|Page
Manyuchi et al., 2012).The change in earthworms weight, length, reproduction rate and
population density have also been used to measure the progress of vermicomposting
(Edwards et al., 1998; Gurav and Pathade, 2000; Ndegwa et al., 2000; Ndegwa and
Thompson, 2001; Gark et al., 2005; Borah et al., 2007; Palsania et al., 2008; Suthar,
2009; Garg and Gupta, 2011; Garg et al., 2011; Kumari et al., 2011; Lim et al.; 2011; Liu
and Price, 2011; Shweta, 2011; Lim et al.; 2012; Singh and Suthar, 2012).
Various feedstock have been employed in vermicomposting ranging from animal, plant,
pharmaceutical and sewage waste over vermicomposting periods ranging from 28-120
days Borah et al., 2007; Garg et al., 2007; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001; Indrajeet et
al., 2010; Nakhede et al., 2011; Singh and Suthar, 2012). The NPK content in the
vermicompost varied from 0.38-1.76%, 0.2-1.6% and 0.69-4.98% respectively
depending on the type of waste used Borak et al., 2007; Muthukumaravel et al., 2008;
Chanda et al., 2011; Ansari and Rajpersaud, 2012; Punde and Garnoker, 2012;
Manyuchi et al., 2013b, Manyuchi et al., 2013c, Manyuchi et al., 2013d). The
temperature of the vermicompost ranged from 18-67◦C, pH 5.9-8.3 and moisture
content 10.6-80% (Gurav and Pathade, 2000; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001; Borah et
al., 2007; Jadia and Fulekar, 2008; Suthar, 2009; Indrajeet et al., 2010; Garg and
Gupta, 2011; Garg et al., 2011; Kumari et al., 2011; Narkhede et al., 2011). Additionally
the vermicompost electrical conductivity ranged from 0.70-80 000µscm-1 (Lim et al.,
2011; Ansari and Rajpersaud, 2012; Lim et al., 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2012; Punde and
Ganoker, 2012; Singh and Suthar, 2012). Furthermore, vermiwash which is collected as
leachate during vermicomposting is reported to have a pH of around 7.7 (Ansari and
Sukhraj, 2010). This vermiwash has NP content of 0.14% and 0.05% respectively
(Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001).
Vermicompost and vermiwash from various organic waste have been applied on several
plants such as tomatoes, okra, rice, P. Vulgaris, chilli pepper, flowering plants,
medicinal plants, corn, peas, marigold, yellow mustard, silk worms, lemon grass, pak
choi, vigna radiate, paddy, millet, maize and soy bean as bio-fertilizers (Gurav and
Pathade, 2000; Vijaya et al., 2008; Zambare et al., 2008; Ansari and Jaikushin, 2010;
Ansari and Sukharaj, 2010; Gopal et al., 2010; Hatti et al., 2010; Kalantari et al., 2010;
2|Page
Chanda et al., 2011; Kumari et al., 2011; Leon-Anzueto et al., 2011; Narkhede et al.,
2011; Nath and Singh, 2011; Pant et al., 2011; Rawgol et al., 2011; Srivastava et al.,
2011; Manyuchi et al., 2013e; Tharmaraj et al., 2012). The effect of vermicompost and
vermiwash was monitored by measuring the plant yield, root and stem length, number
of leaves, height of plants, number of plants and the biochemical composition of the
leaves such as chlorophyll content. Furthermore, the influence of vermicompost and
vermiwash on soil properties such as pH, carbon content, NPK, electrical conductivity
and trace elements has been studied (Gurav and Pathade, 2000; Vijaya et al., 2008 ;
Manyuchi et al., 2013c; Manyuchi et al., 2013d).
However, despite this vast research on vermicomposting of various organic wastes and
its impact on plants and the soil properties, no studies have focused on the potential of
vermicomposting waste corn pulp blended with cow dung manure. Corn is the staple
food in Southern Africa. Waste corn pulp constitutes about 25% of the 47% of
biodegradable waste of the 1.26 tons waste generated per day particularly in
Zimbabwe. This study therefore focused on vermicomposting waste corn pulp using
Eisenia fetida. The quality of the vermicompost and vermiwash produced was assessed
by monitoring the NPK and trace elements compositions. Furthermore the
physicochemical properties of the bio-fertilizers which include moisture content, pH,
electrical conductivity, temperature, ash content and volatility was assessed. Further,
the effect of waste Zea Mays vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil
properties was monitored over 40 days. Lastly, the impact of waste corn pulp
vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on the growth of Zea Mays was
assessed focusing on the number of leaves, height of the plant and the cob web weight.
3|Page
CHAPTER 2: VERMICOMPOSTING LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
Vermicomposting is increasingly becoming popular as an organic solid waste

management strategy (Narkhede et al., 2011; Nath and Singh, 2011; Pant et al., 2011;
Tharmaraj et al., 2011, Manyuchi et al., 2012). During vermicomposting, the organic
waste is converted to a bio-fertilizer by earthworms’ action over a certain period of time
in a worm bin (Gurav and Pathade, 2011). In addition, the process conditions are
closely monitored so they will not disturb the earthworm activity (Gurav and Pathade,
2011; Manyuchi et al., 2012). The process conditions monitored include temperature,
moisture content, pH and electrical conductivity (Chanda et al., 2008; Ansari and
Rajpersaud, 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2012). In this bioprocess, the earthworm gut acts as
a bioreactor and that’s where the organic waste is decomposed into a bio-fertilizer
(Ansari, 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2013a). In addition to the
vermicompost, earthworms and vermiwash are obtained as by products from the
vermicomposting process. The detailed vermicomposting process is shown in Figure
1.0 (Gurav and Pathade, 2011).
4|Page
Waste
biomass
Collection and
Transportation
Mechanical separation Metals by magnetic Recycling

(manually or machine separation
Paper, glass, Recycling

ceramics
Organic waste
Shredding
Storage
Biogas Precomposting or Addition of microbe rich

plant partial digestion materials
Separated
slurry Process monitoring:
Vermicomposting
Temp, pH, N, P, K, Conductivity
Vermiculture Vermicomposting Resistant residues for

harvesting landfilling or recycling
Earthworms Vermicompost
packaging and
storage
Figure 1.0: Vermicomposting process flow diagram
5|Page
2.1 Vermicomposting products
The process of vermicomposting produces earthworms as by products by a process

called vermiculture. Furthermore, vermicompost which is also termed vermicasts is
produced and vermiwash. The vermicompost and vermiwash can be utilized as bio-
fertilizers (Manyuchi et al., 2013a).
2.1.1 Earthworms
Various earthworms have been used in vermicomposting (see Table 1.0). Different
quantities of earthworms have been inoculated in different organic wastes and the
earthworm response in terms of growth and reproduction rate has been monitored (see
Table 1.0). However, Eisenia fetida has been widely used as the earthworm of choice
(Ndegwa et al., 2000; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2000; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001;
Sinha et al., 2002; Aira et al., 2007; Nath et al., 2009; Suthar, 2009; Ansari and
Jaikishun, 2010; Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010; Hatti et al., 2010; Indrajeet et al., 2010;
Ansari, 2011; Garg et al., 2011; Garg and Gupta, 2011; Leon-Anzueto et al., 2011; Liu
and Price, 2011; Srivastava et al., 2011; Ansari and Rajpersaud, 2012; Manyuchi et al.,
2012; Nath and Singh, 2012; Singh and Suthar, 2012). Earthworm activity during
vermicomposting has been monitored by looking at the earthworm biomass gain,
cocoon production, weight gain, increase in worm length and worm number as well as
the growth rate (Edwards et al., 1998; Lim et al., 2012). Additionally, parameters such
as temperature, feed type, earthworm stock density and feedstock loading rate have
been studied to see their influence on earthworm activity (Ndegwa and Thompson,
2000).
The earthworm growth rate is calculated according to equation 1: (Garg and Gupta,
2011):
𝐵2 − 𝐵1
𝐺= (1)
𝑇𝑋𝑛
Where:
G = Earthworm growth rate (mg/worm/day)
6|Page
B1 = Initial biomass of worm (mg)
B2 = Maximum biomass obtained by worm (mg)
T = Number of days in which biomass is attained
N = number of earthworms inoculated
The earthworm biomass gained per unit feed mixture (mg/g) is calculated according to
equation 2: (Garg and Gupta, 2011):
𝐵2 − 𝐵1
(2)
𝑊
Where:
W = total quantity of waste taken (g)
In addition, the earthworm reproduction rate is calculated according to equation 3: (Garg

and Gupta, 2011):
𝐶
𝑅= (3)
𝐸
Where:
R = reproduction rate
C = total number of cocoons produced
E = total number of earthworms
7|Page
Table 1.0: Earthworm growth for various earthworm species used for vermicomposting
Reference Organic waste used Type of earthworm used Parameters monitored on earthworms
Borah et al., 2007 Perionnyx Excavatus Weight and size
Edwards et al., 1998 Cattle and sewage sludge Perionnyx Excavatus Weight, population density and size
Garg and Gupta, 2011 Household solid waste Eisenia fetida Biomass gain, number of worms and cocoons
and cow dung produced
Garg et al., 2011 Food industry waste Eisenia fetida Biomass gain and cocoons produced
Gark et al., 2005 Animal waste Eisenia fetida Weight, growth rate and biomass gain
Gurav and Pathade, 2000 Temple waste Eudrilus Eugeniae Weight and number of cocoons produced
Kumar et al., 2012 Herbal industry waste and Eudrilus Eugeniae Weight and number of worms
cow dung
Lim et al., 2011 Soybean husk Eudrilus Eugeniae Biomass gain, number of worms and number of
cocoons
Lim et al., 2012 Rice husk Eudrilus Eugeniae Growth rate and weight
Liu and Price, 2011 Waste coffee Eisenia fetida Biomass gain
Ndegwa and Thompson, Bio solids Eisenia fetida Stocking density and length
2000
Ndegwa et al., 2000 Sewage sludge and waste Eisenia fetida Number of worms
paper
Palsania et al., 2008 Sugarcane bagasse Eudrilus Eugeniae Weight and size
Shweta, 2011 Wood waste Drawida Willis Weight
Singh and Suthar, 2012 Herbal pharmaceutical Eisenia fetida Weight, biomass gain, cocoons produced and
waste earthworm population
Suthar, 2009 Vegetable market solids Eisenia fetida Biomass gain and cocoons produced
8|Page
2.1.2 Vermicompost
Vermicompost is an odorless, dark brown bio-fertilizer obtained from the process of

vermicomposting (Chaudhuri et al., 2000; Aalok et al., 2008; Abbasi et al., 2009;
Manyuchi et al., 2012). The vermicompost obtained are also termed vermicasts as they
are expelled as casts from the earthworm gut. Various types of organic waste have
been reported to produce vermicompost and a range of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P)
and potassium (K) content were obtained (see Table 2.0). The quality of the
vermicompost is measured by the vermicompost biodegradability coefficient (Garg and
Gupta, 2011).
The vermicompost biodegradability coefficient, (Kb) of the vermicompost is calculated

according to equation to equation 4: (Garg and Gupta, 2011):
(OMi−OMf) 𝑋 100
𝐾𝑏 = (4)
OMi (100−OMf)
Where:
OMf = organic matter content at the end of the vermicompost process
OMi = organic matter content at the beginning of the vermicompost process
The yield of the vermicompost ranged from 30-50% depending on the vermicomposting
period and type of waste used (see Table 3.0). The difference in percentage is
accounted for by the increase in earthworms’ number, earthworm length, earthworm
weight and the vermiwash liquid produced (Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010; Ansari, 2012;
Ansari and Rajpersaud, 2012).
9|Page
Table 2.0: Literature review on vermicompost produced and process conditions employed
Reference Organic waste used Vermicomposting T (◦C) pH Moisture Electrical N% P% K%

period (days) content (%) Conductivity
-1
(µScm )
Ansari and Grass and cow dung 60 26-28 6.81 5.0-25 1.0- 0.2-0.6 1.0-
Rajpersaud, 2012 3.0 3.0
Borah et al., 2007 29 7.8 10.6 0.38 0.87 0.69
Chanda et al., 7.2 1.65 1.2 0.92

2008
Gurav and Temple waste 30 25 8 80 1.58 0.33 0.28
Pathade, 2000
Narkhede et al., Municipal waste 60 32.4 7.1 1.2 0.9 1.4
2011
Muthukumaravel Soil, cow dung and 60 7.5- 1.45- 0.57- 1.98-
et al., 2008 vegetable waste 8.3 1.76 1.60 4.98
Punde and Various 45 35 7.2 50-60 4.2 1.32 0.45 0.75

Garnoker, 2012
Manyuchi et al., Cow dung and waste 30 19-25 5.5- 28-52 60000-80000 4.19 1.15 6.18
2012 corn pulp 7.7
10 | P a g e
Table 3.0: Vermicompost yields for various organic wastes
Reference Waste used Vermicomposting Yield (%)

period (days)
Ansari, 2012 Grass, cow dung and 60 34.17
water hyacinth
Ansari and Rajpersaud, Grass and cow dung 60 31-40
2012
Ansari and Sukhraj, Grass and cow dung 45 50
2010
2.1.3. Vermiwash
Vermiwash is the leachate that is produced during the vermicomposting process

and is dark brown in color (Jadia and Fulekar, 2008; Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010;
Gopal et al., 2010; Leon-Anzueto et al., 2011; Ndegwa and Thompson, 2011;
Pant et al., 2011; Sundaravadivelan et al., 2011; Thamaraj et al., 2011;
Manyuchi et al., 2013a; Manyuchi et al., 2013c; Manyuchi et al., 2013d;
Manyuchi et al., 2013e). The nutritional composition of vermiwash obtained
from different organic waste in terms of NPK and trace elements composition is
summarized in Table 4.0. Very few authors have embarked on the potential of
vermiwash as a bio-fertilizer.
11 | P a g e
Table 4.0: Vermiwash from different organic wastes and the conditions employed
Reference Organic waste used Vermicomposting period pH Electrical N P K

(days) Conductivity
-1
(dsm )
Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010 Grass and cow dung 45 7.7 0.02ppm 48.86ppm 245ppm
Gopal et al., 2010 Coconut leaf and cow dung 7.6-8
Jadia and Fulekar, 2008 Vegetable waste
Leon-Anzueto, 2011 Cow dung 60 7.5 9.8
Ndegwa and Thompson, 2001 Sewage sludge and waste paper 28 0.14% 0.05%
Pant et al., 2011 Chicken manure
Tharmaraj et al., 2011 Leaves and cow dung 30 7.5 0.02-2.12
Manyuchi et al., 2012 Cow dung and waste corn pulp 30 6.8-8.4 42.7-59.7 1.58 7.53 1.26
12 | P a g e
2.2 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil properties
The effect of vermicompost and vermiwash from different organic waste’s

influence on the soil chemical properties was studied by few researchers (Gurav
and Pathade, 2000; Sudhakar et al., 2002; Vijaya et al., 2008; Manyuchi et al.,
2013c; Manyuchi et al., 2013d). The influence of applying vermicompost and
vermiwash on soil properties such as pH, electrical conductivity, NPK and trace
elements composition has been critically investigated.
2.3 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on plant growth
The effects of vermicompost and vermiwash on various plants have been

studied. Vermicompost and vermiwash influence on plants such as cow pea,
soy bean, corn and marigold has been examined (see Table 5.0). Factors such
as plant yield, plant height, number of flowers, number of leaves and roots as
well as the biochemical composition of the plant leaves were used as measure
of the effectiveness of the vermi-products (see Table 5.0).
13 | P a g e
Table 5.0: Literature Review on effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on plant growth
Reference Vermi-product applied Plant grown Plant factors monitored

Ansari and Sukhraj, 2010 Vermicompost Okra Biochemical properties, yield and fruits
Chanda et al., 2011 Vermicompost Tomatoes Number of leaves, branches and fruits
Gopal et al., 2010 Vermiwash Cow pea, maize and okra Yield
Gurav and Pathade, 2000 Vermicompost Flowering plants Height, flowering time, number of flowers
Kalantari et al., 2010 Vermicompost Corn Number of roots and shoots
Kumari et al., 2011 Vermicompost Potted peas and marigold Weight of shoots and roots, number of flowers, yield,
chlorophyll content and carotene
Leon-Anzueto et al., 2011 Vermiwash and vermicompost Lemon grass Yield
Narkhede et al., 2011 Vermicompost Chilli pepper Plant height, leaf length, fruit yield and chlorophyll
content
Nath and Singh, 2012 Vermicompost Paddy, maize and millet Plant height
Pant et al., 2011 Vermiwash Pak choi Plant height and root length
Srivastava et al., 2011 Vermicompost Yellow mustard Number of roots, shoots, branches, leaves, pods and
flowers
Tharmaraj et al., 2011 Vermiwash Rice Number of leaves, height, leaf and root length
Vijaya et al., 2008 Vermicompost Medicinal plant Weight of shoots and roots, flowers, yield, chlorophyll
and carotene content
Manyuchi et al., 2013e Vermicompost/vermiwash Zea Mays Plant height, number of leaves and cob weight
14 | P a g e
Based on the literature review, this study focused on the possibility of
vermicomposting waste corn pulp blended with cow dung manure as a solid
waste management strategy. The optimum process conditions for the
vermicomposting process were determined and the trends in the
physicochemical properties noted. Furthermore, the vermicompost and
vermiwash were compared in terms of nutrient content and physicochemical
properties. In addition, the effect of vermicompost, vermiwash over time on soil
properties was quantified. Lastly, the effect of vermicompost, vermiwash over
time on the growth of Zea Mays was quantified. Zea Mays is also known as
maize and is the staple food in Southern Africa. Zea Mays grows best in well
drained loam soils with a soil pH of around 5.8-6.5 and moisture content of
minimum 28%.
15 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3: VERMICOMPOSTING HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The hypotheses, research design and methodology were carried out in order to
meet the questions that arose from the literature review. The key questions that
were obtained from the literature review for the potential of vermicomposting
waste corn pulp are:
1. Can waste corn pulp be vermicomposted?

2. Can it be blended with other feed stocks?
3. Is the vermicompost obtained comparable to other vermicompost?
4. Can the vermiwash obtained be used as a liquid fertilizer?
5. What effect does the vermicompost, vermiwash and application time
have on the soil nutrients?
6. What effect does the vermicompost, vermiwash and application time
have on the Zea Mays growth?
3.1: Research hypotheses
The following hypotheses were then formulated according to the literature

review:
Hypothesis one
Waste corn pulp can be used as a major feedstock in vermicomposting
Hypothesis two
The vermicompost and vermiwash obtained can be used as bio-fertilizers
Hypothesis three
Vermicompost, vermiwash and increased application time improves the soil

nutrients
Hypothesis four
Vermicompost, vermiwash and increased application time improves Zea Mays

growth and yield
16 | P a g e
3.2 Materials
The materials that were used included corn pulp, cow dung, earthworms and
the worm bin. Feedstock with 1 part cow dung manure and 6 parts waste corn
pulp per weight was prepared. The waste corn pulp was obtained from the
Harare Institute of Technology canteen whilst the cow dung manure was
obtained from a nearby farm. Cow dung is reported to influence the rate of
vermicomposting by increasing the amount of macronutrients as well as
increase the vermicompost nitrogen content (Muthukumaravel et al., 2008;
Ansari and Sukhraj ., 2010). Cow dung also provides microbes which accelerate
the decomposition process (Ansari and Rajpersuad., 2012).
Red wriggler (Eisenia fetida) earth worms which are an invertebrate species
were used for vermicomposting. Eisenia fetida are non-burrowing earth worms
and are reddish in color. They have a life span of about 28 months. Eisenia
fetida species eat about 90% of organic waste and thrives best at temperatures
of 25-40◦C and moisture levels of 40-45% (Ansari and Rajpersuad., 2012).
Eisenia fetida species are capable of ingesting and excreting organic material at
a faster rate compared to other non-burrowing species (Muthukumaravel et al.,
2008).
Vermicomposting was carried out in the vermi-reactors indicated in Picture 1.0.

The vermiwash was collected from an outlet pipe on the vermi-reactors. An
average of 68mls of vermiwash was collected per day. The vermicomposting
process was done in a lab scale black plastic worm bin obtained from Full
Cycle, South Africa. The dimensions of the worm bin were: length 53cm, width
34.6cm, and depth 18.5cm. The worm bin had three chambers. The chambers
had 7mm holes to allow movement of worms from one chamber to the next after
vermicomposting in that tray. There were also 10 x 3mm outlets at the four
corners of each chamber to facilitate collection of the vermiwash throughout the
vermicomposting process. The worm bin was four legged to allow free air
circulation in the organic waste. The worm bin was covered with a lid to prevent
the entry of unwanted insects and predators. The covering of the lid also
stimulated the growth and reproduction of the worms (Indrajeet et al., 2010).
17 | P a g e
Additionally, the lid was punched to allow easy of air circulation. The worms
migrated to the preceding chamber where new feed was introduced after
converting all the waste to vermicasts in that chamber. The worm bin was
maintained at standard room temperature and pressure.
Picture 1.0: Vermi-bin used during the vermicomposting process
The bio-fertilizers were applied on 4kg of loam-clay soils. The Zea Mays seed
used was a Shoko breed which was obtained from a local agriculture shop.
3.3 Methods
The feedstock was vermicomposted for 30 days whilst temperature, pH,

moisture content, and electrical conductivity were monitored daily. The ash
content, volatile matter and fixed carbon were determined at the beginning and
end of the process. The nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K)
18 | P a g e
content was determined at the end of the vermi-composting. Trace elements in
the vermicompost were also determined.
10kg of the feedstock was placed in the worm bin. The whole vermicomposting
period lasted for 30 days. The material was turned to provide sufficient aeration
and ensure adequate decomposition of all parts. In addition, movement of the
worms during vermicomposting improved the feedstock aeration. A 10-12cm
layer of the organic waste was placed in the worm bin at the bottom chamber
whereby the vermicomposting process was initiated. Worms were introduced to
the waste at a rate of 1kg/m2 as indicated by Indrajeet et al. (2010).
Temperature changes were noted daily using an alcohol thermometer. Moisture

content and volatile matter analyses were done using an AND moisture
analyzer. The %Moisture content (M) was determined by heating 5g of sample
at 105◦C for 30 minutes and then recording the difference in weight. The
%Volatile matter (VM) was determined by heating 5g of sample at 105◦C for 3
minutes and then recording the difference in weight. The %Ash content (AC)
was determined by completely incinerating the 5g sample using a burner. The
total %fixed carbon was determined as: 100% - %( M + VM + AC). pH and
electrical conductivity measurements were done using a Hanna HI 9810
instrument. The nitrogen, phosphorous, and trace elements content were
determined using a Shimadzu 1800 ultra violet visible spectrophotometer. The
potassium content was determined using a Shimadzu AA 7000 atomization
absorption spectrophotometer.
The Zea Mays seeds were planted about 4cm into the ground and were
continuously watered to ensure adequate moisture content was maintained.
3.4 Experimental Design
Full factorial designs were used for the experimental design. A statistical
analysis in STATISTICA was used for data analyses. The response variables
that were monitored daily for the vermicompost and vermiwash include the NPK
and trace elements in the soil when the vermicompost and vermiwash applied
over 40 days without and with Zea Mays planted.
19 | P a g e
3.4.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil properties
The vermicompost, vermiwash quantity and the application time was varied
according to Table 6.0. Factor A is the vermicompost quantity, factor B
vermiwash quantity and factor C, the vermi-product application period The 23
experimental design for investigating the effect of vermicompost, vermiwash
and application period on the soil properties is indicated in Table 7.0.
3.4.2 Effect of Zea Mays vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea
Mays plants
The effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays was
investigated for almost two months. The vermicompost, vermiwash quantity and
the application time was varied according to Table 6.0. The response variables
that will be measured are the cob weight, number of leaves and Zea Mays plant
length. The 23 experimental design for investigating the effect of vermicompost,
vermiwash and application period on the growth of Zea Mays is shown in Table
7.0.
20 | P a g e
Table 6.0: Factors investigating the effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application period on soil nutrients and Zea Mays
growth
Factor Low level (-1) High level (1)
A. Vermicompost quantity 500g 1000g
B. Vermiwash quantity 500g 1000g
C. Length of application time 10 days 40 days
Center conditions A. 750g vermicompost, B. 750g vermiwash and C. 25 days
21 | P a g e
Table 7.0: 23 Factorial design to determine the effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application period on soil nutrients and Zea
Mays growth
Factor Treatment Combination
A B C
-1 -1 -1 A 500g, B 500g, C 10 days
1 -1 -1 A 1000g, B 500g,C 10 days
-1 1 -1 A 500g, B 1000g,C 10 days
1 1 -1 A 15kg, B 15kg,C 10 days
-1 -1 1 A 500g, B 500g,C 40 days
1 -1 1 A 1000kg, B 500g,C 40 days
-1 1 1 A 500g, B 1000g, C 40 days
1 1 1 A 1000g, B 1000g, C 40 days
0 0 0 A 750g, B 750g, C 25 days
22 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4: VEMICOMPOSTING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The major products obtained from the vermicomposting were vermicompost and
vermiwash. The vermicompost and vermiwash obtained are shown in Picture
2.0 and Picture 3.0.
Picture 2.0: Vermicompost obtained from waste corn pulp blended with cow
dung manure
23 | P a g e
Picture 3.0: Vermiwash obtained from waste corn pulp blended with cow dung
manure
4.1 Vermicompost production and effect of process parameters
4.1.1 Changes in ash content, volatile matter and fixed carbon
The ash content significantly increased during vermicomposting by 147% (see

Table 8.0). This was possibly due to the conversion of the substrate into vermi-
casts during the vermicomposting process (Singh et al., 2005). This is also
indicated by the increased volatile matter by 591% (see Table 8.0) which is a
good measure of the degradation of the organic waste (Palsania et al., 2008).
Additionally, this can be related to the decrease in the fixed carbon value from
59.47% to 9.42% which is also a measure of adequate vermicomposting.
However, some of the material was changed to the weight of the earthworms
and some of the organic waste was converted to the vermiwash.
24 | P a g e
Table 8.0: Changes in ash content, volatile matter and fixed carbon
Parameter (%) Feedstock Vermicompost
Volatile matter 1.45 10.02
Moisture content 27.68 52.41
Ash content 11.40 28.15
Fixed carbon 59.47 9.42
4.1.2 Variations of process parameters
The process parameters that were monitored during the vermicomposting

period include moisture content, electrical conductivity, temperature and pH.
This was necessary to ensure optimal processing of the organic waste to the
vermicompost.
The moisture content increased from 27.68% to about 52% as the
vermicomposting period increased (see Figure 2.0). This was probably due to
vermiwash that was being continuously produced during the process. The
values obtained were in line with those reported from literature (Palsania et al.,
2008). Increase in moisture content in the required range increased the
earthworm bio-conversion rate of organic waste to vermicompost (Palsania et
al., 2008).
Figure 2.0: Moisture changes during the vermicomposting period
25 | P a g e
There was a general decrease in the electrical conductivity of the vermicompost
during the 30 day vermicomposting period (see Figure. 3.0). The values
decreased from 80 000 µS/cm to 60 000 µS/cm with an overall 25% decrease.
The trend was probably due to the increase in moisture content from 27.68% to
about 52.41% as illustrated in Figure 2.0. Lower vermicompost electrical
conductivity is reported to be ideal for plant growth as this allows maximum
nutrient absorption by plants (Ansari and Rajpersaud., 2012).
Figure. 3.0: Electrical conductivity changes during the vermicomposting period
Moderate vermicompost temperatures were achieved during the 30 day period.

Temperatures ranged between 19◦C to 25◦C as indicated in Figure 4.0. These
temperatures are good for optimum vermicomposting and earthworm growth
(Edwards et al., 1998; Palsania et al., 2008). The variations in temperature
changes can be attributed to the metabolic reactions that were occurring during
the vermicomposting process and also changes in the surrounding
temperatures. The moderate temperatures also prevent enzyme inactivation
during the bio-conversion of the organic waste to vermicasts.
26 | P a g e
Figure 4.0: Temperature changes during the vermi-composting period
There was a slight rise in the vermicompost’s pH from 5.5 to 8.0 then a
decrease to 7.7 during the 30 day vermicomposting period as indicated in
Figure 5.0. The vermicompost changed from being acidic to basic. This
increase was possibly due to nitrogenous waste excreted by the earth worms.
The pH eventually decreased to 7.7. This was because of the vermiwash
released in the process. This vermiwash increased the moisture content thus
neutralizing the pH of the vermicompost (Ansari and Sukharaj., 2010). The
same trend was obtained by Singh et al. (2005) when their pH increased from
4.3 to 8.2. The pH obtained in this study was optimal for application in the soil
as well as earth worm growth (Singh et al., 2005; Tharmaraj et al., 2011).
27 | P a g e
Figure 5.0: pH changes during the vermi-composting period
4.1.3 Nutrient composition of the vermicompost from corn pulp
The composition of the vermicompost was based on the NPK content as well as
the available trace elements. The vermicompost produced from the waste corn
pulp was rich in nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) content (see
Table 9.0). The waste corn pulp vermicompost contained total nitrogen of
4.19%. This nitrogen content value could have been due to nitrogenous
metabolic products of earthworms which were returned to the vermicompost as
casts and urine (Muthukumaravel et al., 2008). The total phosphate in the
vermicompost was 1.15%. This phosphate content is attributed to the
mineralization and mobilization of phosphorous due to earthworm activity.
Earthworms play an important role in the release of phosphates on organic
matter (Ansari and Rajpersaud., 2012). The potassium content in the
vermicompost was 6.18% during the vermicomposting process. This increase in
nutrients is boosted by the earthworm activity on the corn pulp (Ansari and
Rajpersaud., 2012). Muthukumaravel et al. (2008) had the same trend in NPK
when they vermicomposted a mixture of soil, cow dung and vegetable waste
using Megascolex mauritii, however, the nitrogen and potassium content from
the waste corn pulp were on the high side. The remaining 88% of the
vermicompost can be used as a soil filler to reduce leaching of nutrients.
28 | P a g e
The feedstock was characterized to determine its nutrient composition and the
results are indicated in Table 9.0. The same nutrient composition was identified
in vermicompost feedstock containing cow dung and grass clippings by Ansari
and Sukhraj., 2010. The vermicompost also contained trace elements that are
necessary for plant growth (see Table 9.0). Iron (Fe) was the major trace
element with 162.3ppm and is essential for chlorophyll formation in plant leaves.
Magnesium (Mg) which is essential for the strength of stems was 6.58ppm.
Additionally, the vermicompost contained 4.85ppm sodium (Na) which is
essential for the balance of salts.
Table 9.0: Vermicompost and vermiwash from waste corn pulp nutrient
composition
Feedstock composition Vermiwash composition
Nutrient Vermicompost composition
2.64 1.58
N (%) 4.19
0.56 7.53
P (%) 1.15
5.01 1.26
K (%) 6.18
13.23 219
Na (ppm) 4.85
3.01 282
Mg (ppm) 6.58
2.36 0.01
Cu (ppm) 0.57
0.44 0.01
Zn (ppm) 1.35
0.21 0.05
Fe (ppm) 162.30
145.67 0.02
Mn (ppm) 1.62
4.2 Comparison of vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers
4.2.1 Physicochemical characteristics of the vermicompost and vermiwash
The odorless brown vermicompost obtained (see Picture 2.0) had an average
moisture content of 42.5% and temperature of 22.5◦C during the
vermicomposting period. The odorless brown vermiwash obtained (see Picture
3.0) had a density of 984 kg/m3 and viscosity of 1.089cP at 17◦C.
The pH slightly increased in both the vermicompost and vermiwash to about

day 21 and started to decrease at day 30. In average, the vermicompost had a
higher pH as compared to the vermiwash. The vermicompost had an average
29 | P a g e
pH of 7.13 whereas the vermiwash had a slightly basic pH of 8.0. The trend in
the pH and electrical conductivity results are in agreement to Nath et al., 2009,
who indicated a higher pH of 6.12 in the vermicompost as compared to 7.11 in
vermiwash.
The electrical conductivity showed a general decrease in both the

vermicompost and vermiwash throughout the vermicomposting period. This can
be explained due to increased moisture content in the vermi-reactor as the
vermicomposting period increased affecting both the conductivity in both bio-
fertilizers (Manyuchi et al., 2012). The electrical conductivity was 24.9% higher
in the vermicompost compared to the vermiwash. The vermicompost had an
average conductivity of 70 320 µS/cm whilst the vermiwash had an average
conductivity of 52 843 µS/cm. The pH and electrical conductivity results are in
contradiction to the work of Quaik et al., 2012, who observed a higher pH and
electrical conductivity in the vermiwash compared to the vermicompost obtained
from cow dung manure
4.2.2 Primary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
The nitrogen and potassium content was 57% and 79.6% higher in the
vermicompost as compared to the vermiwash respectively (Figure 6.0).
However the phosphorous content was 84% higher in the vermiwash compared
to the vermicompost (Figure 6.0). Ansari and Sukhraj., 2010 had the same
observation with a 98% and 92% in the nitrogen and potassium content
respectively. However, they also indicated a 90% higher phosphorous content
in the vermicompost compared to the vermiwash.
30 | P a g e
Figure 6.0: Primary nutrient composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
4.2.3 Secondary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
No sulphur was detected in both the vermicompost and the vermiwash. Ca was
89.1% higher in vermiwash as compared to vermicompost (Figure 7.0).
Furthermore, the Mg content was 97.6% higher in vermiwash as compared to
vermicompost (Figure 7.0). Ansari and Sukhraj., 2010 detected no sulphur in
the two bio-fertilizers and also indicated a 4% higher Mg content in the
vermiwash compared to the vermicompost. However, their Ca content was 40%
higher in the vermicompost than the vermiwash.
31 | P a g e
Figure 7.0: Secondary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
4.2.4 Micronutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
Four micro nutrients were identified in the vermicompost and vermiwash which
are Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn. Bo, CI, and Mo were not identified in the bio-fertilizers
(see Table 9.0). The Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn were 98%, 100%, 98.8% and 74.1%
richer in vermicompost as compared to vermiwash respectively (Figure 8.0).
Ansari and Sukhraj., 2010 observed the same results for Mn and Zn, however
their Cu and Fe composition was higher with almost the same values in the
vermiwash compared to the vermicompost.
32 | P a g e
Figure 8.0: Micro nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash
4.2.5 Sodium salt content in vermicompost and vermiwash
Both the vermicompost and vermiwash contained some sodium (Na) salts. The
Na content was 97.8% higher in vermiwash as compared to vermicompost. Na
can stimulate plant growth and can be used as an alternative in cases where
potassium is deficient. The same result was obtained by Ansari and Sukhraj.,
2010 when they tested the bio-fertilizers from grass clippings and cow dung.
The total available salts were 68% higher in the vermiwash compared to the
vermicompost.
4.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil
physicochemical properties and primary nutrients
4.3.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil pH
Increasing the vermicompost quantity at constant application time of 25 days

resulted in a decreased pH of less than 5.2, whereas increasing the vermiwash
quantity resulted in increased pH to more than 5.5 (see Figure 9a). However
increasing both the vermicompost and vermiwash quantity resulted in a
33 | P a g e
constant soil pH of around 5.4 (see Figure 9a). In addition, increasing the
application duration of the vermicompost resulted in increased pH at constant
vermiwash quantity of 750g (see Figure 9b). However, increasing both the
vermicompost quantity and the application period resulted in a constant pH of
around 5.4 (see Figure 9b). Furthermore, increasing both the vermiwash
quantity and the application period at constant vermicompost quantity of 750g
increased the soil pH to more than 5.5 (see Figure 9c).
Figure 9a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil pH at an application

time of 25 days
34 | P a g e
Figure 9b: Effect of vermicompost and application duration on soil pH at
vermiwash of 750g
Figure 9c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on soil pH at vermiwash of

750g
35 | P a g e
4.3.2 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil electrical
conductivity
The soil electrical conductivity decreased on increasing the vermicompost

quantity to less than 1000 µS/cm whereas increasing the vermiwash quantity
increased the electrical conductivity to more than 5000 µS/cm at constant
application duration of 25 days (see Figure 10a). Increasing both the
vermicompost and vermiwash quantities resulted in constant electrical
conductivity of around 4000 µS/cm (see Figure 10a). Furthermore, increasing
the application period of vermicompost at constant vermiwash quantity of 750g
resulted in increased soil conductivity of more than 4000 µS/cm (see Figure
10b). However, increasing both the vermicompost and the application duration
resulted in constant soil electrical conductivity of around 4000 µS/cm (see
Figure 10b). Furthermore, increasing both the vermiwash quantity and the
application duration increased the soil conductivity to more than 4000 µS/cm
(see Figure 10c).
Figure 10a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil electrical conductivity

at an application duration of 25 days
36 | P a g e
Figure 10b: Effect of vermicompost and application duration on soil electrical
conductivity at vermiwash of 750g
Figure 10c: Effect of vermiwash and application duration on soil electrical

conductivity at vermicompost of 750g
37 | P a g e
4.3.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil nitrogen
content
Increasing the vermicompost and vermiwash quantity independently at a

constant application period of 25 days resulted in a slight decrease in the soil
nitrogen content (see Figure 11a). In addition, increasing both the
vermicompost and vermiwash quantities resulted in decreased soil nitrogen
content to about 86 mg/L (see Figure 11a). Furthermore, increasing the
application duration decreased the soil nitrogen content (see Figure 11b and
Figure 11c). In addition, increasing, both the application time and either the
vermicompost or the vermiwash quantity decreased the soil nitrogen content to
less than 64 mg/L (see Figure 11a and Figure 11b).
Figure 11a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil nitrogen content at

an application time of 25 days
38 | P a g e
Figure 11b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on soil nitrogen content
Figure 11c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on soil nitrogen content at
vermicompost of 750g
39 | P a g e
phosphorous content
Increasing the vermicompost and vermiwash independently resulted in a slight

decrease in the soil phosphorous content at a constant application period of 25
days (see Figure 12a). Furthermore, increasing both vermicompost and
vermiwash quantities resulted in a slight decrease in the soil phosphorous
content (see Figure 12a). However, increasing the application period of either
the vermicompost or vermiwash resulted in increased soil phosphorous content
to more than 80 mg/L (see Figure 12a and 12b). Furthermore, the combined
effect of increasing the application period and either the vermicompost or the
vermiwash quantity resulted in increased soil phosphorous content also by
more than 80 mg/L (see Figure 12c).
Figure 12a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil phosphorous content

at an application time of 25 days
40 | P a g e
Figure 12b: Effect of vermicompost and application duration on soil
phosphorous content at vermiwash of 750g
Figure 12c: Effect of vermiwash and application duration on soil phosphorous

content at vermicompost of 750g
41 | P a g e
potassium content
Increase in vermicompost at a constant application period of 25 days did not

show any change in the soil potassium content, whereas increase in the
vermiwash quantity resulted in increased soil potassium content to more than
15 mg/L (see Figure 13a). Furthermore, increasing both the vermicompost
quantity and the vermiwash quantity resulted in increased soil potassium
content to more than 15 mg/L (see Figure 13a). Increasing the application
duration and the vermicompost quantity independently resulted in a slight
increase in the potassium content at constant vermiwash quantity of 750g (see
Figure 13b). In addition, increasing both the application period and
vermicompost resulted in increased soil potassium content by more than 14
mg/L (see Figure 13b). Increasing the application period at constant vermiwash
and vermicompost quantities did not alter the soil potassium content, however
increasing both the application period and the vermiwash quantity at constant
vermicompost of 750g resulted in increased soil potassium content of more than
15 mg/L (see Figure 13c).
Figure 13a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil potassium content at

an application time of 25 days
42 | P a g e
Figure 13b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on soil potassium
content at vermiwash of 750g
Figure 13c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on soil potassium content
at vermiwash of 750g
43 | P a g e
Addition of vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers has a significant impact
on soil properties. The impact of influence is also dependent on the application
duration of the respective bio-fertilizer. The soil pH decreased on increased
vermicompost application possibly due the decreased soil electrical
conductivity. However, increased vermiwash addition and application duration
and their combined effect increased the soil pH possibly due to the increased
electrical conductivity as a result of mobile ions in the vermiwash.
Increasing the vermicompost, vermiwash, application duration and their

combined effects resulted in decreased soil nitrogen content. This is possibly
due to decomposition of the organic compounds by microorganisms present in
the bio-fertilizers. This results in de-nitrification as the NO3- ions are converted
to N gases by bacteria and are released to the atmosphere. Increasing the
vermicompost quantity, application duration and their combined effects resulted
in increased soil phosphorous content. This is possibly because phosphorous
does not exist in elementary form and most of it is insoluble in the
vermicompost and unavailable to the soil and plants. Therefore, the biological
activity by micro-organisms in the bio-fertilizers converts this into soluble
phosphates, hence the increase in the phosphate content. However, increasing
the vermiwash quantity resulted in decreased phosphorous content possibly
because the phosphorus was in soluble form and was ready to be absorbed by
the soil. Increasing the vermicompost, vermiwash, application duration and their
combined effects resulted in increased soil potassium content. This is possibly
because of the type loam-clay soil that was used in this which has good nutrient
absorbing properties. Furthermore, the micro-organisms in the vermiwash and
vermicompost reloaded the soil with more potassium ions, hence the increase.
4.4: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil
micronutrients
4.4.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on zinc content
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied increased the soil zinc content to
more than 1.6 mg/L (see Figures 14a and 14b). However increasing the
vermiwash quantity applied did not change the zinc content in the soil (see
44 | P a g e
Figures 14a and 14c). Increasing the application time of the bio-fertilizers
resulted in decreased zinc content to less than 1.0 mg/L (see Figures 14b and
14c).
Figure 14a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil zinc content at

constant application time of 25 days
45 | P a g e
Figure 14b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on soil zinc content at
constant vermiwash quantity of 750g
Figure 14c: Effect of vermiwash and application duration on soil zinc content at
constant vermicompost content of 750g
46 | P a g e
4.4.2: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on copper content
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied did not result in a significant

change in the soil copper content (see Figures 15a and 15b). However
increasing the vermiwash quantity applied resulted in decreased copper content
by less than 5.25 mg/L (see Figures 15a and 15c). In addition, increasing the
application time of the bio-fertilizers resulted in increased soil copper content by
more than 8.0 mg/L (see Figures 15b and 15c).
Figure 15a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil copper content at

constant application time of 25 days
47 | P a g e
Figure 15b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on soil copper content
at constant vermiwash quantity of 750g
48 | P a g e
Figure 15c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on soil copper content at
constant vermicompost quantity of 750g
4.4.3: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on manganese
content
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied in the soil resulted in increased

manganese content by more than 200 mg/L (see Figures 16a and 16b).
However, increasing the vermiwash quantity did not alter the soil manganese
content (see Figures 16a and 16c). Furthermore, increasing the application time
of the bio-fertilizers resulted in decreased manganese content by less than 70
mg/L (see Figures 16b and 16c).
49 | P a g e
Figure 16a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash quantity on manganese
content at constant application time of 25 days
50 | P a g e
Figure 16b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on manganese content
at constant vermiwash content of 750g
51 | P a g e
Figure 16c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on manganese content at
constant vermicompost quantity of 750g
4.4.4: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on iron content
Increase in vermicompost and vermiwash quantity applied did not show a

significant change in the soil iron content (see Figures 17a, 17b and 17c).
However, increasing the application time of the two bio-fertilizers resulted in
increased soil iron content by more than 180 mg/L (see Figures 17b and 17c).
52 | P a g e
Figure 17a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on iron content at constant
application time of 25 days
Figure 17b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on iron content at

constant vermiwash quantity of 750g
53 | P a g e
Figure 17c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on iron content at constant
vermicompost quantity of 750g
The organic carbon in the vermicompost promotes steady and slow release of
nutrients in the soil making them more available in the soil (Ansari and Sukhraj.,
2010). Vermicompost is rich organic material which is abundant in living micro-
organism. This therefore resulted in the increased zinc and manganese content
as the quantity applied increased. Presence of organic material present in the
soil increases the availability of these micronutrients due to microbial activity
(Mortvedt). Furthermore, the micro-organisms in the vermicompost improved
the soil aeration due to the movement thereby increasing the zinc and
manganese content available (Mortvedt). However, a vermicompost quantity of
a maximum of 1000g did not significantly increase the copper and iron content
possibly because the soil was too compacted for a marked impact of the
organic material and the microbial activity to be noted.
Vermiwash is a liquid bio-fertilizer and is mostly comprised of water. This

therefore resulted in decreased soil copper content as the quantity of
vermiwash applied increased. This was possibly because the copper ions were
leached away from the sample as the volume of the vermiwash applied
increased. However, increase in the vermiwash quantity applied did not alter the
54 | P a g e
soil zinc, manganese and copper content possibly because the soil was a bit
compacted hence could not allow leaching away of nutrients.
Increased application time of the vermicompost and vermiwash quantity

resulted in increased soil copper and iron content due to increased organic
matter which resulted in improved soil aeration and microbial activity (Mortvedt).
Furthermore, the loam-clay soils have a potential to retain the nutrients despite
the vermiwash added over time. The soil manganese and zinc content
decreased with increased application time possibly because highly organic soils
have lower manganese content (Mortvedt). The organic material in the soil
continuously increased with increased vermicompost and vermiwash applied
over time. In addition, increased soil iron content has tendencies to lower the
manganese content (Mortvedt).
Lastly, vermiwash and vermicompost are enriched with certain metabolites and
vitamins B and D such that when applied over time in the soil they have
tendencies of overall improving the soil nutrient quality (Ansari and Sukhraj.,
2010).
55 | P a g e
4.5: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on
growth of Zea Mays
The vermicompost and vermiwash obtained were applied to Zea Mays as bio-
fertilizers. The Zea Mays planted are indicated in Photo 4.
Photo 4: Zea Mays plants grown with vermicompost and vermiwash
4.5.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays plant
height
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied slightly increased the height of

the Zea Mays plant (see Figures 18a and 18b). Furthermore, increasing both
the vermiwash quantity applied and the application time significantly increased
the plant height by more than 30cm (see Figures 18b and 18c).
56 | P a g e
Figure 18a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash quantity on Zea Mays height
Figure 18b: Effect of vermicompost and application duration on Zea Mays

height
57 | P a g e
Figure 18c: Effect of vermiwash and application duration on Zea Mays height
4.5.2 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays leaves
production
Addition of vermicompost enhanced Zea Mays leaves production by more than

3 leaves per plant (see Figures 19a and 19b). In addition, increasing the
vermiwash quantity increased the plant leaves production by at least 2 leaves
(see Figures 19a and 19c). Furthermore, increasing the bio-fertilizers
application duration increase the number of leaves produced by more than 7
leaves (see Figures 19b and 19c).
58 | P a g e
Figure 19a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on Zea Mays leaves
production
Figure 19b: Effect of vermicompost and application duration on Zea Mays

leaves production
59 | P a g e
Figure 19c: Effect of vermiwash and application duration on Zea Mays leaves
production
4.5.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on Zea Mays cob
weight
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied resulted in a slight increase of the

Zea Mays cob weight (see Figures 20a and 20b). In addition, increasing the
vermiwash quantity applied enhanced the plant cob weight by more than 30g
(see Figures 20a and 20c). Furthermore, increasing the application time further
promoted the growth of the cob weight by more than 120g (see Figures 20b and
20c).
60 | P a g e
Figure 20a: Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash quantity on cob weight
Figure 20b: Effect of vermicompost and application time on cob weight
61 | P a g e
Figure 20c: Effect of vermiwash and application time on cob weight
Increasing the vermicompost quantity applied promoted plant growth as well as

growth of the cob webs because of the increase in zinc and phosphorous
content due to increased vermicompost quantities. Zinc enhances plant growth
regulation whilst phosphorous promotes plant growth (Ansari and Sukhraj.,
2010; Manyuchi et al., 2013c; Manyuchi et al., 2013d). The Zea Mays plant
were of good quality due to the increased potassium content in the soil as this
promoted plant resistance and quality of seed. Furthermore, increasing the
application time of both the vermicompost and vermiwash resulted in increased
soil copper, iron and phosphorous content (Tharmaraj et al., 2011; Nath and
Singh., 2012; Quaik et al., 2012; Manyuchi et al., 2013c; Manyuchi et al.,
2013d). This increase in soil nutrient content promoted plant growth and
chlorophyll production, hence a boost in Zea Mays growth. In addition, microbial
activity in the vermi-products have been reported to result in production of plant
growth regulators such as cytokinins as well as humic acid which promote plant
growth (Gopal et al., 2010; Palanichamy et al., 2011; Nath and Singh., 2012).
Furthermore, vermiwash and vermicompost are enriched with certain
metabolites and vitamins B and D which enhance plant growth (Ansari and
Sukhraj., 2010; Manyuchi et al., 2013e).
62 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS
Vermicomposting technology can be successfully applied in Southern Africa as

a solid waste management strategy with corn pulp as the major organic waste.
The vermicompost produced from waste corn pulp was dark brown and
odorless. The optimum operating conditions for the process were moisture
content (27.68-52.41%), temperature (19-25◦C), pH (5.5-7.7), and electrical
conductivity (60 000-80 000 µS/cm). The vermicompost NPK composition was
4.19%, 1.15% and 6.18% respectively. The vermicompost major trace elements
were Fe, Mg, and Na with a composition of 162.32ppm, 6.58ppm, and 4.85ppm
respectively.
In addition, vermiwash was also obtained from the vermicomposting process.

The pH and electrical conductivity was higher in the vermicompost compared to
the vermiwash. The nitrogen and potassium content were 57% and 79.6%
higher in the vermicompost as compared to the vermiwash respectively.
However, the phosphorous content was 84% higher in the vermiwash as
compared to the vermicompost. The vermiwash was 89.1% and 97.6% richer in
Ca and Mg as compared to the vermicompost. Furthermore, the vermiwash was
97.8% rich in sodium content compared to the vermicompost. However, the
vermicompost was richer in micronutrients compared to the vermiwash.
Vermicompost and vermiwash can be applied to the soil as bio-fertilizers. The

properties of the soil and the micro-organisms present in the bio-fertilizers have
a significant effect on the impact of the vermicompost, vermiwash and
application period on the soil physicochemical properties. The micro-organisms
in the vermi-products play a significant role in altering the soil micronutrient
content. The microbial activity induced by the bio-fertilizers increases the soil
micronutrient activity by availing additional substances that are not found in
chemical fertilizers.
Lastly, vermicompost and vermiwash can be utilized as bio-fertilizers in Zea

Mays production. Application of vermicompost and vermiwash over a given time
period promotes Zea Mays growth and reproduction. Therefore,
vermicomposting is recommended as a solid waste management strategy at a
bigger scale
63 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. Abbasi, T., Gajalakshmi, S. and Abbasi, S. A, “Towards modeling and

design of vermicomposting systems: Mechanisms of
composting/vermicomposting and their implications”, Indian Journal of
Biotechnology, 8, 177-182, 2009.
2. Aira, M., Monroy, F. and Dominguez, F, “Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta:
Lumbricidae) modifies the structure and physiological capabilities of
microbial communities improving carbon mineralization during
vermicomposting of pig manure”, Microbial Ecology, 54, 662-671, 2007.
3. Ansari, A. A, “Worm powered environmental biotechnology in organic
waste management”, International Journal of Soil Science, 6 (1), 25-30,
2011.
4. Ansari, A. A and Jaikishun, S, “An investigation into the vermicomposting
of sugarcane bagasse and rice straw and its subsequent utilization in
cultivation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. In Guyana”, American-Eurasian J.
Agriculture and Environmental Science, 8 (6), 666-671, 2010.
5. Ansari, A, A. and Rajpersaud, J, “Physicochemical changes during
vermicomposting of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and grass
clippings”, International Scholarly Research Network, Soil Science,
Article ID 984783, 2012.
6. Ansari, A. A. and Sukhraj, K, “Effect of vermiwash and vermicompost on
soil parameters and productivity of okra (Abelmoschusesculentus) in
Guyana”, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (14), 1794-1798,
2010.
7. Aalok, A., Tripath, A. K. and Soni, P, “Vermicomposting: A better option
for organic solid waste management”, Journal of Human Ecology, 24 (1),
59-64, 2008.
8. Borah, M. C., Mahanta, P., Kakoty, S. K., Saha, U. K. and
Sahasrabudhe, A. D, “Study of quality parameters in vermicomposting”,
Indian Journal of Biotechnology, 6, 410-413, 2007.
64 | P a g e
9. Chanda, K. G., Bhunia, G. and Chakraborty, S. K, “The effect of
vermicompost and other fertilizers on cultivation of tomato plants”,
Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 3 (2), 42-45, 2011.
10. Chaudhuri, P. S., Pal, T. K., Bhattacharjee, G. and Dey, S. K, “Chemical
changes during vermicomposting (Perionnyx Excavatus) of kitchen
waste”, Tropical Ecology, 41 (1), 107-110, 2000.
11. Edwards, C. A., Dominguez, J. and Neuhauser, E. F, “Growth and
reproduction of Perionnyx Excavatus (Perr.) (Megascolecidae) as factors
in organic waste management”, Biol Fertil, Soils, 27, 155-161, 1998.
12. Garg, V. K. and Gupta, R, “Effect of temperature variations on
vermicomposting of household solid waste and fecundity of Eisenia
fetida”, Bioremediation Journal, 15 (3), 165-172, 2011.
13. Garg, V. K., Suthar, S. and Yadav, A, “Management of food industry
waste employing vermicompost technology”, Bioresource Technology,
doi: 10. 1016, 2011.
14. Gark, V. K., Chand, S. A. and Yadav, A, “Growth and reproduction of
Eisenia fetida in various animal wastes during vermicomposting”, Applied
Ecology and Environmental Research, 3 (2), 51-59, 2005.
15. Gomez-Brandon, M., Lores, M. and Dominguez, J. “Species-specific
effects of epigeic earthworms on microbial community structure during
first stages of decomposition of organic matter”, Plos One, 7 (2), e31895,
1-8, 2012.
16. Gopal, M., Gupta, A., Palaniswami, C., Dhanapal, R. and Thomas, G. V,
“Coconut leaf vermiwash: a bio-liquid from coconut leaf vermicompost for
improving the crop production capacities of soil”, Current Science, 98 (9),
1202-1210, 2010.
17. Gurav, M. V. and Pathade, G. R, “Production of vermicompost from
temple waste (Nirmalya): A case study”, Universal Journal of
Environmental Research and Technology, 1(2), 182-192, 2011.
18. Hatti, S. S., Londonkar, R. L., Patil, S. B., Gangawane, A. K. and Patil, C.
S, “Effect of Eisenia fetida vermiwash on the growth of plants”, Journal of
Crop Science, 1 (1), 6-10, 2010.
65 | P a g e
19. Indrajeet, Rai, S. N. and Singh, J, “Vermicomposting of farm garbage in
different combination”, Journal of Recent Advances in Applied Sciences,
25, 15-18, 2010.
20. Jadia, C. D. and Fulekar, M. H, “Vermicomposting of vegetable waste: A
bio-physicochemical process based on hydro-operating bioreactor”,
African Journal of Biotechnology, 7 (20), 3723-3730, 2008.
21. Kalantari, S., Hatami, S., Ardalan, M M., Alikhani, H. A. and Shorafa, M,
“The effect of compost and vermicompost of yard leaf manure on growth
of corn”, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (11), 1317-1323,
2010.
22. Kumari, M., Kumar, S., Chauhan, R. S. and Ravikanth, K, “Bioconversion
of herbal industry waste into vermicompost using an epigeic earthworm
Eudrilus Eugeniae”, Waste Management and Research, 29 (11), 1205-
1212, 2011.
23. Leon-Anzueto, E., Abud-Archila, M., Dendooven, L., Ventura-Canseco,
L. M. C., and Gutierrez-Miceli, F. A, “Effect of vermicompost, worm bed
leachate and arbuscular mycorrizal fungi on lemon grass
(Cymbopogoncitratus (DC) Stapf.), growth and composition of its
essential oil”, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 14 (6), DOI: 10. 2225,
2011.
24. Lim, S. L., Wu, T. Y., Sim, E. Y. S., Lim, P. N. and Clarke, C,
“Biotransformation of rice husk into organic fertilizer through
vermicomposting”, Ecological Engineering, 41, 60-64, 2012.
25. Lim, P. N., Wu, T. Y., Sim, E. Y. S. and Lim, S. L, “The potential reuse of
soybean husk as feedstock of Eudrilus Eugeniae in vermicomposting”,
Journal of Science Food Agriculture, 91, 2637-2642, 2011.
26. Liu, K. and Price, G. W, “Evaluation of three composting systems for the
management of spent coffee grounds”, Bioresource Technology, 102,
7966-7947, 2011.
27. Manyuchi, M. M., Phiri, A., Chirinda, N., Govha, J. and Sengudzwa, T,
“Vermicomposting of waste corn pulp blended with cow dung using
Eisenia Fetida”, World Academy of Sciences in Engineering and
Technology, 68, 1306-1309, 2012.
66 | P a g e
28. Manyuchi, M. M., Phiri, A., Muredzi, P. and Boka, S, “Comparison of
vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers from vermicomposting waste
corn pulp”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
(submitted for publication), 2013a.
29. Manyuchi, M. M., Chitambwe, T., Muredzi, P. and Kanhukamwe, Q,
“Continuous flow-through vermireactor for medium scale
vermicomposting”, Asian Journal of Engineering and Technology, 1 (1),
pp. 44-48, 2013b.
30. Manyuchi, M. M., Chitambwe, T., Phiri, A., Muredzi, P. and
Kanhukamwe, Q, “Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application
time on soil physicochemical properties”, International Journal of
Chemical and Environmental Engineering, submitted for publication,
2013c.
31. Manyuchi, M. M., Chitambwe, T., Phiri, A., P, Muredzi and Q,
Kanhukamwe, “Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time
on soil micronutrients”, International Journal of Engineering and
Advanced Technology, submitted for publication, 2013d.
32. Manyuchi, M. M., Kadzungura, L., Phiri, A., Muredzi, P. and
Kanhukamwe, Q, “Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application
time on Zea Mays growth”, International Journal of Engineering and
Advanced Technology, submitted for publication, 2013e.
33. Mortvedt, J., “Micronutrients”, Efficient fertilizer use manual, Mosaic, pp.
1-10.
34. Muthukumaravel, K., Amsath, A. and Sukumaran, M, “Vermicomposting
of vegetable wastes using cow dung”, E-Journal of Chemistry, 5 (4), 810-
813, 2008.
35. Nair, J., Sekiozoic, V. and Anda, M, “Effect of pre-composting on
vermicomposting of kitchen waste”, Bioresource Technology, 97, 2091-
2095, 2006.
36. Narkhede, S. D., Attarde, S. B. and Ingle, S. T, “Study on effect of
chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on growth of chilli pepper plant
(Capsium Annum)”, Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental
Sanitation, 6 (3), 327-332, 2011.
67 | P a g e
37. Nath, G. and Singh, K, “Effect of vermiwash of different vermicompost on
the kharif crops”, Journal of Central European Agriculture, 13 (2), 379-
402, 2012.
38. Nath, G. and Singh, K, “Effect of foliar spray of bio pesticides and
vermiwash of animal, agro and kitchen wastes on soybean (Glycime max
L.) crop”, Botany Research International, 4(3), 52-57, 2011.
39. Nath, G., Singh, K. and Singh, D. K, “Chemical analysis of
vermicompost/vermiwash of different combinations animal, agro and
kitchen wastes”, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3 (4),
3672-3676, 2009.
40. Ndegwa, P. M. and Thompson, S. A, “Integrating composting and
vermicomposting in the treatment and bioconversion of bio solids”,
Bioresource Technology, 76, 107-112, 2001.
41. Ndegwa, P. M. and Thompson, S. A, “Effects of C to N ratio on
vermicomposting of bio solids”, Bioresource Technology, 75, 7-12, 2000.
42. Ndegwa, P. M., Thompson, S. A. and Das. K. C, “Effect of stocking
density and feeding rate on vermicomposting of bio solids”, Bioresource
Technology, 7, 5-12, 2000.
43. Palsania, J., Sharma, R., Srivastava, J. K. and Sharma, D. “Effect of
moisture content variation over kinetic reaction rate during
vermicomposting process”, Applied Ecology and Environmental
Research, 6 (2), 49-61, 2008.
44. Pant, A., Radovich, T. J. K., Hue, N. V. and Arancon, N. Q, “Effects of
vermicompost tea (aqueous extract) on pak choi yield, quality, and on
soil biological properties”, Compost Science and Utilization, 19 (4), 279-
292, 2011.
45. Punde, B. D. and Ganoker, R. A, “Vermicomposting-Recycling waste into
valuable organic fertilizer”, International Journal of Engineering Research
and Applications, 2 (3), 2342-2347, 2012.
46. Quaik, S., Embrandiri, A., Rupani, P. F., Singh R. P., Ibrahim M. H.,
“Effect of Vermiwash and Vermicomposting Leachate in Hydroponics
Culture of Indian Borage (Plectranthus ambionicus) Plantlets”, UMT 11th
International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and
Management, pp.210-214, 2012.
68 | P a g e
47. Rawgol, Y. K., Priyadarshini, P. M., Sharma, V. and Radha, D. K,
“Efficacy of vermiwash-smeared mulberry leaves on cocoon characters
of multivoltine hybrid mulberry silkworm Bombyx Mori L: Kolar Gold (K.
G) race”, International Journal of Research in Science and Technology,
1(2), July-Sept, 2011.
48. Shweta, R. K, “Enhancement of wood waste decomposition by microbial
inoculation prior to vermicomposting”, Bioresource Technology, 102,
1475-1480, 2011.
49. Singh, D. and Suthar, S, “Vermicomposting of herbal pharmaceutical
industry solid wastes”, Ecological Engineering, 39, 1-6, 2012.
50. Singh, N. B., Khare, A. K., Bhargava, D. S. and Bhattacharya, S, “Effect
of initial pH on vermicomposting using Perionnyx Excavatus (Perrier,
1872)”, Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 4 (1), 85-97,
2005.
51. Sinha, R. K., Heart, S., Agarwal, S., Asadi, R. and Carretero, E,
“Vermiculture and waste management: study of action of earthworms
Eisenia fetida, Eudrilus Eugeniae and Perionnyx Excavatus on
biodegradation of some community wastes in India and Australia”, The
Environmentalist, 22, 261-268, 2002.
52. Srivastava, P. K., Singh, P. C., Gupta, M., Sinha, A., Vaish, A., Shukla,
A., Singh, N and Tewari, S. K, “Influence of earthworm culture on
fertilization potential and biological activities of vermicompost prepared
from different plant wastes”, Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science,
174, 420-429, 2011.
53. Sudhakar, G., Lourduraj, C., Rangasamy, A., Subbian, P. and
Velayutham, A, “Effect of vermicompost application on the soil
properties, nutrient availability, uptake and yield of rice- A review”,
Agriculture Reviews, 23 (2), 127-133, 2002.
54. Sundaravadivelan, C., Isaiarasu, L., Manimuthu, M., Kumar, P., Kuberan,
T. and Anburaj, J, “Impact analysis and confirmative study of physic-
chemical, nutritional and biochemical parameters of vermiwash produced
from different leaf liters by using two earthworm species”, Journal of
Agricultural Technology, 7 (5), 1443-1457, 2011.
69 | P a g e
55. Suthar, S, “Vermicomposting of vegetable-market solid waste using
Eisenia fetida: Impact of bulking material on earthworm growth and
decomposition rate”, Ecological Engineering, 35, 914-920, 2009.
56. Thamaraj, K., Ganesh, P., Kolanjinathan, K., Suresh, K. R. and Anandan,
A, “Influence of vermicompost and vermiwash on physicochemical
properties of rice cultivated soil”, Current Botany, 2 (3), 18-21, 2011.
57. Vijaya, D., Padmadevi, S. N., Vasandha, S., Meerabhai, R. S. and
Chellapandi, P, “Effect of vermicomposting coirpith on the growth of
Andrographis Paniculata”, Journal of Organic Systems, 3 (2), 51-56,
2008.
58. Zambare, V. P., Padul, M. V., Yadav, A. A. and Shete, T. B, “Vermiwash:
Biochemical and microbial approach as ecofriendly soil conditioner”,
ARPN Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science, 3 (4), 1-5, 2008.
70 | P a g e
APPENDICES
71 | P a g e
Appendix 1: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermicompost
Day pH Temperature (◦C) Moisture content (%) Electrical conductivity (µS/cm)

1 5.5 23 27.68 79210
2 5.7 21 28.70 79215
3 5.6 22 29.65 79212
4 5.8 22 30.05 72400
5 6.3 25 31.32 73900
6 6.8 24 32.46 74800
7 6.6 23 37.05 73400
8 7.2 24 41.32 73900
9 7.6 24 42.66 74800
10 6.8 22 42.75 68000
11 7.3 25 45.42 74320
12 7.8 24 42.61 72700
13 7.6 22 43.05 69400
14 7.3 24 43.32 73900
15 7.8 24 43.46 70800
16 7.1 24 43.06 68700
17 7.5 23 46.28 65320
18 7.8 21 45.65 66400
19 7.3 22 48.18 69120
20 7.6 19 47.39 68200
21 7.7 21 45.14 67360
22 7.9 20 45.72 69760
23 7.4 23 47.49 68420
24 7.1 21 46.29 65320
25 7.5 23 47.67 66220
26 7.2 20 48.30 67360
27 7.3 23 48.32 65450
28 7.4 21 49.11 65130
29 7.7 22 52.26 64790
30 7.7 23 52.41 62100
72 | P a g e
Appendix 2: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermiwash
3
Day pH Density (g/cm ) Viscosity (cp) at 17◦C Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) Vermiwash collected (mL)
1 6.8 0.88 1.03 56200 58
2 7.7 0.98 1.07 55200 64
3 6.7 1.03 1.25 44600 60
4 7.2 1.02 1.05 42700 72
5 6.8 0.99 1.12 47500 73
6 7.4 1.03 1.07 47100 72
7 8.3 1.00 1.05 59100 76
8 7.4 0.99 1.04 52700 73
9 8.1 0.98 1.05 56400 69
10 8.8 0.97 1.09 52500 61
11 8.2 0.96 1.11 46600 56
12 8.5 0.98 1.03 47300 68
13 7.9 1.02 1.09 57600 79
14 8.3 0.99 1.23 59200 75
15 8.9 0.87 1.13 58300 69
16 8.5 0.98 1.07 47100 61
17 8 1.02 1.02 48100 58
18 8.3 1.01 1.11 59700 62
19 7.7 0.97 1.08 55300 68
20 8.4 0.97 1.04 58300 72
21 8.9 1.00 1.09 54300 74
22 8.4 1.03 1.11 49600 70
23 8.3 0.98 1.19 47800 66
24 7.8 1.04 1.15 50800 67
25 8.3 1.01 1.02 57360 71
26 8.2 0.99 1.17 52900 78
27 7.9 0.88 1.05 55100 71
28 8.3 0.98 1.03 54400 74
29 7.9 0.99 1.09 54320 76
30 8.1 0.98 1.04 57200 71
73 | P a g e
Appendix 3: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil pH and electrical conductivity
Experiment Vermicompost (g) Vermiwash (g) Application time (days) pH Electrical conductivity (µS/cm)
1 500 500 10 5 1180
2 1000 500 10 5.1 1100
3 500 1000 10 5.3 1900
4 1000 1000 10 5.7 1210
5 500 500 40 6.01 1013
6 1000 500 40 5 1110
7 500 1000 40 5.5 9210
8 1000 1000 40 5.2 1200
9 750 750 25 5.3 1220
74 | P a g e
Appendix 4: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil macro nutrients
Experiment Vermicompost (g) Vermiwash (g) Application time (days) N (mg/L) P (mg/L) K (mg/L)
1 500 500 10 134 57 12.09
2 1000 500 10 152 48 12.09
3 500 1000 10 145 24 14.43
4 1000 1000 10 79 41 15.6
5 500 500 40 69 68 14.04
6 1000 500 40 78 72 12.87
7 500 1000 40 81 75 13.65
8 1000 1000 40 83 80 14.82
9 750 750 25 79 63 12.87
75 | P a g e
Appendix 5: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil micronutrients
Experiment Vermicompost (g) Vermiwash (g) Application time (days) Zn Cu Mn Fe
1 500 500 10 1 5 147 106
2 1000 500 10 2 7 258 86
3 500 1000 10 1 6 217 86
4 1000 1000 10 2 7 254 99
5 500 500 40 1 11 92 158
6 1000 500 40 1 10 102 186
7 500 1000 40 1 5 89 180
8 1000 1000 40 1 5 101 171
9 750 750 25 2 8 222 89
76 | P a g e
Appendix 6: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on Zea Mays growth and production
Experiment Vermicompost (g) Vermiwash (g) Application (days) Plant height (cm) Number of leaves Cob weight (g)
1 500 500 10 6.5 0 0
2 1000 500 10 5.15 2 30
3 500 1000 10 7.75 2 55
4 1000 1000 10 4 2 80
5 500 500 40 35 6 120
6 1000 500 40 51 8 132
7 500 1000 40 56.5 7 145
8 1000 1000 40 57 6 170
9 750 750 25 24.82 5.5 110
77 | P a g e
View publication stats

Productionofbio Fertilizersfromvermicomposting

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Productionofbio Fertilizersfromvermicomposting

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

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

Production of Bio-Fertilizers from Vermicomposting of Waste Corn Pulp

Book · August 2013

Vermicomposting technology View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MUSAIDA MERCY MANYUCHI

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PROCESS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

HARARE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Vermicomposting is increasingly becoming popular as an organic solid waste

An odorless dark brown vermicompost was produced with an NPK composition of

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO VERMICOMPOSTING ................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2: VERMICOMPOSTING LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 4

2.1 Vermicomposting products ................................................................................................ 6

2.1.2 Vermicompost ........................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3. Vermiwash .............................................................................................................. 11

2.2 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on soil properties.......................................... 13

2.3 Effect of vermicompost and vermiwash on plant growth ............................................. 13

CHAPTER 3: VERMICOMPOSTING HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.1: Research hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Materials ............................................................................................................................. 17

3.3 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 18

3.4 Experimental Design ......................................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil properties . 20

CHAPTER 4: VEMICOMPOSTING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 23

4.1 Vermicompost production and effect of process parameters ..................................... 24

4.1.3 Nutrient composition of the vermicompost from corn pulp ............................... 28

4.2 Comparison of vermicompost and vermiwash bio-fertilizers ...................................... 29

4.2.1 Physicochemical characteristics of the vermicompost and vermiwash .......... 29

4.2.2 Primary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash .................... 30

4.2.3 Secondary nutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash ............... 31

4.2.4 Micronutrients composition in vermicompost and vermiwash ......................... 32

4.2.5 Sodium salt content in vermicompost and vermiwash ...................................... 33

4.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil physicochemical

4.3.1 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil pH .............. 33

4.3.2 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil electrical

4.3.3 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on soil nitrogen

4.3.4 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application duration on soil

4.3.5 Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application duration on soil

4.4.2: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on copper content

4.4.3: Effect of vermicompost, vermiwash and application time on manganese

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS .............................................................. 63

Appendix 1: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermicompost......................... 72

Appendix 2: Variations in physicochemical properties of vermiwash .............................. 73

Appendix 3: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil pH and

Appendix 4: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil macro

Appendix 5: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on soil

Appendix 6: Vermicompost, vermiwash and application time’s effect on Zea Mays

Vermicomposting technology is increasingly becoming popular as a solid waste

Vermicomposting is increasingly becoming popular as an organic solid waste

Mechanical separation Metals by magnetic Recycling

Paper, glass, Recycling

Biogas Precomposting or Addition of microbe rich

Vermiculture Vermicomposting Resistant residues for

Figure 1.0: Vermicomposting process flow diagram

The process of vermicomposting produces earthworms as by products by a process

G = Earthworm growth rate (mg/worm/day)

B2 = Maximum biomass obtained by worm (mg)

T = Number of days in which biomass is attained

N = number of earthworms inoculated

W = total quantity of waste taken (g)

In addition, the earthworm reproduction rate is calculated according to equation 3: (Garg

C = total number of cocoons produced