Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure for Sustained Crop Intensification in the Semi-Arid Tropics

Full text

' ' V ' — ' - Vi-
Bioresources for
Sustainable Plant
Nutrient Management _
Editors
RA MESH CHANDRA
K.P. RA VERKAR
man
SATISH SERIAL PUBLISHING HOUSE
403, Express Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 (India)
Phone: 011-27672852, F ax : 91-11-27672046
E-mail :info@satishserial.com, hkjain1975@yahoo.com
Website: www.satishserial.com

CONTENTS
Forew ord...................................................................................................................................v
Preface..................................................................................................................................vii
List o f Contributors...............................................................................................................ix
Section-I : Organic Residues-Potential and Management
/
1. Potentials of Bioresources in Soil Fertility M anagement
........................1-30
Ramesh Chandra and K.P. Raverkar
2. Livestock in India and their Potential in Managing
Soil Fertility........................................................................................................ 31-52
G. V. Singh and Shailendra Singh
3. Recycling of Crop Residues for Soil Fertility M a nag e m ent
.......
53-107
Ramesh Chandra and Navneet Pareek
4. Composting Technology and Their Role in Soil Fertility
M anag em ent................................................................................................. 109-12 2
Sunita Gaind and Lata Nain
5. Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure for
Sustained Crop Intensification in the Semi-Arid Tropics
.............
123-151
Suhas P. Wani, Girish Chander and Vineela, C.

Chapter 5
Vermicomposting: Recycling
Wastes into Valuable Manure for
Sustained Crop Intensification
in the Semi-Arid Tropics
SUHAS P. WAN I, GIRISH CHANDER AND VINEELA, C.
1. INTRODUCTION
Producing more food sustainably from the limited and seaic e land and
water resources to feed ever-growing population of 9 billion people in the
world by 2050 is a challenge for the hum an kind in the 21st century. Neither
the quantity of available water or land has increased since 1950, but the
availability of water and land per head has declined significantly due to
increase in global human population. For example in India per capita arable
land availability has decreased from 0.39 ha in 1951 to 0.14 ha in 2001 due to
increased population from 361 m illion in 1951 to 1.02 billion in 2001 which is
expected to rise to 1.39 billion by 2025 and 1.64 billion by 2050 with associated
decrease in per capita land availability 0.1 ha in 2025 and 0.08 ha by 2050.
Distribution of land varies differently in different countries and regions in the
world and also the current population as well as anticipated growth which is
expected to grow rapidly in developing countries.
Large fraction of the global expansion in the total crop land since 1900
onwards is rainfed (Figure 1). Native vegetation like forest and wood lands
were converted into crop lands mostly into rain-fed agriculture and grass
lands, which produced more staple food and animal protein but also under
gone severe land degradation, depletio n of soil nutrien ts and loss of

124 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Fig. 1: a) Gross area cultivated in rainfed and irrigated groundwater and surface water
irrigated area) crop lands and net cultivated area in India;
b) Total food production during monsoon and post-monsoon period) in India Data source:
Centre water commission, 2005).
biodiversity which resulted into poor productive status and lost in system
resilience and ecosystem services Gordon et al., 2005). Most countries in the
world depend primarily on rain-fed agriculture for its grain food and in many
developing countries, a great number of poor families in Africa and Asia still
face poverty, hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, where rain-fed
agriculture is the main agricultural activity. These problems are exacerbated
by adverse biophysical growing conditions and the poor socioeconom ic
infrastructure in many areas in the arid, semiarid tropics SAT and the sub-
humid regions (Wani et a l, 2011a).
Even in tropical regions, particularly in the subhumid and humid zones,
agricultural yield s in com mercial rain-fed agriculture exceed 5-6 t/ha
(RockstrOm and Falkenmark, 2000; Wani et al. 2003a, 2003b) (Figure 2). At
the same time, the dry subhumid and semiarid regions have experienced the
lowest yields and the weakest yield improvements per unit land. Here, yields
oscillate between 0.5 to 2 t/ha, with an average of 1 t/ha in sub-Saharan

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 125
Year
Fig. 2: A comparison of harvested grain yield by implementing IWRM techniques in BW1
Vertisol Heritage watershed at ICRISAT with traditional farmer’s practices at BW4C; results
are shown since 1976 onwards
Africa, and 1-1.5 t/ha in South Asia, Central Asia and West Asia and North
Africa for rain-fed agriculture (Rockstrom and Falkenmark, 2000; W ani et al.,
2003a, 2003b). D ata on lon g-term experim en t at IC RISAT's H eritage
W atershed site (Figure 3) has explained that due to integrated IWRM
interventions average crop yield is five folds higher compare to traditional
farm er's practices (Wani et al., 2003a, 2011a, 2011b). Similar results are also
recorded at Kothapally watershed where implementing IWRM interventions
enhanced crop yields almost two to three times as compared to before such
interventions in 1998 (Wani et a l, 2003a; Sreedevi et al., 2004).
To achieve the goal of sustainable food production with limited land and
water resources where is need to sustainably intensify the agriculture. The
green revolution in India increased food production through intensification
of irrigated areas with the use of fertilizers responsive, dwarf genotypes of
wheat and rice.
Past few decades have seen high levels of indiscriminate and imbalanced
use of chem ical fertilisers in agricultu re w hich is now m anifesting as

126 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
degradation of soil health. The loss of soil health and fertility due to heavy
nutrient mining, nutrient imbalances and loss of soil structure and biota are
compromising the ability of the production systems to produce more to feed
the burg eo ning populatio n. A lo ng w ith w ater scarcity soil fertility
management in particular need to be paid due attention alongside water stress
management in view of the fragile nature of the soil resource base (Wani et
al., 2009; Sahrawat et al. 2010a, 2010b). Moreover, it is com monly believed
that at relatively low yields of crops in the rainfed systems, the deficiencies of
major nutrients, especially N and P are important for the SAT soils (El-Swaify
et a l, 1985; Rego et a l, 2003; Sharma et al., 2009) and little attention is devoted
to diagnose the extent of deficiencies of the secondary nutrients such as S and
micronutrients in various crop production systems (Rego et al., 2005; Sahrawat
et al. 2007, 2010a, 2011) on millions of small and marginal farmers' fields.
Since 1999, ICRISAT and its partners are conducting systematic and detailed
studies on the diagnosis and managem ent of nutrient deficiencies in the
semi-arid regions of Asia with emphasis on the semi-arid regions of India
under the integrated watershed management program (Wani et al. 2009).
These studies revealed -wade spread deficiencies of multiple nutrients including
micro-nutrients like boron, zinc and secondary nutrient sulfur in 80-100% of
farmers' fields (Rego et al. 2005, Sahrawat et al. 2007, 2010b, 2011).
Role of soil organic matter in improving and sustaining soil health is well
documented. In addition to its' importance for sustainable crop production,
low soil organic matter in tropical soils is a major factor contributing to their
poor productivity (Lee and Wani, 1989, Syers et al., 1996, Katyal and Rattan,
2003; Bationo and Mokwunye,. 1991; Edmeades, 2003; Harris 1999; Bationo
et al., 2008; Ghosh et al., 2009; M aterechera, 2010). Management practices
that augment soil organic matter and maintain at a threshold level are needed.
Sequestration of carbon in soil has attracted the attention of researchers and
policy makers alike as an important mitigation strategy for minimizing impacts
of clim ate change (Lai, 2004, V elayu tham et al., 2000, ICRISA T, 2005,
Bhattacharya et al., 2009., Srinivasarao et al. 2009) which also serves the
purpose of enhancing soil moisture storage. Agricultural soils are among the
earth/s largest terrestrial reservoirs of carbon and hold potential for expanded
C sequestration (Lai, 2004).
Now there is a growing realization that the adoption of ecological and
sustainable farming practices can only reverse the declining trend in the global
productivity and environment protection (Aveyard, 1988; Wani and Lee, 1992;
Wani et al. 1995). It is great maladies that on the one side tropical soils are
deficient in carbon and essential plant nutrients and on the other large
quantities of carbon and nu trien ts contained in d om estic w astes and
agricultural byproducts are wasted. It is estimated that in cities and rural

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 127
areas of India nearly 700 million t organic wastes is generated annually which
is either burned or land filled (Bhiday, 1994). In this context, vermicomposting
is a biotechnological process which can convert problem posing organic wastes
into a valuable manure rich in essential nutrients to increase productivity of
soils through environment friendly manner (Wani, 2002).
2. WHAT.VERMICOMPOSTING MEANS?
Vermiculture or vermicomposting is derived from the Latin term vermis,
meaning worms. Vermicomposting is a simple process of composting with
the help of earthworms to produce a better enriched end product. It is one of
the easiest methods to recycle wastes to produce quality com post in a short
span of tim e. Vermicomposting differs from com posting in several ways
(Gandhi et al., 1997). In vermicomposting, during the process earthworms
consume biom ass and break it into small pieces which expose raw waste
biomass to intensive microbial decomposition. Moreover, after passing through
the earthworm gut, resulting earthworm castings (worm manure) are also
rich in microbial activity to hasten the composting process. While the raw
biomass passes through earthworm gut (Coelom), coelomic fluid which has
plant grow th prom oting pro perties, is also m ixed w ith it. Therefore,
earthworm castings (worm manure) in contrasts to ordinary compost are
rich in plant nutrients including micronutrients (Table 1) growth regulators,
promoting plant growth and fortified with pest repellence attributes as well!
In short, earthworms, through a type of biological alchemy, are capable of
transforming garbage into 'gold ' (Vermi Co, 2001; Tara Crescent, 2003;
Nagavallemma et al., 2004).
Table 1: Nutrient composition of vermicompost and garden compost
Nutrient element Vermicompost %) Garden compost %)
Organic carbon 9.8-13.4 12.2
Nitrogen 0.51-1.61 0.8
Phosphorus 0.19-1.02 0.35
Potassium 0.15-0.73 0.48
Calcium 1.18-7.61 2.27
Magnesium 0.093-0.568 0.57
Sodium 0.058-0.158 <0.01
Zinc 0.0042-0.110 0.0012 ;
Copper 0.0026-0.0048 0.0017
Iron 0.2050-1.3313 1.1690
Manganese 0.0105-0.2038 0.0414
Source: Nagavallemma efa/.,(2004)

128 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Going by its simplicity and numerous benefits, vermicomposting is being
practised on a large scale in countries like India, Canada, Italy, Japan,
Philippines, and United States (Asha et a l, 2008). Vermicomposting is being
proposed as a technique globally for stabilizing the natural as well as
anthropogenic wastes like sewage sludge, industrial sludge, plant-derived
wastes, agro-industrial solid waste, household waste, animal dung, etc
(Suthar, 2007).
3. PRE-REQUISITES OF VERMICOMPOSTING
3.1 Earthworms
There are nearly 3600 types of earthworm s in the world and they are
mainly divided into two types: 1) burrowing; and 2) non-burrowing. The
burrowing types (.Pertima elongata and Pertima asiatica) live deep in the soil.
They come onto the soil surface only at night. These make holes in the soil up
to a depth of 3.5 m and produce casts by ingesting 90% soil and 10% organic
waste. The burrowing types are pale, 20 to 30 cm long and live for around 15
years. On the other hand, the non-burrowing types live in the upper layer of
soil surface and eat 10% soil and 90% organic waste materials. This property
of non-burrowing earthworms is used to convert the organic waste into
vermicompost. Eisenia fetida and Eudrilus eugenae species of earthworms are
consistently used in vermicomposting for their high multiplication rate (1
coco on in ev ery 3 days) and efficacy to co nv ert organ ic m atter into
vermicompost (~200kg/1500 worms/2 months). Worms hatch from cocoon
after an incubation period of 20-22 days and attain maturity in 50-55 days.
The non-burrowing types are red or purple in colour and 10 to 15 cm long
and their life span is only 28 months. They have relatively high tolerance to
environmental variations and can tolerate temperatures ranging from 0 to
40°C but the regeneration capacity is more at 25 to 30°C.
A rapid multiplication of earthworm population is desired in converting
la rge quan tities o f raw biom ass in to verm ico mpo st. Fo r developin g
understanding, a multiplication trial was conducted at the International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra
Pradesh with three kinds of earthworm cultures {Eisenia fetida, Eudrilus eugenae
and Perionyx excavatus) using wheat straw , chickpea straw, tree leaves
(.Peltophorum sp.) and Parthenium mixed with cow dung as feed materials
(Nagavallemma et al., 2006). There was an increase in earthworm population
and size during incubation for 90 days. The three types of earthworms
multiplied 12 to 18 times when grown individually using legume tree leaves
and cow dung mixture as raw material (Table 2). However, mixed culture of
all three species show ed higher multiplication rate (27 times) than the
individual species. Further studies on earthworm multiplication were also
conducted at ICRISAT using tree leaves and Gliricidia stems mixed with cattle

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 129
Table 2: Multiplication trial of earthworm species at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India in 20001.
Earthworm species Initial population Final population Increase (%)
Mixed culture 900 15950 1612 (27)
Eiseniafetida 90 1036 1051 (12)
Eudrilus eugenae 55 1007 1731 (18)
Perionyx excavatus 85 1192 1302 (14)
1. Mixture of legumes tree leaves and cow dung was used as substrate
2. Values in parentheses indicate increase in number of times at 90 days after incubation
Source: Nagavallemma et al. 2006
manure as feed material (Table 3). The earthworm population decreased when
grown in mixture of Gliricidia stems and cattle manure. These results indicated
that Gliricidia loppings could not be used for multiplication of earthworms.
Gliricidia bark is known to possess toxic properties as it is used as rat poisoning
bait. In another multiplication study at ICRISAT, there was maxim um increase
in earthworm population (570%) and weight (109%) when grown in a feed
material containing tree leaves (3 kg) and cow dung (6 kg). In contrast,
Table 3: Multiplication trial of earthworms using different organic materials at ICRISAT,
Patancheru, India during 2000-02
Earthworm Feedmatedal M tfa, RnaP
s p e c i e s __________________________________________
Population Weight (g) Population Weight (g)
Eisenia Tree leaves (15 kg) 345 20 2510 207
fetida Cattle manure (15 kg) 510 207 1159 207
Cattle manure (3 kg)+
Gliricidia stem (6 kg) 1255 101 1000 50
Eudrilus Tree leaves (15 kg) 311 21 2986 334
eugenae Cattle manure (15 kg) 2986 334 1522 216
Cattle manure (3 kg)+
Gliricidia stem (6 kg) 2707 230 2249 100
Perionyx Tree leaves (15 kg) 409 29 2707 230
excavatus Cattle manure (15 kg) 2707 230 2650 187
Cattle manure (3 kg)+
Gliricidia stem (6 kg) 3356 365 1000 50
1. At 90 days after incubation
Source: Nagavallemma etal. 2006

130 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
mortality of earthworms about (7 to 22%) was observed by growing them in
a feed material containing soil (Table 4).
All these studies indicated that Gliricidia and tobacco leaves are not
suitable for multiplication of earthworms. Perhaps the alkaloids and other
principal com pounds present in these leaves may effect the survival of
earth worm s. Also, soil and rabbit m anure should not be m ixed with
earthworm feed material.
Table 4: Multiplication trials of mixed culture of earthworms using soil and other organic
substrates at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, 2002-02
Feed material
No.
Initial
wt. (g) No.
Final
Wt. (g)
Increase1 (%)
No. Wt. (g)
Cow dung (15 kg) 500 89 750 163 50 83
Tree leaves (3 kg) + cow dung
(3 kg)
Tree leaves (3 kg) + cow dung
(6 kg)
Pigeon pea leaves + pod shells +
500 95 1545 125 21 32
500 110 3351 230 570 109
tree leaves (2 kg)+ cow dung
2 (kg) 500 98 2230 187 346 90
Pigeon pea leaves pod shells +
tree leaves (2 kg) + cow dung 500 115 1490 193 198 68
(4 kg) Soil (5 kg)+ cow dung (5 kg) 1000 90 784 87 -22 -3
Soil (5 kg) + cow dung (5 kg) +
pigeon pea leaves (1 kg) 1000 75 1023 241 2 223
Soil (5 kg) + cow dung (5 kg)
+ tree leaves (1 kg) 1000 160 929 170 -7 -6
1 At 90 days after incubation
Source: Nagavallemma etal. 2006
3.2 Organic Raw Biomass
Various sources of wastes like crop residue (Bansal and Kapoor, 2000;
Talashilkar et ah, 1999) cattle waste (Chan and Griffiths, 1988; Hand et ah,
1998; Mitchel, 1997; Reeh, 1992), dairy sludge (Elvira et al. 1998; Gratelly et
ah, 1996; Kavian and Ghatneker, 1991), sewage sludge (Diaz Burgos et ah,
1992; Benitez et al., 1999), brewery yeast (Butt 1993)/ vine fruit industry sludge
(A tharasopoulous, 1993), textile m ill sludge (Kaushik and Garg, 2003),
sugarcane industry wastes like pressmud, bagasse and trash (Bansal and
Kapoor, 2000), kitchen and agro wastes (Garg et ah, 2006), paper w aste and

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 131
sludge (Butt, 1993; Elvira et al., 1997; 1998; Gajalakshmi et ah, 2001; 2002) are
being converted into valuable organic manures using earthworms. The micro
flora of earth worm gut are highly potential in digesting the organic materials
as well as polysaccharides like cellulose, sugars, chitin, lignin, starch and
polylactic acids (Aira et al., 2007; Vivas et al., 2009; Zhang et at., 2000).
However, the sludges produced like from paper and dairy industries cannot
be used alone as a feeding media to the earthworms (Butt, 1993; Gratelly et
al., 1996), but are mixed with organic residues in order to balance the nutrients
before feeding the earthworms (Grately et al., 1996). Some examples of
widespread agricultural wastes comprise sorghum straw and rice straw after
feeding cattle, dry leaves of crops and trees, pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) stalks,
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) husk, soybean residues, vegetable wastes, weed
(Parthenium spp.) plants before flowering, fiber from coconut (Cocos nucifera)
trees and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) trash which can be converted
into vermicompost. In addition poultry wastes, food industry wastes, municipal
solid wastes, biogas sludge etc. also serve as good raw materials for
vermicomposting:
Stu dies ev en revealed th at w aste w ater slu dg e can be u sed in
vermicomposting which decreases the organic, inorganic contaminates and
pathogens in it and the vermicom post so produced is a very rich source of
nutrients which can significantly im prove crop grain yields (Correa et al,
2005; Cordovil et al., 2007).
In general cowdung is the most preferred food for earthworms and so it
is best to mix it with other raw biomass. Further, phosphorus content of the
end product vermicompost can be significantly increased by mixing low cost
rock phosphate which is converted into soluble form by microbial action during
composting process (Nagavallema et al., 2006). The quantity of raw materials
required using a cement ring of 90 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height or a pit
or tank measuring 1.5mxlmxlmis given below:
□ Dry organic wastes (DOW) 50 kg
□ Dung slurry (DS) 15 kg
o Rock phosphate (RP) 2 kg
□ Earthworms (EW) 500-700
□ Water (W) 5 L every three days
The various ingredients are used in the ratio of 5:1.5:0.2:50-75:0.5 of
DOW:DS:RP:EW:W. In the tank or pit system 100 kg of raw material and
15-20 kg of cow dung are needed for each cubic meter of the bed.

132 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
3.3 Environmental and other requirements
3.3.1 Moisture
Earthworms breathe through their skins and therefore m ust have a moist
environment in which to live. If a worm's skin dries out, it dies. The bedding
must be able to absorb and retain water fairly well if the worms are to thrive.
Moisture content in the bedding of less than 50% is dangerous. W ith the
exception of extreme heat or cold, nothing will kill worms faster than a lack
of adequate moisture. The ideal moisture-content range for materials in
conventional composting systems is 45-60% (Rink et al., 1992). In contrast,
the ideal moisture-content range for verm icomposting or verm iculture
processes is 70-90% (Georg, 2004).
3.3.2 Aeration
Worms are oxygen breathers and cannot survive anaerobic conditions
defined as the absence of oxygen). Anaerobic conditions will kill the worms
very quickly. Not only are the worms deprived of oxygen, they are also killed
by toxic substances (e.g., ammonia) created by different sets of microbes that
bloom under these conditions.
3.3.3 Temperature
Eisenia can survive in temperatures as low as 0°C/ but they don't reproduce
at single-digit temperatures and they don't consume as much food. It is
generally considered necessary to keep the tem peratures above 10 °C
(minimum) and preferably 15 °C for vermicomposting efficiency and above
(15 °C minimum) and preferably 20 °C for productive vermiculture operations.
In general, warmer temperatures above 20 °C) stimulate reproduction. Eisenia
can survive having their bodies partially encased in frozen bedding and will
only die when they axe no longer able to consume food. Above 35 °C will
cause the worms to leave the area. If they cannot leave, they will quickly die.
Eudrilus eugenae can tolerate high temperature than Eisenia foetida in a condition
of more humidity but has a very narrow temperature range and cannot survive
at temperatures of below 7°C (Misra et al.r 2003).
3.3.4 Shade
Earthworms dislike sunlight; therefore cool and shade is the first and
foremost requirement for vermicomposting. Therefore a place under a tree
may be an ideal place for vermicomposting or otherwise construction of a
shed is a pre-requisite for successful vermicomposting.
3.3.5 pH
Worms can survive in a pH range of 5 to 9 (Edwards, 1998). Most experts
feel that the worms prefer a pH of 7 or slightly higher. Some studies found
that the range of 7.5 to 8.0 was optimum (Georg, 2004).

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 133
3.3.6 Salt Content
Worms are very sensitive to salts, preferring salt contents less than 0.5%
(Gunadi et al., 2002). If saltwater seaweed is used as a feed and worms do like
all forms of seaweed then it should be rinsed first to wash off the salt left on
the surface.
4. PRECAUTIONS
Different feeds can contain a wide variety of potentially toxic components.
Prominent among them are de-worming medicine in manures, particularly
horse manure. Most modern deworming medicines break down fairly quickly
and are not a problem for worm growers. Application of fresh manure from
recently de-wormed animals could prove costly. Harmful detergent cleansers,
industrial chemicals and pesticides can often be found in feeds such as sewage
or septic sludge, paper-mill sludge, or some food processing wastes. Some
naturally occurring tannin in trees like as cedar and fir can harm worms and
even drive them from the beds. G unadi et al. 2002) point out that pre
composting of wastes can reduce or even eliminate most of these threats.
However, pre-composting also reduces the nutrient value of the feed, so this
is a definite trade-off.
Materials of animal o rigin such as eggshells, m eat, bone, chicken
droppings, etc are not preferred for preparing Vermicompost. Gliricidia
loppings and tobacco leaves are also not suitable for rearing earthworms. The
material to be organic. Vermicompost should be free from plastics and glass
pieces as they damage the worms' gut. After completion of the process, the
Verm icompost should be removed from the bed at regular intervals and
replaced by fresh waste materials, because earthworm casts are toxic to their
population. The earthworms should be protected against birds, termites, ants
and rats.
5. METHODS OF VERMICOMPOSTING
Verm icompost can be prepared in underground pits or aboveground
heaps. Underground pits for vermicomposting should ideally be 1 m deep
and 1.5 m wide and the length may vary as required. In vermicomposting in
aboveground heaps, the waste material is spread on the ground surface.
Sunitha et al., (1997) compared the efficacy of pit and heap methods of
prep arin g verm icompost un der field cond itio ns. C onsid ering the
biodegradation of wastes as the criterion, the heap method of preparing
vermicompost was better than the pit method probably due to better aeration
in heap method. Earthworm population was high in the heap method, with
a 21-fold increase in Eudrilus eugenae as compared to 17-fold increase in the
pit method. Biomass production was also higher in the heap method (46-fold
increase) than in the pit m eth od (31-fold). C onsequent production of
vermicompost was also higher in the heap method than in the pit method.

134 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Fig 3:Cement ring model for vermicomposting
at ICRISAT
For regular and large scale production of vermicompost, it is desirable to
construct tanks above the ground. The important criteria to fix dimensions is
to have a width to facilitate reach to each and every part of the unit and the
height should not be more as it creates problems in moisture maintenance.
Following structure types are suited for different needs.
5.1. Cement Rings
Verm icom po st can be
prepared above the ground by
using cem ent rings (Figure 3).
The size o f th e cem ent ring
should be 90 cm in diameter
and 30 cm in height. Such small
units are very suited for small
scale production at household
level. The details of preparing
vermicompost by this method
have been described in a later
sectio n. This method of
vermicomposting at household
level in community watersheds
is popular in India. This is also
a popu lar m etho d of
verm ico mp ostin g in Cuba
(Cracas, 2000).
5.2 Commercial Model
The commercial model for
vermi-composting developed by
IC RISAT consists of four
chambers enclosed by a wall
(1.5 m width, 4.5 m length and
0.9 m height) (Figure 4). The
walls are made up of different
materials such as normal bricks,
hollow bricks, shabaz stones,
asbestos sh eets and lo cally
availab le rocks. T his m odel
contains partition walls with
small holes to facilitate easy
movement of earthworms from
one chamber to another
(Figure 5). Providing an outlet
Fig 4: Commercial model for vermicomposting
Fig 5: Diagrammatic representation of the
commercial model with four chambers for
vermicomposting

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 135
at one corner of each chamber with a slight slope facilitates collection of excess
water, which is reused later or used as earthworm leachate (vermin wash)
for spraying on crop. The outline of the commercial model is given in Figure
5. The four components of a tank are filled with plant residues one after
another. The first chamber is filled layer by layer along with cow dung and
then earthworms are released. Then the second chamber is filled layer by
layer. Once the contents in the first chamber are processed the earthworms
move to chamber 2, which is already filled and ready for earthworms. This
facilitates harvesting of decomposed material from the first chamber and also
saves labor for harvesting and introducing earthworms. This technology
reduces labor cost and saves water as well as time.
6. BENEFITS OF VERMICOMPOST
6.1 Balanced plant nutrient source
The final nutrient composition of the vermicompost depends on the type
of raw biomasss used in composting. It is always better to know the chemical
composition of the waste to be converted into vermicompost as the knowledge
of structural polysaccharides as well as the nitrogen content in the waste will
help us to develop a proportional ratio to obtain a stable end product suitable
for agricultural use (Elvira et al., 1997). Vermicompost, however, is in general
rich in nutrients than other com post due to better decom position of it.
Earthworms consume various organic wastes and reduce the volume by
40-60%. The moisture content of castings ranges between 32 to 66% and the
pH is around 7.0. A mature vermicom post contain 9.8 to 13.4% organic
carbon, 0.51 to 1.61% nitrogen, 0.19 to 1.20% phosphorus and 0.15 to 0.73%
potassium, and other plant nutrients (Table 1) Nagavallemma et al. (2004), in
addition to secondary and micronutrients like sulphur, calcium, magnesium,
boron, zinc, copper, iron, m anganese, molybdenum chlorine and nickel
(Manivannan et al. 2009). Vermicompost has high cation exchange capacity
(Manivannan et al. 2009) to hold plant nutrients which is useful in increasing
nutrient use efficiency.
6.2 Source of enzymes and plant growth promoters
The digestive epithelium of the simple straight tubular gut of worms is
known to secrete cellulase, amylase, ureaes, invertase, protease, phosphatase
(Ranganathan and Vinotha, 1998) and so vermicompost becomes rich in these
enzymes. Humic acid (Atiyeh et al., 2002) plant growth regulators like auxins,
gibberellins and cytokinins (Tomati et al., 1988) are the major components of
vermicompost, which help plant in increasing growth as well as yields. These
components are mainly produced by the action of soil micro organisms like
bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and earthworms.

136 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
6.3 Soil Conditioner
Studies on vermicompost indicate that it increases soil pore space, water
holding capacity, organic carbon, and reduces particle and bulk density
(Manivannan et ah, 2009; Marinari et al., 2000). Vermicom post favourably
affect soil physical structure and so improves soil tilth which facilitates easy
germination for seeds and a good root growth.
6.4 Soil Health
Compared to conventional composts, vermicom post is much richer in
microbial diversity, populations and activities (Subler et ah, 1998). The
application o f verm icompost so increases the beneficial populations of
microorganisms in the soil (Jeyabal and Kupuswamy, 2001; Manivannan et
al., 2009), microbial respiration, microbial biomass C and N and relatively
higher fungal population (Pramanik et ah, 2010; Nagavallemma et ah, 2006).
Increases in microbial populations and activities are key factors influencing
rates of nutrient cycling, production of plant growth-regulating materials,
and the build-up of plant resistance or tolerance to crop pathogen and
nematode attacks (Arancon et ah, 2006). Arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF)
colonization which is important in nutrient uptake in the plant in exchange
of carbon compounds from the host is also increased (Cavender et al., 2003).
In addition, vermicompost also reduces the proportion of water-soluble
chemical species, which cause possible environmental contamination (Mitchell
and Edwards,, 1997). In field study Sarangi and Lama (2013) found that
application of vermicompost increased soil moisture in 0-15 cm layer by 3.06%,
soil organic carbon by 0.39% while pH changed from acidic to neutral.
Addition of vermicom post prepared with 5% lime also increased the soil
microbial biomass carbon by 147%. The beneficial effect of vermicomost on
soil chemical and physical properties have also been reported (Niranjan et ah,
2010; Nada et ah, 2011; Mahmoud and Ibrahim, 2012).
6.5 Disease and pest suppression in plants
Some studies have demonstrated the suppression of soil borne plant
pathogens by vermicompost (Hoitink and Fahy, 1986; Szczech et ah, 1993),
or disease suppression in the presence of earthworms (Stephens and Davoren
1997; Stephens et ah, 1994). Application of vermicompost suppresses the
growth of pathogenic fungi like Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Verticillium (Hoitink .
and Fahy, 1986) and populations of parasitic nematodes (Arancon et ah, 2006).
Disease suppression by com post may be attribu ted to the activities of
com petitiv e or antagonistic m icroorgan ism s as w ell as the antibiotic
compounds present in the vermicompost.
Sim ilarly, vermicompost have been found effective to suppress the
incidence of insect pests like leaf miner (Aproaerema modicella) in groundnut

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 137
(Ramesh, 2000), Heteropsylla cubana in Leucaena (Leucaena lecocephala) (Biradar
et al, 1998), caterpillars (Pieris brassicae L.) in cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.),
mealy bugs in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), aphids (Myzus persicae Sulz.)
in pepper (Capsicum an nuum L.) (Biradar et al., 1998) and cucumber
beetles (.Acalymma vittatum and Diabotrica undecimpunctata) etc. (Yardim
et al, 2006).
6.6 Cost cut on chemical fertilisers
The escalating cost of chemical fertilisers in addition to deleterious effects
of their imbalanced use is another reason to trigger a search for integrated
nutrient management options. Vermicompost is a potential alternative rich
in essential nutrients to cut cost on chem ical fertilisers along with other
multifarious benefits. In addition, it increases the efficiency of applied chemical
fertilisers by w ay of adsorbing nutrient ions on extensive adsorption sites on
organic colloids and which are slowly released in due course of time.
6.7 Other miscellaneous benefits
Vermicompost has numerous miscellaneous benefits. It reduces pressure
on landfills and is an environment friendly option. It also opens opportunities
for livelihoods based on sale of vermiculture or vermicompost and it may be a
highly profitable proposition for farmers having dairy units. Vermicomposting
is a low cost easily adoptable technology.
7. VERMICOMPOSTING AS LIVELIHOOD ENTERPRISE
Vermicompost has a high potential value, but that potential has not been
realized in most areas. Potential income diversification opportunities exist in
the sale of vermicompost and worms in addition to its use by farmers in their
own fields. Any farmer wishing to go into the business of making and selling
vermicompost or worms need to assess local market need before venturing
into it. ICRISAT has promoted and established vermicomposting as a livelihood
micro enterprise for women in various watersheds like Adarsha Watershed,
Kothapally, Andhra Pradesh, Rural Livelihood Program (APRLP) watersheds
etc.
Wom en's tenacity in house holding is remarkable. In the watershed
villages, wom en's propensity to work against all odds is show n in the
management of household consum ption and production under conditions of
increasing poverty. Lakshmi, a poor resident of Kothapally village, Andhra
Pradesh, India, eked her livelihood as a farm labourer until she was introduced
to verm icomposting, i.e. converting degradable garbage, weeds and crop
residues into valuable organic manure using earthworms. She earned US$ 36
per m onth from this activity. She has also inspired and trained 300 peers in

138 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
50 villages of Andhra Pradesh.
Lakshmi has also achieved a
singular reco gn itio n by
beco min g a Fe llo w of the
Jam setji Tata National Virtual
Academy for Rural Prosperity
for her a ch ievem en t of
empowering women members.
After training of women
from Kistapur at ICRISAT on
vermicompost preparation and
technical support at village two
SHGs hav e started with two Fig 6: Vermicomposting by women SHGs
ve rm i-com po st u nits in the
village. A t th e m om ent they are able to prod uce larg e q uantities of
vermicompost out of two units. The vermicompost produced by them is used
for Pongamia nursery raising. Now SHG member want to produce more
vermicompost by strengthening and expanding the already existing facility
in the village. Looking at the success some more groups are also showing
interest to start the activity soon Figure 6).
Similarly women members in Powerguda also initiated this activity in a
small scale. At the same time the women farmers in Behranguda are also
motivated by training at ICRISAT on vermi-composting. They also started
producing good quality vermicompost in large quantities by having very big
unit with four chambers 10' x 10 / x 2 '). The women in all three villages have
built confidence in making good quality vermicompost and its use in different
crops. At the moment they have become trainers to train the women in other
villages.
8. VERMICOMPOSTING PROCESS
Vermicomposting involves the following steps (Nagavallemma et ah, 2006)
which are depicted in Figure 7(a-k):
1. Cover the bottom of the cement ring with a layer of coconut husk or
slowly decomposable biomass (Fig. 7a).
2. Spread 15-20 cm layer of organic waste material on the surface (Fig.
7b). Sprinkle rock phosphate powder if available (it helps in improving
nutritional quality of compost) on the waste material and then sprinkle
cow dung slurry (Fig. 7c and d). Fill the ring completely in layers as
described. Paste the top of the ring with soil or cow dung (Fig. 7e). Allow
the material to decompose for 15 to 20 days.

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 139
3. When the heat evolved during the decomposition of the materials has
subsided (15-20 days after heaping), release selected earthworms 500
to 700) through the cracks developed (Fig. 7f).
4. Cover the ring with wire mesh or gunny bag to prevent birds from picking
the earthworms.
5. Sprinkle water every three days to maintain adequate moisture and body
temperature of the earthworms (Fig. 7g).
-6. The vermicompost is ready in about 2 months if agricultural waste is
used and about 4 weeks if sericulture waste is used as substrate(Fig. 7h).
7. The processed vermicompost is black, light in weight and free from bad
odor. Identification of exact m aturity of the vermicompost is an important
component as the excess time leads to loss of nitrogen, polysaccharides
as well as immobilization of nutrients like N and P (Meunchang et al.,
2005). Moreover, the application of non matured vermicompost to the
soils can cause harmful effects to the soil due to incomplete stabilization
of the compounds (Deportes et al., 1995).
8. W hen the compost is ready, do not water for 2-3 days to make compost
easy for shifting. Pile the compost in small heaps and leave under ambient
conditions for a couple of hours when all the worms move down the
heap in the bed (Fig. 7i). Separate upper portion of the manure and
sieve the lower portion to separate the earthworms from the manure
(Fig. 7j). The cu lture in the bed contains d ifferent stages of the
earthw orm's life cycle, nam ely, cocoons, juveniles and adults. This
culture may be transferred to fresh half decomposed feed material by
keeping aside it the harvested vermicompost for 20-22 days (Hatching
period for cocoons). The excess as well as big earthworms can be used
for feeding fish or poultry. Pack the compost in bags and store the bags
in a cool place (Fig. 7k).
9. Prepare anotherpile about 20 days before starting the process and repeat
the process by following the same procedure as described above.
9. VERMICOMPOST USE IN CROP PRODUCTION
Vermicom post can be used for all crops: agricultural, horticultural,
ornamental and vegetables at any stage of the crop. For general field crops
and vegetables, around 3-4 t ha-1 vermicompost is used by mixing with seed
at the time of sowing or by row application when the seedlings are 12-15 cm
in height. For vegetable and flower crops vermicompost is applied around
the base of the plant. It is then covered with soil and watered regularly. Normal
irrigation is followed. For vegetables for raising seedlings to be transplanted,

140 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Plastic sheet placed below the ring Layer of raw material placed on polythene sheet
Cement ring sealed with cow dung Earthworms are released near cracks
Fig. 7{a«f): Vermicomposting process

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 141
Cement ring covered with gunny bag Processed vermicompost
Compost sieved Bag filled with vermicompost
Fig. 7(g-k): Vermicomposting process

142 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
vermicompost at 1 1 ha-1 is applied in the nursery bed. This results in healthy
and vigorous seedlings. For fruit trees the amount of vermicompost ranges
from 5 to 10 kg per tree depending on the age of the plant. For efficient
application, a ring (15-18 cm deep) is made around the plant.
9.1 Effects on crop productivity
A large num ber of studies were conducted on cereals and legum es
(Buckerfield and W ebster, 1998; Chan and Griffiths, 1998; Jayabal and
Kupuswamy, 2001; Mba, 1996), vegetables (Atiyeh et al., 1999; 2000b; Subler
et al., 1998; G utierrez-M iceli et al., 2007; S aran gi and Lama, 2013),
ornamental and flowering plants (Atiyeh et al., 2000), and fruit plants (Singh
et ah, 2008). These scientific evidences proved that vermicompost can influence
favourably the plant growth as well as productivity significantly (Edward,
1998). Sarangi and Lam a (2013) reported an increase in grain and pod
yields of upland rice and groundnut,by 120% and 107% respectively, over
control following application of vermicompost prepared with 5.0% lime.
ICRISAT has also evaluated the role of verm icompost in integrated
nutrient m anagement (INM) in on-farm trials. The vermicompost produced
on-farm is promoted for use to enhance soil quality in crop production and to
cut cost on the chemical fertilisers. INM trials were conducted on soybean in
Madhya Pradesh, India, based on soil test analysis to demonstrate the benefits
of using v erm ico mpost along w ith m inera l fe rtilisers for su stain ing
productivity. The vermicompost was added to meet the 50% P requirement
of the soybean crop. Applications of S, B, Zn and vermicompost were made
as basal at sowing of the crop. The findings revealed that, the soil test based
balanced nutrition including S, B and Zn increased soybean grain and straw
yield over the farmers practice (Table 5). Interestingly, the substitution of 50%
of chem ical fertilisers with vermicompost either maintained yield level or
increased it over the balanced nutrition with nutrients applied solely through
chem ical fertilisers. The integrated app roach of ap plying 50% of the
recommended chemical fertilisers plus vermicompost increased grain yield
significantly over the soil test based balanced nutrition through chemical
fertilisers by 14% in Shajapur district and by 10% in Guna district. The grain
yield s with integrated approach were however statistically at par with
balanced nutrition through chemical fertilisers in Raisen and Indore districts.
Similarly, on-farm trials were also conducted in Rajasthan on the use of
vermicompost as a source of organic matter and plant nutrients by partially
replacing chemical fertilisers. Vermicompost was added to replace 50% of N
requirem ent in non-legum es and 50% of P requirement in legumes. The
balanced nutrition (BN) increased grain yield of crops by 6 to 52% and straw
yield by 1 to 56% as compared to farm er's practice (Table 6). Interestingly,

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 143
Table 5. Effects of balanced nutrient management BN, nutrients added through chemical
fertilisers) and INM on yield of soybean under rainfed conditions in various districts of
Madhya Pradesh in 2010 rainy season
District No. Grain yield CD Straw yield CD
of kg ha-1) 5%) kg ha*) 5%)
trials PP BN 50%
BN+VC
FP BN 50%
BN+VC
Raisen 30 1360 1600 . 1600 115 1920 2100 2180 109
Shajapur 15 1900 2120 2410 69 1610 1650 1750 87
Indore 15 1680 1700 1720 27 1760 1790 1850 33
Guna 12 1270 1440 1580 34 2130 2380 2570 250
Anandpur 7 1300 1580 1500 445 1630 1990 1950 815
Vidisha 2 1130 1410 1700 640 1650 1900 1950 130
Table 6: Effects of farmer’s practice FP), balanced nutrient management BN) and INM
50% BN + VC) treatment on crop yield in three districts of Rajasthan, 2010 rainy season
District No.
of Crop Grain yield
kg ha-1) CD
5%) Straw yield
kg ha'1) CD
5%)
trials FP BN 50%
BN+
VC
FP BN 50%
BN+VC
Banswara 15 Maize 2850 3390 3620 780 4060 4820 5230 727
Bhilwara 15 Maize 4410 5420 5520 710 5230 6770 6910 843
Jhalawar 15 Soybean 1700 1810 2020 82 1490 1510 1540 128
Tonk 7 Groundn.
ut 820 960 1060 107 1030 1240 1330 153
3 Pearl
millet 2210 2560 2800 325 2740 3200 3370 611
5 Maize 2840 3350 3560 280 3580 4170 4430 464
Swai
Madhopur 9 Pearl
millet 1410 1590 1700 234 1680 1930 2050 291
1 Black
gram 330 500 560 -390 610 670 -
2Maize 1560 2180 2530 268 1860 2610 2830 298

144 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
the inclusion of vermicompost in the INM approach not only reduced cost on
chemical fertilisers, but also increased grain and straw yield over and above
the balanced nutrition treatment nutrients supplied solely through chemical
fertilisers. The increase in grain yield using INM approach over the BN
treatment varied from 2 to 16% in maize, 12% in soybean, 10% in groundnut,
and 7 to 9% in pearl millet and 12% in groundnut. Similar increase in straw/
stover yield was also observed (Table 6).
REFERENCES
Aira, M., Moruroy, F. and Dominguez, J. 2007. Earthworms strongly modify microbial
biomass and activity triggering enzymatic activities during vermicomposting
independently of the application rates of pig slurry. Science o f the total Environment
385: 252-261.
Arancon, N. Q., Edwards, C. A. and Bierman, P. 2006. Influences of vermicomposts on
field strawberries: Part 2. Effects on soil microbiological and chemical properties.
Bioresource Technology 97(6): 831-840.
Asha Aalok, Tripati, A. K. and Soni, P. 2008. Vermicomposting: A better optionfor organic
solid waste management. Journal of Human Ecology 24(1): 59-64.
Atharasopoulous, N. 1993. Use of earthworm biotechnology for the management of
aerobically stabilized effluents of dried vine fruit industry. Biotechnology Letters
151(2): 126-128.
Atiyeh, R. M., Lee, S., Edwards, C. A., Arancon, N. Q. and Metzger, J. D. 2002. The
influence of humic acids derived from earthworm-processed organic wastes on
plant growth. Bioresource Technology 84(1): 7-14.
Atiyeh, R. M., Subler, S., Edwards, C. A., Bachman, G., Metzger, J. D. and Shuster, W. 2000.
Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container
media and soil. Pedobiologia 44:579-590.
Aveyard J. 1988. Land degradation: Changing attitudes - why? Journal of Soil Conservation
44: 46-51.
Bansal, S. and Kapoor, K. K. 2000. Vermicomposting of crop residues and cattle dung
with Eisenia foetida. Bioresource Technology 73:95-98.
Bationo, A. and Mokwunye, A. U. 1991. Role of manures and crop residue in alleviating
soil fertility constraints to crop production: with special reference to the Sahelian
and Sudanian zones of West Africa. Fertilizer Research 29:117-125.
Bationo, A., Kihara, J., Vanlauwe, B., Kimetu, J., Waswa, B.S. and Sahrawat, K.L. 2008.
Integrated nutrient management: concepts and experience from Sub-Saharan Africa.
In: Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production (M.S. Aulakh, and
CA. Grant, Eds.). The Haworth Press, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, USA,
pp 467-521.
Benitez, E., Nogales, R, Elvira, C., Masciandaro, G. and Ceccanti, B. 1999. Enzyme activities
as indicators of the stabilization of sewage sludge composting with Eisenia foetida.
Bioresource Technology 67:297-303.

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 145
Bhattacharyya, T., Ray, S. K, and Pal, D. K. 2009. Soil Carbon stocks in India - Issues and
priorities. 2009. Journal o f the Indian Society of Soil Science 57 (4):461-468.
Bhiday, M. R. 1994. Earthworms in agriculture. Indian Farming 43 (12): 31-34.
Biradar, A. P., Sunita, N. D., Teggelli, R. G. and Devaranavadgi, S. B. 1998. Effect of
vermicomposts on the incidence of Subabul psyllid. Insect Environment 4 (2):
55-56.
Buckerfield, J. C. and Webster, K. A. 1998. Worm-worked waste boosts grape yields:
prospects for vermicompost use in vineyards. The Australian and New Zealand Wine
■ Industry Journal 13:73-76.
Butt, K. R. 1993. Utilization of soil paper mill slugde and spent brewery yeast as feed for
soil dwelling earth worms. Bioresource Techology 44:105-107.
Cavender, N. D. Atiyeh, R. M. and Knee, M. 2003. Vermicompost stimulates mycorrhizal
colonization of roots of Sorghum bicolor at the expense of plant growth. Pedobiologia
47(1): 85-89.
Chan, L. P. S. and Griffiths, D. A. 1988. The vermicomposting of pretreated pig manure.
Biological Wastes 24:57-69.
Cordovil, C. M. D. S., Cabral, F. and Coutinho, J. 2007. Potential mineralization of nitrogen
from organic wastes to ryegrass and wheat crops. Bioresource Technology 98:3265-
3268.
Correa, R. S., White, R. E. and Weatherley, A. J. 2005. Biosolids effectiveness to yield
ryegrass based on their nitrogen content. Scientia Agricola 62:274-280.
Cracas, P. 2000. Vermicompostingcuban style. Worm Digest, issue #25.
Deportes, I., Benoit, J. L. and Zmirou, D. 1995. Hazard to man and the environment posed
by the use of urban waste compost: a review. Science of the total Environment 172:
197-222.
Diaz-Burgos, M. A., Ceccanti, B. and Polo, A. 1992. Monitoring biological activity during
sewage sludge composting. Biology and Fertility of Soils 16:145-150.
Edmeades, D.C. 2003. The long-term effects of manures and fertilisers on soil productivity
and quality: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 66:165-180.
Edwards, C. A. 1998. The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of
organic wastes. In: Earthworm Ecology (C. A. Edwards Ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton,
PL, pp 327-354.
El-Swaify, S. A., Pathak, P., Rego, T. J. and Singh, S. 1985. Soil management for optimized
productivity under rainfed conditions in the semi-arid tropics. Advances in Soil
Science 1:1-64.
Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Benitez, E. and Nogales, R. 1998. Vermicomposting of sludges
from paper mill and dairy industries with Eisenia andrei : a pilot scale study.
Bioresource Technology 63:205-211.
Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Dominguez, J. and Mato, S. 1997. Vermicomposting of wastewater
sludge from paper-pulp industry with nitrogen rich materials. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 29: 759-762.

146 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Forster, J. C, Zech, W. and Wrdiger, E. 1993. Comparison of chemical and microbiological
methods for the characterization of the maturity of composts from contrasting
sources. Biology and Fertility of Soils 16:93*99.
Gajalakshmi, S., Ramasamy, E. V. and Abbasi, S. A. 2001. Assessment of sustainable
vermiconversion of water hyacinth at different reactor efficiencies employing
Eudrilus engeniae Kingburg. Bioresource Technology 80:131-135.
Gajalakshmi, S., Ramasamy, E. V. and Abbasi, S.A. 2002. Vermicomposting of paper
waste with the anecic earthworm Lampito mauritii Kingburg. Indian Journal of
Chemical Technology 9: 306-311.
Gandhi, M., Sangwan, V., Kapoor, K. K. and Dilbaghi, N. 1997. Compostingof household
wastes with and without earthworms. Environment and Ecology 15 (2): 432-434.
Garg, P., Gupta, A. and Satya, S. 2006. Vermicomposting of different types of waste using
Eisenia foetida: A comparative study. Bioresource Technology 97 (3): 391-395.
Georg. 2004. Feasibility of Developing the Organic and Transitional Farm Market for
Processing Municipal and Farm Organic Wastes Using Large-Scale
Venrncompos ting, http://www.altemativeorganic.com
Ghosh, K., Nayak., D. C. and Ahmed, N. 2009. Soil organic matter. Journal of the Indian
Society of Soil Science 57:494-501.
Gordon, L. J., Steffen, W. and Jonsson, B. F. 2005. Human modification of global water
vapor flows from the land surface. Proceedings National Acadademy Sciences USA
102: 7612-7617.
Gratelly, P., Benitez, E., Elvira, C., Polo, A. and Nogales, R. 1996. Stabilization of sludges
from a dairy processing plant using vermicomposting. In: Fertilisers and Environment
(Rodriguez-Barrueco, Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 341-343.
Gunadi, B., Charles, B. and Clive, A. E. 2002. The growth and fecundity of Eisenia fetida
Savigny) in cattle solids pre-composted for different periods. Pedobiologia 46:
15-23.
Gutierrez-Miceli, F. A., Santiago-Borraz, J., Montes-Molina, J.A., Nafate, C. C„ Abudud-
Archila, M., Oliva Llaven, M. A., Rincon- Rosales, R. and Decndoven, L. 2007.
Vermicomposting as a soil suppliment to improve growth, yield and fruits quality
oftomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresource Technology 98; 2781-2786.
Hand, P., Hayes, W. A., Frankland, J. C. and Satchel!, /. E. 1988. The vermicomposting of
cow slurry. Pedobiologia 31:199-209.
Harris, D., Joshi, A., Khan, P. A., Gothkar, P. and Sodhi, P. S. 1999. On-farm seed priming
in semi-arid agriculture: development and evaluation in maize, rice and chickpea
in India usingparticipatory methods. Experimental Agriculture 35:15-29.
Hoitink, H. A. and Fahy, P. 1986. Basis for the control of soil borne plant pathogens with
composts. Annual Review of Phytopathology 24:93-114.
ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics). 2005.
Identifying systems for carbon sequestration an increased productivity in semiarid
tropical environments, A Project Completion Report funded by National
Agricultural Technology Project, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, pp.276

Vermicomposting: Recycling Wastes into Valuable Manure 147
Jeyabal, A. and Kuppuswamy, G. 2001. Recycling of organic wastes for the production of
vermicompost and its response in rice-legume cropping system and soil fertility.
European Journal of Agronomy 15(3): 153-170.
Katyal, J.C. and Rattan, R.K., 2003. Secondary and micronutrients: Research gaps and
future needs. Fertilizer News 48(4):9-14,17-20.
Kaushik, P. and Garg, V. K. 2003. Vermicomposting of mixed solid textile mill sludge and
cow dung with the epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida. Bioresource Technology 90(3):
311-316.
Kavian, M .F. and Ghatneker, S. D. 1991. Bio-management of dairy effluents using culture
of red earthworms Lumbricus rubellus). Indian Journal of Environmental Protection
11: 680-682.
Lai, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123:1-22.
Lee, K. K., and Wani, S. P. 1989. Significance of biological nitrogen fixation and organic
manures in soil fertility management. In: Soil Fertility and Fertility Management in
Semi-Arid Tropical India. (C.B. Christianson, Ed.). IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Albama,
USA, pp 89-108.
Mahmoud, E.K. and Ibrahim, M.M. 2012. Effect of vermicompost and its mixtures with
water treatment residuals on soil chemical properties and barley growth. Journal of
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 12 (3): 431-440.
Manivannan, S., Balamurugan, M., Parthasarathi, K., Gunasekaran, G. and Ranganathan,
L. S. 2009. Effect of vermicompost on soil fertility and crop productivity - beans
Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of Environmental Biology 30(2): 275-281.
Marinari, S., Masciandaro, G. Ceccanti, B. and Grego, S. 2000. Influence of organic and
mineral fertilisers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresource Technology
72(1): 9-17.
Materechera, S. A. 2010. Utilization and management practices of animal manure for
replenishing soil fertility among small scale crop farmers in semi-arid farming
districts of the NorthWest Province, South Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
87:415-428.
Mba, C. C. 1996. Treated-cassava peel vermicomposts enhanced earthworm activities
and cowpea growth in field plots. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17:
219-226.
Meunchang, S., Panichsakpatana, S. and Weaver, R. W. 2005. Co-composting of filter
cake and bagasse; by-products from a sugar mill. Bioresource Technology
96: 432-437.
Misra, R. V., Roy R. N. and Hiraoka, H. 2003. Onfarm composting methods. Land and
water management discussion paper 2 pages 49. http:// www.fao.org/ docrep/
007/ y5104e/y5104e09.htm
Mitchell, A. 1997. Production of Eisenia foetida and vermicompost from feedlot cattle
manure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29:763-766.

148 Bioresources for Sustainable Plant Nutrient Management
Mitchell A. and Edwards, C. A. 1997. The production of vermicompost using Eisenia
fetida from cattle manure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29:3-4.
Nada, W.M., Rensburg, L., Gaassens, S. and Blumensteirv O,2011. Effect of ermicompost
onSoil and Plant Properties of Coal Spoil in the Lusatian Region (Eastern Germany).
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42:1945-1957
Nagavallemma, K.P., Wani, S.P., Stephane Lacroix et al. 2004. Vermicomposting: Recycling
wastes into valuable organic fertilizer. Global Theme o