composting facility proposal - university of · pdf filecomposting facility proposal for ......
TRANSCRIPT
Composting Facility Proposal for
University of Vermont
Plant and Soil Science 154
Compost Ecology & Management
July 2009
Acknowledgements This proposal is the result of a collaborative team effort by the following students during a four week course: Tara Bates, Environmental Studies, ‘10 Tyler Buswell, Environmental Studies, ‘11 William “Judd” Grimes, Ecological Agriculture, ‘10 Anna Sherman, Environmental Studies, ‘11 Mollie Silver, Ecological Agriculture, ‘10 Greg Soll, Environmental Studies, ‘10 Sung Yim, Anthropology, ‘10 Along with UVM staff members enrolled in the course: Francis Churchill, Environmental Safety Manager, UVM Risk Management Erica Spiegel, Solid Waste/Recycling Manager, UVM Physical Plant Under the guidance and direction of PSS 154 course instructor: Tom Gilbert, Executive Director, Highfields Institute; Hardwick, Vermont With special thanks to the following: Deb Neher, Chair, Plant & Soil Sciences – for enabling this course to happen in every way. Mark Young, Facilities Coordinator, Miller Research Farm – for building and turning the test pile, providing critical information regarding the farm and supporting the program. Lani Raven, Campus Planning – for assistance in sourcing maps and other information regarding the manure stacking pads on Spear Street. Future inquiries about this report may be directed to: Erica Spiegel, Solid Waste/Recycling Manager UVM Physical Plant Department (802) 656-4191 [email protected]
Table of Contents
1. Facility Proposal Introduction
a. Scope of Work
b. University Mission
c. Summary of Findings
2. Composting Process Overview
3. Feedstock Sources, Volumes and Characteristics
4. Sample Recipes by Scenario
5. Overview of Components of a Composting Site
6. Site Sizing by Scenario
7. Storm Water Management
8. Storm Water System Sizing
9. Equipment Overview
10. Management Plans
11. Site Parameters
12. Assessment of Existing Composting Site
13. Recommendations
14. Appendix
a. Glossary of Terms
b. Compost Use Reports
i. Compost Tea
ii. Storm Water Management
iii. Green Roof Media
iv. Erosion Control
v. Mulch
vi. Soil Building
vii. Disease Suppression
viii. Soil Remediation
ix. Nutrient Management
1. Facility Proposal Introduction
Project Scope
The University of Vermont expects to generate over 8,000 tons of residual organic material over the
next year. Currently these materials are either managed by third-party companies off campus or stockpiled
on-campus with no plan for re-use or disposal. Some of these materials, namely food scraps generated by the
campus dining halls, are composted off-site at Intervale Compost Products. This overall management strategy
comes at a cost to the University in dollars, carbon emissions, fuel use and loss of valuable nutrients and
organic matter. These organic residuals can be composted on-campus, thereby sequestering carbon and
nutrients, removing the unwanted residual and generating several useful and valuable products. These
outputs include a variety of compost products, a teaching and research laboratory for large-scale composting,
the research opportunities that involve compost utilization for agricultural and non-agricultural (such as for
green roof media and storm water filtration) applications, and the leadership opportunities in Agriculture and
environmental stewardship.
The Compost Ecology and Management program undertook the substantial task of assessing what
would be required of the University to develop an on-site composting system, the infrastructure requirements
of such a system, and the suitability of the manure stacking pads on Spear Street for such an undertaking. The
length of the program (four weeks) did not allow for a completely comprehensive assessment (gaps are
identified in the final recommendations at the end of this report), however the class was able to assess critical
issues associated with the planning process, including: recipe development, site sizing, storm water
containment estimating, vetting the Spear Street site for siting parameters and requirements, and conceptual
site layout. These efforts were undertaken in small groups which each assessed these issues according to one
of three scenarios considered for the University: composting all organic materials generated by the University,
composting only those organic materials generated by the farm, and composting only those organic materials
produced on campus. Since this proposal was developed through a variety of exercises designed to teach
course participants necessary compost management skills, more background detail has been provided in each
section by the small groups than would be included in a standard proposal in order to demonstrate the
student’s technical understanding of the processes. These small groups also produced the various
components and overviews provided in this report. Additionally, each student produced a report on various
applications for finished compost that may be useful to the University. These reports are provided in the
Appendix.
The University’s Mission
Developing a composting facility for UVM fits well with UVM’s mission. An on-campus composting
facility, which cycles the residual nutrients generated at UVM back into UVM soils and other applications,
shows an abiding concern for the environment, public health, a commitment to critical thinking, ethical
decision making, and an appreciation of our commitment to the State of Vermont and our land-grant heritage.
An on-site composting facility can be used as a teaching and research laboratory that will facilitate the
creation and sharing of knowledge. The ability for UVM to completely reuse these currently waste products
shows our values, further modeling for and helping students lead productive and responsible lives that are
thoughtful and relevant. The lessons learned and demonstrated by the institution’s dedication to responsibly
maintaining our waste on campus can be applied to the benefit of Vermont and society as a whole.
Summary of Findings The scope and time available for the Compost Ecology and Management program was insufficient to
fully assess the feasibility of a UVM composting facility; however it is the conclusion of the participants in
the program that the concept merits serious consideration. Additionally, while the program was unable to
assess the considerations necessary to determine the economic costs and benefits of an on-site composting
system, it was deemed that:
1. The University has the necessary materials and facility space for proper and effective composting;
2. Composting fits into and effectively furthers the University‘s academic, social, and ecological
mission and goals. Additionally, a composting facility on campus would not only provide a vehicle
for learning and research, but it would provide a unique, dynamic, applied learning environment,
much like the CREAM dairy program, that is exciting and relevant to students in a variety of fields;
3. The implementation of a composting facility would benefit UVM both for the purpose of managing
its byproducts and the production of a high quality, relevant resource for use in a wide variety of
academic and practical applications;
4. Implementation of a composting facility would require improvements in the management of some of
the University‘s organic materials in order to ensure their suitability for composting. While this
would have some initial expenses and challenges associated with it, it is these very undertakings that
begin to transform a University community from a place of ideas alone to a place of practice in
which the culture of the University is actually transformed around resource management. This
outcome, almost above all others, would have the greatest impact on achieving the University‘s
goals set forward in its mission.
The University of Vermont produces large volumes of materials annually that can be composted.
While some of these materials are currently composted at Intervale Compost Products or utilized for
agricultural purposes without composting, many of these materials are currently managed as waste
materials, representing both an expense to the University and a loss of resources from the University.
Additionally, the farm currently suffers from an excess of manure-derived nutrients (as do many dairy
operations in Vermont), which if composted could be more effectively distributed around the campus. If the
University were to compost these materials itself, the resulting compost would provide a resource capable of
offsetting some existing purchases as well, such as mulch and fertilizers. Last, the availability of a high
quality compost product on campus could open up new opportunities to explore and leverage compost
utilization for applications in emerging fields of interest, such as green roof design and storm water control
and filtration.
Implementing a compost facility could further UVM‘s efforts to emerge as a leader in sustainability
among colleges and universities nationally. An on-campus facility will lower the University‘s carbon
footprint, ecological efficiency, and social responsibility by making its resource management system a
closed loop where campus materials are composted to become inputs to put back into the system, and
internalizing costs and benefits of resources and associated management practices. The University has
articulated a vision of being a sustainable organization in its mission, many of its existing investments, its
commitment to the Inter College and University Protocol on Climate Change (ICUPCC), and its marketing.
Through the implementation of a composting facility the University has an incredible opportunity chance to
further these commitments and efforts, while also benefiting Vermont and the society as a whole.
The facility would also provide many other opportunities the academic realm. It would be a valuable
resource for teaching and research in multiple disciplines, including engineering, horticulture, animal
sciences, storm water management, landscaping, and natural resource management among others. It is also
an opportunity to educate students about their own habits regarding waste generation and resource
management, thereby fostering a University community that is increasingly integrated and responsible for
its inputs and outputs. Among other things, this facility could be paired with efforts to increase reduce the
amount of waste produced and increase the quality of the resources available for capture and recycling. This
is especially important as a substantial, but un-quantified, portion of the food scraps are not currently
captured and instead go to the landfill, and the landscape ―waste‖ material produced at this time is so
contaminated that it is unsuitable for composting. Separating the non-compostable items from the organic
sources is critical in producing a high quality end product, requiring an improvement in the management of
these materials further upstream to prevent problems associated with contamination. This is particularly
important when looking at the possible end uses of the compost. Clear and efficient plans for the end use of
the compost must be considered at the outset of the composting process to ensure the quality of the compost
product.
Further research into other composting facilities of comparable size and application would be useful
in assessing this undertaking for the University, the long-term viability of the project, and considerations in
the planning process. Specifically, there may be appropriate opportunities to leverage public and private
partnerships, other University functions and needs, and non-quantifiable considerations that should be
adequately taken into account.
The participants in this program believe a composting facility and program for the Unviersity would
be most efficient and effective if it were to process all of the compostable materials generated on campus
and on the farm. The combination of these materials provides a very good recipe, obtaining the correct C:N
ratio, moisture content and bulk density. This scenario would also benefit the University by establishing an
economy of scale and concentration of activities that would increase efficiency, and help address specific
needs of both the farm and the campus. Through measurement and calculations, the physical layout of the
existing compost pad was deemed suitable for an operation of the size needed to capture UVM‘s waste and
compost it in an efficient, economic and environmentally friendly way.
2. The Composting Process Overview
The name ‘compost’ comes from the Latin term compositum, meaning put together. Materials are combined to achieve specific pile conditions to support microbial activity, and in turn the tremendous population and diversity of microbes that result in the compost facilitate the decomposition process. A compost pile should be treated as a living entity because of its mass diversity of organisms.
Ecology of Compost, Daniel Dindal
The three basic aspects of creating a successful compost recipe are moisture content, carbon to
nitrogen ratio, and pile density/ porosity. When creating a compost recipe, the optimal moisture content is 60 percent. This moisture content will allow microorganisms to be active and hydrated, while keeping the environment aerobic and not anaerobic. The input of carbon- rich matter, like straw, dead leaves and newspaper must be balanced with highly nitrogenous materials like manure, food scraps and green vegetable matter in a ratio of approximately 30:1. This ratio reflects the typical uptake of these materials by the decomposers in the compost. An imbalance in this ratio can cause the gaseous loss of nitrogen or a stagnated process if inadequate nitrogen is present. To manage the pile effectively, the pile should be constructed with a bulk density of 700-1000 pounds per cubic yard, and certainly no more than 1,200 pounds per cubic yard. This density range ensures a certain degree of density for insulation and microbial movement, while providing adequate porosity to maintain pore spaces to support passive exchange of gases and aerobic conditions. Including different sizes of materials, from dust up to one to three-inch particles helps to keep the pile fluffy, passively aerate through heat convection in the pile and gas diffusion.
From Modern Composting Technologies; Chiumenti, Chiumenti, and Goldstein 2006
While these recipe components, among other things, help to ensure the aerobicity of the pile, it is
critical to actively supply oxygen to the pile. The pile should be maintained at 5-10% oxygen. Pile turning (or other methods of air delivery), aerates the pile and increases the level of microbial activity, thus raising the temperature. The pile should be monitored regularly in order to determine how often turning is necessary. A well- managed compost pile should be fully decomposed after approximately 36 weeks and ready for either
application or curing, depending on the end-goal of the producer. Thermophilic temperatures (>131º F) for several consecutive days effectively destroy weed seeds and common pathogens, ensuring that the product is free of weeds and pathogens. Well, actively managed compost will stabilize volatile organic compounds and other potential phyto-toxins. When these principles are effectively adhered to, concerns about odors, vectors, and run-off are commonly mitigated.
http://www.torfaen.gov.uk/EnvironmentAndPlanning/RubbishWasteAndRecycling/Composting/Images/How%20Compost%20Happens.gif
Available Materials for Composting
The University of Vermont produces a variety of organic materials from campus and from the farm. While the volume and characteristic of some of these materials is likely to change over time, figures from 2008 provide some valuable data for anticipating what materials could be composted from the University, and the annual amount generated. These include:
Food Residuals: 268 tons from Davis Center and catering that currently are being shipped to
Intervale Compost each year. This does not include food waste that is not separated from trash and is transported to the landfill in Coventry, VT. Unseparated food scraps have not been tracked historically. These food scraps were not considered in the calculations done for this proposal, but probably should be considered in future planning.
Landscape and grounds sweepings: 350 tons is currently stockpiled at Centennial field each year.
Leaves: 45 tons are currently being transported to Intervale Compost,
Laboratory animal waste: 34 tons are currently sent to the land-fill (Note: this does not include
contaminated bedding that is being sent for incineration in North Carolina.
Miller Farm output of manure and animal bedding: 1,054 tons of animal manure and bedding is
generated annually. Much of this material, until July 2009, was being composted on UVM property by Champlain Valley Composting. Equine manure generated at the farm is currently hauled to Intervale Compost Products for composting. This estimate does not include manure from the Dairy herd that is now being managed in Charlotte.
The University of Vermont pays approximately $44,000 a year in hauling, tipping fees and landfill disposal
costs to get rid of organic matter; additionally, the university purchases $26,000 in bark mulch, and $3,000 in compost for the Common Ground Farm annually, costs that could be eliminated by composting on-site. Other costs for fertilizers and herbicides, turf aeration and renovation, green roof media, and potting mix could also be potentially reduced or entirely offset. Rough estimates suggest that if the University were to compost all of the identified organic materials, it would generate approximately 2,100 cubic yards of finished compost annually, with a market value of about $95,000.
3. Feedstock Sources, Volume, and Characteristics Composting Worksheet for UVM's Organic Residuals
UVM -
Dairy
Horse
barn
Wood
chips
Bedded
Pack
CREAM Replace
ment
Herd
Sawdust
bedding
Landsca
pe pile
Lab
animal
bedding
Landsca
pe
sweepin
g
Food
scraps
Leaves Animal
Mortality
TPY generated 0 162 0 0 728 164 0 588 34 350 268 45 6500
Moisture 85.3 67.5 42.4 65.5 77.8 70 32.9 25.3 16.6 29.2 69 38 80
C 6.3 13.9 25.5 14.1 9.3 40.2 29.5 2.6 26.9 18.9 36 48.6 0
N 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.69 0.28 1.76 0.03 0.08 2.62 0.36 2.4 0.9 0
C:N 25.2 57.2 98.7 20.4 33.3 22.8 880 32.1 10.3 53.2 15 54 5
Bulk Density
(#/cy)
1750 450 330 240 700 900 240 1640 510 290 1200 350 1500
The primary sources of materials will be sourced from: All Dormitories
All Dining halls
Davis Center and Bailey Howe Library
Miller Farm
Animal laboratories
Campus landscaping and grounds Primary campus areas which generate compostable materials:
4. Sample Recipes by Scenario The following recipe work was developed with common target compost recipe parameters, including a
C:N ratio of 25-30:1, a moisture content (MC) of 55-60%, and bulk density of 1000 pounds per cubic yard. Recipe calculations were based on feedstock volumes provide by the UVM Physical Plant and Grounds departments, and analysis of samples gathered between March and May 2009. Samples were gathered according to Highfields Center for Composting Feedstock Sampling Protocol, and analyzed by the UVM. Groups were asked to assess the recipe of the total feedstock made available by their scenario and make recommendations to bring the recipe into target parameters if it did not meet the recipe goals.
Scenario One – All campus and farm materials – leaves, food scraps, landscape sweepings, lab bedding, animal
manures
Scenario Two – Farm materials only
Scenario Three – Campus materials only
Scenario Carbon to
Nitrogen
Ratio
Moisture
Content
Bulk
Density
Notes and Recommendations
One – All sources w/ landscape sweepings
w/out landscape sweepings
31:1
26:1
62.8%
71.2%
472
560
When all available materials generated by the
University are utilized, the C:N and %MC are good.
When the landscape sweepings are removed from the
recipe, the C:N ratio remains good, however the
moisture content exceeds the target recipe
parameters. This could be addressed by backing off
on some of the manure added to the mix and utilizing
a small portion of manure raw instead of composting
all of it. Alternatively, sourcing additional dry
matter for the mix could balance the moisture and
allow all materials to be composted.
Two – Farm sources
w/ out campus materials
w/ leaves and lab bedding
29:1
31:1
75%
72%
506
497
This mix is too high in moisture, however the C:N
ratio and bulk density are fine. The provision of lab
bedding and leaves from campus help to reduce pile
moisture, however additional dry matter would be
required to sufficiently bring down the moisture, and
while the C:N ratio would likely be high (~35:1) it
would be within a tolerable range.
Three – Campus
sources w/ landscape sweepings
w/out landscape sweepings
31:1
18:1
45%
65%
429
829
The campus materials provide a good carbon to
nitrogen ratio when the landscape sweepings are
included, however this mix is dry and would require
the addition of moisture. Storm water from the
collection pond could be reapplied to remedy this
situation. When the landscape sweepings are
removed from the recipe, the C:N ratio drops below
the range for suitable parameters and requires
additional carbon, and the moisture reaches the upper
threshold for acceptability.
5. Overview of Site Components All composting operations have a sequence of activities that must occur to effectively manage the process
from incoming feedstocks through finished product that must be accommodated in a site plan. The site plan
supports effective sizing and planning for site development. The components of site operations are summarized
below:
Receiving Materials & Feedstocks Storage
Feedstocks do not arrive on site in the proper quantities and frequencies required for each recipe,
therefore storage and stockpile areas must be designated. Receiving areas must accommodate incoming trucks,
allow them to drop off materials, and turnaround and exit the site in an efficient manner. Some sites also
feature areas for washing out carts or trucks, and rinse water can be re-circulated into the operation.
Mixing, Blending and Pile Formation
Most feedstocks (i.e., leaves, manure, and landscape waste) can be stockpiled before use, but incoming
food residuals must immediately be covered and mixed into a windrow pile. Blending is a necessary step in
preparing nearly all materials for composting. It can also be a time-intensive process, so effective organization
of this step and the related infrastructure are important for efficiency. Mixing is commonly done inside a
concrete bunker using a bucket loader or with specialized mixing equipment, such as a TMR mixer. After
mixing is completed, the material is piled into a windrow.
Active Composting
Active composting is the phase in which microbial activity increases rapidly and is sustained for several
months and windrows are actively heating. During this time the nutrients within the materials are converted
into carbon dioxide, heat, water and compost. As a result, dissolved oxygen is rapidly used and oxygen must be
replenished. In this phase, the porosity and aeration of the pile become critical factors in creating an effective
control on the effects of compost, such as odor. Mechanically turning or rolling the pile is done periodically to
maintain proper oxygen levels. Alternatively, blower systems can be utilized to deliver air to static piles. Since
active piles are turned on a regular basis with large equipment, wider spacing between windrows is needed to
maneuver equipment between rows.
Curing Phase
During this phase, the composted materials are transformed into a stable organic mass. Compost in the
curing phase should result in a slow release of plant nutrients, low amount of phytotoxins, and oxygen. A
compost pile that is low in temperature is one indication that shows that pile is in the curing phase. Since curing
piles do not need to be actively managed or turned, the spaces between rows and piles may be narrower.
Screening
Typically, all finished or cured compost will require screening to remove materials that are too large or
oddly shaped, and contaminants such as stones, branches, plastics, twine, etc. Large chunks of compost and
unwanted material that are not fully composted are removed. Not all the removed materials are thrown away.
Some organic materials that are screened out can be recycled back as a new feedstock ingredient. However, any
inorganic or waste materials screened out will require disposal.
Storing
Storing compost is the last step before the finished compost is trucked off site to be used as an end
product. The amount of material stored on site will vary by season. Farms usually store finished compost for
three or more months. Finished compost is stored with other complete piles. Finished compost should have a
low rate of microbial activity.
Materials Flow
Food Scraps
Manures
Carbon Matl‘s
Blending
Storage
Active
Windrows
Curing
Screening
Unscreened Land
Applications
Screened Land
Applications
Storage
Overs
Visuals of Site Components
Step 1: Receiving Materials & Feedstocks
Storage
Step 2: Mixing, Blending and Pile Formation
Step 3: Active Composting
Step 4: Curing Phase
Step 5: Screening
Step 6: Storing
6. Site Sizing The following site sizing calculations were developed to determine the pad area required to compost
the materials for each scenario. Each group was asked to size their pads to accommodate two different pile aerating scenarios – one requiring narrow work alley between piles for a skid steer or tractor-drawn windrow turner, the other utilizing a wide work alley to accommodate larger equipment, such as tractors and pay-loaders. Additionally, the following assumptions were utilized:
- Pile height: 8’; Pile width: 14’ - Pile length determined by total volume accumulated for four to six weeks and other space factors - Volume loss during feedstock blending – 15% - Volume loss during composting – 40% - Composting period – 40 weeks - 15’ perimeter around site, 15’ travel lane running width of pad - Include landscaping sweepings in calculations for relevant scenarios (1 & 3) - Space for curing and storing up to have to annually produced compost
Scenario Active Compost Pad Length
Active Compost Pad Width
Additional Space Total Footprint
One – All sources High End – 30‘ alleys 110’ 499’ 20,000 sq. ft. 74,890 sq. ft. Low End – 10’ alleys 110’ 299’ 20,000 sq. ft. 52,890 sq. ft. Two – Farm sources High End – 30‘ alleys 110’ 308’ 15,000 sq. ft. 50,530 sq. ft. Low End – 10’ alleys 110’ 203’ 15,000 sq. ft. 37,330 sq. ft. Three – Campus sources High End – 30‘ alleys 110’ 235’ 18,500 sq. ft. 45,850 sq. ft. Low End – 10’ alleys 110’ 155’ 18,500 sq. ft. 37,050 sq. ft. *Pad dimensions can be adjusted to reflect actual space. Total footprint required may change based on the dimensions of the space available.
7. Storm Water Management Storm water management is critical for a compost site in decreasing the risk of pollutant (nutrient)
leaching from raw materials, active compost, and curing piles. These pollutants can consist of oxygen
demanding substances, suspended solids, water-soluble nutrients, bacterial contamination, heavy metals, oils,
tannins and phenols. The U.S.EPA regulates the amount of these contaminants in issuing permits for specific
sites. The goal is to keep clean water clean by monitoring storm event discharges. The goals of storm water
treatment and management are to keep the clean water separated, to slow water flow, and to filter sediments,
nutrients, and contaminants.
Some strategies in managing water around a compost site are diverting upslope sources of water,
diverting rooflines, and keeping storm water off of compost and feedstocks. This can be accomplished with
good pile orientation, a clean and covered site, and thorough equipment cleaning. . Active piles can also be
covered with a water resistant fabric to keep rainwater from infiltrating. If the leachate is collected from the site
into a constructed lagoon, it can possibly be pumped out and reapplied to the compost—as long as the
thermophilic temperatures are hot enough in the pile to kill possible pathogens.
Biological treatment of the contaminated water could include living machines—which remediate the
high levels of nutrients using natural ecosystem services such as plant uptake. Another treatment that is
spreading in use and popularity are filter socks. These socks are useful in retention of sediments as well as
filtration of nutrients.
Filter socks are storm water filtration devices that are not designed to pond or stop storm water, but
rather they allow the water to flow through at a slower rate. The sock itself is a long tube made of a porous
fabric which is then filled with compost. As water flows through, sediments, hydrocarbons, excess nutrients and
some heavy metals are chemically absorbed and bound by a porous mixture of organic matter inside of the sock.
These socks can be set in place for months per usage, and when a replacement is needed, the compost inside of
the sock can be spread in the same area where it is located without being a contaminant. Filter socks also have
less of an impact on wildlife compared to a simple silt fence, as it is more easily traversed.
Compost socks for bank stabilization and storm water flitration Photos from: http://www.filtrexx.com/ “Scientific Evidence for Compost Filter Socks as a Stormwater Filtration Device (SWFD)” Filtrexx International; 2004
Berm system made from blend of woodchips and sawdust manages storm water at Highfields Institute.
8. Storm Water System Sizing
Storm water sizing is an important aspect of compost site sizing and development. Storm water
containment sizing can be influenced on a number of variables. Time available in PSS 154 was not adequate to
do detailed storm water sizing, and as a result, the following calculations are based on a crude formula used to
estimate the necessary storm water collection area. All calculations were done for the ―high end‖ site sizing.
Storm water collection and treatment systems should be sized and designed by a qualified engineer.
Scenario Dimensions Surface Area Total Storm Water Volume
One – All materials 8’ x 129’ x 200 25,865 206, 917 cubic feet
Two – Farm materials 8’ x 100’ x 170’ 17,070 136,560 cubic feet
Three – Campus
materials 8’ x 100’ x 153’ 15,363 122,904 cubic feet
9. Equipment Overview
Equipment
“Compost Happens” It may sound cliché but the truth is, this process can happen with a small investment in infrastructure or a large investment. The investment will depend on the amount of material that is being composted, the amount of labor available to manage the process, time and land available and capital available.
The basic needs of a compost process are incorporating new feedstocks, monitoring and aerating the composting piles and moving the materials from receiving through composting to finished product. The following table shows some of the equipment that is available. These prices were sourced from internet sites and have not been vetted.
Pile Maintenance Options
Pile Turner Images Type Lower $$ Limit
Upper $$ Limit
Pros Cons
Excavator 15-20 tons
$120,000 $200,000 Builds narrower,
higher piles; conserves total
work space; does not rip up earthen pads
High price, function limited
due to slow travel speed
Skid Loader
$25,000 $75,000 Takes up less space, good for
small to medium sized facilities, can
be used for pile formation
Pile height is limited; hard of
earthen pads
No photo available Pay Loader
$30,000 $100,000 Capacity to move larger quantities of material at
once, can be used for pile construction
Requires large work space,
cost
No photo available Tractor 50-80 HP
$30,000 $85,000 Multi-functional, can
be used to form piles
Limited bucket volume
Pull- behind Turner
$15,000 $50,000 Turns piles fast Need tractor to pull, reform
piles, and move material
Static Pile Aerator
$30,000 $50,000 Low labor input required
Compost may require more time to finish,
increased technological management,
can make material
movement challenging
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Underground static
pile aerator
$100,000 $250,000 Low labor input required, less
visibility, capacity for
thermal recovery
Price, need concrete pad,
increased technological management
Pile Building Options
Pile Builder Images Type Lower $$ Limit
Upper $$ Limit
Pros Cons
Dump Truck $85,000 $150,000 Handles large amounts of material, can serve other purposes
Gas intensive, high cost, no blending benefits
Manure Spreader
$10,000 $60,000 Good material blending, can be used to apply compost to fields
Time intensive
No Photo available Feed mixer $25,000 $40,000 Excellent blending capabilities
Cost, task specific
No Photo Available Pay Loader See above
See above See above See above
No Photo Available Tractor See above
See above See above See above
10. Management Plan Feedstock Receiving and Blending
Carbon materials generated seasonally, such as leaves, are stockpiled for use as needed. Some equine manure
will be stored as needed to accommodate recipe during summer months.
Lab bedding, which is generated weekly, will be brought to the Receiving Bay, where it will be blended with
other materials.
Manures and food scraps will be received regularly in the Receiving Bay, where they will be blended into
prescribed recipes with carbon materials.
After blending, the operator will assess the mix and adjust as needed.
Blended mix will be brought out the active composting pad and formed into windrows of roughly 8‘h x 14‘w
Piles will be constructed to hold between four and six weeks worth of material depending on site layout and
space.
Active windrows (~36 weeks) - Active windrows will be monitored for temperature, moisture, odor and pile
conformation. Monitoring information will be used to determine pile management. Piles will be aerated
primarily according to pile temperature, and moisture as needed.
Windrows containing compost that is intended for application on edible, Certified Organic crops must be
maintained at 130ºF for 15 consecutive days, during which at least five turnings must occur.
Curing (4-12 weeks) - Once piles have stabilized (indicated by lack of temperature rise following aeration) the
curing will begin. Curing piles will be 8‘h x 14‘w x 100‘l. Piles require passive aeration, however do not
require active pile rolling and therefore can be built against one another without alleys between them.
Finished Compost Handling
Cured compost will either be directly applied to fields, screened, or stored depending on timing, logistics, and
end use needs.
―Overs‖ from screening will be brought back to the feedstock storage area where they will be utilized for new
blends.
11. Site Parameters Siting Parameters and Environmental Conservation. - Siting parameters for a compost site are important for a number of reasons. These include neighborhood relations, environmental conservation, and permitting. In general the factors to be aware of in recognizing proximities to a compost facility are site runoff/leachate, snow melt, odors, pests, noise, and accessibility.
Permitting - Regulations for composting differ depending on the materials composted. Vegetative wastes like yard clippings, manures, and food scraps usually carry the least stringent regulations. Common regulations include setbacks from adjoining properties and roads, nearby wells, springs, and surface water. Consultation with Campus Planning Services might help determine the permits and regulations a university compost facility might have to function under. In general a setback of one to three hundred feet from these boundaries is sufficient.
Runoff - In general pads should be located 100-300 feet from sources of water. These include wells, springs, and any surface water. Relevant to the proposed site of the university compost facility is the proximity of the Potash Brook which runs roughly East to West along 189 and drains into Lake Champlain south of where Burlington intakes its water. The Potash has two feeder streams that originate to the west and south of the proposed compost facility site. Fortunately the proposed facility has two crushed asphalt pads that are sloped away from feeder streams with a substantial collection pond. Windrows can be situated parallel with the slope to allow leachate, snow melt, and runoff to drain without obstruction to swales or ditches. Generally compost pads are sloped from two to four percent with windrows set up parallel to the slope. This slope is ideal for drainage.
Vectors - Food and animal wastes have greater attraction for pests and a higher potential for odor and disease. Maintaining a clean site, which might include implementing a variety of best management practices (BMP's), is one of the most important measures to be taken. Decreasing the amount of time that vector-attractive feedstocks remain exposed by promptly mixing feedstocks that include food and other vector-attractive ingredients will greatly reduce the attraction of pests as well as odor. Mixing fresh, putrescible organics with a carbon source or capping piles(covering them with a layer of finished compost) to deter flies, pests, and odors is another measure that can be taken to reduce the presence of pests. Other measures that can be taken to reduce pest presence are, using the correct C:N so that ammonia is not generated which attracts flies, adequately turning piles to promote decomposition, and providing habitat for vector predators (e.g. housing for swallows, bats, catamounts).
Disease - A windrow that exists for fifteen consecutive days, is turned a minimum of five times, and maintains a temperature of at least 131 degrees Fahrenheit has been deemed sufficient to suppress pathogens, weeds, and seeds. This is a National Organic Program standard which is recognized as valid by most composters, and is consistent with the EPA requirements for Class A Biosolids pathogen destruction.
Odor - Odors become a problem particularly when piles are not sufficiently aerated. Microorganisms eventually deplete the oxygen within a compost pile and without aeration (turning) oxygen depletion may occur. Other causes of odors are odorous raw materials, poor site conditions, and ammonia loss from high-nitrogen materials. There are a range of odors associated with composting. Many have to do with parent feedstocks while others can be important signifiers of the ecology of an active pile. Recognizing that some odors might be unacceptable to the public it is important to control odors. Considering prevailing winds, particularly in warm months, can be instrumental in reducing the spread of odors. Also selective scheduling of activities can reduce the presence of odors on the facility.
Public Perception - Above all managing a clean facility is the number one measure to be taken to maintain a positive image in the public's eye. Selective scheduling of activities can reduce noise, dust, and odor that reach the public. Setbacks from property boundaries and roadways are commonly 150 feet.
12. Assessment of Existing Composting Site
Around 2005, a site south of the Miller Farm was developed as a potential manure storage and/or composting area by the farm manager at the time. To date, no official composting or storage activity has taken place on the site. The 2-acre site is comprised of an access road off of Spear street, two impervious
gravel/asphalt pad surfaces connected by an access drive, and a drainage system which feeds a clay-lined irrigation pond.
Although the PSS154 class did not conduct actual soil tests on the site, information obtained by the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey database indicate the site’s soil type as Adams-Windsor, which is a sandy loam. However, since most of the site has been developed with soils and fill material trucked in from other construction projects on the University of Vermont campus, the native soil types are less relevant. The pads appear to be constructed of a crushed asphalt product, and seem stable and intact. Although industry standards indicate that asphalt is a suitable surface for a composting operation pad, it is unknown what the long term impact of composting on the surface will be since asphalt does decay under acidic conditions. Further research and monitoring is recommended.
The overall slope and grade of the site seems appropriate for a composting facility. Both of the impervious pads slope 3% towards a drainage ditch which flows into the irrigation pond. There is a culvert that directs water and runoff from the first compost pad under the access drive and into the pond. Currently, the pond water level appears close to its maximum capacity, possibly a result of a wet rainy spring and summer. The only possible concern is that the “spillway” over-flow discharge from the pond leads to another culvert and to a collection vault that eventually leads to a waterway identified as a “Class III Wetland” on the drawing. Perhaps an additional treatment system such as a compost filter sock “cell” can be utilized to treat and water leaving the pond.
The existing conservation controls appear adequate to protect adjacent surface water and river water. However, since parts of the site are within 300’ of the Potash Brook which is considered an “impaired” waterway by the State, any land uses on the property will incur greater scrutiny and oversight due to the sensitive nature of water quality issues in South Burlington. All storm water flows away from the Potash Brook to the designed storm water collection pond, so the real resource concerns are limited. The primary issue of concern regarding the brook is the storm water pond overflow box, which does drain toward a tributary to the brook. Further evaluation for the treatment efficacy of this outlet is merited.
The site location in general is good as it is near the main University campus where most feedstock materials would be hauled from. Visually, the site is well buffered and concealed from Spear Street. The property is bordered by wooded areas on the east side by I-89 and on the south side by I-189. The northern edge has a high berm which was marked as a “soil stockpile area” on the original drawing. It is unknown what the original intention, if any, of this berm was.
There are two residential properties to the west, along Spear Street, but these are buffered by woods and appear to be over 300’ from the southwest edge of Pad #1. Both residences are served by municipal water supply and it is unknown whether there is also a private well on the properties. There is a “Class III Wetland” identified on the original site drawing which appears to be within (or very close to) 100’ of the southeastern edge of pad #2. It is difficult to determine exact setbacks and distances without a more accurate survey or drawing to scale.
Existing site design and layout
Recommendations
The PSS 154 Compost Ecology and Management program believes the development and
implementation of a composting facility at UVM would be a huge step for the University in becoming a
more sustainable institution, and merits real consideration. Such an investment would increase the
University‘s standing as a magnet school for students and faculty in fields of sustainable agriculture and
resource management, and could open up new areas of inquiry and prestige within fields such as
engineering, compost science, horticulture, and storm water management. With recent changes to the scope
of the University‘s dairy program, this composting facility represents new opportunities for the University
to expand, diversify and improve its agricultural research and education programs to include a cutting edge
element to the emerging 21st century food system. Such a broadened scope of the University‘s commitment
as a land grant college is similarly represented in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) recently signed
between UVM and the Center for an Agricultural Economy in Hardwick. Additionally, with the existing
site in place, the costs of facility construction have largely already been incurred and the remaining
improvement costs are likely to be small. There are a variety of considerations that should be assessed to determine the feasibility of this
facility that were beyond the scope and capacity of this program, specifically:
1. an inventory of applicable permits,
2. a cost/ benefits analysis,
3. planning for long term storm water management,
4. detailed assessment of the additional infrastructure needs for the composting facility, such as
commodity sheds for storing raw materials,
5. and an evaluation of equipment needs.
Appendix A GLOSSARY of Terms
A. Aerated static pile – A method of composting where the pile gets oxygen through forced air. Aeration – The process of replenishing oxygen within the compost pile Aerobic – An oxygen requiring process
B. Bulking agent – A material used in a compost recipe to obtain the right characterizes
C. Compost – The product of the composting process Composting – The process by which feedstock is aerobically decomposed to form a humus-like product called compost Curing – The last part of the composting process when the compost stabilizes to be ready for use C : N Ratio – Ratio of carbon to nitrogen of a material
D. Decomposition – The breakdown of organic matter
F. Feedstock – The raw material used to create the correct conditions for the composting process.
L. Leachate – The extracted material from the compost pile when it is oversaturated.
M. Moisture Content - The percent water in a substance.
P. Pad – The area for actively composting windrows
R. Recipe – The proportions of different feedstock usually expressed as a ratio
T. Turning – A method of getting oxygen into a windrow or pile
W.
Windrow - An aerated pile that is long and narrow with a parabolic or triangular cross-sectional area
Appendix B – Student Compost Use Reports PSS 154 Compost Ecology and Management
Compost Use Report
Mollie Silver, July 3, 2009
Compost Tea
Compost Use Summary: Compost tea is a product made with finished compost, brewed with the goal of
extracting and growing beneficial microorganisms to apply directly onto plants as a foliar spray. This
enhances crop fertility and pathogen suppression where the microbes inhabit niches where pathogens would
normally attempt to populate. Compost tea re-populates the soil with native microorganisms, which don‘t
exist in such high populations because of various pollutants.
Potential Application for UVM: UVM has the potential to have diverse applications for compost tea on
many different types of plant life that exist in the University community. This could include the apple
orchard at the Horticulture Farm, the vegetable crops at Common Ground, use in green roof media, in
landscaping and gardens around campus, and in the campus greenhouse. Compost tea would be applied by
spray, which could be large or small in scale, depending on the site. This new applicant for pathogen
suppression would be beneficial for a variety of different functions, especially because UVM does not use
any other pesticide currently.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: Pathogen suppression in plant foliage is a very important issue,
especially more recently with the increasing spread of disease. Brewing compost tea would be a critical
research opportunity, especially for students studying plant and soil science.
SPECIFICATIONS/GOALS:
Minimum Standards for Compost Tea, per Milli-Liter of Compost Tea
10-150 µg — active bacteria
150-300 µg — total bacteria
2-10 µg — active fungi
5-20 µg — total fungi
1,000 — flagellates
1,000 — amoebas
20-50 — ciliates
2-10 — beneficial nematodes
6 mg Dissolved Oxygen/L: monitor at 12-16 hours and again at 20-22 hours after beginning the brewing
Ingredients: Water, finished compost, microbial food source (molasses, kelp, rock dust, humic-fulvic acids)
Curing time: Between 7-10 days, depending on equipment method, must be used within one week or less
of extraction
Storage: It is advised to store in a shaded area with adequate ventilation to the tank. However, the longer
compost tea is stored the more negative the affect is on the population of microbes.
Description of Application:
For making and applying actively aerobic compost tea, some equipment is needed. This includes some
kind of consistently aerated container where high quality compost soaks in water with soluble kelp and
molasses for 48 hours. The kelp is included to provide a surface for the beneficial fungi to inhabit and
multiply. It is important that any water mixed with the compost does not contain chlorine—so that the
microbes are not killed in the process. After, the liquid is diluted to a 1:10 ratio with water for more
effective spreading. The treatment can be applied to the foliage of the plants and/or the root zones. For the
foliar application, 5 gallons/acre of tea mixed with water—as a ―carrier‖ for the tea should be applied
evenly. For a soil drench application, 15-20 gallons/acre and water should be applied. This can take place
with many different types of applicators from a boom spray, to an overhead midst. Whatever tank that is
used to apply the tea should be clean and without any sort of contaminants that would put the microbes at
risk (this can be affirmed by sampling the tea before and after application to test for fungi count). Direct
contact to the plant is important in the application. It should not be stored for more than 24 hours, just
simply brewed again to produce a new batch. Compost tea could be applied from once a week to a few
times a month, depending on the effects.
Examples/Study Findings:
1. “Control of Botrytis by Compost Tea Applications on Grapes in Oregon Vineyards”
This study examines the use of foliar applicants to control mildew in grapes, using compost tea
containing fungal biomass as one test variable. Actively aerobic compost tea was used, which implies that it
is adequate to extract the maximum of soluble nutrients and maintains oxygen levels in aerobic
concentrations. The variables were normal vineyard practices (fungicide), fungal-dominated compost tea
application once a week, and fungal-dominated compost tea application twice a month for three growing
seasons. It concluded that the compost tea could reduce fungi by up to 95%, and that the tea reduced
fungicide costs by about $8,000. The main end-concern was the quality of the starting compost, and that it is
important to have higher presence of fungi before brewing the tea.
2. “Integrated Soil and Crop Management for Organic Potato Production”
Different soil management techniques were experimented with on potatoes in Oregon, where
compost tea was studied in late potato blight management. Many variables of treatments were used on
conventionally managed fields, and the locally-produced compost tea did yield significant results (second to
copper applications) of reducing disease severity by up to 60%. The goal of this research was ultimately to
broaden results and participation to farmers in terms of driving practices away from conventional towards
organic methods.
3. “Compost Tea for Disease Management in Horticultural Crops”
Aerated compost tea application in Pennsylvania on wine grapes, potatoes, and pumpkins was
studied as a disease suppression tool for the purpose of educating users and furthering knowledge on the
subject. The treatments were compost tea foliar and soil drench application, non-compost tea control, and
no-spray control (the sprays were applied on a weekly basis). Results were inconsistent, yet not negative in
terms of aerated compost tea usage. It was determined that compost tea should be a part of a comprehensive
disease control plan and could not be a variable on it‘s own.
4. “Organic Soil Amendments of Agricultural By-Products for Vegetable Production Systems in the
Mississippi Delta Region”
This study looked at certain agriculture waste and their uses with specific vegetable crops. It
compared synthetic fertilizers, compost teas, and water applications. When compost tea was applied to the
hole prior to transplanting, no significant effects were present. However, when applied to the foliage of
broccoli there were significant positive effects. The use of compost tea was clearly better than the use of
water alone, yet when compared to synthetic fertilizers, the crops grew with the least amount of disease.
References:
Bess, Viki H. ―Understanding Compost Tea‖. BioCycle. October 2000 (71).
Hepperly, Paul. “Compost Tea for Disease Management in Horticultural Crops”. The Rodale Institute.
<http://www.sare.org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?pn=LNE03-181&ry=2006&rf=1>.
Ingham, Elane. ―Compost Tea‖. Soil Food Web. 2003. CD-ROM.
Ingham, Elane ―Control of Botrytis by Compost Tea Applications on Grapes in Oregon Vineyards‖. Soil Foodweb
Inc., Southern Cross University. 2003. <http://www.sare.org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?pn=SW00-
039&ry=2003&rf=1>.
Selman, Lane. “Integrated Soil and Crop Management for Organic Potato Production”. Oregon State University:
Department of Horticulture. <http://www.sare.org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?pn=SW05-
091&ry=2008&rf=1>.
Teague, Tina Gray. “Organic Soil Amendments of Agricultural By-Products for Vegetable Production Systems in the
Mississippi Delta Region”. Arkansas State University.
<http://www.sare.org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?pn=LS92-049&ry=1996&rf=1>.
PSS 154 Compost Ecology and Management
Compost Use Report
Date: 07/03/09 Produced By: Francis Churchill
Compost Use Topic: Storm Water Filtration and Management
Compost Use Summary (up to 3 sentences): Compost is used in filter socks, blankets and berms to
effectively control runoff, reduce erosion, stablize landscapes and absorb nutrients and pollutants from
stormwater. Compost has shown to be more effective than conventional control mechanisms such as silt
fences, hay bales or synthetic absorbents. The compost media does not have to be removed from the site
after it has been used as a filter, instead it is usually left in place or spread as topsoil on the post construction
site.
Potential Application(s) for UVM: UVM could use compost derived filter socks, berms and blankets on
all construction and landscaping sites to comply with construction-related stormwater permits. Additionally
these could be specifically designed into the existing stormwater systems to help implement UVM‘s
Stormwater Protection Plans (SWPP). UVM could promote these materials as part of its Public Education
and Outreach requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: The effectiveness of various compost derived products at managing
pollutants in runoff, controlling erosion, controlling hazardous material spills and treating hazardous wastes
could be studied in the Civil and Environmental Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Natural Resources,
Chemistry and Plant & Soil Science curricula.
Existing University Purchasing: a. Department(s): Facilities Design & Construction, Physical Plant through contractors.
b. Product and Source: Silt fences, landscape fabric, haybales and riprap for sediment trapping.
Hydroseeding, and fiber mats for erosion control. – source varies with contractor.
c. Volume/ Amount Annually: Varies with construction projects.
d. Annual Expense:
Specifications/ Goals:
Category Specifications/Goal Notes
Particle Size - 3 in. (75 mm), 100% passing
- 1 in. (25 mm), 90 – 100%passing
- 0.75 in. (19 mm), 70 – 100% passing
- 0.25 in. (6.4 mm), 30 – 75% passing
Maximum particle size length of 6 in. (152 mm)
Avoid compost with less than 30% fine particle
(1 mm) to achieve optimum reduction of total
suspended solids
No more than 60% passing 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) in
high rainfall/flow rate situations
Different parameters for vegetated filter
versus unvegetated. Socks, berms and
blankets have similar, but not identical
requirements.
Stability (CO2 and NO3) <8mg CO2-C/gm orgnic matter/day
NPK Maximum 5 dS/m
Nutrient Availability
Moisture Content 30-60%
Indicators Odor
Nutrient retention
Vegetation growth
Water absorption / retention
Vegetated media should grow into
landscape to anchor filter as well as
supporting post-construction vegetation.
Process Control Criteria
Feedstocks Class A biosolids (40 CFR §503) are allowed.
Curing Time
pH 5.0-8.5 (unvegetated)
6.0-8.0 (vegetated)
Manmade, inert contaminants <1%
Source: EPA Home > OW Home > OWM Home > NPDES Home > Stormwater > Menu of BMPs
Description of Application (including relevant precautionary information)
Installation: No trenching is required; therefore, soil is not disturbed upon installation. Once the filter
sock is filled and put in place, it should be anchored to the slope. The preferred anchoring method is to
drive stakes through the center of the sock at regular intervals; alternatively, stakes can be placed on the
downstream side of the sock. The ends of the filter sock should be directed upslope, to prevent
stormwater from running around the end of the sock. The filter sock may be vegetated by incorporating
seed into the compost prior to placement in the filter sock. Since compost filter socks do not have to be
trenched into the ground, they can be installed on frozen ground or even cement.
Limitations
Compost filter socks offer a large degree of flexibility for various applications. To ensure optimum
performance, heavy vegetation should be cut down or removed, and extremely uneven surfaces should
be leveled to ensure that the compost filter sock uniformly contacts the ground surface. Filter socks can
be installed perpendicular to flow in areas where a large volume of stormwater runoff is likely, but
should not be installed perpendicular to flow in perennial waterways and large streams.
Maintenance Considerations
Compost filter socks should be inspected regularly, as well as after each rainfall event, to ensure that
they are intact and the area behind the sock is not filled with sediment. If there is excessive ponding
behind the filter sock or accumulated sediments reach the top of the sock, an additional sock should be
added on top or in front of the existing filter sock in these areas, without disturbing the soil or
accumulated sediment. If the filter sock was overtopped during a storm event, the operator should
consider installing an additional filter sock on top of the original, placing an additional filter sock further
up the slope, or using an additional BMP, such as a compost blanket in conjunction with the sock(s). Source: EPA Home > OW Home > OWM Home > NPDES Home > Stormwater > Menu of BMPs Compost Filter Socks
Examples / Study Findings – List at least 4 studies or other examples documenting application and
provide a 4 sentence synopsis of the study and its findings.
Stormwater Best Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring (1994): This case-
study, by the Federal Department of Transportation and United Sewerage Agency, was conducted to determine if
compost was an effective stormwater filtration media in heavily urban environments. A compost-based filter was
designed to treat the storm water from a 5-lane road construction project and remained in place post-construction.
The study found that this design effectively retained and treated surface water run-off, removed phosphorous and
heavy metals. The study concludes that compost-based filter systems are beneficial in heavily urbanized
environments including freeways, airports and waste transfer stations.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/5mcs5.htm
Compost Utilization for Erosion Control Risse, Faucette (2000). This University of Georgia study showed that
compost blankets and berms can effectively absorb the energy and intensity of rain events and reduce erosion due
to formation of rills and gullies. The study also showed that compost blankets improve water infiltration and that
compost berms helped reduce suspended solids in the surface water. An added benefit is that these erosion
control devices can be vegetated and left in place.
pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1200.pdf
―Runoff, erosion, and nutrient losses from compost and mulch blankets under simulated rainfall‖ Faucette, et .al.,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59.4 (July-August 2004): p154(7). This study compared the soil and
nutrient retention properties of 5 compost products, 3 mulch products, 1 stacked poultry litter and bare soil as a
control. All of the products, except poultry litter effectively reduced soil erosion; the mulch products had the
greatest reduction in solids loss. The biosolids compost and the poultry litter tended to retain fewer nutrients. A
correlation was identified between respiration rate and loss of solids that might indicate that biological processes
influences the ability of materials to resist movement.
―Environmental Effects of Applying Composted Organics to New Highway Embankments: Part 2. Water
Quality‖ Glanville, et.al. (2004) American Society of Safety Engineers, Transactions of ASAE Vol 47(2) pp 471-
478.
This study showed the effectiveness of 3 compost products in commercial production in Iowa at controlling
runoff and erosion on highway projects. The study used compost in part due to an overabundance of compost
projects that resulted from Iowa state solid waste regulations. The three products (biosolids & yard waste
compost, yard waste compost, and paper-mill & grain processing compost) all retained more Nitrogen, Potassium
and Phosphorous than conventional controls. The compost controls also retained significantly more of the
rainfall.
Compost Use Report
Date: 7/3/09 Produced By: Judd Grimes
Compost Use Topic: Green Roof Media
Compost Use Summary: Compost is a key ingredient for the media of green roofs. Its
high content of organic matter is what gives the media the ability catch storm water
runoff. It also provides the nutrients needed for plant growth
Potential Application for UVM: Management of current green roofs at UVM as well as
in future projects. There are many constructions projects already at the planning stage
that could include plans for green roofs using compost made from waste generated on
campus.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: Green roofs can act as an outdoor research
facility, classroom or simply an outdoor study area. Green roof construction on campus
can be an interdisciplinary collaboration with student interested in the engineering,
environmental or social aspect.
Existing University Purchasing: Currently not used in green roof media at UVM
Specifications/Goals
Category Specification/Goal Notes
Particle size ≤1‖
C:N 10:1 – 12:1
NPK 1-1-1
Curing time ≥120 days must be stable
Moisture content 50%
Description of Application: Green roof technologies have improved dramatically within
the last ten years and thanks to research specific to substrate composition, compost has
been identified as an essential part in the mix for the engineered soils. Green roofs require
an engineered soil that is made up of a certain amount of compost. This key component is
what gives green roofs their functionality. Compost is high in organic matter giving it the
ability to catch and hold the storm water as well as provide the nutrients needed for plant
growth. Because of its ability to hold on to nutrients it also has the ability to filter out
contaminant from runoff and actually break down many toxic compounds. However, it is
important to have the correct percentage of compost in your media and use a properly
cured compost to minimize leaching of nitrogen and phosphorous. The amount of
compost in the mix should be determined by the amount of nutrients needed for healthy
plant growth so as to not contribute to the runoff. By using planting in the green roof
media you also are minimizing additional leaching because the plants are using the
nutrients that are available. It is also important to remember that as the compost ages,
nutrients will become less available and more nutrients will need to be added, usually in
the form of compost.
Examples
1. Penn State Center for Green Roof Research
An educational institution with green roof serving as storm water best
management practice as well as a research facility outdoor classroom.
Compost used in the media comes from the university composting
operation.
2. North Carolina Field Study
A study that tested runoff quality and quantity as well as plant growth. The
green roof was able to capture 60% of the total rainfall and reduced average
peak flow by 85%. The study showed that lowering the percentage of
organic matter in the soil mix could reduce leaching of nitrogen and
phosphorus.
3. Green Roof Research Program at Michigan State University
10.4 Acres of green roof built onto of a Ford motor company building in
2000. Studies on everything from composition of media to plant species
compatibility. Their study on substrate showed that using the minimal
amount of organic matter (compost in this case) needed to maintain plant
health would dramatically reduce leaching of nutrients into runoff.
4. Pennsylvania State University Green Roof Program
Research conducted on green roof substrate showed that the specific
feedstock for the compost used is important in the amount of nutrients that
are leached. They used compost with animal waste and found that it leached
more so than that of compost from yard waste.
References:
Moran, A., B. Hunt, and G. Jennings. 2004
North Carolina field study to evaluate green roof runoff quantity, runoff quality, and plant
growth
Compost Council webpage
<http://www.compostingcouncil.org/education/resources.php>
UVM Land Use webpage
https://www.uvm.edu/~davis/?Page=enviro_land.html&SM=enviromenu.html
Robert D. Berghage et al. 2009
EPA: Green roofs for storm water control Compost Use Report
Date: 7/1/2009 Produced By: Erica Spiegel
Compost Use Topic: Mulch and/or Top Dressing
Compost Use Summary: Compost can be used as a mulch on flower or vegetable beds in lieu of traditional
wood mulching products. Additionally, compost can be used as a ―top dressing‖ for turf improvement.
Potential Application(s) for UVM: Currently, the UVM Grounds Department purchases bark mulch. The
department may be willing to utilize finished compost as an alternative in some applications. The department
can also use compost as ―top dressing‖ for turf and athletic fields if suitable spreading equipment were made
available to them.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: Students in Plant & Soil Science (PSS) and related disciplines can
conduct research to compare the functionality and performance of compost versus bark mulch. Students can
also research the efficacy of top dressing on turf fields, and test different feed stocks for composting in order to
create the ideal mix for mulching purposes.
Existing University Purchasing:
a. Department(s): Grounds Department
b. Product and Source: ―Hemlock Mix‖ Bark Mulch purchased from CYR Lumber in Milton. CYR mills and
chips mulch on site.
c. Volume/ Amount Annually: Approx 1,000 – 1,200 cubic yards
d. Annual Expense: $12/yard plus roundtrip hauling expense = $26,000 per year
Specifications/ Goals
Category Specification/ Goal Notes
Top Dressing for Turf
Particle Size 1/4” to 3/8” Consistent, free of stones, wood, trash, glass for
safety reasons.
1. Stability (CO2 and NO3)
2. NPK 0.5 – 3.0% N; >.02% P
3. Nutrient Availability
4. Moisture Content 30 – 50% Need to keep dust down.
5. C:N 30:1 or below
Description of Application (including relevant precautionary information)
Although compost is generally mixed into soil as an amendment and fertilizer, it may also be used as a mulch
layer on top of soil. Currently, the Grounds department uses hemlock bark mulch for the following purposes:
weed suppression (as labor intensive hand removal of weeds is not feasible); moisture retention; and aesthetics
(public perception and acceptance of ―bark mulch‖ as the norm). The following areas are mulched: tree wells
(for both aesthetics and to keep mowers from coming too close to trunks); annual flower beds; shrub beds; and
some perennial beds. Each spring, old (mulch) material is raked out of the annual beds which likely removes
top soil as well, and then the new mulch is applied. [In the fall, leaves are raked off lawn areas only, and flower
and shrub beds are not raked out.]
In order to use finished compost as a mulch agent, it must be ―weed seed free‖ since the primary function of
mulch is weed suppression. Compost must not be too dry or ―fluffy‖ since it might blow away and the other
function of mulch is moisture retention. Compost must have consistent texture and particle size for ease of
spreading. Finally, aesthetics are an important consideration and there is zero tolerance for contaminants like
plastic, wrappers, stones, etc. According to Rosemarie Leland, UVM Grounds Manager, using compost as
mulch might be most feasible where aesthetics are less of a concern; for example around shrub beds of
evergreens with low hanging vegetation or flower beds in less public areas, and perennial beds. However, a dark
rich (almost black) color of compost might also be attractive on the grounds.
Compost can also be used as a top dressing on turf and athletic fields, specifically the soccer fields and
recreation fields. Currently, the Grounds Department does not own the necessary equipment (spreader) to top
dress, and occasionally (every few years) hires this task out to a contractor. If Grounds had the right equipment
and a steady source of compost, this task could be done annually.
Top dressing a turf field aides in turf nutrition, slowly releasing nutrients to the soil. It helps with soil structure
by decreasing compaction and increasing pore space in soil. It helps foster thatch decomposition- as the
microorganisms in compost convert dead (turf) material into nutrients. Finally, it increases the water holding
capacity of turf. However, quality and appearance of compost for top dressing is very important. It must be
completely free of large stones, pieces of wood, trash, broken glass or other objectionable objects which may
cause safety hazards on playing fields. Top dressing with compost is usually more effective if turf is first well
aerated, and afterwards it is well irrigated.
Examples/ Study Findings –
1. In ―Using Composts to Improve Turf Performance‖ Peter Landschoot of Pennsylvania State
University Cooperative Extension provides guidelines on selecting compost suitable for top dressing
turf. He suggests compost color must resemble dark topsoil and have a light, crumbly texture. It
should be free of objectionable objects and have a particle size that passes through a 3/8‖ screen.
Furthermore, moisture content should not exceed 60% as material tends to clump and does not
evenly spread. He also warns about certain types of composts which may contain high
concentrations of soluble salts which can harm turf, rather than help it. This often depends of the
type of salts, the salt tolerance of the turf and the method of application. He suggests irrigating
fields immediately after top dressing to leach salts from the compost soil mix.
2. In a study from University of California Cooperative Extension ―Topdressing Compost on Turfgrass:
Its Effect on Turf Quality and Weeds‖ researchers Michelle LeStrange and others conducted field
studies from 1994-1997 to assess feasability of topdressing compost on turf grass. They tested
different rates of application and found the highest quality was observed in turf plots receiving ¼‖
applications four (4) times per year. Applications of ½‖ to 1‖ at one time buried the grass and
lowered the quality. They concluded that thinner applications more times per year where healther for
the turf that thicker applications one time per year. The study was conducted in California where turf
grass is green all year round. It is uncertain how this study and rates of application would result in
seasonal turf areas in Vermont.
3. In a flyer (‖Compost Uses‖) from the Cornell Cooperative Extension, advice is given to use compost
as a mulch on annual flower beds. Advice is given to remove large woody materials that may be
―unattractive‖ but also may compete for nitrogen if mixed into the soil. For mulching around trees
and shrubs, they recommend using a coarse compost (or even the materials left after sifting) and
removing only the largest branches and rocks, and to spread the compost 1‖ to 3‖ thick. Finally,
they point out importance of keeping mulch a few inches away from the base of plants to prevent
damage by pests and disease.
4. In a Colorado State University study, ―Effects of Compost Topdressing on Turf Quality and Growth
of Kentucky Bluegrass‖ researchers Y.L Qian and J.G. Davis evaluated the effects of topdressing
dairy cattle manure compost had on turfgrass quality, growth rates, and root mass and distribution.
They note that until the 1930‘s organic amendments such as manure were the principal source of
fertilizer on managed turf grasses. However, in the decades since, synthetic, urea based fertilizers
have become the norm with more consistent and predictable nutrient-release characteristics. Twenty
four test plots were established on the CSU Horticulture Research Farm, and several factors were
measured over a two-year study. Conclusions were that topdressing rates of 66 and 99 cubic
meters/hectare significantly increased the quality of turf in terms of better color retention in fall,
faster green up in spring and higher clipping yields. However, compost applications did not increase
the root mass of turf as they had originally hypothesized.
References:
- Rosemarie Leland, Grounds Manager (personal communication, July 2009)
- LeStrange, Michelle. “Topdressing Compost on Turfgrass: Its Effect on Turf Quality and Weeds” University of
California Cooperative Extension. (2001) URL accessed 7/6/2009: http://ohric.ucdavis.edu/Newsltr/CTC/ctcv51_1234.pdf
- Landschoot, Peter. “Using Composts to Improve Turf Performance” Pennsylvania State University Department of Crop and Soil Sciences – Cooperative Extension. URL accessed 7/6/2009: http://turfgrassmanagement.psu.edu/composts.cfm
- Johnson, G.A., Qian Y.L. and Davis, G.A. “Effects of Compost Topdressing on Turf Quality and Growth of Kentucky Bluegrass.” Colorado State University In Applied Turfgrass Science. (2006) URL accessed 7/6/2009: http: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/ats/research/2006/compost/
PSS154 Composting Ecology and Management 3 July 2009
Compost Use Report Tyler Buswell
Compost and Erosion Control
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. loses more than two billion tons of topsoil in
a given year due to erosion. Erosion is a natural process however anthropogenic disruptions in the
environment have greatly increased erosion world wide. Mostly attributed to rain and wind dislodging
topsoil from hills and fields, erosion causes some of the nutrient-rich top horizon of soil to be stripped
away. What are left are relatively nutrient-deficient sub-horizons which might be too poor suited to
support plant life. Eroded soil often makes it way into water ways where it threatens water quality and
clarity. Eroded sediment can carry with it toxic materials like fertilizers which directly affect the health
of aquatic organisms. Additionally sediment that enters out water ways affects the commercial,
recreational, and aesthetic value of our existing water resources.
Potential Application(s) for UVM
Compost is a valuable amendment for compromised areas where wind and rain threaten the stability of
topsoil. Layers, belts, filters, and other forms of mature compost can be used to greatly lessen natural
causes of erosion. As a growing institution the University of Vermont commonly builds, renovates, and
modifies existing campus structures in order to accommodate new students, services, and opportunities.
These projects invariably alter naturally (or rather unnaturally) vegetated landscapes exposing
vulnerable topsoil. Existing on the crest of a hill with the major water resource Lake Champlain at its
foot the University of Vermont must aware of the gravitational consequences of its projects in relation to
its physical location. As environmental stewards UVM has an inherent obligation to one, reduce soil
disruption in campus construction projects and two, reduce the amount of topsoil exposed and perhaps
eroded during these projects.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry
Water quality testing is not new to most Vermonters. A majority of watersheds in Vermont, most
notably the Missisquoi Bay, are threatened by over nutrification. Awareness is growing of the role that
erosion plays in nutrification, most notably in regards to the excessive phosphorus concentrations that
compromise a number of Vermont watersheds. It is important that UVM act as a frontrunner in
researching erosion control and the connection that it has to our agricultural, commercial, and private
practices. From causes to consequences of erosion, erosion is an encompassing phenomenon. Perhaps
most explicitly academic interest lies in its effects on soil an water ecology however erosion, particularly
in more compromised areas around the world, affects social factors like water and food security. And
perhaps most ignored is our historical relationship with soil as humans. Might we consider changes and
practices in our societies that have caused such a dramatic loss of soil?
Specifications/Goals
Mature compost: Application volume, thickness, and even parent feedstock depends upon location of
application.
Goals: Diminishing runoff water velocity, soil coverage from rain and wind, promotion of vegetation
growth, soil enrichment/stabilization (in adding organic matter).
Description of Application Exposed slopes: Depending on length and slope a two to three inch layer of mature compost, screened to
.5 to .75 inches and placed over exposed soil can control erosion by promoting planted and pioneer
vegetation growth, protecting topsoil from erosion factors, and adding nutrients to the topsoil. This
practice might be similarly applied to an area with less or no slope where a varying thickness of
Mounded berms: Placed where water travels berms slow runoff water velocity greatly reducing its
erosion effect.
Example Studies
1 Evaluation of stormwater from compost and conventional erosion control practices in
construction activities. 2005. Journal of Soil and water conservation.
In construction areas soil loss rates can be ten to twenty times greater than that in agricultural
landscapes. This study examined three erosion control technologies: compost blankets, hydroseed, and
silt fence, using a bare surface as a control. The technologies were field applied with simulated rainfall
events that occurred immediately after seeding, three months when vegetation was established, and one
year when vegetation was mature. All of the test plots were constructed on an are with a ten percent
slope and seeded with Bermuda grass. After three months compost blankets of 1.5 inches think
generated five times less runoff than hydroseed with silt fence and after one year had generated 24
percent less runoff. The compost adds an organic layer or horizon to the soil which may have had its top
layer completely removed. This organic layer shields the exposed soil from rain and wind and slows the
flow of surface runoff. Traditionally wood chips have been used as an alternative to hydroseed and
fences but compost is being increasingly used to control erosion. The study showed that compost also
percolates more water than bare earth or places where alternative technology had been applied. Compost
also reduced the peak runoff rate.
2 Runoff, erosion, and nutrient losses from compost and mulch blankets under simulated rainfall.
2004. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
Discusses sustainable alternatives to the disposal of biomass resources such as poultry little
compost, yard waste compost, biosolids compost, municipal solid waste compost, etc. All biomass
resource treatments were effective at reducing total solids loss in runoff. Nutrient loss was higher from
many of the compost treatments were higher than those from bare soil or mulch treatments. As natural
materials these treatments introduced organic matter into the soil which contributed to a greater soil
capacity to absorb water. The study suggested that a layer of compost on the soil surface insulates soil
and reduces evaporation thus fostering an environment for plant root growth and germination.
Unfortunately nutrient loss was greatest in the composted materials, even more so than completely
exposed plots. The authors contribute this to rainfall simulation for worst case conditions which left little
opportunity for available nutrients to move into the soil, no vegetation, and very intense rainfall. This
begs the questions how average particle size, original organic parent material of a compost, and compost
age might affect the amount of nutrient runoff. The study is also important in identifying a need to
weigh benefits of using compost for erosion control with potential ground water pollution (nutrification).
References
Faucette, L.B. et al. Evaluation of stormwater from compost and conventional erosion control practices
in construction activities. 2005. Journal of Soil and water conservation. 005, vol. 60, no6, pp. 288-297 .
Retrieved 5 July 2009 from Academic Search Premiere.
Faucette, L.B. et al. Runoff, erosion, and nutrient losses from compost and mulch blankets under
simulated rainfall. 2004, vol. 59, no4, pp. 154-160 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
Date: July 1, 2009 Produced by: Sung Yim
Soil Remediation
Summary
Compost bioremediation restores contaminated soils by degrading volatile organic compounds.
Studies have shown that compost can degrade chlorinated, nonchlorinated hydrocarbons, wood-
preserving chemicals, solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum products, and explosives.
Micro-organisms that are in the compost will break down the contaminants in the soil. After
decontamination, the soil will be in a better condition for plant growth.
Potential Applications for UVM: - Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils by the use of compost.
o Hydrocarbon contaminations are caused by gasoline, kerosene, and oil spillage.
o Benefits include faster cleanups, bioremediation through compost can take up to
several weeks, and cheaper costs compared other cleanup techniques like, incineration,
or purchasing new soil.
- Bioremediation of organic contaminants
o Organic contaminations are caused by the use of herbicides and pesticides.
- Stormwater Management
o Stormwater is not absorbed by soil; it flows towards Lake Champlain carrying
contaminants ranging from metals to pesticides. In consequence, there would be drastic
degradation in the lake’s ecosystem.
Description
Compost as a bioremediation method has shown to be an inexpensive, yet effective way to
revitalize contaminated soil. There have been studies on the use of compost as a remediate
method to soils that are contaminated with heavy metals, organic contaminates petroleum
hydrocarbons. Adding compost increases microbiological activity in the soil which increases the
rate of degradation of contaminants. If there are signs of contaminated soil on the campus, the
spread and use of compost will remediate the contaminants. By following this proposed
application, the university would not purchase new soil as replacement. Also, the cost of
shipping, and incineration of the contaminated soil would be avoided. If using compost as a
bioremediation method is used, the duration of the composting process should be considered.
Composting does take time and any disruption of this process would hinder its desired results.
Studies 1) Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
a. Winner of the 2007 Secretary of Defense and Air Force Environmental Restoration
Awards
b. A method was developed for on-site bioremediation of soils that were contaminated by
petroleum products. The method used windrowed layers of 75 percent contaminated
soil with 20 percent yard trimmings compost and five percent turkey manure. It used a
compost turner for thorough mixing.
c. The air force base was contaminated by jet fuel spills and excavations of underground
oil storage tanks. The base dealt with a variety of petroleum contaminants including
gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil, jet fuel, hydraulic fluid, and motor oil. On previous cleanups,
the air force base bought new soil to replace the contaminated soil. The contaminated
soil was incinerated. The cost of purchase, shipment and incineration are far more
expensive than the composting method. The base saved $133,000 in the first year of
using the method.
2) Dr. Michael Cole remediated soil that contained 3,000 parts per million of Dicamba herbicide in
50 days with the use of compost. Dicamba is an herbicide that kills or control weeds. Dicamaba
products are used on food and non food crops, pastures, rangeland, forests, right of ways and
lawns. Studies have shown that exposure to Dicamba can cause appetite loss, weight loss,
vominitng, depression, and weakness. Dicamba binds poorly to soil and may leach into ground
water. Products that include Dicamba include Banvel, Cool Power, Horsepower, Millennium
Ultra, Trimec, Triplet, Tri=Power, Weed Away. Dr. Cole mixed wood chips and mature compost
into the soil. He stated that without compost, the herbicide would have degraded in a few years
instead of days.
3) A study conducted by the Solid Waste and Emergency Response committee released a Report
called the Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization and reuse. The
contaminications included high level of toxins from metals, a high level of pH, excess sodium,
excess salts, and deficiencies in micronutrients. The study showed how the addition of compost
restored the soil quality by bringing a balance to the pH levels, increasing the water holding
capacity, and re-emitting microbial activities.
4) Dr. Rufus Chaney used compost at a site near a zinc smelter facility in Pennsylvania. He
revitalized 4 square miles of soil that had been contaminated by heavy metals. He used compost
that was made from a mixture of wastewater sludge and coal ash. The soil has revalorized and
now can support Merlin Red Fescue and Kentucky Bluegrass.
References
EPA. "Innovative Uses of Compost Bioremediation and pollution Prevention."
EPA. “The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse.
Compost Use Topic: Disease Suppression for plants from Compost
By Greg Soll
Summary:
Certain Composts have shown the ability to suppress disease in crops. Which can increase yields
and also decrease costs attributed to pesticides, fungicides, nematicides.
Potential Application for UVM:
Compost with suppressive properties could be applied to plants around the landscape, into
gardens on campus by Hills and Slade Hall, as well as to the University Student Run Farm, and
used in potting mixes within the University Greenhouses. The product could also be sold off
campus to local farms or used to increase campus food production in a cost effective way.
Potential Application of Academic Inquiry:
There could be research done to understand how to ―tailor‖ the compost in a way that has the
most suppressive qualities. With analysis of how effective different mixes are at suppressing
different kinds of diseases and nematodes. This could be a separate research project or could be
integrated into existing classes, like plant propagation where plant media is being purchased to
be used in experiments.
Existing University Purchasing:
a. Departments: Grounds, CALS and PSS, Common Ground, and Greenhouse
b. Product and Source: Disease suppressive composts could replace a variety of
products being used in the departments listed above. Grounds could use the compost
on landscape installments and potential reduce costs of fungicides and plant
replacements. CALS and PSS buy in potting media for classes and experiments, the
potting media could be replaced with a disease suppressive compost mix that would
also decrease costs for fertilizer, fungicides, nematacides, and pesticides. These are
expenses that are shared by the University Greenhouse, these costs be greatly
reduced.
c. Common Ground alone spends over $3,000 each growing season on 30 yards of
compost
Specifications/Goals
Category Specification/Goal Notes
Particle Size Varied by application Smaller for potting mix,
more leeway for field
applcation
Stability (CO2 and
NO3)
Stable?
NPK 1-1-1
Nutrient Availability Slow steady release
Moisture Content 60%
Indicators Fungal Activity and smell of
Atinomycetes
Process Control
Criteria
Increase Beneficial Fungal
Activity in Compost
Feedstocks Yard wastes and bark mulch
in greater quantities than a
typical manure based compost.
Potentially may need to
purchase or create some sort
of inoculate.
Curing Time 9 months
Description of Application:
By inoculating the soil with disease suppressive compost you are working on a variety of levels.
The major concept is that the soil is alive, and within the compost you are creating a healthy
makeup of micro-organisms. In the composting process you try to increase the ratio of fungus to
bacteria. Certain fungus‘s can act as antibiotics for plant diseases and destroy pests such as
parasitic nematodes. As well as increasing the beneficial fungus compost itself, the stability of
the product and the slow release of the well balanced nutrients helps plants grow well and be
healthy. Good nutrition equals a healthy immune system.
Disease Suppressive compost can be used in two major avenues. One as a potting mix for potted
plants as well as in a potting mix for starting seedlings. The greatest benefits can be found in
using it with seed starting as it is in this stage that plants are most susceptible to root rots, which
are particularly common in the conditions that are ideal for germinating seeds. In potted plants
that are already established this mix has the benefits of growing a healthier plant without other
added inputs or efforts to control certain diseases and root nematodes down the road. The other
major application is in field, where the suppressive qualities can help maintain healthy landscape
plants as well as annual crops, and onto turf as a topdressing to suppress disease and maintain
fertility.
Examples/Study Findings
1. From Ohio State University Harry Hiotink, Brian Gardner, and Sally Miller published
―Current knowledge on disease suppressive properties of compost‖. In this document
they discuss that it is clear that certain composts that are made from bark and other
―recalcitrant‖ materials that are often found in yard wastes are much more effective in
terms of disease suppression. More effective than composts that are primarily derived
from animal manures and bedding. They also mention that the suppressive composts are
most effective against soil borne diseases but the compost can be inoculated with certain
organisms that can help suppress leaf diseases.
2. In ―Innovative Uses of Compost: Disease Control fro Plants and Animals‖ there is a great
deal of information that is referenced to Harry Hoitink discussing the various ways
compost can be utilized for disease suppression. In suppressing root rots, pythium, chili
wilt, ashy stem blight and root rot. They note that in one study the salt concentrations in
the compost created a yield decrease once applied at a certain level, lower level
applications saw significant increases in yields.
3. Dr. Herbert Bryan of University of Florida accidentally found out that compost can
reduce the amount of root knot nematodes. He noticed a ―significant reduction in root
knot nematodes‖ without the use of any fumigant. He noticed the best results in those
composts that have more ―recalcitrant materials‖.
4. In ―Biological Control of Turfgrass diseases‖ Eric B. Nelson of Cornell University
outlines the potential for replacing peat moss with compost in application to golf courses
and other lawns potentially. He argues that even the non-tailored compost is more
beneficial than current turf management methods. He does discuss the issue of
consistency and the importance of offering compost products that have a predictable
power of disease suppression. He disucsses the need for heavy application at 200 pounds
per square foot and that application in late fall can help protect the surface from
temperature fluctuations and certain diseases that are created from this kind of
fluctuation.
Compost Use Report
Date: 7/1/2009 Produced By: Tara Bates
Compost Use Topic: Soil building and Conditioning
Compost Use Summary: Application of organic compost improves physical, chemical and microbial
properties of nutrient poor and/ or environmentally degraded soil. Compost increases soil‘s carbon, microbial
biomass and biological activity, leading to a healthier, more sustainable soil.
Potential Application(s) for UVM: Compost produced on-site at UVM could replace the current Naturalawn
of America fertility program in place on the athletic field and UVM green.
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: Students in Plants and Soil Science, Environmental Studies and related
fields could monitor the differences between soil treated with fertilizer from Naturalawn and UVM compost.
Differences may include soil nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and sulfur as well as water holding
capacity.
Existing University Purchasing:
a. Department(s): Grounds Department
b. Product and Source: Naturalawn of America, South Burlington VT
c. Volume/ Amount Annually: Year round monitoring and application
d. Annual Expense: Approximately $20,000/ yearly
Specifications/ Goals
Category Specification/ Goal Notes
Particle Size Less than 2 inches Degrades more readily
C:N 30:1
6. Curing Time 90-120 days Can be less for field application
7. NPK App. .5- .5- .5 Varies depending on growth goal (N= growth
up, P= growth down, K= growth all around)
8. Indicators Visual/ Olfactory Bulk density should be greater than 750, pile
should have no smell or just an earthy smell
9. Moisture Content 40-60%
10. Feedstocks Foodscraps, manure, carbon
sources
UVM’s waste
Description of Application (including relevant precautionary information)
After a processing time of approximately 36 weeks, compost can be applied to the athletic field and UVM
green. This compost could also potentially be used in UVM‘s horticultural department. In order to use compost
in high traffic areas, it would need to be cured for four to eight weeks to reduce the risk of pathogen
contamination. The compost can be mixed directly into the soil before replanting and liquid compost (compost
tea) can be applied on top of growth to support plant health.
Examples/ Study Findings –
1. A study at Munchen University in Germany consisted of incubating biowaste composts with
agricultural soils for eighteen months. Changes in the soil‘s organic matter were characterized by
a stabilization of soil nutrients as well as a breakdown of easily degradable particles, but not
lignin. A separate test conducted with aged compost in place of fresh showed a signifigant
decrease in lignin matter. This study concluded that aged compost is more efficient at breaking
down harder to degrade matter such as lignin.
2. A study at the Macauley Land Use Research Institute in the UK showed that the changes in microbial
characteristics of soil after a six- month application of compost were due to the input of a compost
matrix rich in organic matter and only marginally due to the input of compost- borne micro- organisms.
This study showed that the level of micro- organism activity within a soil, and thus its entire health, will
be positively impacted by a compost rich matrix and need not necessarily be brought entirely by micro-
organisms within the compost itself.
3. A study involving compost application at Pennsylvania State University showed that applying
compost greatly affected the rate of turf establishment, primarily Kentucky Blue Grass. The most
dramatic increase in turf covering, approximately 80%, occurred one month after seeding. The study
concluded that this was due to the good soil conditioning properties of compost as well as the readily
available Ammonia- N and P.
4. At the University of Texas in Arlington, a study in turf management using dairy manure compost
containing organic materials of less than 40% (low proportions) showed soils with greater shrinkage
resistance and strength after application. This study concluded that compost materials can provide
significant engineering benefits to control soil erosion and excess drainage when used in moderate
proportions.
References:
J. leifeld, S. Siebert & I. Kogel- Knabner Changes in the chemical composition of soil organic
matter after application of compost,
European Journal of Soil Science, June 2002, 53, 299-309
, Landschoot, Peter; McNitt, Andy Improving Turf With Compost: For landscapers and turf
managers trying to upgrade poor or marginal soils, compost may be the best deal around.
BioCycle; Oct 1994; pg. 54;
Salson, Carine; Degrange, Valerie; Oliver, Robert; Millard, Peter; Commeaux, Claire;
Montange, Denis; Le Roux, Xavier. Alteration and resilience of the soil microbial
community following compost amendment: effects of compost level and compost-borne
microbial community. Environmental Microbiology (2006) 8 (2), 247-257
Puppala, Anand J,;. Pokala, Sharmi P.; Intharasombat, Napat; Williammee, Richard. Effects
of Organic Matter on Physical, Strength, and Volume Change Properties of Compost Amended
Expansive Clay. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg. Volume 133, Issue 11, pp. 1449-1461
(November 2007)
PSS 154 Compost Ecology and Management
Compost Use Report
Date: 7/10/09 Produced By: Anna Sherman
Compost Use Topic: Nutrient Management
Compost Use Summary (up to 3 sentences): Compost can be used to alter the nutrient levels in soils.
Nutriennt management is important for the health and growth of plants along with managing certain pests.
Before adding compost to the soil, the soil should be tested for certain nutrient levels to avoid unsettling the
balance of nutrients.
Potential Application(s) for UVM: In the greenhouse, plots with plants e.g. outside Waterman, Common
Ground student run farm
Potential Area of Academic Inquiry: PSS
Existing University Purchasing:
a. Department(s): Landscaping, PSS
b. Product and Source:
c. Volume/ Amount Annually:
d. Annual Expense:
Category Specification/ Goal Notes
Particle Size 1’ or less
11. Stability (CO2 and NO3) Stable – very stable
12. NPK N: 1 % or more, P:
Adding sufficient N tends to lead to an excess supply of P
and K. Compost tends to be a less than mediocre source
of K because of leaching during the composting process.
13. Nutrient Availability Manures and composts
can improve nutrition of
plants
14. Moisture Content 35-55 %
15. Indicators
16. Process Control criteria Open windrow
17. Feedstocks Manure, bedding, MSW,
straw, hay, slurry
18. Curing Time
Other:
Specifications/ Goals:
Description of Application (including relevant precautionary information)
Before applying compost to soils around the University, it is critical that the soil be tested for nutrient levels.
Too much or too little of any necessary nutrient could be detrimental to the plant‘s health. There is a delicate
balance that must be reached between the levels of nutrients in the soil with the added compost. The soil and
compost should be sent out to a lab to be tested. Also, the nutrients required by specific plants play a role in
determining the appropriate amount of compost that should be applied. Compost should not be relied on to
supply all the necessary nutrients for a crop because the delicate balance is likely to be unsettled. If the
University plans on selling excess compost, it should be labeled as a ‗soil amendment‘ and not a ‗fertilizer‘ in
order to avoid having to test the compost and label the nutrient levels. Getting a permit to sell ‗soil
amendments‘ is not a difficult process. Nutrients can have a negative impact on the soil, for example, if Nitrate
leaches into the groundwater, it will be unsafe to drink. The organic matter levels in soil are important when
working with nutrient management. When adding compost directly to already existing plants, it can be placed
around the plants. If the compost is being added to soil before anything is planted in it, it should be mixed up to
12 inches deep into the soil.
Examples/ Study Findings – List at least 4 studies or other examples documenting application and provide a 4
sentence synopsis of the study and its findings.
3. Adding compost to soils has increased the yields of tomatoes and peppers. This study claimed that using
both compost AND inorganic fertilizer has created the best outcomes opposed to using just compost or
just inorganic fertilizer. Using compost over a long period of time led to less use of fertilizer and higher
yields. During this ten-year study, on the plot where 3% organic matter from compost was used, there
was a 50% decrease in the use of fertilizer. (Ozores-Hampton)
4. Farmer Stromer found that the extra nitrogen he used was futile. By using less nitrogen on his crops, he
saved money on fertilizer. Stromer came up with a nutrient management plan with the help of a
technical service provider who also helped him put the plan into motion. The soil tests told Stromer that
he indeed was over applying the nitrogen. He performed a test to look at the connection between yield
rates and the rates of nitrogen application. He found the extra nitrogen wasn‘t worth it in the end.
(USDA, additional N)
5. Farmers in Iowa are being encouraged to wait until the temperatures of their soils fall below 50 degrees
Farenheit before applying anhydrous ammonia to the soil to lessen the risk of groundwater pollution,
erosion of soil, and to save money. If the temperatures of the soil are too warm, the risk of polluting
groundwater and streams with nitrates increases. The biological activity of soils is slower when
temperatures are cooler and that permits nitrogen to stay in the form of ammonium for a longer period of
time giving the soil a chance to retain more of the nitrogen. (USDA, 2005)
6. The goal of one study was to create ways for farmers to make budgets for the nutrients N, P and K in
different vegetable productions. The nutrients entering and leaving each farm were assessed and
databases were created to help with nutrient managing. They created a nutrient budgeting tool, which
could make budgets at different scales. Organic vegetable productions are incorporating surpluses of
nutrients like N, K and P.
References:
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2005). Wait until temps drop to
apply anhydrous ammonia (p. 30). (USDA, 2005)
Other:
Other:
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Backyard conservation: Tip sheet
3. Ozores-Hampton, Dr. M Soil and nutrient management: Compost and manure. 37-40. (Ozores-Hampton)
4. Bellows, B (2005).Soil management: National organic program regulations. ATTRA, the National
Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, 1-18.
5. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2006). Nutrient management
(Code 590 pp. 1-7).
6. Sayre, L (2004).Making and using compost at The Rodale Institute Farm. Rodale Institute, (Sayre, 2004)
7. Magdoff, F. and Es, Harold van, (2000). Building soils for better crops. (Magdoff and Es, 2000)
8. Drinkwater, L On-farm nutrient budgets in organic cropping systems. Organic Farming Research
Foundation, 1-4.
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hancock county farmer:
Additional N doesn't pay (p. 30). (USDA, additional N)