II. COMPOST, SOIL FERTILITY, AND SUSTAINABLE FRUIT PRODUCTION

the key to soil fertility and productivity,” in part because organic matter constitutes

the part of soil that can store available energy and can be eventually used by soil

organisms (Sequi, 1976).

Bauer et al. (1992) proposed a limit of 2 to 3% organic matter content in the Ap

horizon for cultivated vineyard soils of cold-temperate regions. Soil organic matter

content can be increased and maintained by management of manure applications.

In virgin soils, a balance among vital chemical and biological processes maintains

adequate levels of organic matter content and existing fertility. Intensive agricultural

activity tends to break this equilibrium, exposing soil to losses of organic matter

(Prasad and Power, 1997). To restore an equilibrium between losses and restitution

of soil organic content, agronomic practices such as frequency and depth of clean

cultivation, irrigation techniques, crop rotation, recycling of plant residue, and applications of manures or compost should be harmonized.

Generally, fruit production systems depend exclusively on inorganic fertilizers

to maintain elevated soil fertility since availability of cow manure is limited. Therefore, new sources of organic material that supplement the balanced turnover of

organic matter should be investigated. Compost utilization is a method of recovering

soil organic matter content (Press et al., 1996; Sequi et al., 1996).

Decomposition of organic matter is influenced by soil types and soil management

(Table 8.2). The need for organic matter is evident in all fruit crop production regions,

especially where there is insufficient use of sod culture or cover crops. Permanent

sod in vineyards is usually used in cold-temperate regions with soil organic matter

content of 1.5 to 2% in Ap horizon and 250 to 300 mm of well-distributed precipitation in the vegetative season (Bauer et al., 1992). If soil organic matter is limiting

(<1.5%), then permanent sod cannot be established during the dry season. However,

after several years of green manure, mulching with organic materials, or additions

of organic soil amendments, permanent sod can be established in vineyards.

In Italy, more than 50% of the cultivated soils have an organic matter content

of < 2% (Tellarini, 1994; Zamborlini et al., 1990) and are considered unfavorable

for sustainable agricultural production. In Switzerland, every grape (Vitis vinifera

L.) grower participating in the integrated production (IP) program must adhere to a

humus content of >1% (if <1%, then it is mandatory to provide and execute a

rehabilitation plan); observe legal maximum heavy metal content in compost (provide analytical data of compost batch); retain brushwood and return all organic waste

of vinification to the vineyard; maintain sod on at least 50% of the ground (every

second row), including during winter; and use corrective measures where soil erosion

is visible (Boller et al., 1998b). Failure in one area would result in the disqualification

of financial governmental support for the entire farm.

The need for organic matter has been reported for Mediterranean soils (Felipò,

1996) and for many agricultural soils of the cold-temperate regions (Bauer et al.,

1992; Delas et al., 1982). In tropical soils, following deforestation, soil organic

matter content declines dramatically (Jenkinson, 1988). In Italy, soils have an annual

mean deficit of 500 kg·ha–1 organic matter, which is primarily associated with intensive agronomic practices (Bartolini, 1982; Tellarini, 1994). Data on organic matter

deficits vary due to differences in climate, soil typology, plant species, soil management techniques, and crop rotation.

© 2001 by CRC Press LLC



Table 8.1 Results of Some Compost Utilization Studies on Various Fruit Crops

Fruit Crop



Compost

Type

z



Vitis vinifera

(grape)

Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW and

Biosolid/

bark



Vitis vinifera



Bark



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera



MSW



Vitis vinifera

Vitis vinifera



MSW

MSW and

Bark



Vitis vinifera



Bark



Vitis vinifera



Biosolid/

bark



Vitis vinifera



MSW and

Biosolid/

bark



Malus

xdomestica

(apple) and

Vitis vinifera



MSW and

Biosolid/

bark



MSW



© 2001 by CRC Press LLC



Primary Results

Reduced soil erosion. Increased soil

organic matter content.

Increased soil organic matter. Did not

reduce must quality.

Increased soil organic matter.

Increased fruit yield.

Reduced water runoff and soil losses.



Reference

Bosse, 1967

Walter, 1980

Enkelmann and

Völkel, 1982

Carsoulle et al.,

1986

Scienza et al., 1987



Improved soil chemical and physical

properties. Did not reduce must

quality.

Reduced water runoff and soil losses. Ballif and Herre,

1988

Increased soil organic matter. Reduced Delas, 1989

water runoff and soil erosion.

Improved soil chemical and physical

Pinamonti et al.,

properties. Increased growth of young 1991

vines and fruit yield. Did not reduce

must quality.

Increased fruit yield, sugar content,

Wang et al., 1991

and total acid concentration.

Improved soil physical properties.

Moncomble and

Reduced soil erosion. Increased

Descotes, 1992

herbicide effectiveness.

Increased soil pH and heavy metal

Delas, 1993

adsorption in sandy, acidic, and

degraded soils.

Improved nutritive status of vines. Did Balanyà Martí et al.,

not reduce fruit yield and must quality. 1994

Reduced water runoff and soil erosion. Ballif et al., 1995

Reduced soil erosion. Did not reduce Sauvage, 1995

vine performance. Did not change

qualitative characteristics of enologic

products.

Improved soil physical properties.

Fujiwara, 1996

Controlled weed development.

Stimulated root growth of young vines.

Improved fruit color. Increased fruit

weight and sugar content.

Improved soil chemical and physical

Pinamonti et al.,

properties. Improved vineyard

1996

establishment.

Improved soil chemical and physical

Pinamonti, 1998a

properties. Reduced chemical weed

control. Allowed substitution of

chemical fertilizers with no loss in vine

vigor, yield, or quality of musts.

Improved soil chemical and physical

Pinamonti and

properties. Increased growth of young Zorzi, 1996

apple trees and young vines.

Obtained earlier maximum yields.



Table 8.1 Results of Some Compost Utilization Studies on Various Fruit Crops

(Continued)

Fruit Crop



Compost

Type



Malus

xdomestica

and Vitis

vinifera

Malus

xdomestica



MSW and

Biosolid/

bark



Malus

xdomestica

Malus

xdomestica

Citrus sinensis

(orange)

Citrus spp.

seedlings

Prunus persica

(peach)

Olea europaea

(olive)



MSW



Macadamia

integrifolia

(macadamia)



z



MSW



Manure

MSW

MSW

MSW

MSW



Macadamia

huskmanure



Primary Results

Improved soil chemical and physical

properties. Maintained a vegetative

production balance with no reduction

in product quality.

Reduced diurnal fluctuations in soil

temperature. Increased earthworm

activity.

Increased soil bioactivity. Increased

cellulose degradation activity.

Increased soil nitrate and phosphorous

levels.

Improved soil physical properties.

Increased soil biological activity.

Reduced infection by Phytophthora

nicotianae.

Increased growth of young trees.

Increased fruit yield.

Improved soil chemical and physical

properties. Improved nutritive status

and growth of trees. Increased fruit

production with no reduction in fruit

quality.

Improved soil chemical properties.

Reduced soil nitrate content.

Maintained yield of nut-in-shell or

salable kernel. Did not decrease

kernel quality.



Reference

Pinamonti, 1998b



Hartley and

Rahman, 1994

Hartley et al., 1996

Walsh et al., 1996

Canet et al., 1998

Widmer et al., 1998

Strabbioli and

Angeloni, 1987

Aguilar Torres et al.,

1996



Bittenbender et al.,

1998



MSW = municipal solid waste.



Humification balance and biological equilibrium of soils represent fundamental

elements for an integrated control of rhizo-biosphere disorders. Fruit tree root

absorption disorders (nutritional deficiencies, fruit tree replant problems) and root

diseases may be a consequence of biological soil degeneration related to anomalous

nonhumifying pathways of organic matter degradation in soils (Zucconi and De

Bertoldi, 1987; Zucconi et al., 1981). Reduction in humification can be associated

with the accumulation of monogenic organic residues (i.e., a monocultural succession cropping) in the soil and decreased microbial variety due to the biocidal action

of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and fumigants (Zucconi, 1993; Zucconi and

Monaco, 1987).

Fruit tree replanting success may depend on associations among species and on

crop rotations. However, if these methods are not practical (i.e., small specialized

fruit-growing farms), then substantial amounts of soil organic amendments should

be applied to enhance replanting success (Zucconi, 1988; Zucconi and Monaco

1987).



© 2001 by CRC Press LLC



Table 8.2 Factors Influencing Decomposition of Soil Organic Matter in Vineyards

Established in Cold-Temperate Regions

Slow Decomposition

Clay soils

Minimal cultivation

Sod culture

Organic mulches (compost, straw, barks,

others)

Brushwood left on the soil surface and all

organic waste from vinification returned to

the vineyard soil surface

Estimated annual dry organic matter

decomposition is 3000–4000 kg·ha–1



Fast Decomposition

Sandy soils and stony soils, skeleton rich

(poor fine soil)

Frequent cultivation

Persistent solar radiation on cultivated soils

Without mulches or without sod culture

Brushwood is not left on the vineyard soil

surface

Estimated annual dry organic matter

decomposition is 7000 kg·ha–1



From Bauer, K. et al., 1992. Bodenpflege, p. 2–19. In: K. Bauer et al. (eds.). Ökologisch

Orientierte Bodenpflege und Düngung in Qualitätsweinbau. Bundesministerium für Landunf Forstwirtschaft Publication, Vienna, Austria. With permission.



III. COMPOST UTILIZATION IN FRUIT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Compost utilization should be compatible with practical agricultural production

systems. Compost must be used so as to assure optimum productivity and fruit

quality of cultivated fruit crops while minimizing environmental concerns. Investigations have focused on compost as a beneficial soil amendment that can be integrated into various fruit production systems (Table 8.1).

Compost agricultural quality and safety characteristics have been identified and

implemented through state and country regulations (Accotto et al., 1996; U.S. EPA,

1994). Compost utilized as a soil amendment in fruit production systems should be

free of pathogens, viable weed seeds, phytotoxins, and foul odors. There should be

minimal amounts of glass and plastic, and heavy metal concentrations should be

below government limits. The compost should have a particle size adequate for the

desired use; be stable and mature; have a balanced percentage of nitrogen (N),

phosphorus (P), and potassium (K); and be cost effective.

Pinamonti (1998b) analyzed chemical and physical characteristics of 100 samples of compost and other soil organic amendments produced in Italy (Table 8.3).

Composts were drier, had higher ash content, and had lower organic matter and

nutrient content than cow manure. At identical application rates, composts resulted

in proportionately higher organic matter content than cow manures. Composts are

generally lighter, and finer, have homogeneous particle size, and are easier to handle

and transport than manures. Poultry manure, with a high nutrient content, is considered as a fertilizer rather than a soil organic amendment in Italy (Perelli, 1994)

whereas peat, with a high organic matter content and low nutritional content is

considered as a soil organic amendment and not a fertilizer. However, high costs

reduce the use of peat. Compost utilization in various orchard management practices

is summarized in Table 8.4.



© 2001 by CRC Press LLC



Table 8.3 Analytical Characteristics of Various Soil Organic Amendments and Composts



Item



Cow

Manure



Poultry

Manure



5

74

8.41

2510

27.1

66

19.0

2.01

0.87

1.48



12

25

8.47

6800

34.4

57

11.9

3.13

1.98

2.59



Number of samples

Moisture (%)

pH

E.C.z (µS·cm–1)

Ash (%)

Organic matter (%)

C:N ratio

N (%)

P (%)

K (%)



Peat

44

61

4.42

235

2.9

88

54.6

0.93

0.06

0.08



Yard

Municipal

Trimmings Biosolid/Bark Solid Waste

Compost

Compost

Compost

11

49

7.64

1050

54.6

44

14.7

10.13

0.25

0.37



58

45

7.36

1260

35.7

55

18.1

1.76

0.74

0.52



30

30

7.90

3800

50.2

40

18.9

1.27

0.31

0.54



z



E.C.= electrical conductivity.

Adapted from Pinamonti, 1998b.



Table 8.4 Compost Utilization Practices in Fruit Production Systems

Utilization Practice

Corrective dressing

(before planting)



Compost Rate and

Application Technique

50–100 t·ha



–1



Surface-applied and mixed with

topsoil by conventional tillage

Maintenance dressing



40–60 t·ha–1 every 2–3 years

Surface-applied or placed on the

under-row area, with or without

mixing with the topsoil by

conventional tillage



Mulching



30–100 t·ha–1 every 2–3 years

Placed on the under-row area

(fruit tree strips)



Application into planting

holes



5–20 t·ha–1 depending on

planting arrangement

Direct application near the root

system at the time of planting



Benefits

Restoration of organic

matter

Incorporation and build up

of less mobile nutrients (P

and K)

Restoration of organic

matter

Restoration of nutrients

removed with the fruits

Maintenance of an

adequate vegetative

production balance

Weed control

Improvement of water

balance and reduction of

large fluctuations in soil

temperature

Restoration of nutrients

removed with the fruits

Improved rooting

Improvement of edaphic

environment of the root

system



Data on chemical and physical characteristics of composts are not sufficient

to evaluate their horticultural value and impact on the environment. Therefore,

experiments should be conducted to evaluate compost quality, its biological and

economical benefit in fruit production systems, and any potential adverse environmental impacts.



© 2001 by CRC Press LLC