International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2012 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 946079 | https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/946079

Kuppuraj Rajasekar, Thilagavathy Daniel, Natchimuthu Karmegam, "Microbial Enrichment of Vermicompost", International Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2012, Article ID 946079, 13 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/946079

Microbial Enrichment of Vermicompost

Academic Editor: W. Peijnenburg
Received12 Jan 2012
Accepted31 Jan 2012
Published08 Mar 2012

Abstract

The present study has been conducted to explore the possibility of enrichment of vermicompost with microbial inoculants (i.e., biofertilizer organisms), Azospirillum brasilense and Rhizobium leguminosarum, optimization of inoculum level, and time of inoculation during vermicomposting. The survival rate of each microbial inoculant, total microbial population in vermicompost, and their correlation with the microbial inoculants during the storage period (180 days) were assessed. The change in population of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum in vermicompost (at 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g substrates) with reference to storage period showed highly significant negative correlation ( 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 ). The total microbial population in A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum inoculated vermicompost was high during initial phases of storage and then total microbial population declined towards the end. The inoculum level of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum at 35 mL per 175 g vermibed substrate is sufficient to maintain 1 × 1 0 7 viable cells up to 160 days after ther harvesting of vermicompost. The inoculum of these two biofertilizer organisms into vermibed on the 30th day showed increased survival rate and, hence, the optimized inoculation of 35 mL of inoculum per 175 g substrate on the 30th day of vermicomposting is helpful for the maintenance of sufficient viable population for more than five months in the enriched vermicompost.

1. Introduction

The compost prepared from organic materials using earthworms is a low cost and ecofriendly technology called vermicomposting. The fine granular peat-like end product, vermicompost that is produced is reported to contain elevated levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) in available form, micronutrients, microflora, enzymes, and growth regulators [1, 2]. Because of this, the vermicompost when applied or supplemented in soil improves crop growth and yield [3, 4]. The earthworms, the drivers of many processes in soil, apart from the known vermicomposting, are also found to enhance phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soils [5]. In addition, vermicompost, produced by the joint action of earthworms and microbes, contains nutrients in available form with increased microbial activity [6].

The use of biofertilizers is nowadays known to bring out several benefits to soil: solubilization of essential minerals, get hold of nutrients, offering micronutrients in more utilizable form for plants, and taking part in biological nitrogen fixation. Microorganisms of this group are generally known as plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) which include Azospirillum, Azotobacter, phosphobacteria, Rhizobia, and cyanobacteria. The PGPMs are capable of putting forth advantageous properties on growth and yield characteristics of several cultivable crops in different parts of the world [79]. Rhizosphere bacteria promote plant growth by improving the availability of nutrients suppressing the growth of plant pathogens or by production of hormones such as auxins [10]. In laboratory, the biofertilizers are mass multiplied in large scale using traditional culture medium and/or chief source supplemented medium for agricultural purposes [1113]. Recently, Raja Sekar and Karmegam [14] reported that the vermicasts are able to increase the survival rate of biofertilizer organisms for more than a year when used as carrier material.

The process of vermicomposting results in the increase of microbial diversity and activity dramatically and the vermicompost produced could be a source of plant growth regulators produced by interactions between microorganisms and earthworms, which could contribute significantly to increased plant growth, flowering, and yields [15]. So, the addition or enrichment of microbial inoculants such as biofertilizers would provide an increased plant growth and yield. The studies on the microbial enrichment of vermicompost with reference to the amount of inoculum required, time of inoculation, survival rate of inoculated microorganisms in vermicompost during storage and the relation of total microbial population with that of inoculated microorganisms are not documented. Hence, the present study has been undertaken to optimize the inoculum level and time of inoculation of biofertilizers in enrichment process of vermicompost and assessing the survival rate of A. brasilense, and R. leguminosarum in enriched vermicompost in relation to total microbial population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection of Biogas Slurry

Biogas slurry for the study was collected from the biogas plant situated at Kottagoundanpatty, Salem (Dt.), Tamil Nadu, and used for the preparation of vermibed. One-week-aged biogas slurry was collected, air-dried, and stored in polyethylene bags until use.

2.2. Collection of Earthworms

The earthworm, Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg) for the study, originally collected from culture bank of the Department of Biology, Gandhigram Rural University, Tamil Nadu, India, was mass multiplied in cowdung and used for the study.

2.3. Mass Multiplication of Biofertilizers

The cultures of Azospirillum brasilense (MTCC 4036 and Rhizobium leguminosarum (MTCC 99) were procured from microbial type culture collection (MTCC), Chandigarh and used for the study. The organisms were revealed in the suggested broth medium and subcultured in Bromothymol Blue (BTB) and Yeast Extract Mannitol Salt Agar (YEMA) media, respectively, for A. braziliense and R. leguminosarum. A loopful of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum was transferred respectively to 100 mL of, respective, selective medium and incubated. After incubation, 10 mL of the inoculum was transferred to 1000 mL of respective broth and kept in shaking incubator for mass multiplication.

2.4. Enrichment of Vermicompost with Biofertilizers

For enrichment studies, four different vermicomposting trials, each with six replicates, were carried out by preparing the vermibeds and E. eugeniae was introduced in all the vermibeds. The vermicompost was collected from all the vermibeds after 40 days. The mass multiplied biofertilizer organisms at the rate of 30, 35, and 40 mL per 175 g of vermibed substrates were added to each of the experiments, T1, T2, T3, and T4 on the 0th, 10th, 20th and 30th day, respectively, to find out the optimum inoculum level and time of inoculation that results in the maintenance of 1 × 107 viable cells per gram of vermicompost during storage.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Data were subjected for analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple-range test to differentiate the significant difference between different treatments at the probability level of 𝑃 < 0 . 0 5 using SPSS computer software for Windows (version 9.05). The relation between viable cell counts in different carrier materials and incubation days were carried out using Microcal Origin Computer Software (Version 6.1) and correlation coefficient ( 𝑟 ) was calculated.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Enrichment of Vermicompost with A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum

Earthworm activity is closely associated with microbial activity. There exists a mutualistic association between earthworm and microorganisms in deriving nutrients from harder maa

terials like cellulose and hemicellulose [16]. The enrichment of vermicompost with nutrients and microorganisms using different organic and inorganic materials and microbial inoculants is now popularizing, due to the advantage of using the “enriched vermicompost” [1720]. But these studies have not described the standardized protocol for enriching vermicompost with microbial inoculants such as biofertilizers.

The enrichment of vermicompost was done in the present study by inoculating the biofertilizer inoculants, A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum, at the rate of 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g of substrate. This was done to find out the optimum level of inoculum required for the maintenance of 1 × 107 viable cells in the vermicompost. The inoculation was done on the 0th, 10th, 20th and 30th days of vermicomposting to assess whether the time of inoculation had any effect on survival rate of biofertilizer inoculants during storage. At the same time, the survival rates of each inoculant were correlated with total microbial population in the vermicompost to study the influence of other microbial groups on biofertilizer inoculants. Microbial inoculation on 0th, 10th, 20th, and 30th days showed decrease in the viable population of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum inoculated at the rate of 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g of substrate, towards the progression of storage period of vermicompost, uniformly. The change of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum in the vermicompost (at 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g substrate) with reference to the storage period (180 days) showed a highly significant negative correlation ( 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 ). In all the treatments, the viable population of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum at the rates of 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g substrate from 0th day (after harvest) onwards showed statistically significant decline with that of storage period of vermicompost. This trend was observed uniformly for all the four microbial inoculants, ionoculated on the 0th, 10th, 20th, and 30th days of vermicomposting.

The viable population of A. brasilense inoculated at the rate of 30 mL/175 g of substrate on the 30th day of vermicomposting showed 11, 9, 7, 5, and 1 × 107 g−1 CFU during the 30th, 60th, 90th, 120th, and 150th days, respectively, which was negatively significant at 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 ( 𝑦 = 0 . 0 6 9 6 𝑥 + 1 2 . 7 1 , 𝑅 2 = 0 . 9 0 6 7 ) (Table 1; Figure 1). Similar results were obtained for 35 and 40 mL/175 g of substrate inoculation (Tables 2 and 3; Figures 2 and 3). The viable population of R. leguminosarum inoculated at the rates of 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g substrate in different intervals showed decrease in viable population during the storage of vermicompost (Tables 4, 5, and 6). The decrease of viable population upon storage of vermicompost which received R. leguminosarum inoculants at different intervals was negatively correlated (Figures 4, 5, and 6). The population of R. leguminosarum at the rate of 40 mL/175 g substrate inoculated on the 0th day and 10th day of vermicomposting showed 1 and 3 ×107 g−1 CFU on the 120th day of storage after harvest. There after no viable cells were observed up to 180 days. On the 20th and 30th days of inoculation, the survival of R. leguminosarum was observed up to the 135th and 150th day, and the subsequent observations showed no viable population up to 180 days.


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of A. brasilense (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

09a11a, b12b9a
159a9a11a, b13b
308a9a, b10a, b11b
457a8a, b9a, b10b
607a8a8a9a
755a7a, b8b8b
903a4a, b6b7b
1052a3a, b6b6b
1203a2a4a5a
1350a0a2a, b3b
1500a0a1a2a
1650a0a0a1a
1800a0a0a0a


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of A. brasilense (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

010a11a12a9a
159a10a11a, b15b
309a9a10a, b12a, b
457a9a, b8a, b10b
607a8a8a9a
756a7a7a8a
905a5a5a7a
1054a5a, b5a, b7b
1204a4a5a6a
1351a2a, b3a, b4b
1500a0a1a, b2b
1650a0a0a1a
1800a0a0a0a


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of A. brasilense (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

014a, c15a18b12c
1512a14a, b15b19c
3011a13a, b14b, c16c
459a12b12b14b
608a10a, b10a, b12b
757a8a, b9a, b10b
905a6a, b7a, b8b
1055a, b4a, b6a, b7b
1205a3a5a5a
1352a2a3a, b5b
1500a1a, b1a, b2b
1650a0a0a1a
1800a0a0a0a


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of R. leguminosarum (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

07a9a, b11b8a
157a8a9a12b
306a7a7a10b
456a6a7a8a
605a6a7a7a
754a5a, b6a, b7b
904a4a5a6a
1051a3a, b4b5b
1200a2b3b3b
1350a0a1a1a
1500a0a0a0a
1650a0a0a0a
1800a0a0a0a


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of R. leguminosarum (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

010a11a12a10a
159a10a,b11a,b13b
309a9a10a,b12b
458a9a9a10a
607a8a9a8a
756a7a8a8a
905a6a7a7a
1053a6b6b7b
1201a3a6b6b
1350135
1500a0a1a,b2b
1650a0a0a1a
1800a0a0a0a


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Viable population of R. leguminosarum (CFU × 107 g−1)
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0th day10th day20th day30th day

010a12a,b13b10a
1510a10a11a14b
309a10a10a14b
458a9a10a,b12b
607a7a9a,b10b
756a7a8a8a
904a6a,b7b7b
1054a5a,b6a,b7b
1201a3a,b4b5b
1350a0a1a,b3b
1500a0a0a1a
1650a0a0a0a
1800a0a0a0a

The enrichment of vermicompost with the addition of nutrient rich substrates was demonstrated by Daniel et al. [21], where their results reveal that the leaves of Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala can be converted into microbial- and nutrient-rich vermicompost using E. fetida. Hashemimajd and Golchin [19] studied the effect of iron-enriched vermicompost on growth and nutrition of tomato and reported that total and available forms of iron in iron-enriched vermicomposts as well as in tomato tissues increased by an increase in the proportion of iron refuse in vermicompost. Some authors tried microbial inoculants for hastening the process of vermicomposting or for enriching the vermicompost. The inoculation of microbial consortia like “jeevamrutha” and cow dung together with organic substrates significantly enhances the microbial density throughout the process of decomposition during vermicomposting [22]. The inoculation of consortium of microorganisms Aspergillus niger, P. sajor-caju, Azotobacter chroococcum, Trichoderma harzianum not only accelerated vermicomposting of crop residues and farm yard manure but also enriched the quality of product [17]. During the incubation period the inoculated bacterial strains proliferated rapidly, fixed nitrogen, solubilised, and added native phosphate [23].

Pressmud alone and in combination with other byproducts of sugar processing industries was pre-decomposed for 30 days by inoculation with combination of Pleurotus sajorcaju, Trichoderma viridae, Aspergillus niger, and Pseudomonas striatum, followed by vermicomposting for 40 days with the native earthworm, Drawida willsi. The combination of both treatments reduced the overall time required for composting to 20 days and accelerated the degradation process, thereby producing a nutrient-enriched compost product [20]. The study conducted by Padmavathiamma et al. [24] reported that the enrichment generally had a significant effect on the nutrient contents, especially for N, P, K, Mg, and Mn. Eudrilus compost, when treated with Azospirillum and P-solubilising organisms, gave an N-content of 2.08% which was significantly higher than the N-content of uninoculated Eudrilus compost (1.8%). The nitrogen was enriched appreciably by Azospirillum. The enrichment increased progressively when Azospirillum inoculation was supplemented with phosphate solubilising culture, a beneficial additive to obtain good quality compost, rich in N [25]. An increase in N-content due to microbial inoculation was reported by Rasal et al. [26]. The P-contents were significantly higher when inoculated with Azospirillum and P-solubilising organisms (1.76%) than in uninoculated compost (0.72%). The mechanisms of conversion of insoluble P by P-solubilising organisms to available forms include altering the solubility of inorganic compounds to the ultimate soluble form by production of acids and H2S under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and by mineralizing organic compounds, with the release of inorganic phosphate [26].

Kumar and Shweta [25] studied the enhancement of wood waste decomposition by microbial inoculation prior to vermicomposting. The timber wastes which were inoculated with different combinations of the fungi Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Trichoderma reesei, Aspergillus niger, and the bacteria Azotobacter chroococcum (MTCC 3853) and Bacillus cereus (MTCC 4079) and incubated at 28–30°C in a mechanical composter. The inoculation enhanced the degradation of timber wastes, increased total nitrogen, and improved the quality and enhanced production of vermicompost generated with the native earthworm Drawida willsi Michelsen. Their study showed that microbial predecomposition of timber wastes to produce quality vermicompost is a feasible technology. However, the above studies were focused on either the enhancement of vermicomposting process or the nutrients. These studies have not described the standardization of amount of inoculum and time of inoculation for the maintenance of 1 × 107 g−1 viable population of A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum and their survival during storage in comparison with the total microbial population. From the results of this study, it is concluded that the biofertilizer inoculants, A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum, at the rate 35 mL/175 g substrate on the 30th day of vermicomposting are the optimum inoculation level and time for the maintenance of 1 × 107 viable cells in the vermicompost is the maximum number of days during storage (Figure 7). The study also reveals that the microbial inoculants inoculated at the later stage of vermicomposting survive for long period.

3.2. Total Microbial Population and the Microbial Inoculants

In the present study, total microbial population in A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum inoculated vermicompost was high during the initial phases of storage and then total microbial population declined towards the end (Tables 7 and 8). No viable population of total microorganisms in 107 dilution on the135th, 150th, 265th and 165th days of storage was observed, respectively, in the 0th, 10th, 20th, and 30th days inoculation of A. brasilense at the rate of 30 mL/175 g substrate. The vermicompost inoculated on the 20th day of vermicomposting with A. brasilense at the rate of 35 mL/175 g of substrate showed 15, 12, 8, 4, 1, and 0 × 107 CFU g−1 population of total microorganisms, respectively, during 15th, 45th, 75th, 105th, 135th, and 165th days of storage. Similar trend of results was obtained for R. leguminosarum inoculated vermicompost suggesting that the overall maintenance of total microbial population in vermicompost is similar in the vermicomposts with any microbial inoculant. The change of total microbial population in A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum inoculated vermicompost (at 30, 35, and 40 mL/175 g substrate) as a function of storage period (180 days) showed negative correlation in all the treatments received microbial inoculants during the 0th, 10th, 20th, and 30th days of vermicomposting. The vermicompost inoculated with A. brasilense on 0th day of vermicomposting showed significant ( 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 ) negative correlation with a correlation coefficient ( 𝑟 ): −0.9794 ( 𝑦 = 0 . 1 1 6 6 𝑥 + 1 7 . 4 4 9 ). Similar results were recorded for 10th day inoculation: 𝑟 = 0 . 9 8 9 8 , 𝑦 = 0 . 1 2 4 2 𝑥 + 1 8 . 8 3 3 ; for the 20th day inoculation: 𝑟 = 0 . 9 9 1 3 , 𝑦 = 0 . 1 1 8 6 𝑥 + 1 9 . 8 7 2 ; for the 30th day inoculation: 𝑟 = 0 . 9 6 0 5 , 𝑦 = 0 . 1 2 9 𝑥 + 2 2 . 4 8 7 . For R. leguminosarum also, comparatively, similar results were observed (data not shown).


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Total microbial population (CFU × 107 g−1)
Rate of inoculum per 175 g substrate
30 mL35 mL40 mL
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0d10d20d30d0d10d20d30d0d10d20d30d

0161920171617181621222620
15161617231415152418202129
30151516201213141816182126
45121414181011121613161721
60121313161010101411131416
7510101213678118101113
90771011456957911
105359913473479
120336801250245
135013500130012
150001200010000
165000000000000
180000000000000


Storage period of vermicompost (after harvest, in days)Total microbial population (CFU × 107 g−1)
Rate of inoculum per 175 g substrate
30 mL35 mL40 mL
Time of inoculation (vermicomposting days)
0d10d20d30d0d10d20d30d0d10d20d30d

0141718161719201917192117
15141516221617182416161724
30121315191516172114151524
45111212161315171812131421
6010111214121315177111218
75910111291113149101016
905791079101357913
10513683791025711
120024514591346
135001301360124
150000000020012
165000000010001
180000000000000

The correlation of total microbial population with the individual microbial inoculants, A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum in respective vermicompost during storage period, showed significant positive correlation, that is, the increase/decrease of individual inoculants and total microbial population were parallel (Table 9). The viable population of R. leguminosarum inoculated (40 mL/175 g) on the 0th day of vermicomposting was significantly correlated with total microbial population recorded during storage ( 𝑟 = 0 . 9 6 0 5 7 3 ; 𝑦 = 0 . 5 4 5 6 𝑥 + 1 . 3 7 1 2 ; 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 ). Similar positive correlation was recorded for different time of inoculation and with different inoculum level (data not shown). These results clearly show that the population of microbial inoculants and the total microbial population in the vermicompost are dependents on each other. However, the competition between these two groups for nutrients requires further insight.


InoculumTime of inoculation (days of vermicomposting)
(mL/175 g)0102030

A. brasilense versus total microflora
30Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 5 3 1 1 𝑥 + 0 . 3 0 7 4 𝑦 = 0 . 5 8 9 8 𝑥 + 0 . 0 2 4 8 𝑦 = 0 . 6 1 0 9 𝑥 + 0 . 2 5 6 6 𝑦 = 0 . 5 0 8 9 𝑥 + 0 . 9 7 8 2
𝑟 0.9827 0.9912 0.9969 0.9955
35Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 8 1 6 9 𝑥 1 . 0 7 1 7 𝑦 = 0 . 6 1 2 9 𝑥 + 1 . 8 3 6 𝑦 = 0 . 6 0 8 7 𝑥 + 1 . 8 4 1 6 𝑦 = 0 . 5 3 5 2 𝑥 + 2 . 6 0 4 2
𝑟 0.9645 0.9990 0.9952 0.9882
40Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 4 5 4 9 𝑥 + 3 . 6 4 3 𝑦 = 0 . 6 1 2 9 𝑥 + 1 . 8 3 6 𝑦 = 0 . 6 0 8 7 𝑥 + 1 . 8 4 1 6 𝑦 = 0 . 5 3 5 2 𝑥 + 2 . 6 0 4 2
𝑟 0.9645 0.9989 0.9952 0.9882

R. leguminosarum versus total microflora
30Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 4 6 4 5 𝑥 + 0 . 5 2 2 𝑦 = 0 . 4 7 6 7 𝑥 + 0 . 7 1 𝑦 = 0 . 5 3 6 6 𝑥 + 0 . 3 8 0 9 𝑦 = 0 . 5 3 5 7 𝑥 0 . 0 4 5 8
𝑟 0.977088 0.986813 0.982853 0.986813
35Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 5 4 9 𝑥 + 0 . 6 9 4 2 𝑦 = 0 . 5 5 0 2 𝑥 + 0 . 7 6 1 9 𝑦 = 0 . 5 2 9 3 𝑥 + 1 . 1 8 7 8 𝑦 = 0 . 4 7 3 1 𝑥 + 1 . 3 8 5 2
𝑟 0.992371 0.988231 0.973242 0.983412
40Eq 𝑦 = 0 . 5 4 5 6 𝑥 + 1 . 3 7 1 2 𝑦 = 0 . 5 9 4 9 𝑥 + 0 . 9 5 0 6 𝑦 = 0 . 6 3 2 7 𝑥 + 0 . 7 4 𝑦 = 0 . 5 6 0 9 𝑥 + 0 . 2 4 5 2
𝑟 0.960573 0.978162 0.978366 0.988737

Eq: regression equation; 𝑟 : correlation coefficient.

There are many studies focusing the increase of microbial population in earthworm-excreted or -processed material than the parent material. Recent developments in the country as well as at the global level is the application of detritivorous epigeic earthworms for organic manure/vermicompost production from biodegradable organic materials recovered from agricultural lands, agrobased industries, and municipal solid waste. This field of study is closely associated with earthworm microbe interaction. The quality of the manure or vermicompost depends on microorganisms associated with the process of decomposition. Earthworm activity is closely associated with microbial activity. Primarily moisture is playing a major role in microbial population maintenance as it has been reported by Prakash et al. [27] and Kaljeet et al. [28]. Tiunov and Scheu [29] have shown that earthworms deprive easily available carbon to microorganisms and availability of carbon increases effective mobilization of N and P by earthworms. Earthworms are mainly responsible for fragmentation and conditioning of the substrate, increasing surface area for microbial activity, and significantly altering biological activity of the process [30]. The vermicasts when used as carrier material for biofertilizers supported the survival rate for more than one year [14]. The survival and increase of microbial population in vermicasts and worm-worked compost (vermicompost) falls in line with present study results. The findings of the present study also showed similar results where the vermicompost served as a substrate for the survival and viability of the biofertilizer inoculants, A. brasilense and R. leguminosarum, for long period during storage.

4. Conclusion

The enhancement of nutrients and beneficial microbial population in the vermicompost is yet another important evolving trend where the vermicompost is value added with nutrients and or microorganisms resulting in improved growth and yield of crop plants. The inoculum level of A brasilense. and R. leguminosarum at the rate of 35 mL per 175 g of vermibed substrate is sufficient to maintain 1 × 107 viable cells up to 160 days after harvesting of vermicompost. The inoculum of biofertilizer organisms into vermibed on the 30th day showed increased survival rate and hence, the optimized inoculation of 35 mL of inoculum per 175 g of substrate on the 30th of vermicomposting is helpful for the maintenance of sufficient viable population for more than five months in the enriched vermicompost.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

References

  1. C. A. Edwards, Earthworm Ecology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2nd edition, 2004.
  2. A. A. Ansari, “Worm powered environmental biotechnology in organic waste management,” International Journal of Soil Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. G. Zaller, “Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in potting media: effects on germination, biomass allocation, yields and fruit quality of three tomato varieties,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 191–199, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. Jayakumar, T. Sivakami, D. Ambika, and N. Karmegam, “Effect of turkey litter (Meleagris gallopavo L.) vermicompost on growth and yield characteristics of paddy, Oryza sativa (ADT-37),” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 10, no. 68, pp. 15295–15304, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. R. K. Sinha, S. Agarwal, K. Chauhan, V. Chandran, and B. K. Soni, “Vermiculture technology: reviving the dreams of Sir Charles Darwin for scientific use of earthworms in sustainable development programs,” Journal of Technology and Investment, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 155–172, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. Aira, F. Monroy, and J. Domínguez, “Earthworms strongly modify microbial biomass and activity triggering enzymatic activities during vermicomposting independently of the application rates of pig slurry,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 385, no. 1–3, pp. 252–261, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. C. A. Barassi, R. J. Sueldo, C. M. Creus, L. E. Carrozzi, E. M. Casanovas, and M. A. Pereyra, “Azospirillum spp., a dynamic soil bacterium favourable to vegetable crop production,” Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 68–82, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  8. A. A. Abo-Baker and G. G. Mostafa, “Effect of bio-and chemical fertilizers on growth, sepals yield and chemical composition of Hibiscus sabdariffa at new reclaimed soil of South Valley area,” Asian Journal of Crop Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16–25, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. V. V. Geetha and P. Balamurugan, “Organic seed pelleting in mustard,” Research Journal of Seed Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 174–180, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. O. P. Jangu and S. S. Sindhu, “Differential response of inoculation with indole acetic acid producing Pseudomonas sp. in green gram (Vigna radiata L.) and black gram (Vigna mungo L.),” Microbiology Journal, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 159–173, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. J. P. Verma, J. Yadav, and K. N. Tiwari, “Application of Rhizobium sp. BHURC01 and plant growth promoting rhizobactria on nodulation, plant biomass and yields of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.),” International Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 148–156, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. I. Fahmi, H. H. Nagaty, R. A. Eissa, and M. M. Hassan, “Effects of salt stress on some nitrogen fixation parameters in faba bean,” Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 385–391, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. K. Singh, Gauri, R. P. Bhatt, and S. Pant, “Optimization and comparative study of the sugar waste for the growth of Rhizobium cells along with traditional laboratory media,” Research Journal of Microbiology, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 715–723, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. K. Raja Sekar and N. Karmegam, “Earthworm casts as an alternate carrier material for biofertilizers: assessment of endurance and viability of Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus megaterium and Rhizobium leguminosarum,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 286–289, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. N. Q. Arancon and C. A. Edwards, “The utilization of vermicomposts in horticulture and agriculture,” in Proceedings of Indo-US Workshop on Vermitechnology in Human Welfare, C. A. Edwards, R. Jayaraaj, and I. A. Jayraaj, Eds., pp. 98–108, Rohini Achagam, Coimbatore, India, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  16. P. Lavelle, “The structure of earthworm communities,” in Earthworm Ecology, J. E. Satchell, Ed., pp. 449–466, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  17. A. Singh and S. Sharma, “Composting of a crop residue through treatment with microorganisms and subsequent vermicomposting,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 107–111, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. S. Anilkumar, K. H. Nair, and A. K. Sherief, “Utilization of enriched coirpith-vermicompost in organic mediculture,” Plant Archives, vol. 7, pp. 617–620, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  19. K. Hashemimajd and A. Golchin, “The effect of iron-enriched vermicompost on growth and nutrition of tomato,” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 613–621, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  20. R. Kumar, D. Verma, B. L. Singh, U. Kumar, and Shweta, “Composting of sugar-cane waste by-products through treatment with microorganisms and subsequent vermicomposting,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 101, no. 17, pp. 6707–6711, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. T. Daniel, B. Sivasankari, and M. Malathy, “Microbial and nutrient enhancement of Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala leaf materials using Eisenia fetida,” in Vermitechnology II, N. Karmegam, Ed., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 152–154, Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  22. S. J. Veeresh, J. Narayana, and J. A. Teixeira da Silva, “Influence of Jeevamrutha (biodynamic formulation) on agro-industrial waste vermicomposting,” in Vermitechnology II, N. Karmegam, Ed., vol. 4, pp. 96–99, Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  23. V. Kumar and K. P. Singh, “Enriching vermicompost by nitrogen fixing and phosphate solubilizing bacteria,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 173–175, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. P. K. Padmavathiamma, L. Y. Li, and U. R. Kumari, “An experimental study of vermi-biowaste composting for agricultural soil improvement,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1672–1681, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. R. Kumar and Shweta, “Enhancement of wood waste decomposition by microbial inoculation prior to vermicomposting,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 1475–1480, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. P. H. Rasal, H. B. Kalbhor, V. V. Shingte, and P. L. Patil, “Development of technology for rapid composting and enrichment,” in Biofertilizers, Potentialities and Problems, S. P. Sen and P. Palit, Eds., pp. 255–258, Plant Physiology Forum and Naya Prakash, Calcutta, India, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  27. M. Prakash, M. Jayakumar, and N. Karmegam, “Physico-chemical characteristics and fungal flora in the casts of the earthworm, Perionyx ceylanensis Mich. Reared in Polyalthia longifolia leaf litter,” Journal of Applied Sciences Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 53–57, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  28. S. Kaljeet, F. Keyeo, and H. G. Amir, “Influence of carrier materials and storage temperature on survivability of Rhizobial inoculant,” Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 331–337, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. V. Tiunov and S. Scheu, “Carbon availability controls the growth of detritivores (Lumbricidae) and their effect on nitrogen mineralization,” Oecologia, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 83–90, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. Domínguez, W. Parmelee, and C. A. Edwards, “Interactions between Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) and nematode populations during vermicomposting,” Pedobiologia, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Kuppuraj Rajasekar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views13929
Downloads2073
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.