97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 97

Compost Science & Utilization, (2011), Vol. 19, No. 2, 97-104

Agronomic and Economic Benefits of

Garden Organics Compost in Vegetable Production
K.Y. Chan1*, L. Orr2, D. Fahey4 and C.G. Dorahy3
1. Centre for Recycled Organics in Agriculture, Industry & Investment, Richmond, NSW, Australia
2. Centre for Recycled Organics in Agriculture, Industry & Investment, NSW, Orange, NSW, Australia
3. Formerly, PMB 8, Camden, NSW, Australia, presently ableblue Pty Ltd., Nareen VIC, Australia
4. Formerly NSW Department of Primary Industries, Richmond, NSW, Australia
*E-mail contact: [email protected]

Little research has been carried out on the agronomic and economic value of compost produced from gar-
den organics for vegetable production. A field experiment was established in Camden, near Sydney, Aus-
tralia (i) to evaluate the effect of the compost on vegetable production (ii) and to evaluate the economic re-
turns from using compost in vegetable production. A total of five vegetable crops were grown and the
results indicated that a once only application of compost at an agronomic rate of nitrogen (125 t/ha) pro-
duced similar or higher vegetable yields than that of current farmer’s practice. For four of the five crops
grown, yield was similar, and for one of the crops (capsicum), compost treatment yielded 21% higher than
that of the farmers’ practice. In addition to soil health benefits, using compost at this rate also resulted in
considerable saving of chemical fertilisers. Over the period of the experimental trial, there was a 36% sav-
ing in urea as well as 100% saving in P and K fertilisers. For the Mixed treatment (compost at half rate and
supplemented by chemical fertilisers), vegetable yield was similar to that of the farmers’ practice for the
first four crops but this declined to only 64% of that of the farmers’ practice for the final crop of leek. Ben-
efit cost analyses showed that for the vegetable compost trial, application of compost provided a benefit
cost ratio (BCR) of 1 after five vegetable crops, indicating that this practice was very close to breaking even.
On the other hand, BCR of Mix treatment (compost at half rate and supplemented by inorganic fertiliser)
was negative due to significant yield decline after growing four crops.

Introduction ported after three crops were grown (Chan et al. 2008).
In this paper, agronomic results and results of the ben-
Although overseas research has demonstrated the efit cost analyses (BCA) are presented after five crops.
benefits of compost produced from garden organics in
agricultural systems (e.g. Evanylo 2002; Cook et al. 1998), Materials and Methods
the evidence in Australia relies on a limited number of
studies, many of which are inconclusive (ROU 2003). The Field Trial
Many of the previous trials grew only a single crop, of- Site and Soil Characteristics
ten with no replication and not all the relevant data were The field trial was located at the New South Wales
collected for economic analyses. Long term benefits of Department of Industry & Investment Centre for Re-
using compost include improved soil structure, soil or- cycled Organics in Agriculture near Camden (70m
ganic matter, increased water use efficiency and crop AHD at 02883278E and 6224546N), NSW. The site had
yield and some of the benefits might take several years to a long history of cropping and intensive forage pro-
be manifested (ROU 2003, Chan et al. 2008). Therefore, duction and prior to the establishment of the field ex-
for widespread acceptance of recycled organics (RO) by periment was under lucerne pasture. The soil is a
farming communities and for the realisation of any mar- Chromosol/Dermosol inter-grade (Isbell 1996) with
ket-based instruments to encourage RO use in agricul- the surface soil exhibiting marked hardsetting proper-
ture, these benefits need to be quantified and verified un- ties. Table 1 presents the basic properties of the surface
der local conditions and over a longer period through soil (0-10 cm) of the investigation site prior to com-
scientifically valid benefit/cost analysis studies. mencement of the field experiment. Soil organic car-
A field trial was established in 2005 to address this bon was low, only 1.1%, typical of the many vegetable
deficiency. Agronomic and soil changes have been re- soils found in the Sydney region (Chan et al. 2007b).

Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011 97

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 98

K.Y. Chan, L. Orr, D. Fahey and C.G. Dorahy

TABLE 1.
Properties of soil and compost used in this investigation
EC‡ TOC TN Colwell P Exchangeable Cations, cmol (+)/ kg
Soil pHCa† dS/m g/100g g/100g mg/kg Na K Ca Mg

0-10 cm 5.2 0.13 1.1 0.11 29 0.12 0.29 5.35 1.25

EC, TOC TN TP
pH dS/m g/100g g/100g C/N g/100g

Compost 8.5* 3.14* 21 1.1 19.1 0.38

Poultry manure 8.1 9.20 32 3.1 10.3 2.60
†
pH in 1:5 soil/0.01 M CaCl2; ‡electrical conductivity in 1:5 soil: water extract * pH and EC of compost measured in water extract (AS4454, Standard Australia
(2003)); while for poultry manure, they were measured in 1:5 solid/water extract; TOC= total organic carbon; TP= total P

Compost tration to approximate those observed in the surface

The compost used for the field investigation was soil of vegetable farms in the Sydney area (~300
derived from compost produced from source- sepa- mg/kg in the 0-10 cm (Chan et al. 2007b)). Other de-
rated garden organics blended with 10% poultry ma- tails of the field trial have been reported previously
nure. The feedstocks are garden organics, such as (Chan et al. 2008)
grass clippings, prunings and other vegetation col- Nutrient Management-Application of Compost, Poultry
lected from households and municipal areas of Syd- Manure and Inorganic Fertilisers
ney area. Composting was carried out in open- Nutrient requirements for the different crops
windrow system and followed the guidelines set out were based on industry expert recommendations. In
in Australian Standard 4454 (Standards Australia all the treatments (with the exception of the Control
2003). After composting, the product is usually which did not receive any fertiliser inputs through-
screened into coarse and fine fractions, to produce out the duration of the experiment), nitrogen was ap-
mulches and soil conditioners, respectively. The plied at the recommended agronomic rate of the first
compost had the composition that was typical of crop being grown (Chan et al. 2008). However, the ni-
commercially available compost blends (Chan et al. trogen was supplied in different forms, depending
2007a); with 21% total organic carbon but low in total on the experiment treatments. For the compost treat-
nitrogen (1.1%) (Table 1). ments (T2 and T5), the amount of compost required
Experimental Design and Methodology was 125 dry t/ha. This application rate was deter-
The field experiment was established in 2005 and mined from the recommended agronomic rate
had seven treatments with a randomized complete block (Szmidt and Dickson 2001) of the first crop (broccoli)
design with 4 replicates. The seven treatments were and the total nitrogen content of the compost, as-
1. High P, farmers’ practice (fertiliser + poultry suming 10% of total nitrogen was available for the
manure) (1/2 : 1/2 ) (FP) - T1 current crop (Evanylo and Sherony 2002). Compost
2. High P, compost (Compost) - T2 was applied only once during the field trial prior to
3. High P, compost and fertilizer (1/2 : 1/2) (Mix) - T3 the first vegetable crop. For the mixed treatments (T3
4. Low P, farmers’ practice (fertiliser + poultry and T6), compost was applied at half rate (i.e. 62.5
manure) (1/2 : 1/2 ) (FP) - T4 dry t/ha) to supply half of the nitrogen requirement
5. Low P, compost (Compost) - T5 of the broccoli crop and the remaining half was sup-
6. Low P, compost and fertilizer (1/2 : 1/2) (Mix) - T6 plied by urea.
7. Control, nil input (Control) - T7 Following farmers’ practice, for the FP treatments
Therefore the treatments included three input (T1 and T4), half of the crop’s nitrogen requirement
treatments repeated under high and low soil P and the was applied in the form of poultry manure and the
Control. Plot size was 5 m x 6 m and within each plot, other half was applied as inorganic fertiliser (urea).
vegetable crops were grown on three beds, each 1.2 m Poultry manure was applied at the beginning of each
x 6 m. As the site had never been used for vegetable crop during bed formation and urea was applied as
production, extractable P (Colwell P) was low (29 split side dressings later on in the crop cycle. The
mg/kg) and was therefore representative of soil P sta- amount of poultry manure needed was calculated
tus of new vegetable farms (low P) (Chan et al. 2007b). from its total nitrogen content using an availability in-
For the high P treatments (T1, T2 and T3), inorganic P dex of 0.6 (Evanylo and Sherony 2002).
fertiliser in the form of triple superphosphate (Tri- For each crop, poultry manure and inorganic
R
pos ) was used to raise the soil extractable P concen- phosphorus fertiliser (as triple superphosphate) were

98 Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 99

Agronomic and Economic Benefits of Garden Organics Compost in Vegetable Production

applied onto each plot prior to bed formation. Poultry EconomicAnalyses

manure and triple superphosphate were applied onto
all the FP plots (T1 and T4) but only triple superphos- Due to the intensive nature of the vegetable crop-
phate was applied to the Mix treatment plots (T3 and ping system which involves the production of two or
T6). Potassium as muriate of potash (KCl) was applied three crops each year and the fact that the impact from
to the four treatments (T1, T3, T4 and T6) as side dress- using compost extends for several years, development
ings during each crop based on soil test results. budgeting (Gittinger 1982) was used to account for the
During the crop season, nitrogen sap tests of full impact of compost to be accounted for. Enterprise
leaves of the different vegetable crops were carried budgets were developed for each of the vegetable
out to guide the timing of nitrogen fertiliser applica- crops included in the experimental trial for each of the
tion (as urea) to ensure adequate nitrogen nutrition of treatments, Compost, Mix and FP. These were devel-
the crops. Table 2 presents a record of the nutrient in- oped based on NSW Department of Primary Indus-
puts for the different vegetable crops. tries vegetable budgets (NSW Agriculture 2001) with
Crop Management and Measurements yield, costs of compost, fertilisers and other produc-
Crops were managed following recommenda- tion costs gathered from the field trial. As there was no
tions from NSW Department of Agriculture (Agfact yield difference between high P and low P, average
series) and Industry Handbook (Salvestrin 1998). In yields were used for each of the three treatments. All
total, five vegetable crops were grown, namely broc- the costs were based on the expenses at the time they
coli, eggplant, cabbage, capsicum and leek. Yield esti- were incurred. All costs and benefits were converted
mates (harvestable component) were obtained from to “present figures” using a GDP deflator with base at
the centre bed of each plot. September 2007 for valid comparison.
Drip Irrigation was used to supply the crops with Benefit-cost analysis (BCA), a widely used tool
water and irrigation decisions were made based on for comparing alternative courses of action by calcu-
data from soil moisture sensors installed in all the lating the net benefits produced in each scenario and
treatment plots in two of the experimental blocks. Irri- comparing these with a base case, was used to com-
gation was applied when soil water potential at 20 cm pare the proposed options. In the present investiga-
depth was <-30 kPa. tion, the Compost and Mix scenarios were compared
with the base, FP, the current farmers’ practice. Dis-
Statistical Analyses
counting techniques were used to allow net benefits
The vegetable yield and soil data for the different
in different crops over different years to be aggregat-
treatments were analysed using analyses of variance.
ed. The discount rate used was an annual rate of 4%
Preliminary analysis showed the five crops yield data
converted to a rate per period (2 periods per year) of
(broccoli, eggplant and cabbage, capsicum and leek)
1.98%. The ratio of the present value of benefits to the
had different magnitudes of variance. Therefore, a
present value of costs, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR)
multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyse
was calculated for each scenario and used as the cri-
the yield variates to compare P status, input treat-
terion for assessing the economic feasibility of the al-
ments and their interactions. Treatment means for the
ternative option. The ratio should be greater than one
same crop were compared using Least Significant Dif-
to indicate that a positive economic return is
ference (LSD) value at 5% significant level.
achieved and that the project (course of action under

TABLE 2.
Vegetable compost trial - Organic and inorganic fertiliser inputs for individual vegetable crops under different treatments.
Broccoli Eggplant Cabbage Capsicum Leek Total
Triple Triple Triple Triple Triple Triple
PM Urea KCI P PM Urea KCI P PM Urea KCI P PM Urea KCI P PM Urea KCI P PM Urea KCI P
Treat t/ha kg/ha t/ha kg/ha t/ha kg/ha t/ha kg/ha t/ha kg/ha t/ha kg/ha

T1 4.03 163 0 143 3.24 130 46.7 200 4.3 200 56.6 190 3.24 266 43.3 119 3.61 425 58 71.5 18.4 1184 204 723.5
T2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133.4 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 425 0 0 0 758.4 0 0
T3 0 163 0 143 0 130 46.7 200 0 200 56.6 190 0 266 43.3 119 0 425 0 71.5 0 1184 147 723.5
T4 4.03 163 0 143 3.24 130 46.7 200 4.3 200 56.6 190 3.24 266 43.3 119 3.61 425 58 71.5 18.4 1184 204 723.5
T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133.4 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 425 0 0 0 758.4 0 0
T6 0 163 0 143 0 130 46.7 200 0 200 56.6 190 0 266 43.3 119 0 425 0 71.5 0 1184 147 723.5
T7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PM = poultry manure; KCl = muriate of potash; Triple P = Triphos

Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011 99

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 100

K.Y. Chan, L. Orr, D. Fahey and C.G. Dorahy

consideration) is economically feasible. A BCR less TABLE 4.

Yield (fresh weight in t/ha) of five vegetable crops
than one indicates a negative economic return. Net
under different treatments (Least significant
Present Value (NPV) which is the difference between difference (LSD) value for each crop)
the discounted benefits and discounted costs should
Crops Treatments P Status Input Yield (t/ha)
be positive. A negative value of BCR indicates nega-
tive discounted benefits. Broccoli T1 High P FP 8.7
T2 High P Compost 8.7
T3 High P Mix 8.6
Results and Discussion
T4 Low P FP 9.1
T5 Low P compost 11.3
Rainfall and Irrigation T6 Low P Mix 10.4
T7 Control nil 4.9
Rainfall was lower than the long term average LSD
5%
3.8
during the growing period of first three crops but sub-
Eggplant T1 High P FP 70.8
stantial rain fell in the growing period of the last two T2 High P Compost 75.8
crops (Table 3). This was reflected to some extent in T3 High P Mix 70.4
the amounts of irrigation water used for the different T4 Low P FP 70.4
crops. No saving in water use was recorded for the dif- T5 Low P Compost 75.2
ferent treatments for all the crops. T6 Low P Mix 77.9
T7 Control nil 45.0
TABLE 3. LSD 14.5
5%

In-crop rainfall (mm) and irrigation water applied for the Cabbage T1 High P FP 14.6
five vegetable crops T2 High P Compost 14.5
Broccoli Eggplant Cabbage Capsicum Leek T3 High P Mix 11.7
T4 Low P FP 18.1
Season April 05- Dec 05- May 06- Dec 06- Jul 07-
T5 Low P Compost 16.8
Aug 05 Mar 06 Aug 06 April 07 Oct 07
T6 Low P Mix 15.5
In-crop rain, mm 124 171 193 443 370
T7 Control nil 0.0
Irrigation, mm 510 780 450 447 312
LSD 7.7
5%
Irrigation, ML/ha 5.1 7.8 4.5 4.5 3.1
Capsicum T1 High P FP 35.0
T2 High P Compost 38.4
Vegetable Yields T3 High P Mix 29.8
T4 Low P FP 31.0
Results indicated similar yield between high P T5 Low P Compost 42.1
and low soil P for all the five crops (Table 4). For the T6 Low P Mix 29.6
T7 Control nil 6.1
first three crops, namely broccoli, eggplant and cab-
LSD 6.4
bage, similar yields were obtained for all the input 5%

treatments, namely, FP, Compost and Mix. However, Leek T1 High P FP 12.2
for the fourth crop, capsicum, significantly higher T2 High P Compost 12.9
T3 High P Mix 10.0
yield was obtained for the Compost treatment com-
T4 Low P FP 13.5
pared to those of FP and Mix, which were similar to
T5 Low P Compost 12.3
each other. Average capsicum yield of Compost treat- T6 Low P Mix 6.18
ment was 21.9% (7.2 t/ha) higher than FP. For the last T7 Control nil 1.5
crop of leek, similar yields were found between Com- LSD5% 4.3
post and FP but significantly lower yield (36% lower)
was found in the Mix treatment.
treatments so by the fifth crop of leek; similar amounts
Nutrient Inputs were applied to all the input treatments (T1-T6). No P
and K fertilisers were needed for the Compost treat-
Table 2 records the inorganic and organic (com- ments throughout the five vegetable crops. Overall,
post, poultry manure) inputs used for the different for the five crops grown, there was 36% (426 kg/ha)
treatments for the five vegetables crops. For the first saving in urea, 100% (724 kg/ha) saving in triple P fer-
two vegetable crops, based on nitrogen sap tests, no tiliser and 100% (204 kg/ha) saving in KCl for the
inorganic fertiliser was needed in the Compost treat- Compost treatments when compared to FP. For the
ments. From the third crop onward, increasing Mix treatment, only 28% saving in K fertiliser was ob-
amounts of urea had to be applied to the Compost served (Table 2).

100 Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 101

Agronomic and Economic Benefits of Garden Organics Compost in Vegetable Production

Benefit Cost Analyses ments. Fertiliser costs savings were largest for the first
two crops under the Compost and Mix treatments
Costs of Compost
when compared to the FP treatment. Differences in
The cost of the compost, including transport and
harvesting cost were observed in the last two crops
contract spreading are presented in Table 5.
where significant yield differences were experienced
TABLE 5. amongst the different treatments (Table 6).
Costs of using garden organic compost
Compost Versus FP Scenario
for the compost and mix treatments
Table 7 shows the analysis of benefits and costs
Compost Cost Compost Mix from the Compost versus FP treatments.
Cost ($/m3) 33.8 33.8
Bulk density (dry t/m3) 0.5 0.5 TABLE 7.
Cost ($/dry tonne) 67.60 67.60 Benefit-cost analysis of Compost versus FP treatment
Compost rate dry (t/ha) 125.0 62.5 Real Real Discounted Discounted
Spreading - 44kw tractor + 600 litre spreader ($/ha) 4.5 4.5 Net Initital Net Initial
Cost ($/ha) 8454.5 4227.3 Benefits Costs Benefits Cost
($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha)

Broccoli (Sep 05) 741.2 9,151.2 801.7 9897.9

Eggplant (Mar 06) 755.9 801.7
The BCA was conducted in an ex-post framework
Cabbage (Sep 06) 613.0 637.5
– where no account of future costs and benefits be- Capsicum (Mar 07) 6,825.5 6960.7
yond 2007 was attempted. It has not been determined Leek (Sep 07) 658.7 658.7
if yield benefits are likely to flow beyond the time- Present Value Benefits ($/ha) 9860.3
frame of this experimental trial. The flow of benefits Present Value Costs ($/ha) 9,897.9
and costs included in this analysis are shown in Table Net Present Value ($/ha) -37.6
6. The benefit and costs flows were adjusted for infla- BCR 0.99
tion by converting them to real values in September IRR 0%
2007 using a RBA GDP deflator with the base=Sept 07.

TABLE 6. The results of the BCA show that after five crops,
Flow of benefits and costs for the the present value of the net benefit from compost use
five different crops for the three input treatments was very similar to the present value costs and hence,
Broccoli Eggplants Cabbage Capsicum Leek the Compost treatment compared to FP provided a
($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) BCR of 1. This indicates that after five crops the project
FP broke even with $1 being returned for every dollar in-
Initial cost – vested in the application of compost. Significant net
compost 0.0 benefits arose from the higher yields which saw in-
Total cost 12,414.6 24,134.5 10,684.9 26,729.3 17,943.2
Returns 16,500.0 36,715.0 19,822.4 43,863.4 18,810.0
creased returns from the capsicum crop under Com-
post treatment when compared to FP (Table 6).
Mix
Initial cost – Mix Versus FP Scenario
compost 4,227.3 The BCA comparing the Mix and FP resulted in a
Total cost 16,376.9 23,912.6 10,405.2 25,066.5 15,042.7 BCR of -1.15 (Table 8). This indicates that there is no
Returns 16,500.0 36,715.0 19,822.4 39,487.7 12,135.0
economic benefit in the Mix treatment which involved
Compost using half rate of compost and inorganic fertiliser ap-
Initial cost – plication. In fact, Net Present Value was -$10662 indi-
compost 8,454.5
Total cost 20,184.3 23,420.6 10,090.9 29,663.1 17,659.4 cating that after five crops, net returns were signifi-
Returns 16,500.0 36,715.0 19,822.4 53,545.8 19,185.0 cantly less than that of the initial costs of using
compost. Net benefits from this scenario were nega-
tive due to lower crop yields of capsicum and leek un-
Cost of compost represented a significant compo- der Mix when compared to that of FP.
nent of crop production costs and was only incurred The sensitivity of the results of the BCA to changes
in the first crop (broccoli). In subsequent crops, differ- in the costs of the compost and vegetable prices was
ences in production costs amongst the three treat- investigated, using a range of compost costs from $10
ments were mainly due to differences in fertilisers use to $50 per cubic metre and vegetable prices varying by
(N, P and K) and harvesting costs between the treat- up to ±20% (Table 9).

Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011 101

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 102

K.Y. Chan, L. Orr, D. Fahey and C.G. Dorahy

TABLE 8. observed in the third crop of capsicum. The increase

Benefit-cost analysis of Compost versus FP treatment
in yield could be due to the differential response of
Real Real Discounted Discounted vegetable crops to compost treatment with some
Net Initital Net Initial
Benefits Costs Benefits Cost
vegetables tending to be more responsive than oth-
($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) ($/ha) ers. Similarly Evanylo (2002) reported that while
compost application at agronomic N loading rate
Broccoli (Sep 05) 286.8 4,575.6 310.2 4949.0
Eggplant (Mar 06) 235.0 249.2
did not result in higher yield for both corn and pep-
Cabbage (Sep 06) 288.6 300.2
per, yield of rye was three times that of the control
Capsicum (Mar 07) -2,743.8 -2798.2 (no amendment). As a corollary, the actual econom-
Leek (Sep 07) -3,774.5 -3774.5 ic benefit of using compost will be dependent on the
Present Value Benefits ($/ha) -5713.2 type of vegetable crops and the sequence in which
Present Value Costs ($/ha) 4,949.0 they are grown. For the Mix treatment when com-
Net Present Value ($/ha) -10662.1 post was applied at half the agronomic rate and nu-
BCR -1.15 trient requirement was supplemented by inorganic
fertilisers, vegetable yield was maintained to the lev-
el of FP only for the first three crops and significant
TABLE 9.
yield decline was observed in the last two crops,
Sensitivity analyses - Impact of compost
costs and vegetable prices on BCR capsicum and leek. This research therefore supports
earlier finding that a fairly high rate of compost of
Compost cost $/m3
% $10 $20 $30 $40 $50
this nature, was needed to maintain or increase crop
yield (Cook et al. 1998; Shiralipour et al. 1998; Evany-
-20 2.74 1.37 0.91 0.69 0.55 lo 2002). Evanylo (2002) reported that using compost
Vegetable -10 3.05 1.53 1.02 0.76 0.61
from garden organics at agronomic rate of nitrogen
Prices 0 3.36 1.68 1.12 0.84 0.67
annually and applied as a single dose improved soil
10 3.67 1.84 1.23 0.92 0.74
20 3.98 2.00 1.33 1.00 0.80
properties and resulted in vegetable responses only
where native soil fertility was low. Shiralipour et al.
(1998) reported that compost from urban plant de-
In Table 9, it can be seen how the BCR varies with bris (total N = 1.2%) tended to produce the lowest
both compost costs and vegetable prices. The BCR yield increases of vegetables compared to other
tends to increase with decreasing compost prices and composts because of high C:N ratios and low N
with increasing vegetable prices. With vegetable availability. Cook et al. (1998) also reported applica-
prices unchanged, the BCR varies from 0.67 with a tion rate of 150 t/ha of garden organic compost was
compost price of $50/m3, to 3.36 when the cost of com- required to increase the yield of spring barley. Ow-
post is $10/m3. The break-even cost of compost in the ing to the low N content of garden organic compost,
analysis, i.e. BCR = 1 was calculated to occur at a com- repeated application is needed when the N avail-
post cost of $33.65/m3. It can be seen that in all sce- ability drops to below that of crop requirement or
narios using a compost cost of $50/m3, the analysis additional N can be supplemented by inorganic fer-
shows a negative return. Where the cost of the com- tilisers. Continuous monitoring of the soil for N as
post is $10/m3 with no change in vegetable prices, the well as those of other nutrients particularly P and K
BCR is 3.36 indicating that for every $1 invested in ap- is necessary to assist in deciding on the timing and
plying compost to the five vegetable crops in this rate of the next compost application.
analysis the return would be $3.36. The field trial has also demonstrated considerable
savings in the use of inorganic fertilisers when com-
General Discussion post was used in place of current farmers’ practice of
using a mixture of poultry manure and inorganic fer-
Vegetable Production Using Composted Garden Organics tilisers. Over five crops, there was a saving of 100% in
P and K fertiliser as well as a 36% in N.
A major finding of this investigation is that use
of composted garden organics at a rate equivalent to Implications of Economic Analyses
the agronomic nitrogen rate can result in vegetable
yield similar or even higher than those of current Results of economic analyses of using garden or-
farmers’ practice. While similar yields were found in ganic compost compared to current farmers’ practice
the first three crops, a significantly higher yield provided a BCR of 1. While this suggests cost recov-
(21.9% higher than FP, equivalent to 7.2 t/ha) was ery after growing five crops, it is important to realise

102 Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 103

Agronomic and Economic Benefits of Garden Organics Compost in Vegetable Production

that total benefits of using compost could be higher. saving of chemical fertilisers was also observed. Over
Firstly, with the improvement in soil quality, higher five crops, there was 36% saving in urea, 100% saving
crop yields and savings in fertiliser use might still be in P as well as K fertiliser. Benefit cost analyses
possible for subsequent crops. Residual benefits of showed that for the vegetable compost trial, applica-
compost in increasing yield beyond the experimental tion of compost at the agronomic rate of nitrogen pro-
trial of five crops were not considered in this analy- vided a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1 (break even) after
sis. Yield improvements in subsequent crops are pos- 5 vegetable crops. Using compost at a half rate, even
sible given the observed improved in soil properties when supplemented by inorganic fertilisers, resulted
in the Compost treatment (Chan et al. 2008). More im- in a BCR of -1.15 which indicates that there is no eco-
portantly, the economic analyses did not include oth- nomic benefit from this treatment.
er benefits of using compost when compared to cur-
rent farmers’ practice, namely, soil quality Acknowledgements
improvement, reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and slowing down the build up of labile soil P (Chan We thank NSW Department of Environment, Cli-
et al. 2008). The latter reported significantly higher mate Change and Water for financial support. Bio-
soil carbon, soil structural stability and higher soil bi- metrical support from Idris Barchia, technical advices
ological activity of the compost treated soil compared from Leigh James, and support from Annie Kavanagh,
to farmers’ practice. The increase in soil carbon is Department of Environment, Climate Change and
clearly of importance in term of carbon credits, the in- Water throughout the duration of this project are
direct positive effect of increased soil carbon such as gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Bill Yiasoumi
better soil structure can also result in reduced green- for assistance in designing the irrigation system for
house gas emission (e.g. reduced nitrous oxide emis- the trial as well as many colleagues of I&I NSW for
sion with improved soil structure (Ball and Crawford providing field assistance.
2009)). Savings in fertiliser use also result in reduced
energy consumption (therefore reduction in carbon
References
emission) associated with the manufacture of inor-
ganic fertilisers, particularly those which are nitro- Ball, B.C. and Crawford, C.E. 2009. Mechanical weeding ef-
gen based (Davis and Haglund 1999). Finally, as pre- fects on soil structure under field carrots (Daucus carota
viously reported for this trial (Chan et al. 2008), use of L.) and beans (Vicia faba L.). Soil Use and Management, 25:
compost has resulted in significant reduction in the 303-310.
level of labile P in soil (compared to FP) which should Chan, K.Y., Dorahy, C. and Tyler, S. 2007a. Determining the
agronomic value of composts produced from garden
have reduced the risk and the associated costs of off- organics from metropolitan areas of New South Wales,
site water quality pollution problems (Wells et al. Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,
2000; Phillips 2002; Chan et al. 2008). Full accounting 47: 1377-1382.
of all these other benefits should improve the eco- Chan, K.Y., Dorahy, C.G., Tyler, S., Wells, A.T., Milham, P.
nomic feasibility of adopting the practice of using and Barchia, I. 2007b. Phosphorus accumulation and
other changes in soil properties as a consequence of
compost for vegetable production. vegetable production in the Sydney region, New South
Sensitivity analysis indicates it is possible to in- Wales, Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 59:
crease the BCR of this practice of using compost in 374-382.
vegetable production by reducing the cost of compost. Chan, K.Y., Dorahy, C., Wells, T., Donovan, N., Fahey, D.,
Reducing the cost of compost would assist in expand- Saleh, F. and Barchia, I. 2008. Use of garden organic
compost in vegetable production under contrasting soil
ing the market for this product for agricultural use P status. Aust. J Agric .Res., 59: 374-382.
which is currently only 4% (DEC 2004). The chemical Cook, J.A., Keeling, A.A. and Bloxham, P.F. 1998. Effect of
composition of RO compost, particularly nitrogen green waste compost on yield parameters in spring bar-
content, will also affect the results of this analysis. If ley (Hordeum vulgare) v. Hart. Proc IS Composting
available nitrogen content from compost was higher, and use Composted Materials (Ed. RAK Szmidt), Acta
Hort, 469: 283-286.
less compost will be required and vice versa. Davis, J. and Haglund, C. 1999 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of
Fertiliser Production. Fertiliser Products Used in Swe-
Conclusions den and Western Europe. SIK-Report No. 654. Masters
Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology.
After growing five vegetable crops, results indi- DEC (2004) ‘Draft aggregated analysis of the Department of
Environment and Conservation’s 2002/03 survey of or-
cated that compost applied at the agronomic rate of ni- ganics processing in NSW.’ Department of Environ-
trogen produced similar or higher vegetable yields ment and Conservation (NSW), Parramatta, NSW.
than that of current farmer’s practice. Considerable Evanylo, G.K. 2002. Economic and environmental effects of

Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011 103

97-104 Chan 5/26/11 10:16 AM Page 104

K.Y. Chan, L. Orr, D. Fahey and C.G. Dorahy

compost use for sustainable vegetable production. ROU 2003. Recycled Organic Products in Intensive Agricul-
SARE Reporting System: LS99-099: 2002 Final Report. ture. Volume 1 The University of New South Wales.
http://www.sare.org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?p Salvestrin, J (Ed.) 1998. Australian Vegetable Growing
n=LS99-099&ry=2002&rf=1. Handbook. Scope Publishing, Franston, Australia
Evanylo, G.K. and Sherony, C.A. 2002. Agronomic and envi- Shiralipour, A., Leege, P.B. and Portier, K.M. 1998. In “Ben-
ronmental effects of compost use for sustainable vegetable eficial Co-Utilisation of Agricultural, Municipal and In-
production. International Compost Science and Utilisa- dustrial By-product” Brown, S., Angle, J.S., Jacobs, L.
tion Conference, p730-740, May 6-8, Columbus, OH. (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp.
Gittinger, J.P. 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural pro- 363-375.
jects. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and Szmidt, R.A.K. and Dickson, A.W. 2001. Use of compost in
London. agriculture – frequently asked questions. Scottish Agri-
Isbell, R.F. 1996. The Australian soil classification. CSIRO cultural College, Auchincruive.
Publishing, Melbourne. Standards Australia 2003. Australian StandardTM Composts,
NSW Agriculture 2001. NSW Agriculture Farm Enterprise soil conditioners and mulches – AS4454-2003 Standard
Budget Series, at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agri- Australia International Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
culture/farm-business/budgets/vegetable. Wells, T., Chan, K.Y. and Cornish, P.E. 2000. Impact of dif-
Phillips, I.R. 2002. Phosphorus sorption and nitrogen trans- ferent conventional and alternative farming systems on
formation in two soils treated with piggery wastewater. soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 80:
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 40: 335-349. 47-60.

104 Compost Science & Utilization Spring 2011