The benefits of using compost as a soil amendment are well documented. Compost increases the organic content of the soil and can improve its texture, its nutrient content, and its water retention and aeration capacities. Because of the utility of compost, it can be used in a variety of applications. Examples of such uses include [34]:
• Agriculture -- food and non-food crops, and sod farms
• Landscaping -- commercial properties and grounds maintenance • Nurseries -- potted plants, bare root planting, and forest seedling crops
• Residences -- home landscaping and gardening • Other -- land reclamation and landfill cover
The quality of the compost dictates which types of uses are appropriate. For example, nurseries require a high-quality product; whereas, a lesser quality material would be suitable for land reclamation or landfill cover. Product quality is a function of a number of factors, including the types and characteristics of the feedstock material; the design and operation of the composting facility; and the post-processing, if any, that is employed to upgrade the product. Examples of post-processing activities include shredding, screening, nitrogen addition, and bagging.
The agriculture industry is the largest potential market for compost, especially in economically developing countries, although it can be difficult to penetrate. Factors that can militate against the use of compost in agriculture, as well as in other market segments, include: shortage of readily available, reasonably priced compost; unawareness of the general utility of the product; indifference; difficulty in applying the material; and cultural or other bias against the use of products generated from waste.
G2. SELLING price
Not all of the considerations that normally should enter into the determination of a suitable selling price of a commodity are applicable to the compost product. One such exception is the fact that the selling price need not fully defray the monetary cost of producing the product, the reason being that composting is a service in that it is a viable option in the treatment and disposal of organic wastes. Because of its role as a service, composting need not generate a revenue. On the other hand, practicality dictates that the cost of utilising the service should be competitive with other options, e.g., landfill and incineration. Obviously, the competitiveness of the composting option would benefit from revenue derived from the sale of the product. As of the early 2000s, the prevailing selling price of biosolids and yard waste composts in the United States is on the order of US$7 to US$25/Mg. In developing countries, the price of compost is on the order of US$5/Mg.
Competitiveness is enhanced by the fact that composting is a resource recovery activity, characterised by a formidable array of environmental credits.
Despite the many benefits inherent in the compost option, the establishment of the selling price of the compost product is subject to certain important constraints. One such constraint is the sharp limitation exerted by the economics of the farming industry upon chemical fertilisers and inorganic additives. This, in turn, exerts a dampening effect on the establishment of the selling price of compost.
In the establishment of policies regarding the value of organic amendments, local, regional, and national governing bodies in developing nations should be aware that continued soil fertility depends upon maintenance of the soil’s organic content. Inasmuch as this maintenance is best done through the use of the compost product, lowering of the product’s selling price through subsidisation might be justifiable. However, this justification is not valid if the product is destined solely for landscaping and cultivation of ornamentals, unless such use is the maintenance and care of public grounds and recreational areas.
G3. MARKET development
As is true with other products, development of a market for compost involves instilling in potential users an awareness of the utility of the product. Additionally, it often is necessary to overcome existing inertia and bias.
In this section, the discussion of market development consists of a description and explanation of a plan conceived in, and formulated for, an agriculturally-oriented community situated in an elevated (about 2,600 m), semi-arid rural region. Corn (Zea maiz) is the principal agricultural crop. The soil is in dire need of organic matter. The proposed plan has the attractive feature of offering a program that adapts education to the promotion of the compost product.
The project plan calls for a cooperative undertaking in which a city and a farmers’ cooperative are the active parties. An important component of the planned undertaking is a recycling/composting endeavour. According to the plan, the city would embark upon a resource recovery program in which it would process its wastes (MSW) such that reusable materials would be separated and removed, leaving a compostable residue. This residue would be delivered to the participating farmers’ cooperative. The cooperative would then compost the material on sites controlled by the group. The compost product would be distributed among its members for use on their individual farms. Figure VIII-11 depicts a similar type of demonstration preformed jointly by the authors and a rural farm cooperative in an Eastern European country.
Courtesy: CalRecovery, Inc.
Figure VIII-11. Compost Demonstration and market development project performed at a rural farm cooperative
A key feature of the plan is the combined education/promotion program, designed to convince the farmers regarding the utility of the compost product in crop production. Consequently, the program would be in the form of a demonstration of the beneficial effect of compost on crop production.
According to local, experienced government agriculturalists, the first step in such a demonstration should be to encourage leading members of the farmers’ cooperative to test the product on their farms. The leaders’ participation would be valuable, if not essential, because they have earned the respect of their fellow farmers by virtue of demonstrated superiority in farming and in the conduct of farm affairs. In the first year of the demonstration, the leaders would be supplied with compost at no cost. To the extent permitted by circumstances, the leaders would use the compost in the conduct of scientific tests under the guidance of agricultural agents. The rationale of relying upon leaders to conduct the tests is obvious -- if the leaders are convinced as to the utility of the product, it should require no great effort to convince the other farmers.
The objectives of the tests were to be threefold:
1. to arrive at a determination of the extent to which chemical fertiliser requirements (NPK) could be met by the compost;
2. to demonstrate an increase in crop yield solely attributable to the addition of compost; and 3. to demonstrate an increase in water-holding capacity of the soil and the resulting
enhancement of efficiency of irrigation water utilisation. (This benefit is a strong motivational factor, because of an unavoidable dependence in the region upon irrigation water. Hence, required expenditure for water is a significant element in a farmer’s budget.) It should be noted that the experimental plan did not include provisions for “control plots”, i.e., plots in which compost serves as the only source of NPK. The omission was deliberate for a very practical reason -- extreme scarcity of land available to individual farms in the project region precluded farmers in that region from exposing themselves to any risk that could result in a diminution of a normal crop yield. Not surprisingly, no participant would be willing to include a control plot.
G4. PRODUCT distribution and transport
Having developed the market demand essential to the viability of a compost enterprise, logically, the next step is to devise and establish an effective and efficient distribution system. To be both effective and efficient, the distribution system must be such that the greatest number of consumers has ready access to the product at the lowest cost. Among the key considerations in devising an ideal, or at least, satisfactory system is the minimisation of haul distance between the point of production and the consumer. This factor derives its importance from the fact that transport cost is a decisive element in the magnitude of the eventual monetary burden to be borne by the consumer. Ultimately, transport cost is largely a function of distance.
A variety of strategies have been developed whereby required haul distance can be manipulated. One of the strategies calls for the production facility to be located centrally. The advisability of this strategy is a function of the relative advantages of centralised production facilities versus scattered production facilities. Greater economies of scale can be achieved with centralised production. However, transportation costs also would usually be expected to increase. The reduction of potential economies of scale characteristic of widely scattered facilities is compensated by a reduction in haul costs. Finally, in a developing country, economy of scale does not have the high degree of significance that it does in an industrialised country.
If the compost facilities are scattered, distribution would best be accomplished by having the individual consumer take delivery at the facility, inasmuch as no great distances would be involved. On the other hand, if a sizeable central facility is involved, the indicated course would be to establish a system of outlets at which prospective consumers could take delivery.
The mechanics of distribution are as diverse as the variety of possible situations. H. References
1. “Second Interim Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Utilization of Organic Wastes”, New Zealand Engineering, 6(1-12), November/December 1951.
2. “Composting Fruit and Vegetable Refuse: Part II”, Investigations of Composting as a Means
for Disposal of Fruit Waste Solids, Progress Report, National Canners Association Research
Foundation, Washington, DC, USA, August 1964.
3. Schulze, K.F., “Rate of Oxygen Consumption and Respiratory Quotients During the Aerobic Composting of Synthetic Garbage”, Compost Science, 1:36, Spring 1960.
4. Schulze, K.F., “Relationship Between Moisture Content and Activity of Finished Compost”,
Compost Science, 2:32, Summer 1964.
5. Chrometzka, P., “Determination of the Oxygen Requirements of Maturing Composts”,
International Research Group on Refuse Disposal, Information Bulletin 33, August 1968.
6. Lossin, R.D., “Compost Studies: Part III. Measurement of the Chemical Oxygen Demand of Compost”, Compost Science, 12:12-31, March/April 1971.
7. Regan, R.W. and J.S. Jeris, “A Review of the Decomposition of Cellulose and Refuse”,
Compost Science, 11:17, January/February 1970.
8. Senn, C.L., “Role of Composting in Waste Utilization”, Compost Science, 15(4):24-28, September/October 1974.
9. Golueke, C.G., Composting, Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, Pennsylvania, USA, 1972. 10. Niese, G., “Experiments to Determine the Degree of Decomposition of Refuse by Its Self-
Heating Capability”, International Research Group on Refuse Disposal, Information Bulletin
17, May 1963.
11. Rollé, G. and E. Orsanic, “A New Method of Determining Decomposable and Resistant Organic Matter in Refuse and Refuse Compost”, International Research Group on Refuse
Disposal, Information Bulletin 21, August 1964.
12. Möller, F., “Oxidation-Reduction Potential and Hygienic State of Compost from Urban Refuse”, International Research Group on Refuse Disposal, Information Bulletin 32, August 1968.
13. Obrist, W., “Enzymatic Activity and Degradation of Matter in Refuse Digestion: Suggested New Method for Microbiological Determination of the Degree of Digestion”, International
Research Group on Refuse Disposal, Information Bulletin 24, September 1965.
14. Lossin, R.D., “Compost Studies”, Compost Science, 11:16, November/December 1970. 15. Wylie, J.S., “Progress Report on High-Rate Composting Studies”, Engineering Bulletin,
16. Epstein, E., G.B. Willson, W.D. Burge, D.C. Mullen, and N.K. Enkiri, “A Forced Aeration System for Composting Wastewater Sludge”, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48(4):688, April 1976.
17. Golueke, C.G. and P.H. McGauhey, Reclamation of Municipal Refuse by Composting, Tech. Bulletin No. 9, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, June 1953.
18. Dean, R.B., “European Manufacturers Display Systems at Kompost ‘77”, Compost Science, 19(2):18-22, March/April 1978.
19. On-Farm Composting Handbook, Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, New York, USA, 1992.
20. Diaz, L.F., G.M. Savage, L.L. Eggerth, and C.G. Golueke, Composting and Recycling
Municipal Solid Waste, Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 1993.
21. American Public Works Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 13th Edition, APHA, Washington, DC, USA, 1971.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion of
Municipal Wastewater Sludge, EPA/625/10-90/007, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
and Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, September 1990.
23. de Bertoldi, M., G. Vallini, and A. Pera, “The Biology of Composting: A Review”, Waste
Management & Research, (1):157-176, 1983.
24. Hortenstein, R., A.L. Leaf, E.F. Neuhauser, D.H. Dickelhaupt, and F. Hortenstein,
Physiochemical Changes Accompanying the Conversion of Activated Sludge into Castings by the Earthworm, SUNY College of Environmental Science Forestry, Syracuse, New York,
USA, 1979.
25. Collier, J., Conversion of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Residual Sludges into
Earthworm Castings for Use as Topsoil, First Annual Report to National Science Foundation,
NSF Grant ENV77-16832, 1978.
26. Bartha, R., “Biotechnology of Petroleum Pollutant Biodegradation”, Microbial Ecology, 12:155-172, 1986.
27. Golueke, C.G. and L.F. Diaz, “Bioremediation for Hazardous Wastes”, BioCycle, 31(2):54- 55, February 1990.
28. University of California, Reclamation of Municipal Refuse by Composting, Technical Bulletin No. 9, Sanitary Engineering Research Project, Berkeley, California, USA, June 1953. 29. Dinel, H., M. Schnitzer, and G.R. Mehuys, “Soil Lipids: Origin, Nature, Contents,
Decomposition and Effects on Soil Physical Properties”, Soil Biochemistry, 6:397-429, ed. J. M. Bollag and G. Sotzky, Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, 1990.
30. Dinel, H., M. Schnitzer, and S. Dumontet, “Compost Maturity: Chemical Characteristics of Extractable Lipids”, Compost Science Utilization, 4(1):16-25, Winter 1996.
31. Savviozzi, A., R. Riffaldi, R. Levi-Minzi, “Compost Maturity Analysis”, Compost
Production, Quality, and Use, ed. M. de Bertoldi, M.P. Ferranti, P. L’Hermite, and F.
Zucconi, 359-367 pp., Elsevier Applied Sciences, London, England, 1987.
32. Biosolids Composting, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia, 187 pp., 1995. 33. Golueke, C.G., “Composting Refuse at Sacramento, California”, Compost Science, 1(3),
Autumn 1960.
34. Eggerth, L.L., “Compost Marketing Trends in the United States”, The Science of Composting,
Part 2, proceedings of May 1995 International Conference on The Science of Composting,
sponsored by European Commission and University of Udine, Bologna, Italy, 1996. 35. Park, K.J., M.H. Choi, and J.H. Hong, “Control of Composting Odour Using Biofiltration”,
Compost Science & Utilization, 10(4):356-362, Autumn 2002.
36. Lau, A.K., M.P. Bruce, and R.J. Chase, “Evaluating the Performance of Biofilters for Composting Odour Control”, Journal of Environmental Science & Health, A31(9):2247- 2271, 1996.
37. Lasaridi, K.E. and E.I. Stentiford, “A Simple Respirometric Technique for Assessing Compost Stability”, Water Resources, 32:3717-3723, 1998.
38. Chica, A., et al., “Determination of the Stability of MSW Compost Using a Respirometric Technique”, Compost Science & Utilization, II(2):169-175, Spring 2003.