Impact of Organic Phosphorus Sources Impact of Organic Phosphorus Sources on Phosphorus Runoffon Phosphorus Runoff

Adriane L. ElliottAdriane L. Elliott

Department of Soil and Department of Soil and Crop SciencesCrop Sciences

Why Study Phosphorus?Why Study Phosphorus?

P is the limiting nutrient for algal and P is the limiting nutrient for algal and aquatic plant growth in surface water aquatic plant growth in surface water bodies. bodies.

Phosphorus (P) is the nutrient that often Phosphorus (P) is the nutrient that often promotes hyperpromotes hyper--eutrophication (Sharpley et al., eutrophication (Sharpley et al., 1994). 1994).

Where Do the Nutrients Come Where Do the Nutrients Come From?From?

0 50 100 150

Wastewater TreatmentPlants

Fertilizer

Manure

Nut

rient

Sou

rces

in th

e S.

Plat

te B

asin

Thousands of Tons per Year

PhosphorusNitrogen

Data from USGS NAWQA study.

< 25%25 - 50%50 - 100%>100%

Map from LPES curriculum by Rick Koelsch, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln

Manure P vs. Cropland P UseManure P vs. Cropland P Use

Percentage of CO Feedlots of Percentage of CO Feedlots of Different SizesDifferent Sizes

5%7%

12%

13%

16%

43%

4% <10001000-19992000-39994000-79998000-1599916000-31999>32000

Location of Feedlots in COLocation of Feedlots in CO

Nutrient Runoff FateNutrient Runoff FateNutrients leave feedlot

Decaying algae and aquatic plants consume dissolved oxygen

Water quality decreases for plant, animals, and humans

Phosphorus Loss Phosphorus Loss

Increased surface soil P concentrations Increased surface soil P concentrations intensify P loss in runoff (Hesketh et al., intensify P loss in runoff (Hesketh et al., 2000). 2000).

P transport mechanismsP transport mechanisms

•• RunoffRunoff

•• ErosionErosion

•• LeachingLeachingOccurs less in heavy soils Occurs less in heavy soils

Published P ResearchPublished P Research

Simulated rainfall research has established Simulated rainfall research has established relationships among:relationships among:

Dairy manure application rate and soil test P Dairy manure application rate and soil test P concentration (Brayconcentration (Bray--1) (Motschall and Daniel, 1) (Motschall and Daniel, 1982). 1982).

Soil test P concentration (MehlichSoil test P concentration (Mehlich--3) and 3) and dissolved reactive P (DRP) (Sharpley et al., dissolved reactive P (DRP) (Sharpley et al., 1994).1994).

Justification and Objective IJustification and Objective I

No field research has focused on the effect No field research has focused on the effect of source on P runoff.of source on P runoff.

We investigated runoff, both chemically and We investigated runoff, both chemically and physically, from agricultural plots that were physically, from agricultural plots that were amended with raw, composted and amended with raw, composted and vermicomposted dairy manure. vermicomposted dairy manure.

Results were compared to control that received Results were compared to control that received no P additions.no P additions.

Justification and Objectives IIJustification and Objectives IIThe literature suggests:The literature suggests:

Little dissolution of rock P (RP) in alkaline, calcareous Little dissolution of rock P (RP) in alkaline, calcareous soils (Robinson et al., 1992).soils (Robinson et al., 1992).Singram et al. (1995) concluded that RP was 65% as Singram et al. (1995) concluded that RP was 65% as effective as singleeffective as single--super phosphate in a soil with pH super phosphate in a soil with pH 8.05 29 days after application.8.05 29 days after application.

““Micronized RPMicronized RP”” claimed to dissolve and become claimed to dissolve and become plant available in alkaline soil. plant available in alkaline soil. Objectives were:Objectives were:

To determine if the RP treatment provided plants with To determine if the RP treatment provided plants with adequate P over a two year growth trial. adequate P over a two year growth trial. Quantify P concentration leaving plots amended with Quantify P concentration leaving plots amended with RP.RP.

Site BackgroundSite Background

Colorado State University Horticulture Field Colorado State University Horticulture Field Research CenterResearch Center

Soil: Kim heavy clay loam (fineSoil: Kim heavy clay loam (fine--loamy, mixed, loamy, mixed, calcareous, mesic Ustic Torriorthents)calcareous, mesic Ustic Torriorthents)

1% slope1% slope

Total field size was 0.4 hectare (1 acre)Total field size was 0.4 hectare (1 acre)

Results:Results:Baseline Soil SamplesBaseline Soil Samples

All blocks rated low in soil test P concentrationAll blocks rated low in soil test P concentration

Field texture was a clay loamField texture was a clay loam

pH across field averaged 7.75pH across field averaged 7.75

Field had a high EC averaging 3.2 mmhos cmField had a high EC averaging 3.2 mmhos cm--11

Low K and Zn concentrations across fieldLow K and Zn concentrations across field Property Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 pH 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.7 EC (mmhos cm-1) 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.0 OM (mg g-1) 21 21 18 21 NO3-N (mg kg-1) 4.2 6.0 8.5 8.9 AB-DTPA P (mg kg-1) 1.1 2.2 2.2 2.5 K (mg kg-1) 102 118 102 147 Zn (mg kg-1) 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 Fe (mg kg-1) 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.6 Mn (mg kg-1) 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 Cu (mg kg-1) 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.6 Texture clay clay loam clay loam clay loam

Field MapField Map 5 m buffer strip 12m N↑ 7 6 1 ↕ 9 m Planting Direction

4 8 2

3 9 5

7 2 1

2 5 6

3 m buffer 9 8 4 3 m

buffer 4 8 9

6 11 10

1 5 7

10 4 8

7 1 9

11 6 5

2 m buffer strip

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldTreatment DescriptionTreatment Description

Dyecrest Dairy manure Dyecrest Dairy manure treatments:treatments:

Raw manure Raw manure

Windrow composted Windrow composted manure manure

Vermicomposted manureVermicomposted manure

Rock P treatment:Rock P treatment:Soft RP (<0.02 mmSoft RP (<0.02 mm22))

Results:Results:Treatment ContentTreatment Content

Measured Value Raw Manure Windrow Compost Vermicompost Ash (mg g-1) 93.2 169.4 124.0 OM (mg g-1) 266.8 310.5 237.0 C/N ratio 17.7 20.2 16.4 CEC (meq 100 g-1) 237 282 260 EC (mmhos cm-1) 43.5 39.5 33.0 Total Kjeldahl N (kg Mg-1) 11.3 8.7 10.8 Ammonia-N (mg kg-1) 1.6 2.1 0.1 Total P (kg Mg-1) 7.4 8.5 8.5 Water Soluble P/Total P ratio 0.18 0.15 0.07 K (kg Mg-1) 13.2 12.8 11.6 Zn (kg Mg-1) 146 198 205 Fe (mg Mg-1) 3020 3730 4000 Moisture (mg g-1) 640 520 639

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldAmendment ApplicationAmendment Application

Fall 2001Fall 2001Three manure treatments were applied at 90 and 180 kg Three manure treatments were applied at 90 and 180 kg PP22OO55 haha--11 to respective plots.to respective plots.RP treatment was applied at 270 and 720 kg PRP treatment was applied at 270 and 720 kg P22OO55 haha--1 1 to to respective plots.respective plots.Entire field was disked after applications.Entire field was disked after applications.

Spring 2002Spring 2002RP treatment was applied at 90 and 180 kg PRP treatment was applied at 90 and 180 kg P22OO55 haha--11 to to respective plots.respective plots.Blanket application of blood meal (12Blanket application of blood meal (12--00--0) was applied 0) was applied across entire field.across entire field.Field was disked after amendment applications. Field was disked after amendment applications.

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldDistribution CalibrationDistribution Calibration

Rainfall distribution calibrationRainfall distribution calibrationRainfall rate of application was 8.3 cm hrRainfall rate of application was 8.3 cm hr--11..

The simulator was run 45 minutes at ARDEC The simulator was run 45 minutes at ARDEC and all rainfall was collected under the frame. and all rainfall was collected under the frame. •• Uniformity was calculated for area within the runoff Uniformity was calculated for area within the runoff

plot frame (2 m x 1.5 m). plot frame (2 m x 1.5 m).

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldDistribution CalibrationDistribution Calibration

2002 Calibration2002 Calibration90% uniformity 90% uniformity achieved inside plot achieved inside plot frame.frame.

2003 Calibration2003 Calibration89% uniformity 89% uniformity achieved inside plot achieved inside plot frame. frame.

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldPlot EstablishmentPlot Establishment

27 runoff plots were constructed (2 m x 1.5 m) with 27 runoff plots were constructed (2 m x 1.5 m) with metal borders to isolate surface runoffmetal borders to isolate surface runoff

A runoff collection gutter was installed at the A runoff collection gutter was installed at the downslope edge to divert runoff to collection point downslope edge to divert runoff to collection point

Collection point was dug at the end of the gutter Collection point was dug at the end of the gutter

4 soil samples were taken from outside the frame 4 soil samples were taken from outside the frame and composited (0and composited (0--5 and 05 and 0--15 cm) 15 cm)

Calibration cans measured rainfall uniformity on 3 Calibration cans measured rainfall uniformity on 3 sides of the plotsides of the plot

Methods: FieldMethods: Field

Method: FieldMethod: FieldSample CollectionSample Collection

At onset of runoff, 1 liter of runoff was At onset of runoff, 1 liter of runoff was collected at 2.5 minute intervals, for 30 collected at 2.5 minute intervals, for 30 minutes. (12 discrete samples)minutes. (12 discrete samples)

Samples collected at 2.5, 7.5, 12.5, 17.5, 22.5, and Samples collected at 2.5, 7.5, 12.5, 17.5, 22.5, and 27.5 minute intervals were analyzed individually 27.5 minute intervals were analyzed individually for chemical content.for chemical content.

Samples collected at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 Samples collected at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minute intervals were analyzed individually for minute intervals were analyzed individually for water and sediment mass in the runoff. water and sediment mass in the runoff.

Methods: Field LabMethods: Field LabSample PreparationSample Preparation

Chemical analysisChemical analysis3 sub3 sub--samplessamples•• Filtered Filtered (.45 (.45 μμm), m),

unacidifiedunacidified

•• FilteredFiltered, acidified , acidified

(HCl)(HCl)

•• Unfiltered, acidifiedUnfiltered, acidified

Methods: Laboratory AnalysisMethods: Laboratory AnalysisWater SamplesWater Samples

Ortho P Ortho P Filtered, unacidified samples Filtered, unacidified samples Ascorbic acid colorimetric method (Murphy and Riley, Ascorbic acid colorimetric method (Murphy and Riley, 1962) within 24 hours of collection.1962) within 24 hours of collection.

Total dissolved P (TDP)Total dissolved P (TDP)Filtered and acidified samplesFiltered and acidified samplesAnalyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP)Analyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP)

Total P (TP)Total P (TP)Unfiltered, acidified samples Unfiltered, acidified samples Digested with HClODigested with HClO44 and HNOand HNO33 on a heating block for on a heating block for 2 hours at 2002 hours at 200˚̊C C Analyzed on ICP (Olsen and Sommers, 1982)Analyzed on ICP (Olsen and Sommers, 1982)

Methods: Field LabMethods: Field LabSample PreparationSample Preparation

Physical analysisPhysical analysisRunoff mass Runoff mass •• Weigh, acidify (HCl), pour off excess liquid, oven dry Weigh, acidify (HCl), pour off excess liquid, oven dry

(105(105˚̊C), weigh.C), weigh.

•• Runoff volume was calculated by converting mass (g) Runoff volume was calculated by converting mass (g) to cmto cm33..

Sediment massSediment mass•• Subtract bottle tare mass from measured dry mass of Subtract bottle tare mass from measured dry mass of

sample.sample.

Methods: Laboratory AnalysisMethods: Laboratory AnalysisSoil SamplesSoil Samples

Plant Available PPlant Available POlsen POlsen P

•• 0.5 M NaHCO0.5 M NaHCO33 extraction (Olsen et al., 1954) extraction (Olsen et al., 1954) •• P measured colorimetrically with ascorbic acid (Murphy P measured colorimetrically with ascorbic acid (Murphy

and Riley, 1962).and Riley, 1962).MehlichMehlich--3 P3 P

•• MehlichMehlich--3 extraction (1984) (3.75 M NH3 extraction (1984) (3.75 M NH44F : 0.25 M F : 0.25 M EDTA)EDTA)

•• Measured by ICPMeasured by ICP

Total soil PTotal soil PDigested with HClODigested with HClO44 and HNOand HNO33 acids (Olsen and acids (Olsen and Sommers, 1982).Sommers, 1982).Analyzed by ICPAnalyzed by ICP

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldCucumber ProductionCucumber Production

4 days after rainfall completion, the field was 4 days after rainfall completion, the field was cultivated and planted:cultivated and planted:

20022002-- JohnnyJohnny’’s Select Seed, s Select Seed, ““DivaDiva””

20032003-- JohnnyJohnny’’s Select Seed, s Select Seed, ““Marketmore 76Marketmore 76””

5 cm of irrigation water was applied weekly 5 cm of irrigation water was applied weekly with a linear move.with a linear move.

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldPlant Tissue SamplingPlant Tissue Sampling

At sixthAt sixth--leaf stage, plant petioles were leaf stage, plant petioles were collected from sixthcollected from sixth--leaf from 20 plants leaf from 20 plants within each plot.within each plot.

Plant petioles were triple rinsed in deionized Plant petioles were triple rinsed in deionized water (DI)water (DI)Dried in a paper bag inside an oven at 29Dried in a paper bag inside an oven at 29˚̊CC

Methods: Laboratory AnalysisMethods: Laboratory AnalysisPlant SamplesPlant Samples

Total PTotal P was measured in ground petioles:was measured in ground petioles:1 gram plant material1 gram plant material

Digested HClODigested HClO44 and HNOand HNO33

Analyzed by ICPAnalyzed by ICP

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldCucumber HarvestCucumber Harvest

2002 2002 –– Hail storm Hail storm destroyed crop in July.destroyed crop in July.

No cucumbers were No cucumbers were harvested.harvested.

2003 2003 –– 7 m7 m22 within each within each plot was harvested.plot was harvested.

Cucumbers 12.5 cm in Cucumbers 12.5 cm in length or greater were length or greater were harvested.harvested.

Methods: FieldMethods: FieldCucumber GradingCucumber Grading

Cucumbers from each Cucumbers from each plot were graded plot were graded according to USDA according to USDA standards for:standards for:

LengthLengthDiameterDiameterColor uniformityColor uniformityShape/DeformityShape/Deformity

Each cucumber was Each cucumber was rated:rated:

““FancyFancy””““Number 1Number 1”” (No. 1)(No. 1)““Number 2Number 2”” (No. 2).(No. 2).

Methods: Methods: Statistical AnalysisStatistical Analysis

Dependent variables: Dependent variables: Soil Soil –– texture, erosion rate, Olsen P, Mehlichtexture, erosion rate, Olsen P, Mehlich--3 3 P, and TPP, and TPWater Water –– runoff rate, Ortho P, TDP, and TPrunoff rate, Ortho P, TDP, and TPCucumber Cucumber –– plant P, yield, and gradeplant P, yield, and grade

Analyzed using a general linear model (Proc Analyzed using a general linear model (Proc Mixed, SAS 2001)Mixed, SAS 2001)

As a function of block, treatment in which rate As a function of block, treatment in which rate was nested, and their interactionswas nested, and their interactions

The least significant difference (LSD) test The least significant difference (LSD) test was used for mean comparisons.was used for mean comparisons.

Results: Results: Soil Test PSoil Test P___________________________________________________________________

Treatment 2002 2003 Olsen P (mg kg-1)

Control 11.6 b 6.4 c Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 14.5 ab 7.7 c 180 kg P2O5/ha 22.9 a 15.9 a Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 10.9 b 8.0 c 180 kg P2O5/ha 20.5 a 11.6 b Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 17.0 ab 11.1 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 13.5 ab 9.7 bc Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 13.7 ab 7.1 c 180 kg P2O5/ha 12.4 b 8.9 bc ___________________________________________________________________† Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p< 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results:Results:Runoff Rate and Erosion RateRunoff Rate and Erosion Rate

Runoff RateRunoff RateNo significant differences existed between No significant differences existed between treatments in 2002 nor 2003.treatments in 2002 nor 2003.

Erosion RateErosion Rate2002 statistics showed inconsistency in low 2002 statistics showed inconsistency in low treatment rates that did not transfer 2003 data.treatment rates that did not transfer 2003 data.

No significant effects of high rate applications No significant effects of high rate applications in 2002 or 2003.in 2002 or 2003.

Results: Runoff P LevelsResults: Runoff P LevelsTreatment Avg. TP Avg. TDP Avg. DIP ---------------- --------mg L-1------ ------------------

2002 Control 4.57 bc† 0.10 c 0.27 a Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 3.97 c 0.24 bc 0.17 ab 180 kg P2O5/ha 4.37 bc 0.50 a 0.15 ab Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 5.12 bc 0.34 ab 0.09 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 4.51 bc 0.24 bc 0.17 ab Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 5.46 b 0.28 abc 0.24 ab 180 kg P2O5/ha 8.50 a 0.29 abc 0.12 ab Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 5.38 bc 0.23 bc 0.10 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 7.40 a 0.18 bc 0.09 b

2003 Control 3.22 b 0.09 b 0.08 b Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 3.24 b 0.17 b 0.17 ab 180 kg P2O5/ha 4.72 a 0.28 a 0.33 a Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 2.88 b 0.12 b 0.04 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 2.71 b 0.14 b 0.10 b Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 2.60 b 0.15 b 0.02 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 2.57 b 0.14 b 0.00 b Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 2.71 b 0.15 b 0.08 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 2.37 b 0.08 b 0.02 b ________________________________________________________________________† Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p< 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results: Runoff P Flux Results: Runoff P Flux Treatment TP Flux TDP Flux DIP Flux ---------------- --------mg 5min-1------ ------------------ 2002 Control 29.46 a† 1.38 b 1.15 ab Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 17.91 a 1.44 ab 0.98 ab 180 kg P2O5/ha 21.47 a 3.19 a 0.87 ab Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 23.64 a 3.19 a 0.44 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 37.03 a 1.44 ab 1.34 ab Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 26.60 a 2.49 ab 2.47 a 180 kg P2O5/ha 37.60 a 0.55 b 0.37 ab Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 19.67 a 1.12 b 0.40 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 31.63 a 0.67 b 0.38 b

2003 Control 22.43 a 0.64 ab 0.04 b Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 14.78 ab 0.77 ab 0.07 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 18.98 ab 1.18 a 0.23 a Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 9.11 b 0.44 b < 0.01 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 15.86 ab 1.19 a 0.06 b Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 12.60 ab 0.71 ab < 0.01 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 11.46 ab 0.70 ab < 0.01 b Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 8.80 b 0.41 b 0.03 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 10.46 ab 0.38 b < 0.01 b ________________________________________________________________________† Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p≤ 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results:Results:Plant Petiole PPlant Petiole P

____________________________________________________________________Treatment 2002 2003 -------------------mg kg-1---------------------- Control 1288 a† 1767 b Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 1361 a 1779 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 1504 a 2149 a Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 1371 a 1672 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 1256 a 1821 b Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 1457 a 1798 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 1396 a 2102 a Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 1200 a 1818 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 1500 a 1797 b ____________________________________________________________________† Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p≤ 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results: Results: YieldYield

Treatment Yield ---------Mg ha-1-------- Control 19.9 c† Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 22.2 bc 180 kg P2O5/ha 30.9 ab Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 35.4 a 180 kg P2O5/ha 33.5 a Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 26.7 abc 180 kg P2O5/ha 35.6 a Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 18.3 c 180 kg P2O5/ha 17.4 c ___________________________________________________________† Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p< 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results: Results: Cucumber GradeCucumber Grade

___________________________________________________________Treatment Fancy No. 1 ----------------- g hg-1--------------------------- Control 0.68 a† 0.25 ab Raw Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 0.53 a 0.20 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 0.51 a 0.26 ab Composted Manure 90 kg P2O5/ha 0.65 a 0.23 ab 180 kg P2O5/ha 0.66 a 0.19 b Vermicompost 90 kg P2O5/ha 0.58 a 0.20 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 0.48 a 0.40 a Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 0.66 a 0.17 b 180 kg P2O5/ha 0.58 a 0.20 b ___________________________________________________________ † Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p< 0.10) by least significant difference.

Results:Results:Rock PRock P

____________________________________________________________ Treatment Petiole P Yield Fancy No. 1 mg kg-1 Mg ha-1 -------g hg-1------- Control 1721.5 a† 19.9 a 0.68 a 0.25 a Rock Phosphate 90 kg P2O5/ha 1850.0 a 18.3 a 0.66 a 0.17 a 180 kg P2O5/ha 1657.5 a 17.4 a 0.58 a 0.20 a 270 kg P2O5/ha 1824.9 a 22.2 a 0.58 a 0.18 a 720 kg P2O5/ha 1889.4 a 19.9 a 0.49 a 0.21 a ____________________________________________________________ † Means with a common letter within a column are not significantly different (p< 0.10) by least significant difference.

Conclusion Conclusion

Source Matters!Source Matters!Olsen P is a good indicator of both plant Olsen P is a good indicator of both plant available P and mobile P forms in this soil.available P and mobile P forms in this soil.Compost and vermicompost applied at the Compost and vermicompost applied at the same Psame P22OO55 rate as raw manure have:rate as raw manure have:

Significantly less runoff P availableSignificantly less runoff P availableSufficient plant P levels Sufficient plant P levels Comparable yieldComparable yield

Rock P is not soluble in alkaline soils.Rock P is not soluble in alkaline soils.

RecommendationsRecommendations

Choosing a correct source and agronomic Choosing a correct source and agronomic rate will potentially decrease environmental rate will potentially decrease environmental P pollution while maintaining sufficient P pollution while maintaining sufficient plant P levels. plant P levels. The composting process also:The composting process also:

Reduces the waste product volume by at least Reduces the waste product volume by at least oneone--third during the digestion processthird during the digestion processDecreases the population of weed seeds and Decreases the population of weed seeds and pathogens if the manure is correctly composted pathogens if the manure is correctly composted and cured and cured

THANK YOU