technical bulletin management of spent mushroom …

MANAGEMENT OF SPENT

MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE

Technical Bulletin

O.P. Ahlawatand

M.P. Sagar

National Research Centre for Mushroom(Indian Council of Agricultural Research)

Chambaghat, Solan - 173 213 (HP)

Printed: 2007, 1000 Copies

Published by:DirectorNational Research Centre for Mushroom (ICAR)Chambaghat, Solan – 173 213 (HP), INDIAPhone: 01792-230451; Fax: 01792-231207E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]: nrcmushroom.org

N.R.C.M. 2007All rights reserved. No part of this technical bulletin may be reproducedin any form or by any means without prior permission in writingfrom the competent authority.

Designed & Printed at:Yugantar Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.WH-23, Mayapuri Indl. Area, New Delhi-64Ph.: 011-28115949, 28116018

ii

CONTENTS

Page No.

Foreward v

Preface vii

1. Introduction 1

2. Traits of spent mushroom substrate 4

3. Recomposting of SMS 9

4. Recycling of SMS for various purposes 16

a. Horticulture 17

b. Cereal crops 24

c. Mushrooms 26

d. Bioremediation of contaminated soils 33

e. Vermicomposting 37

f. Organic-mineral fertilizer 38

g. Diseases management 38

5. Conclusion 40

6. References 42

iii

FOREWARD

Mushrooms are known for their delicacy and nutritional valuesbut the substrate released after mushroom crop harvest, better knownas ‘Spent Mushroom Substrate’ is also the subject of great importance.The compost/substrate, a blend of agricultural/poultry/industrialwastes and prepared by controlled fermentation process, is first usedfor mushroom cultivation and the spent substrate obtained after cropharvest possesses all essential attributes of an organic manure whichfurther gets enriched during its recomposting by natural weatheringor any other process. The recomposted spent mushroom substratehas been found to be a good growing medium for majority of thevegetables and the field crops, and has shown multifacet utilities inimproving the yield and quality of the crop, and management of thediseases, which is really encouraging for the mushroom industry.The other utilities of spent mushroom substrate, like invermicomposting, bioremediation and as organic-mineral fertilizerare boon to the country’s farming system. I appreciate the efforts andlabour put in by the authors in compiling and editing the bulletinfor its use at farmers’ level. I also would like to encourage the farmersto start using of spent mushroom substrate for integrated farmingand to obtain better revenue out of the agrowaste available at theirdoor step and to make contribution towards a clean environment.

Rajendra Prasad TewariDirectorNational Research Centre for

Dated: Mushroom, Solan – 173 213 (HP)

v

PREFACE

The compost released after the harvest of one full crop of mushroom,beyond which extension of crop becomes unremunerative is calledas the ‘spent mushroom substrate’ (SMS). The spent substrate fromdifferent mushrooms varies in its physical, chemical and biologicalproperties and each one has its own specific utility. The spentsubstrate from button mushroom has been found to be nutritionallyrich with respect to its N:P:K contents, and being having high cationexchange capacity, it has the ability to replace Farm Yard Manure forthe purpose of raising horticultural and cereal crops. Using spentmushroom substrate as feeding material for vermicomposting, plantsdiseases management, preparation of organic-mineral fertilizer andbioremediation of the contaminated soils are the other options ofusing SMS. Presently, farmers in different corners of the country areusing SMS as manure for various field crops but without any supportof the scientific data and because of which they are not getting theoptimum benefits. The unscientific ways of using SMS are alsocreating several problems which include the accumulation of salts insoils and harmful effect on some crop plants. The one of the biggestmushroom units of the country, the ‘Agro-Dutch Ltd.’ at Lalru, Punjabis generating lakhs tons of SMS, which is being widely used forimproving the soil health of the surrounding areas. Though researchfindings within the country and abroad have proved the advantagesof using SMS in different farm activities but no compiled informationis available till date particularly for the use of the farming community.

This bulletin contains information on the major aspects like, traitsof spent mushroom substrate, methods of its recomposting, effectson the underlying soil, recycling for different farm activities (manurefor vegetable/cereal crops, casing material for button mushroom,vermicomposting, organic-mineral fertilizer and plants diseasesmanagement) and bioremediation of the contaminated soils. Thebulletin also deals in aspects of dose of SMS to be used, effect onfruit yield/quality and disease status along with their pictorial

vii

presentations. We hope that the information given in this bulletinwill certainly enlighten the scientific and farming communitiestowards right ways of recomposting and uses of SMS.

The publication of this bulletin has become possible due to theconstant support and critical advice of various colleagues. The supportrendered by them is, indeed, praise worthy. But amongst them thetyping/composing support from Mrs. Shashi Poonam and Mr.Pardeep Gupta is very special. We also got significant contributionfrom Dr S.R. Sharma, who helped us without any hesitation in guidingus for further improvement and editing of the document. Last butnot the least the constant encouragement from Dr. R.P. Tewari,Director, National Research Centre for Mushroom, who reallymotivated us to take up such a time consuming task. We also thankthe Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi for fundingthe Ad-hoc scheme on “Refinement in recycling technologies of spentmushroom substrate for soil amelioration and bioremediation” underwhich majority of the research work was carried out. Once again wethank all those who helped us directly or indirectly in bringing outthis bulletin.

O.P. AhlawatM.P. Sagar

viii

Management of Spent Mushroom Substrate (SMS)

CHAPTER - I

Introduction

Plant waste is the basicsubstrate utilized for cultivationof different edible mushrooms.Mushroom growing is an eco-friendly activity as it utilizes thewaste from agriculture,horticulture, poultry, brewery etc.for its cultivation. However, pilingup of “spent mushroomsubstrate” released aftermushroom crop harvesting maycause various environmentalproblems, including ground watercontamination and nuisance(Beyer, 1996).

Compost is considered ‘spentsubstrate’ when one full crop ofmushroom has been taken andfurther extension becomesunremunerative (Wuest and Fahy,1991). Mushroom industry needsto dispose off more than 50 milliontons of used mushroom composteach year called Spent MushroomSubstrate (SMS) (Fox andChorover, 1999). Recently, theterm spent compost or spentmushroom substrate has beenreplaced by a more appropriate

term, “post mushroom substrate”because it is not ‘spent’ and isready to be further attacked by anew set of microorganisms. Thelarge dumped piles of spentmushroom substrate becomeanaerobic and give off offensiveodour. The run-off from such pilescontaminates nearby watersources and pollutes them (Beyer,1996). Under normalcircumstances, the spentmushroom substrate is discardedas waste without consideringenvironmental repercussion (Fig.1). During the recent years,environmental legislations haveforced the mushroom growers to

Fig. 1. Spent mushroom substratedisposed off on road side

1


think about more amicable waysof SMS disposal. At the same timethe demand for organic residuesand compost has also increasedseveral folds considering the illeffects of synthetic pesticides andfertilizers. The research workcarried out around the world hasproved that spent mushroomsubstrate possesses the quality ofa good organic manure for raisinghealthy crops of cereals, fruits,vegetables and ornamental plants,in addition to its ability ofreclaiming the contaminated soil.Although farm yard manure ismostly being used for productionof organic food but its pooravailability has restricted theproduction of organic crops at alarge scale. Fortunately, SMS hasmany of the requisite attributesstill left with for its exploitationin place of FYM in raising organic

field crops and environmentmanagement. The empirical datadepicted in Table 1 shows that thecultivation of mushrooms ondifferent substrates increases thecrude protein, crude fibre andcrude ash contents of SMS inaddition to enhancement in in

vitro crude protein digestibility(Zhang et al., 1995).

The SMS has been found tobe a good nutrient source foragriculture mainly because of itsrich nutrient status, high cationexchange capacity (CEC) and slowmineralization rate which retainits quality as an organic matter.Further, SMS contains 45% waterthough bulky, is light in weight(Dann, 1996). Considering thediversified uses of spentmushroom substrate, an urgentneed was felt to compile the all

Table 1. Effect of pilot-scale solid state fermentation on the contents of spentcompost medium.

Media with 35% spent compost of

Pleurotus ostreatus Lentinula edodes

Control Fermented Control Fermented

Crude protein (%DW) 24.1 32.3 28.4 36.7

Crude fibre (%DW) 14.8 10.2 13.3 9.8

Crude ash (%DW) 6.5 9.0 6.5 9.3

In vitro crude protein 64.2 67.8 68.7 70.1digestibility (%DW)

DW - dry weight (Source: Zhang et al., 1995)

2


available information pertainingto the traits of SMS, its effect onsurrounding environment anduses particularly for the benefitof farmers. Unless otherwisespecified, post-mushroom

substrate or ‘spent compost’ herewill mean the substrate left aftercultivation of white buttonmushroom (Agaricus bisporus/A.

bitorquis).

3


Fig. 2. Variation in selected parameters of SMS of different ageweathered naturally in an unplanned manner

CHAPTER - II

Traits of Spent Mushroom Substrate

Spent mushroom substrate(SMS) normally contains1.9:0.4:2.4%, N-P-K beforeweathering and 1.9:0.6:1.0,N-P-K after weathering for8-16 months. Nitrogen andphosphorus do not leach outduring weathering but potassiumbeing more leachable is lost insignificant amount duringweathering (Fig. 2) (Gupta et al.,2004).

SMS contains much less heavymetals than sewerage sludge,which precludes its classificationas hazardous substance (Wuestand Fahy, 1991). Weatheringcauses a slow decrease in theorganic matter contents (volatilesolids) and leads to differentcharacteristics of weathered SMSbecause of on-going microbialactivity (Beyer, 1999). The SMSobtained from different

4


commercial sites reveal that exceptcalcium, boron, copper and zinc,coefficient of variability are lessthan 25% (Devonald, 1987). In alatest study carried out at PennState Mushroom ResearchLaboratory, a little variation in

chemical and physical propertiesof SMS has been ascribed (Foxand Chorover, 1999) incomparison to earlier studycarried out by Wuest and Fahy(1991) (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of spent mushroom substrate (SMS) reported in differentstudies

Content Unit Wuest and Fahy, http:/aginto.psu.edu/1991 psa/sgg/mushroom 5.html

Fresh SMS 8-16 months Fresh SMS 16 months(Average) old weathered (Range) old weathered

SMS (Average) SMS (Average)

Sodium, Na % dry wt 0.72 0.22 0.21-0.33 0.06

Potassium, K % dry wt 2.35 1.03 1.93-2.58 0.43

Magnesium, mg % dry wt 0.71 0.91 0.45-0.82 0.88

Calcium, Ca % dry wt 4.93 6.16 3.63-5.15 6.27

Aluminium, Al % dry wt 0.40 0.80 0.17-0.28 0.58

Iron, Fe % dry wt 0.44 0.92 0.18-0.34 0.58

Phosphorus, P % dry wt 0.36 0.55 0.45-0.69 0.84

Ammonia-N, NH4

% dry wt 0.11 0.03 0.06-0.24 0.00

Organic Nitrogen % dry wt 1.83 1.89 1.25-2.15 2.72

Total Nitrogen % dry wt 1.93 1.92 1.42-2.05 2.72

Solids % dry wt 43.39 49.43 33.07-40.26 53.47

Volatile Solids % dry wt 62.78 44.29 52.49-72.42 54.24

pH Standard units 7.28 8.05 5.8-7.7 7.1

Manganese, Mn ppm dry wt 332.92 438.62 NT NT

Copper, Cu ppm dry wt 46.26 61.68 NT NT

Zinc, Zn ppm dry wt 103.88 136.41 NT NT

Lead, Pb ppm dry wt 14.89 18.17 NT NT

Chromium, Cr ppm dry wt 8.53 11.31 NT NT

Mercury, Hg ppm dry wt 0.07 0.19 NT NT

Nickel, Ni ppm dry wt 11.93 15.74 NT NT

Cadmium, Cd ppm dry wt 0.43 0.32 NT NT

N-P-K ratio ppm dry wt 1.9-0.4-2.4 1.9-0.6-1.0 1.8-0.6-2.2 2.7-0.8-0.4

% x 10,000=ppm, NT = not tested

6


The SMS obtained fromdifferent sources usually hasconductance in the range of 1.9to 8.3 mmhos cm-1. However, thechloride content in fresh SMSvaries from 1.5 to 7.5 kg t -1

(Gerrits, 1987) and only about294 ppm in a well rotten SMS(Chong and Wickware, 1989).The chloride content in SMS isattributed to level of chickenmanure incorporated duringcomposting (Chong et al., 1991).There are contradictory reportsregarding the pH of fresh andweathered SMS. According toWuest and Fahy (1991), SMS hasan initial pH of around 7.28,which increases duringweathering, while, Devonald(1987) reported pH of the freshSMS in the range of 7.01 and8.04. In contrary to this, Chonget al. (1988) found a decrease inpH from its initial value 7.9 to 7.0on weathering.

The volume of SMS alsodecreases (shrinkage) over thetime. The fresh SMS obtainedfrom various sources varies indensity: 0.198 g cm-3 with a rangeof 0.15 to 0.24 g cm-3 in UK(Devonald, 1987); 0.475g cm-3 inIreland (Maher, 1991) and 0.24to 0.62 g cm-3 in USA (Dvorak et

al., 1991). The composting of

SMS in semi-enclosed drums for6 weeks enhances its bulk densityfrom 0.256 g cm-3 to 0.293 gcm-3 (Lohr et al., 1984).

WEATHERING OF SPENTMUSHROOM SUBSTRATE ANDLEACHATE CHEMISTRY

Spent mushroom substratecontains high amount of saltsand other elements which areharmful to plant growth and needto be leached out to make itusable for agricultural/horticultural activities. In order tomake SMS suitable for its use asmanure, it is exposed to natural

Fig. 3. Electrical conductivity profiles(soil to water = 1:5) of soils as influencedby spent mushroom substrate weathering(Guo et al., 2001)

6


Fig 5. Water-soluble organic carbonprofiles of soils as influenced by spentmushroom substrate weathering (Guo et

al., 2001)

climatic conditions like variedtemperature and rainfall, whichis called as weathering of SMS.Weathering makes requiredimprovement in the character-istics of SMS but at the same timeit also releases leachatecontaining nitrates and othernutrients.

During field weatheringprocess, leachate percolates intothe underlying soils. The leachatefrom 24 months old naturally

weathered piles of 3’ and 5’ SMSdepth contains 0.8-11.0 g l-1 ofdissolved organic carbon (Fig. 5);0.1-2.0 g l-1 of dissolved organicnitrogen and organic salts. Thevalues of pH, electricalconductivity and acidneutralizing capacity are 6.6 to9.0, 21 to 66 dsm-1 and 10 to 75mmol l-1, respectively (Fig. 3). Ionicforms of potassium, chlorine andsulphate

are the main inorganic

elements in the leachate.

Fig. 4. Total organic carbon profiles ofsoils as influenced by spent mushroomsubstrate weathering (Guo et al., 2001)

7


Organic acids below 1000 Daform the major component ofdissolved organic carbon. In 24months of SMS weathering, the5 feet high pile releases about 2.8kg dissolved organic carbon, 0.7kg dissolved organic nitrogen and13.6 kg of inorganic salts, while3 feet pile releases about 3.0 kgdissolved organic carbon, 1.6 kgdissolved organic nitrogen and26.6 kg of inorganic salts. The 5

feet pile retains more water andexhibits lower net nitrificationcompared with the 3 feet pile. Thetop 3 feet of soil retains 20 to 89%of the leachate solutes and 3 feetpile is more effective for efficientweathering than 5 feet pile (Guoet al., 2001). Aeration duringweathering fastens the process ofweathering by reducing the timefor biological activity within theSMS (Iteinemann et al., 2002).

8


CHAPTER - III

Recomposting of SMS

Studies have revealed thatSMS being rich in organic matteradds nutrients to the soils, helpsin neutralizing acidic soils,facilitates plant growth in barrenareas and in some cases, itimproves water quality along withbioremediation of contaminatedsoils/industrial sites. In order toimprove the physico-chemicalcharacteristics of SMS for its useas manure, followingrecomposting methods can beemployed.

1. RECOMPOSTING METHODS

a) Natural

In natural weathering process,the kachcha pit of 53 feet is filled

up to the top with SMS and leftfor natural recomposting processfor next 2 years (Fig. 6).

b) Aerobic

A perforated base is firstprepared in the bottom of akachcha pit of 53 feet with the helpof waste wooden material (Fig. 7).The perforated bottom of the pitis connected perpendicularly with2 inch diameter hollow plasticpipes placed at a distance of 12

feet. Holes of 0.5 inch diameterare also provided in the plasticpipes at a distance of 15 cm eachin a circular fashion. The pit isfilled with SMS up to the brim and

Fig. 6. SMS filled in a pit and left fordecomposition

Fig. 7. Perforated base of the pitconnected with hollow pipes

9


left for recomposting for a periodof 2 years (Fig. 8).

c) Anaerobic

In anaerobic process, thekachcha pit of 53 feet is filled withSMS upto the brim and is coveredwith 1 feet thick layer of normalsoil to create anaerobic conditionsand left as such for 2 years.

2. P H Y S I C O - C H E M I C A LPROPERTIES OFRECOMPOSTED SPENTMUSHROOM SUBSTRATE

a) Oyster and paddy strawmushroom spent substrate

The paddy straw mushroomspent substrate has pH in therange of 8.82 to 9.16; while oystermushroom spent substrate haspH between 6.51 to 7.69. Thevalues of electrical conductivity,

Fig. 8. Aerobic method of SMSrecomposting

total dissolved solids and nitrogencontent are lower in paddy strawmushroom spent substrate thanoyster mushroom spentsubstrate. The oyster mushroomSMS contains higher nitrogen(1.82%) as compared to paddystraw mushroom (1.06% to1.46%). The other nutrients likeorganic carbon and phosphate arehigher in paddy straw mushroomspent substrate than in oystermushroom spent substrate.However, contents of potassium,magnesium and calcium are atpar in two types of SMS. Theingredients used and method ofsubstrate preparation employedalways have bearing on theproperties of two types of SMS.

b) Effect of recompostingmethods on physico-chemical properties of oyster,button and paddy strawmushroom SMS

With the increasingrecomposting period, pHdecreases in SMS of allmushrooms, while conductivityincreases in oyster and paddystraw mushroom spent substratesbut not in button mushroomsubstrate. Nitrogen content,porosity, water holding capacity,total dissolved oxygen and

10


microbial count increase duringrecomposting by all the methodsin all the mushrooms. Thecontents of phosphorus,potassium, sodium, calcium,carbon, nitrate, total dissolvedsolids, particle density and bulkdensity decrease with the time inSMS of all mushrooms.Recomposting of SMS plays vitalrole in reducing the residue levelof various fungicides, insecticidesand heavy metals. Amongdifferent fungicides, insecticidesand heavy metals, residues ofonly carbendazim (Bavistin) anddeltamethrin (Decis) are detectedin the fresh SMS but not in sixmonths old weathered SMS.

c) Button mushroom SMS

i. Naturally weathered

In SMS samples of differentage, pH ranges between 6.72 in 9months old sample to maximumof 7.50 in 48 months old sample.Conductivity decreases with timeand it varies between lowest of0.24 mS cm-1 in 48 months oldsample and highest of 6.22 mScm-1 in 6 months old sample.Dissolved oxygen level and bulkdensity remain almost same inSMS of different age. Particledensity decreases with time with

lowest of 1.03 g cm-3 in 48 monthsold sample and highest in 12months old sample. Porosity andwater holding capacity varybetween 14.50% to 26.20% and28.00% to 41.00%, respectively indifferent samples withnonsignificant difference amongSMS of different age. Nitrogen,phosphorus, carbon and calciumdecrease continously withincreasing time of weathering.None of the SMS sample containssodium and lead. Nitrate contentalso decreases from 12.80 ppm in6 months old sample to 1.95 ppmin 48 months old sample (Table3).

ii. Button mushroom SMSrecomposted in a pit

The SMS recomposted in a pitof 53 feet shows more variation inits properties than SMS left assuch for open recomposting. Theparameters like pH, electricalconductivity, particle density,porosity and total dissolved solidsdecrease after 30 th day ofrecomposting. Bulk density andwater holding capacity remainconsistant up to 180th day. Thecontents of nitrogen, phosphorusand potassium increase after 30th

day, while carbon, sodium,calcium, chloride and nitrate

11


Table

3. Physic

o-c

hem

ical pro

pert

ies o

f butt

on m

ushro

om

SM

S o

f dif

fere

nt

age

S.N

oP

ara

mete

rPro

pert

ies o

f SM

S o

f dif

fere

nt

age (

Mon

ths)

69

12

24

36

48

1.

pH

7.3

06.7

27.2

07.4

56.9

07.5

0

2.

Con

du

cti

vit

y (

mS

cm

-1)

6.2

20.9

52.7

32.9

43.3

40.2

4

3.

Tota

l dis

solv

ed s

olids (

ppm

)2.7

00.4

62

2.0

30.1

41.7

20.1

1

4.

Dis

solv

ed o

xygen

(ppm

)0.6

40.5

40.5

60.6

40.6

30.8

4

5.

Bu

lk d

en

sit

y (

g c

m-3)

0.6

90.7

10.6

20.7

50.7

50.7

3

6.

Part

icle

den

sit

y (

g c

m-1)

1.2

02.0

02.5

01.5

71.2

01.0

3

7.

Poro

sit

y (

%)

25.8

014.5

015.2

015.9

020.8

026.2

0

8.

Wate

r h

old

ing c

apacit

y (

%)

41.0

030.0

028.0

032.0

036.0

038.0

0

9.

Nit

rogen

(%

)2.7

31.9

62.9

01.4

51.7

00.7

0

10.

Ph

osph

oru

s (

%)

0.3

10.2

00.2

00.1

70.1

60.1

0

11.

Pota

ssiu

m (

ppm

)31.4

00.0

011.7

00.0

016.0

00.0

0

12.

Carb

on

(%

)2.5

11.4

61.4

60.8

40.4

50.4

1

13.

Sodiu

m (

ppm

)0.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

0

14.

Calc

ium

(ppm

)0.5

60.5

80.4

10.3

40.5

20.2

7

15.

Lead (ppm

)0.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

0

16.

Ch

lori

de (

ppm

)46.5

00.8

620.0

01.4

514.1

01.5

4

17.

Nit

rate

(ppm

)12.8

04.3

19.9

02.4

38.9

21.9

5

Gu

pta

et

al.

, 2004

12


decrease. During 180 days ofrecomposting, significantchanges occur in EC, totaldissolved solids, bulk density,

porosity, water holding capacityand contents of potassium,carbon, sodium, calcium, chlorideand nitrate (Table 4).

Table 4. Physico-chemical properties of button mushroom SMS recomposted in apit for different durations

Parameter Properties of SMS recomposted for different duration (month)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

pH 8.41 8.03 7.67 7.30 7.27 7.17 7.15

Conductivity 7.50 5.09 4.64 3.44 1.08 0.18 0.14mmho cm-1

Nitrogen (%) 2.71 2.17 1.66 1.47 1.00 0.87 0.83

Phosphorus (%) 1.08 1.10 0.85 0.65 0.32 0.29 0.27

Potassium (ppm) 231.00 103.00 76.20 52.70 17.01 1.97 7.50

Sodium (ppm) 260.00 231.00 124.00 28.00 11.01 2.09 0.27

Carbon (%) 4.90 2.70 2.10 1.07 0.91 0.66 0.61

Calcium (ppm) 543.00 360.00 159.00 73.00 17.00 4.10 3.97

Chloride (ppm) 146.00 65.00 43.50 20.30 1.54 1.20 1.13

Nitrates (ppm) 12.80 6.56 4.19 2.30 2.51 2.10 2.07

Cadmium (ppm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lead (ppm) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total dissolved 1910.00 1263.00 613.00 409.00 247.00 93.0 0.81solids (ppm)

Dissolved oxygen 0.83 0.97 1.10 1.57 1.59 1.63 1.63(DO) (ppm)

Bulk density (g cm-3) 0.57 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23

Particle density 2.20 2.00 1.67 1.97 1.97 1.70 1.70(g cm-3)

Porosity (%) 20.00 36.00 44.31 44.01 44.01 42.39 42.39

Moisture (%) 59.0 67.0 67.5 67.5 68.20 69.00 68.10

13


3. Button mushroom SMSrecomposted by differentmethods

Initially the pH increases andthen decreases after 30th day inall recomposting methods.Anaerobic recomposting of SMSleads to lower electricalconductivity (0.02 mS cm-1 to 0.49mS cm-1) in comparison to aerobicprocess (1.21 mS cm-1 to 4.62 mScm-1). Total dissolved solids alsodecrease (2740 ppm to 885 ppm)in aerobic SMS, while theseincrease in both anaerobic andnaturally weathered SMS. Theother parameters like bulkdensity, porosity and waterholding capacity increase with thetime in aerobic process, remainconstant in anaerobic processand show minor changes innatural recomposting process.The contents of nitrogen,potassium, carbon, sodium,calcium, chloride and nitratedecrease with the time in allprocesses of recomposting,however, the rate is fastest inanaerobic process followed byaerobic and then natural process.Phosphorus content shows anincrease with the time in aerobic/anaerobic processes, which is anexception in natural recompostingprocess, where it decreases with thetime (Table 5).

d) Microbiological properties

The bacterial population inspent mushroom substrateranges between lowest of 14.33 x10-7 in Volvariella volvacea (paddystraw mushroom) to highest of59.33 x 10-7 in oyster mushroomspent substrate. Spent substratefrom P. florida (oyster mushroom)harbours 5 to 23 fold higherfungal population than otherspent substrates. Among differentfungi, Trichoderma spp. followedby Aspergillus spp. and Mucorspp. dominate in different spentsubstrates. Trichodermadominates in all spent substrates,while Mucor in paddy strawmushroom and Aspergillus inboth paddy straw mushroom andoyster mushroom spentsubstrates.

e) Enzyme activity

Oyster mushroom spentsubstrate exhibits highest activityof exoglucanase, endoglucanaseand xylanase. The spentsubstrate from oyster mushroomalso shows higher activity oflaccase, manganese peroxidaseand arylalcohol oxidase incomparison of SMS of button andpaddy straw mushrooms. Buttonmushroom spent substrate showshigher activity of lignin peroxidaseonly (Ahlawat et al., 2004a).

14


Table

5.

Ph

ysic

o-c

hem

ical

pro

pert

ies of

butt

on

m

ush

room

SM

S re

com

poste

d by dif

fere

nt

meth

ods

S.N

o.Para

mete

rPh

ysic

o-c

hem

ical

pro

pert

ies o

f SM

S r

ecom

poste

d b

y d

iffe

ren

t m

eth

ods f

or

dif

fere

nt

dura

tion

(days)

Aero

bic

An

aero

bic

Natu

ral

015

30

45

60

15

30

45

60

15

30

45

60

1.

pH

8.3

08

.56

8.8

18

.13

8.0

08

.77

8.6

18

.12

8.2

27

.17

8.4

37

.88

8.1

9

2.

Con

du

cti

vit

y3

.51

4.6

21

.39

1.2

11

.55

0.0

20

.35

0.4

90

.49

0.3

20

.90

2.2

62

.28

(mS cm

-1)

3.

Tota

l2

74

0.0

01

23

0.0

06

82

.00

74

7.0

08

85

.00

8.8

02

03

.00

22

1.0

02

72

.00

53

.10

43

2.0

01

39

0.0

01

58

0.0

0d

issolv

ed

soli

ds (p

pm

)

4.

Dis

solv

ed

-0.1

80

.02

-0.1

0-0

.19

0.0

00

.00

-0.2

0-0

.09

0.0

0-0

.10

-0.0

9-0

.11

0.0

0oxygen

(p

pm

)

5.

Bulk

den

sit

y0

.22

0.3

00

.39

0.3

30

.35

0.2

50

.31

0.3

30

.38

0.2

80

.19

0.2

20

.22

(g cm

-3)

6.

Part

icle

10

.00

1.3

32

.50

0.9

10

.63

2.0

03

.33

1.4

21

.38

2.5

01

.67

2.0

01

.91

den

sit

y (

g c

m3)

7.

Poro

sit

y (%

)7

.80

52

.60

24

.40

73

.62

73

.62

37

.50

20

.72

47

.18

35

.30

28

.80

48

.50

39

.00

36

.25

8.

Wate

r2

0.0

02

0.0

03

3.3

04

1.1

84

9.0

04

0.0

02

3.0

73

3.3

33

5.2

52

0.0

04

4.4

45

4.5

55

2.6

0h

old

ing

capacit

y (%

)

9.

Nit

rogen

(%

)2

.10

2.1

01

.19

1.8

21

.23

1.7

51

.51

1.5

81

.14

2.0

31

.72

1.7

21

.44

10.

Ph

osph

oru

s0

.57

0.9

70

.94

1.0

51

.11

1.0

51

.30

1.2

41

.25

1.3

71

.20

1.1

41

.14

(%)

11.

Pota

ssiu

m1

38

.00

28

3.0

03

36

.00

41

.40

34

.60

23

6.0

07

2.7

01

8.3

01

9.6

02

56

.00

22

3.0

04

3.8

07

6.8

0(p

pm

)

12.

Carb

on

(%

)5

.43

5.3

45

.84

4.5

00

.60

5.7

05

.83

5.2

21

.50

5.5

25

.57

4.7

40

.60

13.

Sodiu

m4

02

.00

12

0.0

09

1.6

04

.46

0.0

00

.00

20

.40

0.0

00

.00

54

.00

61

.80

0.0

06

.85

(pp

m)

14.

Calc

ium

13

80

.00

19

.90

0.0

02

2.3

08

.12

70

.10

0.0

02

1.1

05

.46

22

.70

23

.80

30

.80

11

.70

(pp

m)

15.

Lead (p

pm

)0

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

0.0

00

.00

16.

Ch

lori

de

11

5.0

01

11

.00

56

.30

51

.00

21

.80

13

.30

15

.90

31

.00

17

.40

59

.50

30

.20

10

7.0

03

6.1

0(p

pm

)

17.

Nit

rate

(p

pm

)4

.80

13

.60

9.9

04

.92

10

.20

2.2

83

.18

0.4

84

.01

2.6

65

.38

11

.30

30

.80

15


CHAPTER - IV

Recycling of SMS

The addition of spentmushroom substrate in nutrientpoor soil improves its health byimproving the texture, waterholding capacity and nutrientstatus (Kaddous and Morgans,1986; Maher, 1991; Beyer, 1996).However, it reduces the soil’sthermal conductance, bulkdensity and water stableaggregates (>0.25 mm). Spentmushroom substrateincorporation in soil leads to anincrease in both pH as well as theorganic carbon content (Kaddousand Morgans, 1986). Theexperiments carried out forstudying the effect of SMS onseveral crops have shown that thedry matter content of plantsincreases with incorporation ofincreasing amount of weatheredor unweathered SMS in soil(Chong et al., 1987). Thephosphorus and potassiumrequirements of the crop plantscan be fully met by incorporating5% of SMS by volume, whilenitrogen requirement by 25% ofSMS by volume (Maher, 1991).

The mixing of spent mushroomsubstrate in soil has shown plantgrowth promoting activity inseveral plant species.

Spent mushroom substratenot only improves soil health butalso helps in the turfestablishment which, however,depends on the rate of SMSapplication in soil (Landschootand McNitt, 1994).

1) FARMERS’ INDIGENOUSKNOWLEDGE ABOUT USESOF SMS

Mushroom growers arerecycling spent mushroomsubstrate naturally and using itin agricultural and horticulturalcrops as manure at their own.They have gained a lot ofexperience in it and are sharingtheir knowledge within a specifiedlocality. The data collected atNRCM, Solan (HP) reveals thatSMS is being used as manure inseveral crops viz. capsicum,tomato, cauliflower, pea, potato,ginger, garlic, wheat, paddy,

16


maize and apple (Table 6). Widevariation exists in age of SMSapplied in different crops and itranges between 0 month (fresh)to 3 years old. Similarly, quantityof SMS applied also varies betweena minimum 4.75q ha -1 tomaximum 1000 q ha-1 in fieldcrops and 4-6 kg pl-1 in apple.

Spent compost also improvesthe physical and chemicalstructure of the soil. Mushroomgrowers have the observation thatspent compost considerablyincreases the level of soil fertility,water holding capacity, porosityand texture on applying asmanure.

Both mushroom growers andresearchers have noticed that theapplication of SMS in soilenhances the crop yield andmanages diseases in agriculturaland horticultural crops, inaddition to improvement in soilphysical conditions. On the basisof empirical data and experiencesgained during the process ofverification and refinement of ITKsabout use of SMS as manure incrops; it can be concluded thatSMS should be decomposed foratleast 12 months either bynatural weathering in pits oraerobic/anaerobic recomposting

instead of disposing off in openon road side. Similarly, the dosesof recomposted SMS for variouscrops should be worked out onthe basis of total nutrient (N.P.K.)requirement of the respective cropand the nutrient status of thesoil/SMS. The recomposted SMScan be used singly as basalapplication or in combinationwith inorganic fertilizers.

2) RESEARCHERS’ OUTCOME

a) Horticulture

Spent mushroom substratemakes the soil suitable for raisingvegetables (Kaddous andMorgans, 1986). Suitabletreatments of SMS like rapid saltleaching (Chong et al., 1991) andweathering in open for two to threeyears make SMS more suitablefor either complete or partialsubstitution of growing media forflowers, vegetables, fruits,saplings, ornamental shrubs andother horticultural plants ofeconomic importance (Beyer,1996) (Table 6). The spentmushroom substrate being richin N, P and K, acts as a goodgrowing medium for vegetableslike cucumber, tomato (Fig. 9),broccoli, tulip, cauliflower,peppers, spinach etc., but the

17


response of the plants vary atdifferent levels of SMSincorporation. There are variedreports available regarding theeffect of SMS on plant growth andyield of vegetables, but the studycarried out at National ResearchCentre for Mushroom, Solan (HP)for the last 4 years has showndefinite advantage with SMS. Inearlier studies also theincorporation of spent mushroomsubstrate @ 25% and 37.5% withthe growing medium has showngrowth promoting effect onlettuce, marigold and tomato.There is a long list of vegetablesviz; Cucurbita pepo, Capsicum

annuum, spring broccoli, autumnbroccoli, aubergines, sweet corncv. Seneca gold, snapbeans(Phaseolus vulgaris) cv. provinderand Pennisetum glaucum cv.

HGM–100, which show enhancedyield on amendment of the soilwith SMS. However, the agedmushroom compost is preferableover the fresh compost (Lohr andCoffey, 1987). The use of SMS asmanure has also been found toincrease the quality of the producein several crops. In a study, 50tha-1 of SMS incorporation in soilgave the maximum yield of onionbulbs with higher content of P,K, Ca and Mg in the bulbs(Wisniewska and Penkiewicz,1989) and in tomato it improvedthe firmness and ascorbic acidcontent (Dundar et al., 1995).

Besides vegetables,greenhouse and nursery crops,the woody ornamental and foragecrops including, Cotoneaster

dammeri cv Coral Beauty, Deutzia

gracilis, Cornus alba, Argenteo

marginata, Forsythia x intermedia

cv. Lynwood, Juniperus sabina

cv. Blue Danube, J. virginiana cv.Hetzii, Physocarpus opulifolius,

Potentilla fruticosa cv. Red Ace,Ligustrum vulgare, Rosa indica cv.John Franklin, Weigela cv. BristolRuby and W. florida cv. VariegataNana also show good growth indifferent levels (33%, 67% &100%) of SMS mixed with bark(Chong and Rinker, 1994). In

Fig. 9. Tomato crop raised on SMSamended soil

18


addition to the above mentionedplant species, spent mushroomsubstrate also increases the totalspear FW and number m-2 inwhite asparagus (Pill et al., 1993),while total height in mountainpersimmon (Diospyros oldhamii)as well as non-astringentpersimmon (D. kaki) cv. Fuyu(Nee et al., 1994). The fresh SMSproperly sized by sieving, leachedof salts and blended withvermiculture acts as an idealgrowth medium for plants andoffers exceptional aeration,porosity, water holding capacityand nitrogen. It acts as aconceivable alternate to peat insoil less mixer (Romaine andHolcomb, 2001). The researchcarried out in this direction atNRCM, Solan has also shown veryencouraging results with respectto effect of SMS on plant growth,fruit yield and quality along withdiseases management (Ahlawat etal., 2004b, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a,2007a, 2007b; Dev Raj et al.,2005). The detailed findings ofwork carried out with differentcrops is presented in the followingtext.

i) TOMATO (Lycopersiconesculentum):

Amendment of aerable landwith 18.5 ton ha-1 of 6-24 months

old naturally weathered SMSfollowed by recommendedpackage of practices leads to farsuperior vegetative growth ofplants and yield of 746q ha-1 (Fig.10) in comparison to tomato yieldof 456.53q ha-1 in FYM mixed soil.Similarly, the mixing of soil with12 months old anaerobicallyrecomposted SMS leads tosuperior tomato yield of 658.89 qha-1 to that of FYM (547.04qha-1).

Fig. 10. Tomato crop raised on SMSamended soil

Mixing of soil withanaerobically recomposted SMSalso enhances the tomato quality(Fig. 11) with respect to superiorfruit weight (59.32 g), ascorbicacid content (33.89 mg g-100 freshweight), dry matter (8.40%), totalsoluble solids (TSS, 5.17 oBrix) &acidity (2.05%).

19


Anaerobically recompostedSMS as manure in tomato crop isfound to lower incidences ofblossom end rot, buck eye rot andleaf curl with no effect on fruitborer incidence (Fig. 12).

Fig. 11. Quality fruits on tomato plants

Fig. 12. Fruit borer infestation on tomatocrop

Fig. 14. Capsicum raised on SMS amendedsoil

ii) SHIMLA MIRCH (Capsicumannuum)

Amendment of aerable landwith 25 ton ha-1 of 6-18 monthsold naturally weathered SMS

enhances plant growth (49 cm)and fruit yield (171 q ha-1) (Fig.13) in comparison to farm yardmanure (152.53 q ha-1) and therecommended dose of fertilizers.Similarly, the amendment of

Fig. 13. Effect of SMS on plant growth ofCapsicum

aerable land with 12 months oldaerobically recomposted SMSfollowed by recommendedpackage of practices leads to farsuperior plants growth (51 cm)and fruit yield of 212.27 q ha-1

(Fig. 14).

20


Amendment of soil with 12months old naturally weatheredSMS also enhances the fruitquality with respect to fruit length(53.74 mm), fruit width (44.15mm), dry matter (9.40%), totalsoluble solids (4.82 oBrix) &ascorbic acid content (23.70 mgg-100 fresh weight). Similarly theaerobically recomposted SMS alsostimulates the quality of the fruitswith respect to their length (51.08mm), width (43.48 mm), drymatter (9.41%), total solublesolids (4.80 oBrix) & ascorbic acidcontent (25.37 mg g-100 freshweight).

Amendment of soil with 24months old naturally weatheredand aerobically recomposted SMSalso leads to 2-4% lower incidenceof fruit rot, 15-20% lowerincidence of chilli veinal mottlevirus and about 4% lessergrasshopper attack on plants incomparison to recommended doseof fertilizers and FYM.

iii) PEA (Pisum sativum)

Amendment of aerable landwith 12 months old anaerobicallyrecomposted SMS @ 20 ton ha-1

enhances plant height to 110.50cm and pod yield to 120.26qha-1 (Fig. 15) in comparison of pod

yield of 92.40q ha-1 in FYM mixedsoil.

Anaerobically recompostedSMS also improves the quality ofpea (Fig. 16) with respect to itscontents of protein (4.88%),ascorbic acid (11.90mg g-100 offresh weight), dry matter (73.80%)

Fig. 15. Healthy crop of pea on SMSamended soil

Fig. 16. Quality pea pods on plants grownof SMS amended soil

21


and total soluble solids (16.9o

Brix).

The mixing of SMS alsoreduces Fusarium wilt andpowdery mildew score incidencesby 3-4 folds both on plants andthe pods.

iv) CAULIFLOWER (Brassicaoleracea L. var. botrytis)

The mixing of 12 months oldanaerobically recomposted SMS@ 25 ton ha-1 along with chemicalfertilizers in nutritionally poor soilbefore transplantation of theseedlings followed byrecommended package ofpractices enhances the vegetativegrowth (Fig. 17) and total yield ofcauliflower (186.56 q ha-1) incomparison to yield obtained fromFYM manured field (119.35 qha-1).

Mixing of 12 months oldanaerobically recomposted SMSalong with chemical fertilizersleads to superior stalk length(5.10 cm), curd length (12.25 cm),curd dia (15.17cm), dry matter(7.84%), ascorbic acid content(57.60mg g-100 fresh weight) andcurd appearance (Fig. 18).

Fig. 17. Cauliflower raised on SMS mixedaerable soil

Fig. 18. Superior quality curd ofcauliflower on SMS amended plot

The extent of incidence of blackrot (Fig. 19) and caterpillar arelowered by 60% and 40%,respectively in anaerobicallyrecomposted SMS manured soilin comparison to FYM mixedplots.

22


The mixing of 18 months oldae rob i ca l l y/anae rob i ca l l yrecomposted SMS along withchemical fertilizers not onlystimulates the yield but alsoenhances the quality with respectto rhizome length (10.20cm),breadth (5.15cm), thickness(3.1cm), dry matter (15.83%),total soluble solids (6.0 oBrix),fibre (4.54%) and non-solublesolids (NSS) (9.49%).

Lowest rhizome rotting occursin FYM and anaerobicallyrecomposted SMS, followed byaerobic and natural SMSamendments as compared to therecommended dose of fertilizers.

vi) ONION (Allium cepa L.)

The mixing of 12 months oldanaerobically recomposted SMS +chemical fertilizers @ 25 ton ha-1

v) ZINGER (Zingiber officinale)

The amendment ofnutritionally poor soil with 30-32ton ha -1 of 18 months oldaerobically recomposted SMS +chemical fertilizers enhancesplant growth (Figs. 20a & 20b)and ginger yield upto 144.44q ha-

1 in comparison to 120.9q ha-1 inFYM mixed field.

Fig. 19. Diseased plant from FYM mixedplot

Fig. 20a. Healthy crop of ginger raised onSMS mixed soil

Fig. 20b. Enhanced plant growth in SMSamended plots

23


in aerable land stimulates thevegetative growth (38.49 cm) andthe yield of onion bulbs (222.00qha -1) in comparison to FYM(148.00q ha-1) and recommendeddose of fertilizers (206.00q ha-1)(Fig. 21).

recomposted SMS @ 25 ton ha-1

enhances the growth of the plants(Fig. 22) as well as the fruit yield(251.42q ha-1) in comparison toFYM manured plots (236.66 qha-1).

The amendment of soil withanaerobically recomposted SMSalong with chemical fertilizersleads to an enhancement inquality parameters of onion bulbswith respect to length (4.30 cm),diameter (5.55 cm), total solublesolids (12.3 oBrix), dry mat t e r(17.46%), pyruvic acid (0.416) andascorbic acid (29.45) contents incomparison to FYM andrecommended dose of fertilizers.

vii) BRINJAL (Solanummelongena)

The mixing of 12 and 24months old anaerobically

The fruits obtained from SMSmixed plots, FYM andrecommended dose of fertilizers donot vary in quality with respectto their size and weight.

b) Cereal Crops

Studies have been conductedon several crops, out of whichmaize has shown promisingresults in most of the studies. Inone case, SMS incorporation @100, 200 and 400 tons (Freshweight) ac-1 in nutrient poor soillike silty clay loam, shows positiveeffect on the silage and grain yieldof corn crop. The silage

Fig. 21. Onion crop on SMS amended plotsFig. 22. Brinjal crop raised on using SMSas manure

24


production in this case increasesby 33% to 68% depending uponthe weather conditions after SMSincorporation. Similarly, thegrain yield is also influenced byweather conditions. None of thestudies has shown any adverseeffect on quality of the groundwater and run off, and the qualityof water matches with water fromthe non fertigated plots (Wuestand Fahy, 1991).

The amount of protein instover and grains increases withSMS incorporation in the fieldand in study carried out by Wuestet al., (1995), the grain as well asstover were found to containsignificantly higher level ofnitrogen. The incorporation ofSMS along with peat stimulatesthe growth of diazotrophs in thefield (Gronborg, 1990). Further,annual incorporation of SMS upto90 kg m-2 area has not been foundto degrade the quality of surfacewater, and the run-off has beenfound to contain very low amountof ammonia-N, biological oxygendemand (BOD) and chloride. Thestudy carried out with wheat(Triticum aestivum) at NationalResearch Centre for Mushroom,Solan (HP) has also shownencouraging results.

i) WHEAT (Triticum aestivum)

Field application of 12 monthsold anaerobically recompostedSMS + basal dose of chemicalfertilizers (Urea, DAP and Murateof Potash) enhances vegetativegrowth of plants (86.60cm) andyield (49.80q ha-1) of wheat (Fig.23) in comparison (35.20q ha-1)to FYM mixed plots.

Amendment of soil with 12months old anaerobicallyrecomposted SMS + chemicalfertilizers stimulates the earquality with respect to length (cm),no of grains ear-1, test weight ofgrains (gm) and grain: straw ratioin comparison to control and FYMmixed treatments.

Fig. 23. Wheat crop raised using differentSMS treatments

25


c) Mushrooms

Production of second crop ofmushroom from the spentsubstrate can prove more efficientutilization of the substrateingredients and can alsoameliorate the problem of solidwaste disposal in the mushroomindustry (Fahy and Wuest, 1984).Re-spawning of Agaricus spentcompost together with theaddition of spawn mate (delayed- release nutrient) and Bonapartepeat (adsorbent material) can givegood yield of second Agaricus

crop.

The shiitake spent mushroomsubstrate supplemented with 10%wheat bran and 10% millet canbe utilized for Pleurotus sajor-caju

cultivation, after air -drying,grinding, supplementation,pasteurization and spawning ofspent substrate. In one casehigher yield of P.sajor-caju (79%Biological Efficiency) was obtainedby supplementing the spentshiitake basal medium with 12%soybean and 1.0% CaCO

3 (Royse,

1993).

Another use of SMS inmushroom cultivation is as casingmaterial for button mushroom.The use of aerobically fermented

spent mushroom substrate ascasing material gives mushroomyield at par with peat basedcasing material with anadditional advantage of lessbacterial blotch (Pseudomonas

tolaasii) infection on fruitingbodies than those from peat-basedcasing material (Szmidt, 1994;Ahlawat and Vijay, 2004). Thecasing prepared from SMS, EDTAand peat has also been foundmost productive (Sharma et al.,1999).

Casing of button mushroombags with one year old aerobicallyrecomposted SMS supports about2-3 days early crop of buttonmushroom (Fig. 24) along withmushroom yield at par with coirpith and superior than 2 year oldFYM with non-significantdifferences in fruiting body

Fig. 24. Button mushroom crop using SMSbased casing

26


Table

6.

Respon

se o

f dif

fere

nt

pla

nt

specie

s t

ow

ard

s d

iffe

ren

t doses a

nd a

ge o

f SM

S

Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

Capsic

um

6-1

2 m

on

ths

100-1

50

Incre

ased

NR

Norm

al

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths m

ixed

125

Incre

ased

Norm

al

wit

h F

YM

24-3

6 m

on

ths

25-3

7.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

24 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

NR

Tom

ato

0-6

mon

ths

100 -125

Incre

ased

NR

No d

iseases

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths m

ixed

125

Incre

ased

Norm

al

wit

h F

YM

2-6

mon

ths

12.5

Incre

ased

NR

24 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

NR

24-3

6 m

on

ths

25-3

7.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

Cau

lifl

ow

er

6 m

on

ths m

ixed

125

Incre

ased

NR

Norm

al

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

wit

h F

YM

6-1

2 m

on

ths

100-1

25

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

24-3

6 m

on

ths

25-3

7.5

Incre

ased

NR

Gin

ger

2-6

mon

ths

25

Incre

ased

NR

Decre

ased

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths

100-1

25

Incre

ased

Incre

ased

12 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

Incre

ased

18 m

on

ths

37.5

-50

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

Garl

ic1 m

on

th312.5

Incre

ased

NR

Incre

ased

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths

100-1

25

Incre

ased

Incre

ased

12 m

on

ths

62.5

-75

Incre

ased

Norm

al

Wh

eat

2-3

mon

ths

87.5

Incre

ased

NR

NR

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

1-6

mon

ths

125-1

50

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

6 m

on

ths

25 -

37.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

4 m

on

ths

12.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

7-8

mon

ths

4.7

5-1

2.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

NR

27


Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

12 m

on

ths

12.5

-37.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

11.2

5In

cre

ased

Decre

ased

Maiz

e0-6

mon

ths

50-1

50

Incre

ased

NR

No d

iseases

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

2-6

mon

ths

4.3

75

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

6 M

on

ths

25-3

7.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

11.2

5In

cre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

62.5

-75

Incre

ased

Norm

al

24-3

6 m

on

ths

25-3

7.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

3-1

5 m

on

ths

10

Incre

ased

NR

12 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

NR

Paddy

Fre

sh

62.5

Incre

ased

NR

Decre

ased

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

1 m

on

th62.5

Incre

ased

Incre

ased

12 m

on

ths

12.5

-37.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

1-2

mon

ths

125

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

Pota

to0-6

mon

ths

18.7

5In

cre

ased

NR

NR

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths

100-1

25

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

4 m

on

ths

12.5

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

24 m

on

ths

100

Incre

ased

Norm

al

Pea

0-6

mon

ths

100

Incre

ased

NR

No d

iseases

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

6 m

on

ths

100-1

25

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

12 m

on

ths

62.5

-75

Incre

ased

Norm

al

12 m

on

ths

93.7

5N

orm

al

Norm

al

12 m

on

ths

250

Incre

ased

NR

Apple

1 m

on

th5-6

kg p

l-1

Norm

al

Norm

al

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

5 m

on

ths

4 k

g p

l-1

Incre

ased

Norm

al

8-1

2 m

on

ths

4-6

kg p

l-1

Incre

ased

Decre

ased

Cu

cu

mber,

Vari

ed a

ge

Vari

ed d

ose

En

han

ced

NR

NR

Beyer,

1996

Tom

ato

,

28


Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

Bro

ccoli,

Tu

lip,

Cau

liflow

er,

Pepper,

Spin

ach

Lett

uce,

Mari

-A

ged m

ush

room

25-3

7.5

% o

fE

nh

an

ced

NR

NR

Loh

r an

d C

off

ey,

1987

gold

, Tom

ato

com

post

the g

row

ing

mediu

m

Cu

cu

rbit

a pepo,

Vari

ed a

ge

Vari

ed d

ose

En

han

ced

NR

NR

Mayn

ard

, 1994; S

teff

en

Ca

psic

um

an

nu

um

,et

al.,

1994;

Rh

oads

Spri

ng b

roccoli,

an

d

Ols

on

, 1995

Au

tum

n b

roccoli,

Au

berg

ines, S

weet

corn

, S

napbean

s,

Pen

nis

etu

m g

lau

cu

m

On

ion

Aged S

MS

500

NR

Hig

her

NR

Wis

nie

wska a

nd

con

ten

tPen

kie

wic

z, 1

989

of

P,

K,

Ca

an

d M

g

Tom

ato

Bu

tton

NR

NR

Impro

ved

Restr

icte

dD

un

dar

et

al., 1995;

mu

sh

room

firm

ness

root

kn

ot

Verm

a, 1986

SM

San

din

festa

tion

ascorb

ic a

cid

Woody

NR

33, 67, 100%

Su

peri

or

NR

NR

Ch

on

g a

nd R

inker,

1994

orn

am

en

tal

mix

ed w

ith

gro

wth

an

d fora

ge c

rops

bark

Wh

ite

NR

NR

NR

Tota

l spear

NR

Pill

et

al., 1993

aspara

gu

sFW

an

dn

um

ber

m-2

29


Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

Mou

nta

inN

RN

RTota

l h

eig

ht

NR

NR

Nee e

t a

l., 1994

pers

imm

on

,N

on

-astr

igen

tpers

imm

on

Apple

Spra

yin

g w

ith

Weekly

an

dN

RN

RC

on

trols

Yoh

ale

m e

t a

l., 1994

aqu

eou

s e

xtr

act

biw

eekly

apple

scab

of

SM

S

Tom

ato

6-2

4 m

on

ths

185

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

Lesser

NR

CM

, S

ola

nn

atu

rally w

eath

ere

dpla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tydis

eases a

nd

an

d 1

2 m

on

ths

an

d f

ruit

yie

ldin

sect-

pests

an

aero

bic

ally

infe

sta

tion

recom

poste

d

Sh

imla

mir

ch

6-1

8 m

on

ths

250

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

2-2

0%

low

er

NR

CM

, S

ola

n(C

apsic

um

)n

atu

rally w

eath

ere

dpla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tydis

eases a

nd

an

d 1

2 m

on

ths

an

d f

ruit

yie

ldin

sect-

pests

aero

bic

ally

infe

sta

tion

recom

poste

d

Pea

12 m

on

ths

200

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

3-4

fold

sN

RC

M,

Sola

nan

aero

bic

ally

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tylo

wer

dis

eases

recom

poste

dan

d p

od y

ield

incid

en

ce

Cau

lifl

ow

er

12 m

on

ths

250

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

40-6

0%

low

er

NR

CM

, S

ola

nan

aero

bic

ally

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tydis

eases a

nd

recom

poste

d S

MS

an

d c

urd

yie

ldin

sect-

pests

+ c

hem

ical

fert

iliz

ers

infe

sta

tion

Zin

ger

18 m

on

ths

300-3

20

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

Lesser

rott

ing

NR

CM

, S

ola

naero

bic

ally

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tyof

rhiz

om

ere

com

poste

d S

MS

an

d r

hiz

om

e+ c

hem

ical

fert

iliz

ers

yie

ld

30


Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

On

ion

12 m

on

ths

250

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

NR

NR

CM

, S

ola

nan

aero

bic

ally

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

ali

tyre

com

poste

d S

MS

an

d b

ulb

yie

ld+ c

hem

ical

fert

iliz

ers

Bri

nja

l12-2

4 m

on

ths

250

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

NR

NR

CM

, S

ola

nan

aero

bic

ally

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

alt

iyre

com

poste

d S

MS

an

d f

ruit

yie

ld

Wh

eat

12 m

on

ths

300 q

+E

nh

an

ced

Su

peri

or

NR

NR

CM

, S

ola

nan

aero

bic

ally

ch

em

ical

pla

nt

gro

wth

qu

alt

iyre

com

poste

dfe

rtiliz

ers

an

d g

rain

yie

ldS

MS

+ c

hem

ical

(N,

P,

K @

fert

iliz

ers

80 k

g, 60 k

g,

50 k

g h

a-1)

Maiz

eFre

sh

1000-4

000

En

han

ced

Su

peri

or

NR

Wu

est

an

d F

ah

y,

1991

silage a

nd

pro

tein

gra

in

yie

ldcon

ten

t in

silage a

nd

gra

ins

Wh

ite b

utt

on

Bu

tton

Fu

llG

ood s

econ

dN

RN

RF

ah

y a

nd W

uest,

1984

mu

sh

room

mu

sh

room

SM

Scro

p+ s

paw

n m

ate

an

d b

on

apart

e p

eat

Oyste

r m

ush

room

Sh

iita

ke

Fu

llG

ood y

ield

NR

NR

Royse, 1993

mu

sh

room

waste

+ 1

0%

wh

eat

bra

n+ 1

0%

mille

t

31


Cro

pA

ge o

f SM

SQ

uan

tity

Impact

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

(q h

a-1)

Yie

ldQ

uali

tyD

iseases/

insect-

pests

Oyste

rS

hii

take

Fu

ll79%

BE

NR

NR

Royse, 1993

mu

sh

room

mu

sh

room

waste

+ 1

2%

soyabean

+1%

CaC

O3

Bu

tton

Aero

bic

ally

As c

asin

gM

ush

room

NR

Low

er

bacte

rial

Szm

idt,

1994

mu

sh

room

ferm

en

ted S

MS

yie

ld a

t par

blo

tch

in

fecti

on

wit

h p

eat

Bu

tton

SM

S +

ED

TA

As c

asin

gS

uperi

or

NR

Low

er

bacte

rial

Sh

arm

a e

t a

l., 1999

mu

sh

room

+ p

eat

mu

sh

room

blo

tch

in

fecti

on

yie

ld

Bu

tton

Aero

bic

ally

As c

asin

gE

arl

y a

nd

NR

Low

er

dry

bu

bble

NR

CM

, S

ola

nm

ush

room

ferm

en

ted S

MS

mu

sh

room

infe

cti

on

yie

ld a

t par

wit

h c

oir

pit

h

32


weight. The SMS based casingalso lowers dry bubble diseaseincidence in comparison to coirpith.

d) Bioremediation ofcontaminated soil

The uncontrolled release ofindustrial wastes in the open andpoor availability of pre-treatmentfacilities contribute towards theincreased level of contaminants inthe soil. The degradation of thesecontaminants mainly dependsupon the physical and chemicalconditions of the soil and thenature of microorganisms thrivein the soil. In addition to being arich nutrient source for variousfield crops, spent mushroomsubstrate originated fromdifferent edible mushroomspossesses unique physico-chemical and biologicalproperties, which make SMS anideal bioremediative agent forvarious environmental protectionactivities. SMS adsorbs theorganic and inorganic pollutantsand harbours diverse category ofmicrobes, which have thecapability of biological break downof the organic xenobioticcompounds. The microbes,especially actinomycetes(Streptomyces sp. and

Thermomonospora sp.) present inspent mushroom substrate alsohave strong pollutantscatabolizing capabilities whichresult in decreased level ofpollutants in contaminated soilafter incubation with SMS(Ahlawat et al., 2007c) (Table 7).

In laboratory experiments, themixing of pentachlorophenol(PCP) contaminated sterile soilwith aliquotes of spent sawdustcultures of shiitake mushroom,supplemented with nutrientsolution of glucose, thiamine andmineral salt result indisappearance of about 44.4-60.5% of pentachlorophenol in21 days of incubation. (Okekeet al., 1993). However, duringthe same incubation period,Buswell (1995) reported 50%break down of PCP on mixing ofspent shiitake substrate withsterile PCP contaminated soil. Theaddition of spent oystermushroom substrate incontaminated soil also results in50% to 87% reduction in 3-ringcompounds in first 12 weeks ofaddition and these furtherincrease to 87% to 99% on re-inoculation of SMS followed byfurther incubation for 3 weeks.The effect on 4-ring compound isless and it ranges between 34 to

33


43%, which again increases to51% to 59% on re-inoculation ofSMS after 12 weeks of firstaddition (Leopold, 2002). Thespent mushroom substrate alsohas the decontaminationpotential for land sites used fordisposal of hazardous wastes(Buswell, 1994). Similar studiesbut with diverse category ofchemicals were conducted byFermor et al. (2000) and reporteda significant potential of phase IIcompost in remediation of landscontaminated with xenobioticpollutants like chlorophenols(PCP), polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHS) andaromatic monomers. The crudeand partially purified extract fromSMS also degrade variety of dyesand it has found uses as ableaching and deinking aide (Fig.25) during recycling of paper

waste (Hanson, 2002; Ahlawat et

al., 2006b).

The second category ofchemical contaminants affectingthe soil are the man madefungicides, herbicides andinsecticides, which are being inuse for protecting the crops fromdifferent categories of pathogens,competitors and pests. Fivepercent, W/W spent mushroomcompost incorporation in soilhaving 5 ppm alachlorconcentration, increases thealachlor disappearance andprotects garden pea cv. Taichungfrom root injury. It has also beenobserved that SMS stimulates themicrobial population (108-109)and maintains it for 28 days. Thestimulated microbial populationof Aspergillus sp., Penicillium sp.,Trichoderma sp., Aeromonas sp.and Bacillus sp., has been foundto degrade alachlor within 7 daysof incubation under in vitro

conditions (Huang et al., 1995,1996).

Use of spent mushroomsubstrate also stabilizes theabandoned mine sites, pipelineconstruction sites andcommercial/industrial sites. Themixing of SMS in soil degradesdifferent pesticides at varied rates

Fig. 25. Laboratory study for dyesdecolourization by using enzyme extractfrom SMS

34


with the involvement of physicalstructure of SMS and microbes itharbours.

i) Bioremediation of pesticides:

The mixing of spentmushroom substrate @ 10, 20 &30%, w/w in soil, results in fasterdegradation of Decis, Malathion,Bavistin and Mancozeb incomparison to soil without anyamendment of SMS. Mixing ofsoil @ 30% gives best results andthe effect is at par in 20% SMSamendment treatment (Fig. 26).

degradation occurs at much fasterrate and it reaches to undetectablelimit after 5 months of SMSapplication. In case of fungicidesalso (Carbendazim andMancozeb), maximumdegradation occurs on 30% SMSmixing. The residue level ofcarbendazim reduces to 6% of itsinitial concentration after 6months of SMS mixing in soil.Twenty percent SMS mixing givesresults at par with 30% SMStreatment. The degradation ofMancozeb occurs at a faster ratein 20% SMS treatment. In control,degradation of different pesticidesoccurs at slower rate and is farless as compared to SMSincorporated soil.

During the study, thelignolytic enzymes have beenfound to play major role inpesticides bioremediation. Amongdifferent microflora of SMS,Trichoderma sp., Aspergillus sp.,Mucor sp. and B-I bacterial isolatepossess higher pesticidesbiodegradation potential under invitro conditions. Thebioremediation of pesticides insterilized SMS occurs at a veryslow rate as compared to pure ormixed inoculum of different fungior bacteria (Gupta et al., 2006a;Ahlawat et al., 2007c)

Fig. 26. Experiment on pesticidesbiodegradation by using SMS

The concentration ofinsecticides (Malathion andDeltamethrin) reduces to just halfof its initial concentration justafter one month of SMS mixingand to negligible level after sixmonths of SMS mixing. However,in Decis (deltamethrin), the

35


Table

7.

Addit

ion

al

advan

tages o

f usin

g S

MS i

n d

iffe

ren

t ty

pes o

f soil

s

Type o

f soil

/w

aste

Type o

f SM

SA

dvan

tage

Sourc

e o

f in

form

ati

on

Ara

ble

soil

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SE

nh

an

ced f

ert

ilit

y l

evel, w

ate

r h

old

ing

Mu

sh

room

gro

wers

capacit

y,

poro

sit

y a

nd s

oil t

extu

re

Nu

trie

nt

poor

soil

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SE

nh

an

ced t

extu

re,

wate

r h

old

ing

Kaddou

s n

ad M

org

an

s,

capacit

y a

nd n

utr

ien

t sta

tus

1886; M

ah

er,

1991;

Beyer,

1996

Nu

trie

nt

poor

soil

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SE

nh

an

ced p

H a

nd o

rgan

ic c

arb

on

,K

addou

s n

ad M

org

an

s,

wh

ile r

edu

ced t

herm

al con

du

cta

nce a

nd

1886

bu

lk d

en

sit

y

Pen

tach

loro

ph

en

ol

Sh

iita

ke s

pen

t su

bstr

ate

44.4

-60%

bre

akdow

n o

f PC

PO

keke e

t a

l., 1993)

con

tam

inate

d s

oils

Pen

tach

loro

ph

en

ol

Sh

iita

ke s

pen

t su

bstr

ate

50%

bre

akdow

n o

f PC

PB

usw

ell, 1995

con

tam

inate

d s

oils

Th

ree a

nd 4

-rin

gO

yste

r m

ush

room

spen

t50-8

7%

redu

cti

on

in

3-r

ing a

nd

Leopold

, 2002

com

pou

nds

su

bstr

ate

34-4

3%

redu

cti

on

in

4 r

ing

con

tam

inate

d s

oils

com

pou

nds

Lan

d s

ites u

sed f

or

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SR

edu

cti

on

in

ch

loro

ph

en

ols

, poly

cyclic

Bu

sw

ell, 1994; F

erm

or

haza

rdou

s w

aste

saro

mati

c h

ydro

carb

on

s a

nd a

rom

ati

cet a

l., 2000

dis

posal

mon

om

ers

Min

e,

pip

eB

utt

on

mu

sh

room

SM

SS

tabiliz

ati

on

of

the s

ites

Bu

sw

ell, 1994

con

str

ucti

on

,com

merc

ial an

din

du

str

ial

sit

es

Ala

ch

lor

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SIn

cre

ased d

isappeara

nce o

f ala

ch

lor

Hu

an

g e

t a

l., 1995

con

tam

inate

d s

oil

Fu

ngic

ides,

Bu

tton

mu

sh

room

SM

SIn

cre

ased d

egra

dati

on

of

the p

esti

cid

es

NR

CM

, S

ola

npesti

cid

es a

nd h

eavy

@ 2

0%

w/w

an

d h

eavy m

eta

lsm

eta

ls c

on

tam

inate

dsoils

Paper

waste

Extr

act

from

SM

SD

ein

kin

g o

f paper

waste

Han

son

, 2002

36


ii) Bioremediation of heavymetals

The mixing of spentmushroom substrate @ 10, 20 &30%, w/w, results in fasterdegradation of lead and cadmiumin soil in comparison to soilwithout any amendment of SMS.It has been recorded that metalsdecrease at sharpest rate in 30%SMS, w/w, mixed soil. The levelof cadmium & lead reduces toundetectable limit after sixmonths of SMS mixing in soilunder in situ conditions. However,the decrease in levels of theseheavy metals in control plotoccurs at a very slow rate, whereno SMS is mixed. The sharpdecrease in level of heavy metalsin SMS mixed soil occurs becauseof the isolated biomass of SMSwhich works as an ion exchanger.

The microflora thrive on SMShas been found to be responsiblefor faster heavy metalsbioremedation in SMS mixedsoils. In sterilized SMS, initiallythe metal level decreases quite fastbut become gradual after the zeroday of analysis (Gupta et al.,2006b).

e) Vermicomposting

Decomposition of SMS takesminimum of six months and

quality manure from SMS canonly be prepared by long termdecomposition. The duration ofSMS decomposition can beshortened to few weeks byvermicomposting of SMS. Farmyard manure is the most preferredfood material for worms, butrecent studies conducted atNational Research Centre forMushroom, Solan have shownthat spent substrate from paddystraw, oyster and buttonmushrooms are also suitable forvermicomposting. Fresh as well as15-20 days old rotten spentmushroom substrate from whitebutton, oyster, milky and paddystraw mushrooms is anacceptable material for the wormsto multiply and to convert it intomanure for field crops. The SMScan be used as a vermicompostingmedium either alone or in

Fig. 27. Vermicomposting by using SMSas feeding material

37


different combinations either withFYM, agricultural or vegetablefarming wastes depending upontheir availability. Effectivevermicomposting can be followedby following the standard protocolas adopted for FYM, agriculturaland domestic wastes (Fig. 27). Thetime for vermicomposting withSMS varies between 2 to 2.5months.

f) Spent mushroom substrateas organic fertilizer

Spent mushroom substrate isstill nutrient-rich and containsabout 80% of the total nitrogenin bound form with highmolecular weight fractions oflignin and humic substances(Grabbe, 1982). Nitrogen releasefrom the SMS is very low;therefore, plant nutrition isinsufficient, which can, however,be achieved by the addition ofsome easily available form ofnitrogen source. On the otherhand phosphorus, potassium,micro-nutrients and the growthsubstances in SMS are present insufficient quantity and in theavailable form. Availability ofnutrients from SMS can beenhanced by preparing anorganic-mineral fertilizer from thespent mushroom substrate. The

absorption capacity of stable‘humus’ available in SMS helpsin retention of nitrogen in the topsoil (Grabbe, 1978). Conversionof SMS into an organic-mineralfertilizer is an alternative way ofusing spent mushroom compostfor soil amelioration and to makeit a balanced source of nutritionfor plant growth. The organicmineral fertilizers prepared withthree different formulae, having2, 7 and 10% nitrogen and eachsupplemented with 2% phosphate(P

2O

5) and 2% of potassium (K

2O)

have the potential of a balancedorganic fertilizer for spinach andgive yields of spinach equal to thestandard fertilization. In addition,the organic mineral fertilizer alsoimproves the quality and drymatter of spinach as compared tomineral fertilizer treatment(Sochtig and Grabbe, 1995).Preparation of the organic mineralfertilizer from the SMS has alsobeen patented in USA (Robinson,1988).

g) Spent mushroom substratefor disease management

Due to the unique chemicalconstitution and the microflorapresent in SMS, its applicationcan be more diversified than whatis normally predicted. The

38


actinomycetes, bacteria andfungi inhabiting the compost, notonly play role in its furtherdecomposition but also exertantagonism to the normalpathogens surviving andmultiplying in the soil ecosystem.The amendment of soil with spentmushroom substrate restricts theroot knot infestation of tomatoplants caused by Meloidogyne

incognita. It shows higherefficacy than the application ofcarbofuran (2kg ai ha-1), acommon nematicide used tocombat the above organism(Verma, 1986). Under in vitro

conditions, the anaerobicallyfermented aqueous extract of theSMS inhibits the conidialgermination of Venturia

inaequalis, the causal agent ofapple scab. The extract alsoinhibits the conidial germinationof Cochliobolus carborum andSphaeropsis sapinea (Diplodia

pinea) causing diseases on maizeand red pine (Pinus resinosa),respectively. The aqueous extractobtained after 5 to 9 days ofincubation in the ratio of 2:1 to4:1 (water: SMS) maintains itsefficacy for about 4 months on

storage at -200C, 40C and roomtemperature. The biologicalanalysis of SMS extract showsthat it contains a Pseudomonas

and a Bacillus. SMS obtainedfrom different growers harboursdifferent mycoflora and showsdifferences in its effect oninhibition of conidial germinationand disease suppression. Theinhibitory properties of SMSremain unaffected even afterautoclaving and filter sterilization(Yohalem et al., 1994) of aqueousextract. Weekly or bi-weeklyapplication of spreader/stickeramended SMS extract, startingfrom green tip to petal fall of appletree reduces the scab-affectedleaf area. It maintains higherpopulation of bacteria even after1 month of the final spray whichis the reason of less scab affectedleaf area in SMS sprayedtreatment (Yohalem et al., 1996).The field application of SMS alongwith a soil fumigant ‘Basamid’results in suppression of thefungus Cylindrocladium

scoparium, an ubiquitouspathogen of varied plant hoststhroughout the world (Hunter et

al., 1997).

39


CHAPTER - V

Conclusion

SMS has the potential ofsolving several agriculture relatedproblems. However, it requiressome early treatments likedesalting/prolonged leaching andrecomposting for addedadvantages. The conductivity ofSMS, which is taken as a criteriaof high salt concentration can betested before using SMS forraising crops. However, the ionswhich contribute to highconductivity in recompostedSMS are highly water solubleand their leaching is possible.SMS is also not part of the list ofwastes which are required to fulfillthe legal hygienic conditions inrespect of load of heavy metals and

phosphate. The model way ofagrowastes utilization in Israel(Table 8), can be adopted forrecycling of SMS without leavingany residue in the end.

The exploitation of spentmushroom substrate for themanagement of environment,agriculture and production ofrecyclable energy requires strictwatch on its physical, chemicaland microbiological properties.Yes, its diversified uses inagriculture, environment andrecycling energy (Fig. 28) forcesus to change its name from spentmushroom substrate to “usedmushroom substrate”.

Table 8: Recycling mushroom substrates and wastes

Recycling Course Product Waste

Cultivation of cotton Fibres Plant residue cotton straw

Cultivation of oyster mushroom on Oyster mushrooms Spent substrate (SMS)straw

SMS used as cattle feed Meat and milk Manure

Manure fermented to produce biogas Methane energy Residue (“Cabutz”)

Cabutz used as casing soil for Champignons SMSchampignons

SMS composted for organic farming Organic food crops No further waste

(Levanon and Danai, 1997)

40


Fig

. 28.

Recycli

ng o

f spen

t m

ush

room

substr

ate

41


References

1. Ahlawat OP, Ahlawat Kusum,Indurani C, Vijay B and DharBL (2004a). Chemicalcomposition and enzymaticactivity of spent paddy strawand oyster mushroomsubstrates. MushroomScience XVI : 553-559.

2. Ahlawat OP, Dev Raj, SagarMP, Gupta Pardeep and VijayB (2006a). Effect ofrecomposted spentmushroom substrate on yieldand quality of cauliflower(Brassica oleracea L. var.botrytis). Mushroom Research15(2): 149-152.

3. Ahlawat OP, Dev Raj, SagarMP, Gupta Pardeep and VijayB (2007a). Effect ofrecomposted buttonmushroom spent substrateon growth, yield and qualityof Ginger (Zingiber officinale).Indian Journal of Mushrooms(accepted).

4. Ahlawat OP, Gupta Pardeep,Dev Raj and Vijay B (2006b).Dye decolorization potentialof spent substrates from

Agaricus bisporus andPleurotus sp.- a laboratorystudy. Mushroom Research15(1): 75-82

5. Ahlawat OP, Indurani C andSagar MP (2005a). Spentmushroom substrate-properties and recycling forbeneficial purposes. In:Frontiers in Mushroom

Biotechnology (R.D. Rai, R.C.Upadhyay and S.R. Sharma,Eds.). Pp. 314-334. NationalResearch Centre forMushroom (HP), India.

6. Ahlawat OP, Sagar MP, DevRaj, Indurani C, GuptaPardeep and Vijay B (2005b).Effect of spent mushroomsubstrate of different age andrecomposted by differentmethods on growth, yield andquality of Capsicum annuum.Indian J. Horticulture(communicated).

7. Ahlawat OP, Sagar MP, DevRaj, Gupta Pardeep and VijayB (2007b). Effect ofrecomposted buttonmushroom spent substrate

42


on growth and yieldattributes of Wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.). MushroomResearch (accepted).

8. Ahlawat OP, Gupta Pradeep,Kumar Satish and SharmaDK (2007c). Evaluation ofbioremedation potential ofbutton mushroom spentsubstrate against selectedinsecticides from soil system.Current Science(communicated).

9. Ahlawat OP, Sharma Vibhuti,Indurani C and Vijay B(2004b). Physico-chemicalchanges in button mushroomspent substrate recompostedby different methods. In:International Workshop on

“Recent T rends in

Environmental Science” from24-26 th April, 2004 atNational EnvironmentalScience Academy, New Delhi.

10. Ahlawat OP and Vijay B(2004). Effect of casingmaterial fermented withthermophilic fungi on yield ofAgaricus bisporus. Indian J.Microbiol 44(1): 31-35.

11. Beyer M (1996). The impactof the mushroom Industry onthe environment. MushroomNews 44(11): 6-13.

12. Beyer DM (1999). Spentmushroom substrate factsheet. http:/mushrooms p a w n . c a s . p s u . e d u /spent.htm.

13. Bisaria R, Madan M andMukhopadhyay SN (1983).Production of biogas fromresidues from mushroomcultivation. BiotechnologyLetters 5(12): 811-812.

14. Buswell JA (1994). Potentialof spent mushroom substratefor bioremediation purposes.Compost - Science andUtilization 2(3): 31-36.

15. Buswell JA (1995). Potentialof spent mushroom substratefor bioremediation purposes.Mushroom News 43(5): 28-34.

16. Chong C, Cline RA, RinkerDL (1987). Spent mushroomcompost and papermillsludge as soil amendmentsfor containerized nurserycrops. Combined Proceedings- International PlantPropagators Society 37: 347-353.

17. Chong et al (1988). Proc.Ontario Hort. Crops Conf.,Mushroom Session 8 P.

18. Chong C and Wickware M(1989). Hort Rev 7(6): 10, 11,13.

43


19. Chong C, Cline RA andRinker DL (1991). Rapidleaching of salts - key tosuccessful plant growth inspent mushroom compostpotting mixes. MushroomNews 39(10): 12-13.

20. Chong C, Rinker DL andCline RA (1991). Acomparison of five spentmushroom composts forcontainer culture ofornamental shrubs. MushSci XIII : 637-644.

21. Chong C and Rinker DL(1994). Use of spentmushroom substrate forgrowing containerized woodyornamentals: an overview.Compost - Science andUtilization 2(3): 45-53.

22. Dann MS (1996). The manyuses of spent mushroomsubstrate. Mushroom News44 (8): 24-27.

23. Devonald VG (1987). Spentmushroom compost, apossible growing mediumingredient. In: Compost:Production, Quality and Use.Els., April. Sci. London. 785-791.

24. Dev Raj, Indurani C, SagarMP, Gupta Pardeep, AhlawatOP and Vijay B (2007). Effect

of spent mushroom substraterecomposted by differentmethods and of different ageon vegetative growth, yieldand quality of tomato (L.

esculentum).). The Indian

Journal of Agricultural

Sciences (communicated).

25. Dundar O, Paksoy M andAbak K (1995). Qualitychanges during cold storageof tomato fruits grown indifferent substrates. In: FirstInternational Symposiumon Solanacea for freshmarket, from 28-31 March,1995, Malaya, Spain.

26. Fahy HK and Wuest PJ(1984). Best practices forenvironmental protection inthe mushroom farmcompany. Chester CountyPlanning Commission WestChester, PA, p. 65.

27. Femor T, Wastls N,Duncombe T, Brooke R,McCarthy A, Semple K andReid B (2000).Bioremediation: Use ofcomposts and compostingtechnologies. Mushroom Sci.XV(II): 833-839.

28. Fox R and Chorover J (1999).Seeking a cash crop in spentsubstrate. http:/

44


aginfo.psu.edu/psa/sgg/mushrooms.html.

29. Gerrits JPG (1987).Compost for mushroomproduction and itssubsequent use for soilimprovement. In M.deBertoldi, MP Ferranti, PLHermite and F Zucconi(eds.). Els. April. Sci.London. pp. 431-439.

30. Grabbe K (1978). Verfahrenzur Herstellung eines Dungemittels. BRD - Patent Nr.2831583.

31. Guo M, Chorover J, RosarioR and Fox RH (2001).Leachate chemistry of field-weathered spent mushroomsubstrate. J Environ Quality106(8): 208-209.

32. Guo M, Chorover J and FoxRH (2001). Effects of spentmushroom substrateweathering on the chemistryof underlying soils. J EnvironQuality 30: 2127-2134.

33. Grabbe K (1982). Prinzipiendes mikrobiellenStoffumsatzes bie derAufbereitung Flussiger andfester Reststoffe und ihreBedeutung fur dieSubstratherstellung im

C h a m p i g n o n a n b a uWissenschaft and Umwelt 4:210-218.

34. Gronborg H (1990). Trials atthe advisory centre. GartnerTidende. 106(8): 208-209.

35. Gupta Pardeep, Indurani C,Ahlawat OP, Vijay B andMediratta V (2004). Physico-chemical properties of spentmushroom substrates ofAgaricus bisporus.Mushroom Research 13(2):84-94.

36. Gupta Pardeep, Ahlawat OP,Kumar Satish, Sharma DKand Dev Raj (2006a). Studieson bioremediation ofpesticides using spentmushroom substrate. In:XIXth Annual Conference ofNational EnvironmentalScience Academy on SolidWaste Management on 16th– 18th October, 2006 atPunjab University,Chandigarh.

37. Gupta Pardeep, Ahlawat OP,Kumar Satish, Sharma DKand Dev Raj (2006b).Bioremediation of heavymetals through spentmushroom substrate. In:XIXth Annual Conference ofNational Environmental

45


Science Academy on SolidWaste Management on 16th– 18th October, 2006 atPunjab University,Chandigarh

38. Huang JW, Hu CK and ShihSD (1996). The role of soilmicroorganisms in alleviationof root injury of garden peaseedlings by alachlor withspent golden mushroomcompost. Plant PathologyBulletin 5(3): 137-145.

39. Huang JW, Hu CK, TzengDDS and Ng KH (1995).Effect of soil amended withspent golden mushroomcompost on alleviatingphytotoxicity of alachlor toseeling of garden pea. Pl.Pathology Bulletin 4(2): 76-82.

40. Hunter BB, Hall T, LysonsMT and Bell TK (1997). Fieldapplication of sewage andspent mushroom composts inconjuction with basamid, afumigant to control the rootpathogen, Cylindrocladiumscoparium nursry soil.www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/aire/1997/045 hunter.

41. Iteinemann P and Robert(2002). Processing ofmushroom substrate.Mushroom News 50(5): 3-13.

42. Kaddous FGA and MorgansAS (1986). Spentmushroom compost and deeplitre fowl manure as a soilameliorant for vegetables. InProc. of Surface SoilManagement Rotorua, NewZealand, pp. 138-147.

43. Landschoot P and McNitt A(1994). Improving turf withcompost. Biocycle 35(10): 54-57.

44. Leopald D (2002). Use ofedible and medicinal oystermushroom (Pleurotus

ostrearus (Jacq:Fr) kumm.7spent compost in remediationof chemically polluted soils.International J MedicinalMushrooms 4(3):

45. Levanon D and Danai O(1997). Recyclingagricultural residuals inIsreal. Biocycle 38(6): 56-57.

46. Lohr VI, Brien RGO andCoffey DL (1984). Spentmushroom compost in soilless media and its effects onthe yield and quality oftransplants. J. Amer. Soc.Hort. Sci. 109(5): 693-697.

47. Lohr VI, Wang SH and WoltJD (1984). Physical andchemical characteristics offresh and aged spent

46


mushroom compost. HortScience 19(5): 681-683.

48. Lohr VI and Coffey DL (1987).Growth responses ofseedlings to varying rates offresh and aged spentmushroom compost. HortScience 22(5): 913-915.

49. Maher MJ (1991). Spentmushroom compost (SMC)as a nutrient source in peatbased potting substrate.Mushroom Science XIII (PartII): 645-650.

50. Nee CC, Chou WY and ChenS (1994). Study on compostof winter mushroom - areused medium forpersimmon potting. JAgriculture and Forestry43(4): 39-44.

51. Okeke BC, Smith JE,Paterson A and Watson -Craik IA (1993). Aerobicmetabolism ofpentachlorophenol by spentsawdust culture of “shiitake”mushroom (Lentinus edodes)in soil. Biotech. Let. 15:1077-1080.

52. Pill WG, Evans TA andGarrison SA (1993). Forcingwhite button asparagus invarious subs under cool and

warm regimes. Hort. Science28(10): 996-998.

53. Robinson EC (1988).Fertilizer and Method. United- States - Patent, U.S. 4, 743,287.

54. Romaine P and Holcomb E(2001). Spent mushroomsubstrate a novalmultifunctional constituentof a potting medium forplants. Mushroom News49(11): 4-6.

55. Royse D J (1993). Recyclingof spent shiitake substrate forproduction of the oystermushroom (Pleurotus sajor-

caju). Mushroom News 41 (2):14-18.

56. Rupert DR (1995). Use ofspent mushroom substrate instabilizing disturbed andcommercial sites. CompostScience and Utilization 3(1):80-83.

57. Sagar MP, Ahlawat OP, DevRaj, Vijay B and C Indurani(2007). Identification,documentation, verificationand refinement of indigenoustechnical knowledge aboutuse of spent mushroomsubstrate. Indian JTraditional Knowledge(communicated).

47


58. Sharma HSS, Furlan A andLyons G (1999). Comparativeassessment of chelated SMSas casing material forproduction of Agaricus

bisporus. AppliedMicrobiology andBiotechnology 52(3): 366-372.

59. Sochtig H and Grabbe K(1995). The production andutilization of organic-mineralfertilizer from spentmushroom compost.Mushroom Science XIV (PartII): 907-915.

60. Szmidt RAK (1994).Recycling of spent mushroomsubstrates by aerobiccomposting to produce novelhorticultural substrates.Compost Science andUtilization 2(3): 63-72.

61. Verma RR (1986). Efficacy oforganic amendmentsagainst Meloidogyne

incognita infesting tomatoIndia J Nematology 16(1):105-106.

62. Wisniewska GH andPankiewicz T (1989).Evaluation of the suitabilityof spent mushroom substratefor tulip cultivation. Prace -Instytute - Sadownictwa-i-

Kwiaciarstwa- w.-Skierniewicach. Seria-B,-Rosliny -Ozdobne, 14: 7 -14.

63. Wuest PJ and Fahy HK(1991). Spent mushroomcompost traits and uses.Mushroom News 39 (12): 9-15.

64. Wuest PJ, Fahy HK andFahy J (1995). Use of spentmushroom substrate (SMS)for corn (maize) productionand its effect on surfacewater quality. CompostScience and Utilization. 3(1):46-54.

65. Yohalem DS, Harris RF andAndrews JH (1994). Aqueousextracts of spent mushroomsubstrate for foliar diseasecontrol. Compost Scienceand Utilization 2(4): 67-74.

66. Yohalem DS, Nordheim EVand Andrews JH (1996). Theeffect of water extracts ofspent mushroom compost onapple scab in the field.Phytopathology 86(9): 914-922.

67. Zang CK, Gong F and Li DS(1995). A note on theutilization of spentmushroom composts inAnimal feeds. BioresourceTechnology 52: 89-91.

48


technical bulletin management of spent mushroom …

Documents