Utilization of Urban Wastes in Crop Production

Author(s): Carl W. Carlson and J. D. Menzies

Source: BioScience, Vol. 21, No. 12 (Jun. 15, 1971), pp. 561-564
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1295709 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 17:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Utilization
in
Carl W. Carlson and J. D. Menzies
The public concern about pollution
and its influence on ecology has placed
great emphasis on the disposal of urban
wastes. Deteriorating water quality
makes it evident that past practices of
disposing of wastes in our streams can
no longer be tolerated. Likewise, the
increases in smog have led to added
restrictions on burning of refuse.
Intensified activity on this problem
was made possible by the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1965. This legislation
directs the Secretary of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
initiate, encourage, and support a na-
tional program aimed at discovering and
evaluating better methods of waste dis-
posal. In our search for alternative
solutions to waste management prob-
lems, more and more attention is being
given to disposal of domestic and in-
dustrial wastes on the land.
It has long been an article of faith
among city dwellers that almost any
form of waste, with proper composting
and processing, can be made into a
fertilizer that farmers will gladly pay
for. They reason that even if it does not
contain much of the essential plant
nutrients, surely it will improve soil
structure and produce healthy plants.
This is simply not true; at least not true
enough to persuade the modern com-
mercial farmer. The present-day farm
manager is an astute businessman, and
he will first ask, "What will it cost me to
put this on the land per pound of
available N, P, and K?" and then, "Does
it contain substances that will harm my
soil or reduce the value of my crop?"
So in approaching the question of
beneficial use of urban wastes on land
for crop production, it must be realized
that benefits to the farm are apt to be
The authors are with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation Re-
search Division, Beltsville, Maryland.
This paper is a contribution from the Soil and
Water Conservation Research Division, Agri-
cultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. It was presented
at the First National Biological Congress,
Detroit, Mich., 6-10 November 1970.
June 15, 1971
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:23 PM
of Urban
Crop Production
minimal. On the other hand, benefits to
those having to dispose of the wastes are
obvious. This is not to say that agricul-
ture has no role or responsibility in
helping to handle the Nation's avalanche
of wastes. But when these wastes are to
be used on productive land, the eco-
nomics will have to be understood, and
more importantly, the sustained produc-
tivity of the land and the quality of the
drainage water from it must not be
impaired.
It seems certain that agricultural land
will have to be used more and more for
urban waste disposal. The waste can be
applied in conjunction with normal crop
production, or it can replace cropping-
converting the land to simply a disposal
site. The Nation's land resources need
be in no danger from either activity. We
have at present almost 182.1 million ha
of cropland and over 404.7 million ha of
forest and range. In addition, there are
some 202.4 million ha of nonagricul-
tural (U.S. Dept. Agric. 1969). If we
assume that we generate about 907 kg of
solid waste per capita per year and that
cultivated farmland can easily handle
9070 kg per hectare of the usual kind of
processed garbage or sewage sludge, we
can calculate that all of our decom-
posable or pulverizable municipal wastes
could be disposed of on less than 5% of
our cropland without harm to the re-
source. This is an assumed worst case.
Actually, sanitary land fills with many
times higher loadings can be made on
noncropped land; forest and range can
be utilized if necessary; and the waste
tonnage reduced by sorting and recycl-
ing. Obviously the problem comes
down to distribution rather than capac-
ity of the whole system.
Three main types of urban wastes
can be used on cropland beneficially, or
at least, not harmfully: municipal gar-
bage, sewage effluents and sludge, and
wastes from food-processing plants.
(Some might consider animal manures
from feedlots as an urban waste because
of the proximity of many of these
enterprises to suburbia. However, this is
really another subject.) Industrial wastes
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wastes
are so diverse in composition that one
cannot generalize as to their acceptabil-
ity on agricultural land.
Municipal refuse. The composition of
municipal refuse is difficult to define
because it may contain any and all
substances used by man. Available infor-
mation indicates that paper products
make up about one-half the weight of
urban refuse (Environmental Pollution
Panel, 1965). Food wastes make up
about one-fifth, and another one-fifth is
made up of such nondegradable mate-
rials as metals, concrete, glass, ceramic,
and ashes.
The cheapest method of refuse dis-
posal on land at present is the so-called
sanitary land fill. This process is ordi-
narily not associated with crop produc-
tion because it ideally creates new land
more suited to urban use or parks. In
any case, the eventual problem from
sanitary land fill is the danger of ground
water pollution by seepage. This is a
particularly serious problem in humid
regions and on sites, such as marshland,
where a high water table exists. For
example, the first leachate coming from
the land fills in Pennsylvania and Illinois
had a BOD content of 20,000 ppm and
a COD content of 50,000 ppm (Envi-
ronmental Pollution Panel, 1965). These
leachates contained 1000 ppm of iron
and 2000 ppm of chlorides. These con-
centrations are roughly 100 times those
in raw municipal sewage.
For many years, organic farmers have
promoted the practice of composting
organic wastes. However, in the United
States, composting has been an eco-
nomic failure because (1) there was no
steady market; (2) the initial investment
and operating costs were too high;
(3) the end product was of low quality;
and (4) the noncompostible separates
required a land fill for disposal.
Composting and compost utilization
have been somewhat more successful in
Europe. In 1968, Hart made a study of
the composting of solid wastes in several
European countries. Less than 1% of the
domestic refuse in West Germany was
composted, compared with 17% in Hol-
561
TABLE 1. Sales distribution in per cent of the erosion losses from small plots on a
compost from municipal refuse in Holland 30% slope were reduced from 5 to 0.2
(From Hart, 1968). m3 of soil per hectare per year when 60
metric tons of compost were applied as
Outlet 1961 1965 a mulch (Fig. 1).
In Germany, studies indicated that
Forests 2.4 0.6
90,720 kg of compost per hectare made it
Agriculture (field possible to establish vegetation on strip-
and row crops mined sites. The scientists concluded
and litter) 34.4 16.4 that the organic matter in the compost
Fruit farming 6.5 6.3 improved the physical properties of the
Hotbeds 11.6 13.0 problem soils, as reflected in increased
Greenhouses
water-holding capacity. However, physi-
7.9 8.4
cal data to prove or disprove this hypo-
Bulb production 11.7 17.6 thesis were lacking.
Recreation 25.5 37.7 The nutrient content of compost is
usually low, but frequently, very satis-
land. Percentage figures for the com- factory yield increases result. For exam-
posted refuse in France, Switzerland, ple, Tietjen and Hart (1969) in studies
and Italy were not available but ap- over a 9-year period found that compost
parently account for only a minor part increased yields of potatoes, rye, and
of these countries' output. oats an average of 11.4% compared with
Most of the refuse made into com- plots receiving equal amounts of nutri-
post was marketed in "luxury agricul- ents supplied as chemical fertilizer but
ture" in the five countries visited by no compost.
Hart. The sales distribution in percent- In recent field studies conducted by
age in Holland is given in Table 1. Terman (1970), compost applied at 16
Between 1961 and 1965, the amount of metric tons per hectare increased
compost used in basic agriculture de- sorghum forage yields 0.6 metric tons/
creased by one-half. Economics caused hectare (Fig. 2) by increasing the soil
this decline; 907 kg of compost contains
INFLUENCE OF N AND COMPOSTON FORAGE
only 0.5% N, 0.4% P, and 0.2% potas- SORGHUMYIELDS
sium. Farmers can buy and apply chemi- 71Kg/ho
z oaomo
ix No N
cal fertilizer cheaper than they can
0
apply compost obtained without cost.
European compost research has re- o
cently been directed to use for crop
3-
production on special problem sites. For
example, the scarcity of straw and
animal manures ordinarily used to
mulch vineyards on steep slopes in
Germany and Switzerland prompted sci- 0 4 8 12 16
COMPOST M TONS/HA
entists in those countries to evaluate from Termon
compost as an erosion control residue. Fig. 2
Results show that compost from munic- water-holding capacity. A similar re-
ipal refuse can be a good substitute for sponse to compost was measured with
straw and manure. Over a 7-year period, Bermudagrass. With both crops, how-
ever, the yield increases were insuf-
AVERAGE SOIL LOSS FROM 30" VINEYARD
ficient to pay the application costs.
SLOPES TREATED WITH COMPOST In a greenhouse experiment in which
AT BAD KREUZNACH,GER.
an infertile Mountview silt loam was
5-
used, corn forage yields increased
04- markedly with the amount of applied
nitrogen both with and without com-
0- post (Fig. 3). Application of compost
without nitrogen decreased yields and N
uptake on all treatments. These data
illustrate the need for adequate nitrogen
fertilizer with the compost to prevent
nitrogen deficiencies.
COMPOST APPLICATION M TONS/HA
There will always be a small market
from Hort
for garbage compost in the retail trade
FFig.
ig. 1.1. for home gardeners. This outlet, how-
562
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ever, will be trivial compared with the
volume of compostible waste being
generated. Compost can certainly be
used safely, and often beneficially, on
cropland, but these benefits are simply
not great enough to pay production
costs. Whether composting is used in
garbage disposal will be decided by the
economics of waste management rather
than by the demand for this product in
commercial agriculture.
Somewhat of a hybrid between sani-
tary landfill and compost is the process
of garbage shredding. After a prelimi-
nary sorting, the garbage, the bulk of
which is paper products, is shredded by
machine. The resulting product is said
to be dry and surprisingly odor free.
This material can be spread on the land
surface, buried in trenches, or mixed
into the soil. There is no apparent
reason why mixing shredded garbage
into soil should be incompatible with
many kinds of crop production. In
effect, the compost is being made in the
soil rather than in an industrial plant.
One could probably apply on the order
18,144 to 90,720 kg per hectare of such
a product without harm, handling it
much like a low analysis manure. Studies
are probably needed to find solutions to
the problems of odor, wind movement of
garbage fragments, and the limitation of
use on root crops for human consump-
tion.
Sewage sludge. Soil scientists have
long recognized that sewage sludge was
more valuable as a soil amendment than
as a compost. Bear and Prince (1947), in
a study comparing sewage sludge with
manure, concluded that sludge rein-
forced with potassium was as effective
as cow manure in increasing corn yields.
Lunt (1959), working with sewage
sludge in Connecticut, found that
sludges varied widely in their properties.
Most contained high amounts of nitro-
gen. All sludges contained relatively
large amounts of zinc and considerable
amounts of copper and boron in com-
RESPONSE OF CORN TO APPLIED N AS INFLUENCED
BY COMPOST
260 -
45- O
1550
S- - No compost
compost/pot
20 400 800
N APPLIED, MG/POT by Trmo
Fig. 3.
BioScience Vol. 21 No. 12
 TABLE 2. Heavy metals' content of Con-
necticut digested sewage sludges compared
with manure (From Lunt, 1959)
Material B Cu Mn
ppm
Sewage sludge 211 758 172
Manure 38 61 150
parison with manure (Table 2). The
influence of industrial wastes on the
concentration of these metals in sludges
was evident from the data obtained in a
study in Muskegon County, Michigan.
Although the heavy metals varied
greatly, sludge from this highly indus-
trialized county was much higher in
heavy metals than sludge from the city
of San Diego (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Heavy metals in sewage sludge
(From Muskegon County, Michigan, unpub-
lished data)
Elements MCWMSa San Diego
Cadmium (Cd) 1-110 0-2.5
Chromium (Cr) 26-580 0 Beet roots
Copper (Cu) 24-690 20-33
Lead (Pb) 6-510 3-11
Nickel (Ni) Trace -150 0-0.75
Zinc (Zn) 90-2280 67-200
aMuskegon County Wastewater Management
System
Lunt (1959) compared a sludge from
an industrial area (Torrington) with
sludge originating from municipal
wastes (West Haven), using table beets
and spinach as indicator crops. West
Haven sludge more than doubled
spinach yields and more than tripled
beet yields (Fig. 4). High rates of Tor-
rington sludge reduced spinach yields
due to the high copper and zinc con-
tents. The toxicity was accentuated
when extra nitrogen was used but was
corrected when the soils were limed.
The total salts in sewage sludge delayed
seed germination on the high treat-
ments.
In a review of the importance of
heavy metals in soils, Lagerwerff (1967)
warns that it is possible for a number of
heavy metals to enter the food cycle by
way of the soil. Copper, zinc, and nickel
can be a problem through toxicity to
crop plants. Cadmium and lead, on the
other hand, may be hazardous to man
and animals eating the crop.
June 15, 1971
This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:23 PM
Cadmium is of concern because it is with raw sewage, to modern "sewage
absorbed readily by many species of farms," using secondary treatment efflu-
plants. Cadmium can be absorbed in the ents with or without suspended sludge.
body and has been related to cardiovas- A good example of how treated
Zn
cular disturbances and degradation of sewage effluents can be used on the land
renal and testicular tissues. is the system developed by Kardos and
3205 Lead accumulates in the surface soil. associates (1970) at Pennsylvania State
210
Most research data suggest that plant University. The objectives of these
contamination occurs by lead deposi- studies were to return sewage nutrients
tion from the atmosphere. However, to the land, restore ground water, avoid
there is some evidence that lead trans-
stream pollution, and eliminate the need
locates from root to shoot. for adding chemical fertilizer to crop-
Unfavorable effects of heavy metals land. The system involves using the
on plants generally can be alleviated by water and nutrients in sewage effluents
keeping the pH above 6.5. Also, the on forest and cultivated crops. When the
organic matter in soil or in the sludge effluents were applied at the rate of
tends to reduce the toxicity from heavy 2.5 cm per week, the equivalent of 1150
metals to plants. kilograms per hectare of a 14-15-14
Recently, there has been great con- fertilizer was added. Yields of treated
cern about methylated mercury in the cultivated and forested crops were
environment. Apparently, inorganic about double those not receiving the
mercury becomes methylated through effluent. The data indicate that the
anaerobic microbial activity. Many of
system, modified to suit local condi-
these organic wastes are anaerobic some- tions, holds real promise for solving
time in their history. Therefore, the waste disposal problems in small villages
mercury content of these sludges needs and cities.
to be watched. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago has selected land dis-
BEET AND SPINACHYIELDS ON HARTFORDLOAM
posal as the best method of handling
* - - WestHavensludge
O its sewage sludge (Dalton et al.,
S400 -Spinoch
Torringtonsludge
U o- - - West Havensludge 1968). In 1968, a sandy soil area about
S x
-
sludge 0o- - - - -
Torrington
- - - - - --
80.5 km from Chicago was selected as a
~3 00-- 00
W.0 disposal site. The digested sludge is
- -- transported by tank car in a 3% slurry
to the agricultural site. Moving the
solids via the water vehicle provides
a
waters for irrigation as well as nutrients
0 20 40 80
SLUDGE-Cubicmeters/ha
from Lunt
for the crops. The reduction in cost over
other methods of sludge disposal is
Fig. 4.
substantial (Fig. 5). The agricultural
Dried activated sewage sludge is com- benefits
from sludge usage are less obvi-
monly used on shrubs and flowers. ous. The usual method of
applying
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Grand sludges by sprinkler caused no damage
Rapids, Michigan, have successfully to corn (Hinesly and Sasewitz, 1969).
marketed activated sludge from their Although the crop injury is unlikely, the
treatment plants for the past several public health implications are not well
years. Revenues from these sales have understood.
partially offset the operating costs of Sewage effluents have been applied
the facilities. Many cities report using to land in Europe for
up to 100 years,
sludge on parks, golf courses, and other and at several sites in the United States,
municipally owned properties. applications have been in progress for
From these and other experiments, over 50 years. The composition of the
we can conclude that sewage sludge can effluents has been variable, and
applica-
supply plants with nitrogen, phospho- tion rates, on a dry-weight basis, have
rus, and trace elements. However, the ranged from less than 907 kg per ha to
value of the nutrients supplied does not
over 90,720 kg per ha. In general, there
justify the costs involved in their use on has been very little evidence of harmful
field crops. effects on crops or soils. From these
Liquid sewage effluent. Several meth- experiences, the following cautionary
ods of using liquid sewage effluents on points can be made:
land have been developed, some of them 1) Soluble salts may be high enough
having been used for many years. These to interfere with germination and seed-
systems range from the primitive use of ling growth of crops. This can be con-
night soil, through surface irrigation trolled by leaching practices, but such a
563
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COSTOF DISPOSALMETHODS
FORACTIVATED
$66 SLUDGE ing, followed by lagooning, can appreci- act as a living filter for many of the in-
#63 from Ddton
60
etol
ably reduce the undesirable characteris- organic chemicals known as pollutants.
#54 tics of effluent waters. Proper use of the We have been short-sighted in our
water in lagoons for irrigation can com- attempts to use water and air as a
pletely eliminate stream pollution. cheap sink for our pollutants. The pub-
*n40-
Rates of application range from 0.25 to lic is now confronted with requests for
230 1.5 meters (1 to 5 acre-feet) per year, tremendous sums of money to reverse
depending on soil conditions. Most pro- this process. In seeking alternatives, we
20 -
16.5 cessors prefer sprinkler irrigation meth- must consider the soil as a pollutant
ods for effluent disposal. sink. Caution must be exercised to avoid
10 In Delaware, Pearson and Knibbe1 damaging soils by applying amounts
O- 0
PY
FOR DEWATER
showed that 90% of the COD and that exceed the soils' capacity to absorb
DIGESTION DIGESTION&
& BURN
ERT. B PERM.LAG.APPL.ONLAND
phosphates were removed in the top these pollutants. Properly planned land
0.15 meters (6 inches) of soil. Under areas used for waste disposal can serve
Fig. 5. conditions of hydraulic overloading, the useful purposes as greenbelts or for
practice can lower the quality of drain- danger of surface-water contamination agricultural production.
age water. by runoff was much greater than If the soils' potential for waste dis-
2) The nitrogen content of the ap- ground-water contamination. Usually, posal and utilization is to be fully real-
plied waste may be excessive, leading to the disposal area must be allowed to dry ized, there must be substantial inputs
lower quality of some crops, excess between irrigations to maintain a satis- from the agricultural scientists. They
lodging of grain or hay, and perhaps factory infiltration rate. must provide the information on the
even increasing the nitrate content of In almost every case where proces- limitations that must be put on waste
forage to levels hazardous to livestock. sing plant effluents are disposed of on disposal practices to preserve our soil and
3) Continued application of sewage cropland, they are spread by sprinkler water resources. When this is coupled to
products to land could eventually lead on permanent grass. Because applica- engineering and economic studies, dis-
to dangerous levels of certain minor tions have to be geared to plant opera- posal of urban wastes on cropland can be
elements, notably copper, zinc, boron, tions rather than field operations, the planned rationally, safely, and aestheti-
nickel, cadmium, and lead. We have seen forage may not be harvested or pas- cally.
reports from Europe showing that cop- tured. The systems are primarily for
References
per and zinc seem to be causing yield disposal with no attention to possible
F.
Bear, E., and A. L. Prince. 1947. Agricul-
reduction on sewage farms that have beneficial use in crop production. There
turalvalue of sewagesludge.N.J. Agr. Exp.
been operating for 70 to 100 years. are many operational problems to be Sta. Bull. 733, 30 p.
Obviously, the time required to reach solved in combining processing plant Dalton, F. E., J. E. Stein, and B. T. Lyman.
this danger level will depend on minor waste disposal with crop production, 1968. Land reclamation-A complete solu-
element content of the waste, rate of but if the benefits from irrigation water tion of the sludgeand solids disposalprob-
lem. J. WaterPollut. Contr. Fed., 40(5):
loading, and the character of the soil. or nutrients are great enough, the han- 789-805.
Dangerous levels of minor elements dling can be worked out. Where sprinkler Environmental Pollution Panel, President's
need to be established from research disposal fields are established on good Science AdvisoryCommittee. 1965. Restor-
data. This will permit careful monitor- cropland, the site should be returned to ing the Quality of Our Environment.The
ing so that applications can be stopped crop production and a new disposal site WhiteHouse, 317 p.
Hart, Samuel A. 1968. Soil WasteManage-
before the soil is irreversibly damaged. established before salts of other toxic
ment/Composting;European Activity and
Food processing wastes. Wastes from chemicals have accumulated to a harm- AmericanPotential. U.S. Health, Education
the food processing industry are being ful concentration. and Welfare, Public Health Service, No.
successfully disposed of on agricultural Potential of land application for 1826, 40 p.
land. The principal ingredients, other waste disposal. In our concern about the Hinesly, T. D., and B. Sasewitz. 1969. Di-
gested sludgedisposalon cropland.J. Water
than water, in such wastes are plant and possibility of polluting our atmosphere, Pollut. Contr.Fed., 41(5): 822-831.
animal remains. These are quickly rivers, and reservoirs, we have so far Kardos, Louis T. 1970. A new prospect.
decomposed by soil microorganisms. failed to take full advantage of the Environment,12(2): 10-27.
The major points of concern are chemi- tremendous and underexploited capac- Lagerwerff,J. V. 1967. Heavy-metalcontami-
nation of soils. In: Agriculture and the
cal additives used in processing. ity of our soils to absorb pollutants. The Quality of the Environment, N.C. Brady
Most canneries operate on a seasonal wastes concentrated by agriculture, in- (ed.), p. 343-364.
basis. Waste volume and characteristics dustry, and municipalities can be dis- Lunt, Herbert A. 1959. Digested sewage
vary widely with the type of product persed by applying them to the land. sludge for soil improvement. Conn. Agr.
packed. For example, effluents from The various microbiological and chemi- Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 622, 30 p.
Terman, G. L. 1970. Utilization and/or dis-
packing plants using high amounts of cal processes in soil can convert pollu- posal of urban waste compost on agricul-
sodium chloride for quality-grading peas tants into plant nutrients or innocuous turalland. Joint Industry/Government Task
and lima beans, or lye for peeling substances. Data presented in this paper Force on Eutrophication,TVA Activities
potatoes, require different disposal sys- indicate the tremendous capacity of the Related to Study and Controlof Eutrophi-
tems than acid effluents with high BOD soil to absorb organic wastes and bio- cation in the Tennessee Valley, National
Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle
and COD values. logically break them into compounds Shoals,Alabama.
The material in the wastes consists that can re-enter the natural cycle of Tietzen, C., and S. A. Hart. 1969. Compost
largely of organic solids in suspension plant and animal life. The soil can also for agriculturalland?J. SanitaryEngin.,SA
2 April 1969, Proc. Paper6506, p. 269-287.
that cause objectionable conditions
U.S. Departmentof Agriculture.1969. Agn'-
when they decompose. Effective screen- 1Unpublished data culturalStatistics1969, p. 429.
564 BioScienceVol. 21 No. 12

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.54 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions