The wonders of earthworms & its vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with potential to replace destructive chemical fertilizers

doi:10.4236/as.2010.12011

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.1, No.2, 76-94 (2010)

doi:10.4236/as.2010.12011

Agricultural Sciences

The wonders of earthworms & its vermicompost in farm

production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with

potential to replace destructive chemical fertilizers

from agriculture

Rajiv K. Sinha1, Sunita Agarwal2, Krunal Chauhan3, Dalsukh Valani3

1Visiting Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering (Environment), Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, Australia;

Corresponding Aut hor: Rajiv.Sinha@griffith.edu.au

2Home Science, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

3Research Assistant Worked on Vermiculture Projects, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Received 15 April 2010; revised 2 June 2010; accepted 30 June 2010.

ABSTRACT

Earthworms and its excreta (vermicast) prom-

ises to usher in the ‘Second Green Revolution’

by completely replacing the destructive agro-

chemicals which did more harm than good to

both the farmers and their farmland. Earth-

worms restore & improve soil fertility and sig-

nificantly boost crop productivity. Earthworms

excreta (vermicast) is a nutritive ‘organic fertil-

izer’ rich in humus, NKP, micronutrients, bene-

ficial soil microbes—‘nitrogen-fixing & phos-

phate solubilizing bacteria’ & ‘actinomycet s’ and

growth hormones ‘auxins’, ‘gibberlins’ & ‘cyto-

kinins’. Both earthworms and its vermicast &

body liquid (vermiwash) are scientifically prov-

ing as both ‘growth promoters & protectors’ for

crop plants. In our experiments with corn &

wheat crops, tomato and egg-plants it displayed

excellent growth performances in terms of

height of plants, color & texture of leaves, ap-

pearance of flowers & fruits, seed ears etc. as

compared to chemical fertilizers and the con-

ventional compost. There is also less inci-

dences of ‘pest & disease attack’ and ‘reduced

demand of water’ for irrigation in plants grown

on vermicompost. Presence of live earthworms

in soil also makes significant difference in flow er

and fruit formation in vegetable crops. Com-

posts w ork as a ‘slow-release fertilizer ’ w hereas

chemical fertilizers release their nutrients rather

quickly in soil and soon get depleted. Signifi-

cant amount of ‘chemical nitrogen’ is lost from

soil due to oxidation in sunlight. However, with

application of vermicompost the ‘organic nitro-

gen’ tends to be released much faster from the

excreted ‘humus’ by worms and those mineral-

ised by them and the net overall efficiency of

nitrogen (N) is considerably greater than that of

chemical fertilizers. Availability of phosphorus

(P) is sometimes much greater. Our study sh-

ows that earthworms and vermicompost can

promote growth from 50 to 100% over conven-

tional compost & 30 to 40% over chemical fer-

tilizers besides protecting the soil and the agro-

ecosystem while producing ‘nutritive and tasty

food’ at a much economical cost (at least 50-

75% less) as compared to the costly chemical

fertilizers.

Keywords: A Slow Release Fertilizer;

Vermicompost – Miracle Growth Promoter; Rich in

Nutrients; H umus & Hormones; Vermicompost

Induce Biological Resistance in Plant; Suppress &

Repel Pest Attack

1. INTRODUCTION

A revolution is unfolding in vermiculture studies for

vermicomposting of diverse organic wastes by waste

eater earthworms into a nutritive ‘organic fertilizer’ and

using them for production of ‘chemical-free safe food’,

both in quantity & quality without recourse to agro-

chemicals. Heavy use of agro-chemica ls since the ‘green-

revolution’ of the 1960’s boosted food productivity, but

at the cost of environment & society. It killed the benefi-

cial soil organisms & destroyed their natural fertility,

impaired the power of ‘biological resistance’ in crops

making them more susceptible to pests & diseases. Che-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

mically grown foods have adversely affected human

health. The scientific community all over the world is

desperately looking for an ‘economically viable, socially

safe & environmentally sustainable’ alternative to the

agro-chemicals.

Vermicomposts work as a ‘slow-release organic fertil-

izer’. With their continued application the ‘organic nitro-

gen’ & other nutrien ts in compost tends to be released at

constant rate from the accumulated ‘humus’ and the net

overall efficiency of NPK over a period of years is con-

siderably greater than 50% of that of chemical fertilizers.

Our study shows that it can promote growth from 50 to

100% over conventional compost & 30 to 40% over

chemical fertilizers besides protecting the soil and the

agro-ecosystem while producing ‘nutritive and tasty

food’ at a much economical cost (at least 50-75% less)

as compared to the costly chemical fertilizers. Study

found that maximum benefit from vermicompost is ob-

tained when it constitutes between 10 to 40% of the

growing medium [1].

The best part is that the use of earthworms and ver-

micompost in farm production provides dual-benefit to

crops. While promoting excellent growth it also protects

the crops from pests and diseases and thus significantly

reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

Several farms in world especially in North America,

Australia and Europe are going organic as the demand

for ‘organic foods’ are growing in society. In 1980, the

U.S. Board of Agriculture published a ‘Report and

Recommendations on Organic Farming’ based on case

studies of 69 organic farmers in U.S. and reported that

over 90,000 to 1,00,000 farmers in U.S. had already

switched over to organic farming [2]. This must have

gone in millions now. Earthworms will provide the an-

swer [3]. They have over 600 million years of experi-

ence in land management, soil improvement & farm

production. No wonder, Sir Charles Darwin called them

as the ‘unheralded soldiers of mankind and farmer’s

friend working day and night under the soil’ [4,5]. Im-

Figure 1. The sustainability cycle of vermiculture technology:

from food waste to food again.

portance of earthworms in growth of crop plants was

indicated by the ancient Indian scientist Surpala as early

as in the 10th Century A.D. in his epic ‘Vrikshayurveda’

(Science of Tree Growing) who suggested to add earth-

worms in pomegranate plants to get good quality of

fruits [6].

2. EARTHWORMS: THE SOIL MANAGER

Earthworms restore & improve soil fertility and boost

crop productivity by th e use of their excr etory products -

‘vermicast’. They excrete beneficial soil microbes, and

secrete polysaccharides, proteins and other nitrogenous

compounds into the soil. They promote soil fragmenta-

tion and aeration, and bring about ‘soil turning’ and dis-

persion in farmlands. Worm activity can increase air-soil

volume from 8-30%. One acre of land can contain up to

3 million earthworms the activities of which can bring

up to 8-10 tons of ‘top soil’ to the surface (in the form of

vermicast) every year. Presence of worms regenerate

compacted soils and improves water penetration in such

soils by over 50%. [7-9]. U.S. study indicate that 10,000

worms in a farm plot provides the same benefit as three

farmers working 8 hours in shift all year round with 10

tons of manure applied in the plot [10].

Indian study showed that an earthworm population of

0.2-1.0 million per hectare of farmlands can be estab-

lished within a short period of three months. On an av-

erage 12 tons/hectare/year of soil or organic matter is

ingested by earthworms, leading to upturning of 18 tons

of soil/year, and the world over at this rate it may mean a

2 inches of fertile humus layer over the globe [11].

Studies at CSIRO, Australia found that introductions of

earthworms in disturbed lands can yield substantial

benefits to agricultural productivity and amelioration of

soil degrad ation.

3. CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS-A BANE,

COMPOST THE BOON:

REDISCOVERING THE VALUE

OF ‘COMPOST’ FOR SAFE

FOOD PRODUCTION

Chemical fertilizers which ushered the ‘green revolution’

in the 1950-6 0’s cam e as a ‘m ixed ble ssin g’ for m anki nd.

It dramatically increased the ‘quantity’ of the food pro-

duced but decreased its ‘nutritional quality’ and also the

‘soil fertility’ over the years. The so il has become addict

and increasingly greater amount of chemical fertilizers

are needed every year to maintain the soil fertility and

food productivity at the same levels. There is evidence

that a plateau has been reached in global efforts to in-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

crease the yield per hectare through agro-chemicals. The

early response to chemical fertilizers is ‘levelling off’

after a 3% annual increase 1950-1984. Over the years it

has worked like a ‘slow poison’ for the soil with a serious

‘withdrawal symptoms’. The farmers today are caught in

a ‘vicious circle’ of higher use of agrochemicals to boost

food productivity at the cost of declining soil fertility. The

excessive use of ‘nitrogenous fertilizer’ (urea) has also

led to increase in the level of ‘inorganic nitrogen’ content

in groundwater (through leaching effects) and in the

human food with grave consequences for the human

health.

Organic farming systems with the aid of various nu-

trients of biological origin such as compost (conven-

tional microbial compost or vermicompost made by

earthworms) are thought to be the answer for the ‘food

safety and security’ in future. Among them ‘composts’

made from biodegradation of organics of MSW (mu-

nicipal solid waste) which is being generated in huge

amount every day all over the world are most important.

The organic fraction of the MSW (about 70-80%) con-

taining plenty of nitrogen (N), potash (K) and phospho-

rus (P) is a good source of macro and micronutrients for

the soil. Also, there is always greater economic as well

as ecological wisdom in converting as much ‘waste into

compost’.

4. AGRONOMIC VALUES OF COMPOST

(CONVENTIONAL OR

VERMICOMPOST)

Composts (con ventional or ve rmicompost) are aerobically

decomposed products of organic wastes such as the cattle

dung and animal droppings, farm and forest wastes and

the municipal solid wastes (MSW). Some believe it is a

‘miracle’ plant growth promoter [12]. They supply bal-

anced nutrients to plant roots and stimulate growth; in-

crease organic matt er content of t he soil and thus improve

their physical and chemical properties; add useful mi-

cro-organisms to the soil and provide food for the existing

soil micro-organisms and thus increase their biological

properties and capacity of fertility renewal. One ton of

conventional compost may contain 10 l bs of nitrogen (N),

5 lbs of phosphorus (P2O5) and 10 lbs of potash (K2O).

Compost made from poultry droppings contain highest

nutrient level among all compost [13].

There are other agronomic benefits of composts ap-

plication, such as high levels of soil-borne disease sup-

pression and removal of so il salinity. One study reported

that mean root disease was reduced from 82% to 18% in

tomato and from 98% to 26% in capsicum in soils

amended with compost [14]. Other reported that with

application of compost in vineyards, levels of exchange-

able sodium (Na) under vine were at least reduced to

50% [15]. Biological properties of soil were also im-

proved with up to ten-fold increase in total microbial

counts. Most significant was three-fold increase in the

population of earthworms under the vine with long-term

benefits to the soil.

5. VERMICOMPOST VS

CONVENTIONAL COMPOST

Our studies at Griffith University, Australia has conclu-

sively proved that the indigenously prepared earthworms

vermicompost is ‘exceptionally superior’ over all brands

of conventionally prepared & marketed composts certi-

fied by Compost Australia. Studies confirm that vermi-

compost is at least 4 times more nutritive than conven-

tional cattle dung compost [16]. In Argentina, farmers

who use vermicompost consider it to be seven (7) times

richer than conventional composts in nutrients and

growth promoting values [17,18]. This is mainly due to

‘humus’ content in vermicompost excreted by earth-

worms which otherwise takes very long time to form

humus in conventional composting system through slow

decay of organic matter. The ‘humic acid’ in vermicom-

post stimulate plant growth even in small amount [19].

Vermicompost retains nutrients for long time than the

conventional compost & while the latter fails to deliver

the required amount of macro and micronutrients in-

cluding the vital NKP (nitrogen, potassium & phospho-

rus) to plants in shorter time, the vermicompost does.

Vermicompost also has very ‘high porosity’, ‘aeration’,

‘drainage’ and ‘water holding capacity’ than the conven-

tional compost and this again due to humus contents.

[16].

Earthworm participation enhances natural biodegrada-

tion and decomposition of organic materials from 60 to

80% by promoting the growth of ‘beneficial decomposer

aerobic bacteria’ in the waste biomass. The quality of

compost is significantly better, rich in key minerals &

beneficial soil microbes. It is also disinfected and free of

any pathogens as the worms release anti-pathogenic

coelomic fluid in the waste biomass [20]. In fact in the

conventional aerobic composting process which is ther-

mophilic (temperature rising up to 55℃) many benefi-

cial microbes are killed and nutrient especially nitrogen

is lost (due to gassing off of nitrogen). Some studies

found that while the conventional compost was higher in

‘ammonium’, the vermicompost tended to be higher in

‘nitrates’, which is the more bio-available form of nitro-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

gen for plants [21]. They also found that vermicompost

has higher N availability than the conventional compost

on a weight basis and the supply of several other plant

nutrients e.g. phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S)

and magnesium (Mg), were significantly increased by

adding vermicompost as compared to conventional com-

post to soil. Study found the NPK value of vermicom-

post processed by worms from the same feedstock (cattle

dung) significantly increases by 3 to 4 times. It also en-

hances several m i cron ut ri ent s [2 2] .

Studies have found that if 100 kg of soil organics

(with say containing 2 kg of plant nutrients) are proc-

essed through the earthworms, there is a production of

about 300 kg of ‘fresh living soil’ with 6% of NPK and

several trace elements that are equally essential for

healthy plant growth. This magnification of plant nutri-

ents is possible because earthworms produce extra nu-

trients from grinding rock particles with organics and by

enhancing atmospheric nitrogen fixation. Earthworms

activate this ground mix in a short time of just one hour.

When 100 kg of the same organic wastes are composted

conventionally unaided by earthworm s, about 30 kg com -

post is derived with 3% NPK [11].

Although the conventional com posting process i s com-

pleted in about 8 weeks, but additional 4 weeks is re-

quired for ‘curing’. Curing involves the further aerobic

decomposition of some compounds, organic acids and

large particles that remain after composting. Less oxy-

gen and water is required during curing. Compost that

has had insufficient curing may damage crops. Vermi-

compost do not require any curing and can be used

straightway after production. It retains nutrients for long

time and while the conven tional compost fails to deliver

the required amount of macro and micronutrients in-

cluding the vital NKP (nitrogen, potassium & phospho-

rus) to plants in shorter time, the vermicompost does.

[12,23]. This was also verified by us [2 4] .

6. SOIL PROTECTIVE COMPOST VS

SOIL DESTRUCTIVE CHEMICAL

FERTILIZERS

Upon successive application, all composts condition the

soil with rich population of ‘beneficial soil microbes’ &

and ‘essential nutrients’ thus reinforcing its natural fer-

tility, whereas, the chemical fertilizers destroy the bene-

ficial microbes and impair the natural fertility of soil

while also affecting soil pH and porosity. Composts work

as a ‘slow-release fertilizer’ whereas chemical fertilizers

release their nutrients rather qu ickly in soil and soon get

depleted. Nitrogen and phosphorus particularly are not all

available to plant roots from the conventional composts in

Ta b l e 1 . NPK value of vermicompost compared with conven-

tional cattle dung compost made from cattle dung.

Nutrients Cattle Dung

Compost Vermicompost

1.N 0.4-1.0% 2.5-3.0%

2.P 0.4-0.8% 1.8-2.9%

3.K 0.8-1.2% 1.4-2.0%

Source: Ag arwal [22]

Table 2. Comparison between nutritive values of the end

products of conventional composting and vermicomposting

systems (CNP in %; Others in mg/100 gm of compost).

Parameter Conventional

Composting Vermicomposing

Total Carbon (C) 9.34% 13.5%

Total Nitrogen (N)1.05% 1.33%

Available

Phosphorus (P) 0.32% 0.47%

Iron (Fe) 587.87 746.2

Zinc (Zn) 12.7 16.19

Manganese (Mn) 35.25 53.86

Copper (Cu) 4.42 5.16

Magnesium (Mg) 689.32 832.48

Source: Jadia & Fulekar [25]

the first year because N & P in orga nic matter are resi stant

to decay. Nitrogen is about one half effective as com pared

to chemical fertilizer, but phosphorus & potassium are as

effective as chemical fertilizers. However, with continued

application of compost over the years the ‘organic ni-

trogen’ (N) from the accumulated ‘humus’ (through a

long decay process) tends to be released and the net

overall effi ciency of nit rogen (N) over a period of year s is

considerably greater than 50% of that of chemical fertil-

izers. Availability of phosphorus is sometimes much

greater [12,26]. But vermicompost releases nitrogen (N)

much faster and even after single application as ‘humus’

is directly excreted by worms and they also mineralise

nitrogen from the waste organics to make it bio -available

to plants. The net overall efficiency of nitrogen (N) is

considerably greater than that of chemical fertilizers [27].

All compost (including vermicompost), are produced

from some ‘waste materials’ of society which is con-

verted into a ‘valuable resource’. It is like ‘killing two

birds in one shot’. More significant is that it is of bio-

logical origin i.e. a ‘renewable resource’ and will be

readily available to mankind i n future. Whereas, chem ical

fertilizers are made from petroleum products which are

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

‘non-renewable’ and a ‘depleting ’ resource. While in the

use of com post the environment is ‘benefited’ at all stages

- from production (salvaging waste & diverting them

from landfills and reducing greenhouse gases) to appli-

cation in farms (adding beneficial microbes to soil &

improvin g biochem ical properti es), in the u se of chem ical

fertilizers the environment is ‘harmed’ at all stages - from

procurement of raw materials from petroleum industries

to production in factories (generating huge amount of

chemical wastes and pollutants) and application in farms

(adversely affecting beneficial soil micro-organisms and

soil chemistry). And with chemical fertilizers, there is yet

another problem. A significant amount of ‘nitrogen’ (N)

is lost from the soil due to oxidation in sunlig ht. Studies

indicate that upon application of 100 kg urea (N) in farm

soil, 40-50 kg gets oxidised and escapes as ‘ammonia’

(NH3) into the air, about 20-25 kg leaches underground

polluting the groundwater, while only 20-25 kg is avail-

able to plants [16]

Properties of Farm Soil Using Compost Vis-a-vis

Chemical Fertilizers

Suhane [16], studied the chemical and biological

properties of soil under organic farming (using various

types of composts) and chemical farming (using chemi-

cal fertilizers - urea (N), phosphates (P) and potash (K)).

Results are given in Table 1.

7. ADVANTAGES OF USE OF

VERMICOMPOST OVER

CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

The biggest advantage of great socio-economic signifi-

cance is that the food produced is completely organic,

‘safe & chemical-free’. Use of vermicompost enhances

Ta bl e 3. Farm soil properties under organic farming and che-

mical farming.

Chemical &

Biological

Propertie s o f S o il

Organic Farming

(Use of Composts)

Chemical Farming

(Use of Chemical

Fertilizers)

1) A vail ability of

Nitrogen (kg/ha) 256.0 185.0

2) A vail ability of

Phosphorus (kg/ha) 50.5 28.5

3) A vail ability of

Potash (kg/ha) 489.5 426.5

4) Azatobacter

(1000/gm of soil) 11.7 0.8

5) Phospho Bacteria

(100,000/kg of soil) 8.8 3.2

6) Carbonic Biomass

(mg/kg of soil) 273 217

Source: Suhane [16]

size, color, smell, taste, flavour an d keeping quality (sto -

rage value) of flowers, fruits, vegetables and food grains.

Studies indicate that vermicompost gives 30-40% higher

yield of crops over chemical fertilizers. Of greater agro-

nomic significance is that the minerals in the vermi-

compost are ‘readily & immediately bio-available’ to the

plants. Chemical fertilizers (and also manures) have to

be broken down in the soil before the plants can absorb.

Vermicompost also has greater ‘water holding capacity’

due to humus contents and hence reduces the require-

ment of water for irrigation by 30-40%. Use of chemical

fertilizers require high amount of water for irrigation.

Another big advantage of great economic & environ-

mental significance is that over successive years of ap-

plication, vermicompost ‘build-up the so ils natural fertil-

ity’ and also regenerates a rich population of earthworms

in the farm soil from the cocoons which further help

improve soil fertility and subsequently lesser amount of

vermicompost is required to maintain a good yield and

productivity. On the contrary, with the continued appli-

cation of chemical fertilizers over the years the ‘natural

fertility of soil is destroyed’ and it becomes ‘addict to

chemicals’. Subsequently greater amount of chemicals

are required to maintain the same yield & productiv ity of

previous years. More uses of agro-chemicals to boost

food productivit y are in fact a ‘self-defeat ing’ proposi tion.

8. EARTHWORMS IMPROVES

TOTAL PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL &

BIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF SOIL

Earthworms are regarded as ‘biological indicator’ of soil

fertility and a ‘soil conditioner’. They lead to total im-

provement in the physical (soil porosity & softness),

chemical (good pH and essential plant nutrients) and

biological (beneficial soil microbes & organisms) quality

of soil and land where they inhabit. They swallow large

amount of soil with organics (microbes, plant & animal

debris) everyday, grind them in their gizzard and digest

them in their intestine with aid of enzymes. Only 5-10

percent of the chemically digested and ingested material

is absorbed into the body and the rest is excreted out in

the form of fine mucus coated granular aggregates called

‘vermicastings’ which are rich in NKP (nitrates, phos-

phates and potash), micronutrients and beneficial soil

microbes [28].

9. EARTHWORMS & VERMICOMPOST:

MIRACLE PLANT GROWTH

PROMOTER & PROTECTOR

Earthworms vermicast is a highly nutritive ‘organic fer-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

tilizer’ rich in humus, NKP (nitrogen 2-3%, potassium

1.85-2.25% and phosphorus 1.55-2.25%), micronutrients,

beneficial soil microbes like ‘nitrogen-fixing bacteria’

and ‘mycorrhizal fungi’ and are scientifically proving as

‘miracle growth promoters’. [29-31]. One study reports

as high as 7.37% nitrogen (N) and 19.58% phos-

phorus as P2O5 in worms vermicast [32]. Another study

showed that exchangeable potassium (K) was over 95%

higher in vermicompost [16]. There are also good

amount of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). Vermi-

compost has very ‘high porosity’, ‘aeration’, ‘drainage’

and ‘water holding capacity’. More important is that it

contains ‘plant-available nutrients’ and appears to in-

crease & retain more of them for longer period of time.

A matter of still greater agronomic significance is that

worms & vermicompost also increases ‘biological resis-

tance’ in plants (due to Actinomycetes) and protect them

against pest and diseases either by repelling or by sup-

pressing them [1,34,35].

9.1. High Levels of Bio-Available Nutrients

for Plants

Earthworms miner alize the nitrogen (N) and phosphorus

(P) and all essential organic & inorganic elements in the

compost to make it bio-available to plants as nutrients

[36]. They recycle nitrogen in soil in very short time

ranging fro m 20 to 200 kg N/ha/year & increase nitrogen

contents by over 85% [37]. After 28 weeks the soil with

living worms contained 75 ppm of nitrate nitrogen (N),

compared with the controlled soil which had only 45

ppm [38]. Worms increase nitrogen levels in soil by

adding their metabolic & excretory products (vermicast),

mucus, body fluid, enzymes and decaying tissues of

dead worms [39,40]. Lee [41] suggests that the passage

of organic matter through the gut of worm results in

phosphorus (P) converted to forms which are more

bio-available to plants. This is done partly by worm’s gut

enzyme ‘phosphatases’ and partly by the release of

phosphate solubilizing microorganisms in the worm cast

[42].

9.2. High Level of Beneficial and

Biologically Active Soil

Microorganisms

Among beneficial soil microbes stimulated by earth-

worms are ‘nitrogen-fixing & phosphate solubilizing

bacteria’, the ‘actinomycetes’ & ‘mycorrhizal fungi’.

Stu dies found that the total bacterial count was more than

1010/gm of vermicompost. It included Actinomycetes,

Azotobacter, Rhizobium, Nitrobacter & Phos-phate Solu-

bilizing Bacteria ranges from 102-1 0 6 per gm of vermi-

compost [16].

9.3. Rich in Humus: Key to Grow th and

Survival of Plants

Vermicompost contains ‘humus’ excreted by worms

which makes it markedly different from other organic

fertilizers. It takes several years for soil or any organic

matter to decompose to form humus while earthworms

secrete humus in its excreta. Without humus plants

cannot grow and survive. The humic and fulvic acids in

humus are essential to plants in four basic ways – 1)

Enables plant to extract nutrients from soil; 2) Help

dissolve unresolved minerals to make organic matter

ready for plants to use; 3) Stimulates root growth; and, 4)

Helps plants overcome stress. Presence of humus in soil

even help chemical fertilizers to work better [43]. This

was also confirmed by other study [44]. One study

found that humic acids isolated from vermicompost

enhanced root elongation and formation of lateral roots

in maize roots. Humus in vermicast also extracts ‘tox-

ins’, ‘harmful fungi & bacteria’ from soil & protects

plants [19].

9.4. Rich in Plant Growth Hormones

Some studies speculated that the growth responses of

plants from vermicompost appeared more like ‘hor-

mone-induced activity’ associated with the high levels of

nutrients, humic acids and humates in vermicompost [21,

45]. Researches show that vermicompost use further

stimulates plant growth even when plants are already

receiving ‘optimal nutrition’. It consistently improved

seed germination, enhanced seedling growth and devel-

opment, and increased plant productivity significantly

much more than would be possible from the mere con-

version of mineral nutrients into plant-available forms.

Some studies have also reported that vermicompost con-

tained growth promoting hormone ‘auxins’, ‘cytokinins’

and flowering hormone ‘gibberlins’ secreted by earth-

worms [16,47,48].

9.5. Enzymes for Improving Soil Nutrients &

Fertility

Vermicompost contain enzymes like amylase, lipase,

cellulase and chitinase, which continue to break down

organic matter in the soil (to release the nutrients and

make it available to the plant roots) even after th ey have

been excreted. [30,31]. They also increases the levels of

some important soil enzymes like dehydrogenase, acid

and alkaline phosphatases and urease. Urease play a key

role in N-cycle as it hydrolyses urea and phosphatase

bioconvert soil phosphorus into bio-available form for

plants.

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

10. EARTHWORMS REDUCE SOIL

SALINITY & IMPROVE FERTILITY

OF SODIC SOILS

Studies indicate that Esinea fetida can tolerate soils

nearly half as salty as seawater i.e. 15 gm/k g of soil and

also improve its biology and chemistry. (Average sea-

water salinity is around 35 g/L). Farmers at Phaltan in

Satara district of Maharashtra, India, applied live earth-

worms to their sugarcane crop grown on saline soils ir-

rigated by saline ground water. The yield was 125 tones/

hectare of sugarcane and there was marked improvement

in soil chemistry. Within a year there was 37% more

nitrogen, 66% more phosphates and 10% more potash.

The chloride content was less by 46% [27].

Ansari [49] studied th e production of potato (Solanum

tuberosum) by application of vermicompost in a re-

claimed sodic soil in India. With good potato growth the

sodicity (ESP) of the soil was also reduced from initial

96.74 to 73.68 in just about 12 weeks. The average

available nitrogen (N) content of th e soil increased from

initial 336.00 kg/h a to 829.33 kg/ha.

11. EARTHWORMS PROTECTS PLANTS

AGAINST PESTS AND DISEASES &

SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE USE OF

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES

Earthworms are both ‘plant growth promoter and pro-

tector’. There has been considerable evidence in recent

years regarding the ability of earthworms and its vermi-

compost to protect plants against various pests and dis-

eases either by suppressing or repelling them or by in-

ducing biological resistance in plants to fight them or by

killing them through pesticidal action. The actinomycetes

fungus excreted by the earthworms in their vermicast

produce chemicals that kill parasitic fungi such as Py-

thium and Fusarium [34]. Another study confirmed that

application of vermicompost reduced the damage by

stripted cucumber beetle (Acalymma vittatum), spotted

cucumber beetle (Diabotrica undecimpunctata) on cu-

cumber and larval hornworms (Manduca quinquemacu-

lata) on tomatoes in both greenhouse and field experi-

ments [50].

11.1. Ability to Induce Biological Resistance

in Plants

Vermicompost contains some antibiotics and actinomy-

cetes which help in increasing the ‘power of biological

resistance’ among the crop plants against pest and di seases.

Spray of chemical pesticides was significantly reduced

by over 75% where earthworms and vermicompost were

used in agriculture [13,16].

11.2. Ability to Repel Crop Pests

There seems to be strong evidence that worms varmi-

castings sometimes repel hard-bodied pests [1,33]. Stu-

dies reported statistically significant decrease in arthro-

pods (aphids, buds, mealy bug, spider mite) populations,

and subsequent reduction in plant damage, in tomato,

pepper, and cabbage trials with 20% and 40% vermi-

compost additions [34]. George Hahn, doing commercial

vermicomposting in California, U.S., claims that his

product repels many different insects pests. His explana-

tion is that this is due to production of enzymes ‘chiti-

nase’ by worms which breaks down the chitin in the in-

sect’s exoskelton [17].

11.3. Ability to Suppress Plant Disease

Studies reported that vermicompost application sup-

pressed 20-40% infection of insect pests i.e. aphids

(Myzus persicae), mearly bugs (Pseudococcus spp.) and

cabbage white caterpillars (Peiris brassicae) on pepper

(Capiscum annuum), cabbage (Brassica oleracea) and

tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) [51].

Studies have also found that use of vermicompost in

crops inhibited the soil-born fungal diseases. They also

found significant suppression of plant-parasitic nema-

todes in field trials with pepper, tomatoes, strawberries

and grapes [34]. The scientific explanation behind this

concept is that high levels of agronomically beneficial

microbial population in vermicompost protects plants by

out-competing plant pathogens for available food re-

sources i.e. by starving them and also by blocking their

excess to plant roots by occupying all the available sites.

This concept is based on ‘soil-foodweb’ stu die s pio ne ered

by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.

(http://www.soilfoodweb.com).

Edwards and Arancon [27] also reported the disease

suppressing effects of applications of vermicompost, on

attacks by fungus Pythium on cucumber, Rhizoctonia on

radishes in the greenhouse, by Verticillium on strawber-

ries and by Phomposis and Sphaerotheca fulginae on

grapes in the field. In all these experiments vermicom-

post applications suppressed the incidence of the disease

significantly. They also found that the ability of patho-

gen suppression disappeared when the vermicompost

was sterilized, convincingly indicating that the biologi-

cal mechanism of disease suppression involved was

‘microbial antagonism.

Studies also reported considerable suppression of root

knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) and drastic

suppression of spotted spider mites (Tetranychus spp.)

and aphid (Myzus persicae) in tomato plants after appli-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

cation of vermicompost teas (vermiwash liquid) [52].

They are serious pests of several crops.

12. SOME KEY STUDIES SUPPORTING

SOIL FERTILITY IMPROVEMENT

AND GOOD CROP PRODUCTION

BY EARTHWORMS AND

VERMICOMPOST OVER

CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

There have been several reports that earthworms and its

vermicompost can induce excellent plant growth and

enhance crop production.

12.1. Cereal Crops

Glasshouse studies made at CSIRO Australia found that

the earthworms (Aporrectodea trapezoids) increased

growth of wheat crops (Triticum aestivum) by 39%,

grain yield by 35%, lifted protein value of the grain by

12% & also resisted crop diseases as compared to the

control. The plants were grown in a ‘red-brown earth’

with poor nutritional status and 60% moisture. There

was about 460 worms m-2 [53]. They also reported that

in Parana, Brazil invasion of earthworms significantly

altered soil structure and water holding capacity. The

grain yields of wheat and soybean increased by 47% and

51%, respectively [54].

Some studies were made on the impact of vermicom-

post and garden soil in different proportion on wheat

crops in India. It was found that when the garden soil

and vermicompost were mixed in 1:2 proportions, the

growth was about 72-76% while in pure vermicompost,

the growth increased by 82-89% [55]. Another study

reported that earthworms & its vermicast improve the

growth and yield of wheat by more than 40% [56]. Other

studies also reported better yield and growth in wheat

crops applied with vermicompost in so il. [57-59].

Studies made on the agronomic impacts of vermi-

compost on rice crops (Oryza sativa) reported greater

population of nitrogen fixers, actinomycetes and my-

corrhizal fungi inducing better nutrient uptake by crops

and better growth [60]. Another study was made on the

impact of vermicompost on rice-legume cropping system

in India. Integrated application of vermicompost, chemi-

cal fertilizer and biofertilizers (Azospirillum & phospho-

bacteria) increased rice yield by 15.9% over chemical

fertilizer used alone. The integrated application of 50%

vermicompost, 50% chemical fertilizer and biofertilizers

recorded a grain yield of 6.25 and 0.51 ton/ha in the rice

and legume respectively. These yields were 12.2% and

19.9% higher over those obtained with 100% chemical

fertilizer when used alone [61]. Studies made in the

Philippines also reported good response of upland rice

crops grown on vermicompost [62].

12.2. Fruit Crops

Study found that worm-worked waste (vermicompost)

boosted grape yield by two-fold as compared to chemi-

cal fertilizers. Treated vines with vermicompost pro-

duced 23% more grapes due to 18% increase in bunch

numbers. The yield in grapes was worth additional value

of AU $ 3,400/ha [63]. Farmer in Sangli district of Ma-

harashtra, India, grew grapes on ‘eroded wastelands’ and

applied vermicasting @ 5 tons/ha. The grape harvest was

normal with improvement in quality, taste and shelf life.

Soil analysis showed that within one year pH came

down from 8.3 to 6.9 and the value of potash increased

from 62.5 kg/ha to 800 kg/ha. There was also marked

improvement in the nutritional quality of the grape fruits

[27].

Study was made on the agronomic impacts of vermi-

compost and inorganic (chemical) fertilizers on straw-

berries (Fragaria ananasa) when applied separately and

also in combination. Vermicompost was applied @ 10

tons/ha while the inorganic fertilizers (nitrogen, phos-

phorus, potassium) @ 85 (N)-155 (P)-125 (K) kg/ha.

Significantly, the ‘yield’ of marketable strawberries and

the ‘weight’ of the ‘largest fruit’ was 35% greater on

plants grown on vermicompost as compared to inorganic

fertilizers in 220 days after transplanting. Also there

were 36% more ‘runners’ and 40% more ‘flowers’ on

plants grown on vermicompost. Also, farm soils applied

with vermicompost had significantly greater ‘microbial

biomass’ than the one applied with inorganic fertilizers

[7]. Studies also reported that vermicompost increased

the yield of strawberries by 32.7% and also drastically

reduced the incidence of physiological disorders like

albinism (16.1% 4.5%), fruit malformations (11.5%

 4%), grey mould (10.4%  2.1%) and diseases like

Botrytis rot. By suppressing the nutrient related disor-

ders, vermicompost use increased the yield and quality

of marketable strawberry fruits up to 58.6% [64].

Studies made on the agronomic impact of vermicom-

post on cherries fo und that it increased yield of ‘cherries’

for three (3) years after ‘single application’ inferring that

the use of vermicompost in soil builds up fertility and

restore its vitality for long time and its further use can be

reduced to a minimum after some years of application in

farms. At the first harvest, trees with vermicompost

yielded an additional $ 63.92 and $ 70.42 per tree re-

spectively. After three harvests profits per tree were $

110.73 and $ 142.21 respectively [65].

12.3. Vegetable Crops

Studies on the production of important vegetable crops

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

like tomato (Lycopersicum esculentus), eggplant (So-

lanum melangona) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus)

have yielded very good results [27,66-68 ]. Another study

was made on the growth impacts of earthworms (with

feed materials), vermicompost, cow dung compost and

chemical fertilizers on okra (A. esculentus). Worms and

vermicompost promoted excellent growth in the vegeta-

ble crop with more flowers and fruits development. But

the most significant observation was drastically less in-

cidence of ‘Yellow Vein Mosaic’, ‘Color Rot’ and

‘Powdery Mildew’ diseases in worm and vermicompost

applied plants [69]. Study was made on the production

of potato (Solanum tuberosum) by application of vermi-

compost in a reclaimed sodic soil in India. The overall

productivity of potato was significantly high (21.41

tons/ha) on vermicompost applied @ 6 tons/ha as com-

pared to control which was 04.36 tons/ha. The sodicity

of the soil was also reduced and nitrogen (N) contents

increased significantly [49]. Study was made on the

growth impacts of organic manure (containing earth-

worm vermicasts) on garden pea (Pisum sativum) and

compared with chemical fertilizers. Vermicast produced

higher green pod plants, higher green grain weight per

plant, higher percentage of protein content and carbohy-

drates and higher green pod yield (24.8-91%) as com-

pared to chemical fertilizer [70].

Studies made on the effects of vermicompost &

chemical fertilizer on hyacinth beans (Lablab purpureas)

found that all growth & yield parameters e.g. total chlo-

rophyll contents in leaves, dry matter production, flower

appearance, length of fruits and fruits per plant, dry

weight of 100 seeds, yield per plot and yield per hectare

were significantly higher in those plots which received

vermicompost either alone or in combination with

chemicals. The highest fruit yield of 109 ton/ha was re-

corded in plots which received vermicompost @ 2.5

tons/ha [71].

12.4. Herbage Production

A study was made on the impact of earthworms on soil

properties and herbage production in a field micro-plot

experiment in Ireland. Study site was reclaimed after

industrial peat mining, and seeded with perennial rye-

grass and clover. The presence of earthworms had little

effect on herbage production in the first year. But total

herbage yield was 25% greater in the second year and

49% greater in the third year in plots receiving annual

topdressing of cattle slurry with earthworms compared to

similarly-treated plots with cattle slurry but without

earthworms. Ironically, no effect of earthworms on her-

bage yield was detected in plots receiving chemical fer-

tilizers only [54].

The conclusion drawn from such study is that it is the

earthworms in soil which matters in plant productivity

and not the organic manure (cattle slurry) alone. In the

first year, it took the earthworm to restore and condition

the disturbed mined soil. However, the cattle slurry

(dung) provided the necessary feed materials for the

worms to act with vigor an d excrete nutritive ‘vermicast’

in soil which promoted higher herbage yield in the sec-

ond year (25%). In the third year, the worm population

in soil increased sign ificantly leading to higher excretion

of vermicast, higher soil fertility and higher plant pro-

ducti on (49%).

In a bucket experiment they found that the cumulative

herbage yields over a period of 20 months was 89%

higher in buckets with earthworms added with cattle

manure as compared to those without earthworms but

only with cattle manure, an d only 19% higher in buckets

receiving exclusive chemical fertilizers. These results

were as compared to control.

13. OUR EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

SUPPORTING EARTHWORMS AND

ITS VERMICOMPOST AS SUPERIOR

CROP NUTRIENT OVER

CONVENTIONAL COMPOST &

CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

13.1. Cereal Crops

13.1.1. Farm Wheat Crops (Agriculture

Research Institute, Jaipur, India)

This facility was provided by ARI at Jaipur, India. Re-

sults are given in Table 4.

Key Observ at ion s, F in di ngs and Discussion

In the farm experiment the highest growth and yield in

wheat crop was achieved where reduced dose (3/4) of

chemical fertilizer (NPK- 90:75:60) were supplemented

with full dose of vermicompost (@ 2.5 tons/ha. Although

vermicom post alone can work as ‘driving force’ but when

chemical fertilizers are added as ‘helping hand’ it can do

even better. However, the total yield of the grain (grain/

ear) as well as the ear length of crops grown on vermi-

compost were as good as those grown on full doses of

chemical fertilizers (NPK- 120:100:80).

13.1.2. Farm Wheat Crops (Rajendra Agriculture

University, Bihar, India)

This facility was provided by RAU, Pusa, India under a

collaborative research program. Cattle dung compost

was applied four (4) times more than that of vermicom-

ost. Results are given in Table 5. p

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

Table 4. Agronomic impacts of earthworms, vermicompost vis-a-vis chemical fertilizers on farm wheat crops.

Treatments Shoot Length

(cm) Ear Length (cm)Root Length (cm)Wt. of 1000

grains

(In grams) Grains/Ear

1. Vermicompost (@ 2.5 t/ha) 83.71 13.14 23.51 39.28 32.5

2. Earthworms (1000 Nos.)

In 25 × 25 m farm land 67.83 9.85 18.42 36.42 30.0

3 NPK (90:75:60) (Reduced Dose) +

VC (Full Dose) (2.5 t/ha) 88.05 13.82 29.71 48.02 34.4

4 NPK (120:100:80) (Full Dose) 84.42 14.31 24.12 40.42 31.2

5. CONTROL 59.79 8.91 12.11 34.16 27.7

Source: Ph. D Thesis (Reena Sharma [72]); University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, INDIA; Key: VC = Vermicompost; N = Urea; P = Phosphate; K = Potash

(In Kg/hectare).

Table 5. Agronomic impacts of vermicompost, cattle dung

compost & chemical fertilizers in exclusive applications & in

combinations on farmed wheat crops.

Treatment Input/Hectare Yield/Hectare

1) CONTROL (No Input) 15.2 Q/ha

2) Vem icompost

(VC) 25 Quintal VC/ha 40.1 Q/ha

3) Cattle Dung

Compost (CDC) 100 Quintal CDC/ha 33.2 Q/ha

4) Chemical

Fertilizers (CF) NPK (120:60:40) kg/ha 34.2 Q/ha

5) CF + VC NPK (120:60:40) kg/ha

+ 25 Q VC/ha 43.8 Q/ha

6) CF + CDC NPK (120:60:40) kg/ha

+ 100 Q CDC/ha 41.3 Q/ha

Source: Sinha et al. [27]; Key: N = Urea; P = Phosphate; K = Potash

(In Kg/ha)

Key Observations, Findings & Discussion

Exclusive application of vermicompost supported

yield comparable to rather better than chemical fertiliz-

ers. And when same amount of agrochemicals were sup-

plemented with vermicompost @ 25 quintal/ha the yield

increased to about 44 Q/ha which is over 28% and nearly

3 times over control. On cattle dung compost applied @

100 Q/ha (4 times of vermicompost) the yield was just

over 33 Q/ha. Application of vermicompost had other

agronomic benefits. It significantly reduced the demand

for irrigation by nearly 30-40%. Test results indicated

better availability of essential micronutrients and useful

microbes in vermicompost applied soils. Most remark-

able observation was sign ificantly less incid ence of pests

and disease attacks in vermicompost applied crops.

13.1.3. Potted Corn Crops (Griffith University,

Australia)

Study 1: This was designed to compare the agronomic

impacts of earthworms, vermicompost & worms with

chemical fertilizers on corn plants. Results are given in

Table 6.

Key Observ at ion s, F in di ngs and Discussion

Corn plants with earthworms and vermicompost in

soil achieved very good growth and were better over

chemical fertilizers studied until week 19. While the

plants on chemicals grew only 5 cm (87 cm to 92 cm) in

7 weeks those on vermicompost grew by 15 cm (90 cm

to 105 cm) within the same period. But plants with

earthworms only (without feed) failed to perform. Most

significant finding was that plants on vermicompost de-

manded less water for irrigation.

Study 2: This was designed to test the growth pro-

moting capabilities of earthworms added with feed ma-

terials and ‘vermicompost’, as compared to ‘conventional

compost’. The doses of vermicompost & conventional

compost were ‘doubled’ (400 gm). Crushed dry leaves

were used as feed materials (400 gm). Results are given

in Table 7.

Key Observ at ion s, F in di ngs and Discussion

Corn plants with vermicompost in soil achieved rapid

and excellent growth and attained maturity very fast.

Plants in soil with conventional compost could not

achieve maturity until the period of study (week 14).

Plants with worms (provided with feed) performed better

than those of conventional compost. A significant find-

ing was that when the dose of vermicompost was dou-

bled from 200 grams (Study 1) to 400 grams (Study 2), it

simply enhanced total plant growth to almost two-fold

(from average 58 cm on 200 gm vermicompost to aver-

age 104 cm on 400 gm vermicompost) within the same

period of study i.e. 6 weeks. Corn plants with double

dose of vermicompost achieved maturity in much shorter

time. However, our subsequent studies on potted and

farmed wheat crops showed that once the ‘natural fertil-

ity’ of the soil is restored with vermicompost application

it no long requires higher doses of vermicompost subse-

quently to maintain or enhance productivity [27 ].

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

Table 6. Agronomic impacts of earthworms, worms with vermicompost vis-a-vis chemical fertilizers on corn plants (average growth

in cm).

Parameters Studied CONTROL

(No Input)

Treatment 1

EARTHWORMS

Only (25 Nos.)

(Without Feed)

Treatment 2

Soluble CHEMICAL

FERTILIZERS

Treatment 3

EARTHWORMS +

VERMICOMPOST

(200 gm)

Seed Sowing 29th July 2007 Do Do Do

Seed Germination 9th Day 7th Day 7th Day 7th Day

Avg. Growth in 4 wks 31 40 43 43

Avg. Growth in 6 wks 44 47 61 58

App. Of Male Rep. Organ

(In wk 12) None None

Male Rep. Organ Male Rep. Organ

Avg. Growth in 12 wks 46 53 87 90

App. Of Female Rep. Organ

(In wk 14) None None None

Female Rep. Organ

Avg. Growth in15 wks 48 53

(App. Of Male Rep. Organ)88 95

App. Of New Corn

(In wk 16 ) None None None New Corn

Avg. Growth in 19 wks 53 56 92 105

Color & Texture of Leaves Pale & thin leaves Green & thin Green & stout leaves Green, stout & broad

leaves

Source: Sinha et al. [27]

Table 7. Agronomic impacts of earthworms (with feed), vermicompost vis-a-vis conventional compost on corn plants (average

growth in cm)

Parameters Studied Treatment 1 Earthworms (25)

With Feed (400 gm) Treatment 2 Conventional

COMPOST (400 gm) Treatment 3

VERMICOMPOST (400 gm)

Seed Sowing 9th Sept. 2007 Do Do

Seed Germination 5th Day 6th Day 5th Day

Avg. Growth In 3 wks 41 42 53

Avg. Growth In 4 wks 49 57 76

App. of Male Rep. Organ (In wk 6) None None

Male Rep. Organ

Avg. Growth In 6 wks 57 70 104

Avg. Growth In 9 wks 64 72.5 120

App. of Female Rep. Organ

(In wk 10) None None

Female Rep. Organ

App. of New Corn (In wk 11) None None

New Corn

Avg. Growth In 14 wks 82 78 135

Color & Texture of Leaves Green & thick Light green & thin Deep green, stout, thick &

broad leaves

Source: Sinha et al. [27]

13.1.4. Potted W h e at Crops (Griffith University,

Australia)

This was designed to compare the agronomic impacts of

vermicompost with conventional compost & chemical

fertilizers on wheat crops. Results are given in Table 8.

Key Observations, Findings & Discussion

Wheat crops maintained very good growth on vermin-

compost & earthworms from the very beginning &

achieved maturity in 14 weeks. The striking rates of seed

germination were very high, nearly 48 hours (2 days) ahead

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

Table 8. Growth of wheat crops promoted by vermicompost,

conventional compost and chemical fertilizers

Treatments Week 1 Week 5 Wee k 10 Week 12

1) Control 17 22 26 26

2) CC 17 31 32 32

3) CF 16 36 39 43

4) VC + EW 19 39 43 47

(VC 500 gm; EW 25 Nos.; CC 500 gm; CF 5 gm x 3 times; Av.

Growth in cm); Key: CC = Conventional Compost; CF = Chemical

Fertilizer; VC = Vermicompost; EW = Earthworms Source: Sinha et al.

[27]

of others and the numbers of seed germinated were also

high by nearly 20%.

Plants were greener and healthier over others, with

large numbers of tillers & long seed ears were formed at

maturity. Seeds were healthy and n early 35-40% more as

compared to plants on chemical fertilizers. What they

achieved in just 5 weeks, was achieved by others in 10

weeks. More significant was t hat th e po t soil with v er min-

compost was very soft & porous and retained more mois-

ture. Pot soil with chemicals were hard and demanded

more water frequently [27].

13.2. Vegetable Crops

This was designed to compare the growth impacts of

earthworms, worms with vermicompost and chemical

fertilizers on egg plants. Results are given in Table 9.

13.2.1. Potted Egg Plant s (University of Rajsthan,

Jaipur, India 1998

Key Observ at ion s, F in di ngs and Discussion

Potted egg-plants grown on vermicompost with live

earthworms in soil bored on average 20 fruits/plan t with

average weight being 675 gm. Whereas, those grown on

chemical fertilizers (NPK) bored only 14 fruits/plant

with average weight being only 500 gm. Total numbers

of fruits obtained from vermicompost (with worms) ap-

plied plants were 100 with maximum weight being 900

gm while those on chemicals were 70 fruits and 625 gm

as maximum weight of a fruit. Interestingly, egg-plants

grown on exclusive vermicompost (without worms) did

not perform as with those with worms, but were signify-

cantly better over those on chemical fertilizers.

13.2.2. Potted Okra Plants (University of

Rajasthan, Jaipur, India 1998

This was designed to compare the growth impacts of

earthworms, worms with vermicompost and chemical

fertilizers on okra plants. Results are given in Table 10.

Key Observ at io n s, F in di ngs and Discussion

Potted okra plants grown on vermicompost (with live

worms in soil) bored on average 45 fruits/plant with av-

erage weight being 48 gm. Whereas, those grown on

chemical fertilizers (NPK) bored only 24 fruits/plant

with average weight being only 40 gm. Total numbers of

fruits obtained from vermicompost (with worms) applied

plants were 225 wit h m a ximum weight being 70 gm while

those on chemicals were 125 fruits and 48 gm as maxi-

mum weight of a fruit. Again, okra plants grown on ex-

clusive vermicompost (without worms) did not perform

as with those with worms, but were significantly better

over those on chemical fertilizers.

13.2.3. Potted Tomato Plants (Griffith University,

Australia 2009)

This was designed to compare the agronomic impacts of

vermicompost & worms with composted cow manure

from market & chemical fertilizers on tomato plants.

Results are given in Table 11.

Key Observ at ion s, F in di ngs and Discussion

Tomato plants on vermicompost & vermicompost

with worms maintained very good gro wth fro m the very

beginning. Number of flowers and fruits per plant were

also significantly high as compared to those on agro-

chemicals and conventional compost. Presence of earth-

worms in soil made a significant difference in ‘flower

and fruit formation’ in tomato plan ts. Th is was obv iously

Table 9. Agrono mic im pacts of vermicom post, ea rthworms & verm icompost vi s-a-vis chem ical f ertilizer on growth & dev elopment of

egg plants.

Treatments Av. Vegetative

Growth (In Inches)Av. No. of

Fruits/Plant Av. Wt. of

Fruits/Plant Total No. of Fruits Max. Wt. of One

Fruit

1. Earthworms (50 Nos.) +

VC * (250 gm) 28 20 675 gm 100 900 gm

2. Vermicompost (250 gm) 23 15 525 gm 75 700 gm

3. Chemical Fertilizer

(NPK) (Full dose) 18 14 500 gm 70 625 gm

4. CONTROL 16 10 425 gm 50 550 gm

(N.B. Value of vegetative growth was taken that was achieved on the 90th day of the study, while the fruiting was estimated from the 45th day & end-

ing with over 120 days); Source: Sinha et al. [27]; Key: VC = Vermicompost

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

Table 10. Agronomic impacts of vermicompost, worms with vermicompost vis-a-vis chemical fertilizer on growth & development of

okra plants.

Treatment Av. Vegetative

Growth (In Inches) Av. No. of

Fruits/Plant Av. Wt. of

Fruits/Plant To tal No. of Fruits Max. Wt. of One

Fruit

1. Earthworms

(50 Nos.) + VC* 39.4 45 48 gm 225 70 gm

2. Vermicompost

(250 gm) 29.6 36 42 gm 180 62 gm

3. Chemical Fertilizer

(NPK) (Full dose) 29.1 24 40 gm 125 48 gm

4. CONTROL 25.6 22 32 gm 110 43 gm

(N.B. Value of vegetative growth was taken that was achieved on the 90th day of the study, while the fruiting was estimated after 45th day and ending

with over 120 days); Source: Sinha et al. [27]

Ta ble 11. Growth of tomato plants promoted by vermicompost, vermicompost with earthworms, conventional compost (composted

cow manure) & chemical fertilizers (All seedlings measured 5 cm; Average growth in cm).

Parameters Studied Control Chemical Fertilizers

(5 gm × 3 times) Composted Cow

Manure (500 gm) Vermicompost

(250 gm) Vermicompost (250 gm)

+ Earthworms (50)

1).Avg. Growth in 2

Wks. 10 16 16 18 19

2). Avg. Growth in 4

Wks. 30 49 35 60 60

3). Number of

flowers (Wk.5) 8 17 10 27 31

4). Avg. Growth in 6

Wks. 40 70 51 118 125

5). Avg. Growth in 8

Wks. 48 108 53 185 188

6). Number of fruits

(Wk. 9) 4 16 6 22 27

7). Avg. Growth after 10

Wks. 50 130 53 207 206

Source: Sinha & Valani [27]

due to more ‘growth & flowering hormones’ (auxins and

gibberlins) available in the soil secreted by live earth-

worms. Very disappo inting was the results of composted

cow manure obtained from the market with branded

name. It could not compete with vermicompost (indige-

nously prepared from food waste) even when applied in

‘double dose’.

14. VERMIWASH: A NUTRITIVE

GROWTH PROMOTING PESTICIDAL

LIQUID PRODUCED DURING

VERMICOMPOST PRODUCTION

The brownish-red liquid which collects in all vermcom-

posting practices is also productive and protective for

farm crops. This liquid partially comes from the body of

earthworms (as worm’s body contain plenty of water)

and is rich in amino acids, vitamins, nutrients like nitro-

gen, potassium, magnesium, zinc, calcium, iron and cop-

per and some growth hormones like ‘auxins’, ‘cytokinins’.

It also contains plenty of nitrogen fixing and phosphate

solubilising bacteria (nitrosomonas, nitrobacter and ac-

tinomycetes). Vermiwash has great ‘growth promoting’

as well as ‘pest killing’ properties. Study reported that

weekly application of vermiwash increased radish yield

by 7.3% [73,74]. Another study also reported that both

growth and yield of paddy increased with the application

of vermiwash and vermicast extracts [75].

Farmers from Bihar in North India reported growth

promoting and pesticidal properties of this liquid. They

used it on brinjal and tomato with excellent results. The

plants were healthy and bore bigger fruits with unique

shine over it. Spray of vermiwash effectively controlled

all incidences of pests and diseases, significantly re-

duced the use of chemical pesticides and insecticides on

vegetable crops and the products were significantly dif-

ferent from oth ers wi t h hi g h m a rket val ue.

George [76] studied the use of vermiwash for the

management of ‘Thrips’ (Scirtothrips dorsalis) and

‘Mites’ (Polyphagotarsonemus latus) on chilli amended

with vermicompost to evaluate its efficacy against thrips

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

and mites. Vermiwash was used in three different dilu-

tions e.g. 1:1, 1:2 and 1:4 by mixing with water both as

‘seedling dip’ treatment and ‘foliar spray’. Six rounds of

vermiwash sprays were taken up at 15 days interval

commencing at two weeks after transplanting. Among

the various treatments, application of vermicompost @

2.5 ton/ha with 6 sprays of vermiwash at 1:1 dilution

showed significantly lower incidence of thrips and mites

attack. It registered very low mean population of thrips

and mites as 0.35 and 0.64 per leaf respectively. It also

registered significantly maximum dry chilli yield @ 2.98

quintal/ha. Giraddi et al. [74] also reported significantly

lower pest population in chilli applied with vermiwash

(soil drench 30 days after transplanting, and foliar spray

at 60 and 75 days after transplanting) as compared to

untreated crops.

Suthar [77] has reported hormone like substances in

vermiwash. He studied its impact on seed germination,

root & shoot length in Cyamopsis tertagonoloba and

compared with urea solution (0.05%). Maximum germi-

nation was 90% on 50% vermiwash as compared to

61.7% in urea solution. Maximum root and shoot length

was 8.65 cm & 12.42 cm on 100% vermiwash as com-

pared to 5.87 & 7.73 on urea. The seedlings with 100%

vermiwash foliar spray showed the maximum level of

total protein and soluble sugars in their tissues.

15. AMOUNT & APPLICATION TIME OF

VERMICOMPOST IN CROPS

Vermicompost can be used in any crop and in any

amount as it is ‘completely safe’ for soils and crops in all

amounts. However, several studies including ours, indi-

cate that vermicompost is required in much ‘lesser

amount’ as compared to all other bulky organic fertiliz-

ers e.g. composted cattle dung (cow, horse & pig ma-

nures and sheep & goat droppings) composted MSW and

composted plant residues to promote optimal growth and

yield. This is because they contain ‘high nutrients with

growth hormones’ and are 4-5 times more powerful

growth promoters than all other organic fertilizers and

over 30-40% higher over the chemical fertilizers (NKP).

Study made by Central Research Institute for Dryland

Agriculture, Hyderabad, India have provided a report

which is given in Table 12.

16. THE GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR USE

OF VERMICOMPOST TO REPLACE

DESTRUCTIVE CHEMICAL FERTIL-

IZERS FROM AGRICULTURE

Worldwide farmers are desperate to get rid of the vicious

Table 12. Recommended quantity and time of application of

vermicompost in some crops.

Crop Quantity Time of Application

1). Rice (Paddy) 1 ton/acre After Transplanting

2). Maize (Corn) 1 ton/acre Last Ploughing

3). Sugarcane 1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

4). Groundnut 0.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

5). Sunflower 1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

6). Chilli 1 ton/acre Last Plo u g h ing

7). Potato 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

8). To mato 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

9). Brinjal 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

10). Okra 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

11). Cauliflowers 1-1.5 to n/acre Last Ploughing

12). Cabbage 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

13). Garlic 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

14). Onion 1-1.5 ton/acre Last Ploughing

15). Grape

(Vineyards) 1 ton/acre Summer time

16). Citrus 2 kg/tree At planting time &

before flowering

17). Pomegranate 2 kg/tree At planting time &

before flowering

18). Guava 2 kg/tree At planting time &

before flowering

2 kg/tree A t plant ing time

5 kg/tree 1-5 years old trees

10 kg/tree 6-9 years old trees

19). Mango &

Coconut

20 kg/tree Trees older than 10

years

20). Cotton 1 ton/acre Last Ploughing

Source: CRIDA (2009), Hyderabad, India [78]

circle of the use of chemical fertilizers as their cost hav e

been constantly rising and also the amount of chemicals

used per hectare has been steadily increasing over the

years to maintain the yield & productivity of previous

years. Nearly 3-4 times of agro-chemicals are now be-

ing used per hectare what was used in the 1960s. In

Australia, the cost of MAP fertilizer has risen from AU

$ 530.00 to AU $ 1500.00 per ton since 2006. So is the

story everywhere in world because the chemical fertiliz-

ers are produced from ‘vanishing resources’ of earth.

Farmers urgently need a sustainable alternative which is

both economical and also productive while also main-

taining soil health & fertility. The new concept is ‘Eco-

logical Agriculture’ which is by definition different from

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

‘Organic Farming’ that was focused mainly on produc-

tion of chemical-free foods. Ecological agriculture em-

phasize on total protection of food, farm & human eco-

systems while improving soil fertility & development of

secondary source of income for the farmers. UN has also

endorsed it. Vermiculture provides the best answer for

ecological agriculture which is synonymous with ‘sus-

tainable agriculture’.

A movement is going on in India, China, Philippines,

Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, U.S., Canada, Rus-

sia and Japan to vermicompost the organic fractions of

all their municipal solid wastes (MSW) and among the

farmers to vermicompost their farm wastes and use them

as a complete ‘organic fertilizer ’ for crops as an alterna-

tive to the chemical fertilizers or supplement them with

highly reduced doses of chemical fertilizers. Municipal

councils, NGOs and composting companies are also

participating in vermicomposting business, composting

all types of organic wastes on commercial scale and

selling them to the farmers. This has dual benefits. Cut-

ting cost on landfill disposal of waste while earning

revenues from sale of worms & vermicompost [17,

27,79]. ‘Vermicycle Organics’ in the U.S. produces 7.5

million pounds of vermicompost every year in high-tech

greenhouses and sell to the farmers. Its sale of vermi-

compost grew by 500% in 2005. ‘Vermitechnology Un-

limited’ in U.S. has doubled its business every year since

1991 [80].

A ‘Vermiculture Movement’ is going on in India with

multiple objectives of community waste management,

highly economical way of crop production replacing the

costly chemical fertilizers and poverty eradication pro-

grams in villages [81].

17. IMPORTANT FEEDBACKS FROM

FARMERS USING VERMICOMPOST

IN INDIA

Farmers in India are being motivated to embrace ver-

miculture in farming. This is mainly in the States of

Karanatka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab,

Harayana, Himachal Pradesh and Bihar. Apple growers

in Himachal are using vermicompost on large scale with

very good profit.

A number of villages in the districts of Samastipur,

Hazipur and Nalanda in the State of Bihar have been

designated as ‘Bio-Village’ where the farmers have

completely switched over to organic farming by ver-

micompost and h ave given up the use of che mical fertil-

izers since 2005. Some of them asserted to have har-

vested three (3) different crops in a year (reaping 2-3

times more harvest) due to their rapid growth & maturity,

and reduced harvest cycle. (Authors takes pride in moti-

vating farmers in Bihar through personal contacts under

a collaborative research program between Griffith Uni-

versity, Australia and Rajendra Agriculture University,

Bihar).

Some of the important revelation by farmers about use

of vermicompost were

1) Reduced use of ‘water for irrigation’;

2) Reduced ‘pest attack’ (by at least 75%) especially

after spray of vermiwash (liquid drained during vermi-

composting);

3) Reduced ‘termite attack’ in farm soil especially

where worms were in good population;

4) Reduced ‘weed growth’;

5) Faster rate of ‘seed germination’ and rapid seed-

lings growth and development;

6) Greater numbers of fruits per plant (in vegetable

crops) and greater numbers of seeds per ear (in cereal

crops), heavier in weight—better in both, quantity and

quality as compared to those grown on chemicals;

7) Fruits and vegetables had ‘better taste’ and texture

and could be safely stored up to 6-7 days, while those

grown on chemicals could be kept at the most for 2-3

days;

8) Fodder growth was increased by nearly 50% @ 30

to 40 quintal/hectare;

9) Flower production (commercial floriculture) was

increased by 30%-50% @ 15-20 quintal/hectare. Flower

blooms were more colorful and bigger in size;

18. ENVIRONMENTAL-ECONOMICS OF

FOOD PRODUCTION BY

VERMICOMPOST VIS-À-VIS

CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

A matter of considerable economic and environmental

significance is that the ‘cost of food production’ by ver-

micompost (produced locally on-farm from organic

wastes diverted from landfill disposal at high cost) will

be significantly low by more than 60-70% as compared

to chemical fertilizers (produced in factories from van-

ishing petroleum products using huge electricity) and the

food produced will be a ‘safe chemical-free food’ for the

society. Due to enhanced colour, taste, smell and flavour

of food products f armers gets higher price for their farm

products. It is a ‘win-win’ situation for both producers

(farmers) and the consumers (feeders).

And with the growing global popularity of ‘organic

foods’ which became a US $ 6.5 billion business every

year by 2000, there will be great demand for vermicom-

post in future. US Department of Agriculture estimates

25% of Americans purchase organically grown foods at

least once a week. The cost of production of vermicom-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

post is simply insignificant as compared to chemical

fertilizers. While the vermicompost is produced from

‘human waste’—a raw material which is in plenty all

over the world, chemical fertilizers are obtained from

‘petroleum products’ which is a vanishing resource on

earth. Vermicompost can be produced ‘on-farm’ at low-

cost by simple devices, while the ch emical fertilizers are

high-tech & high-cost products made in factories [17,

82].

Use of vermicompost in farm soil eventually leads to

increase in the number of earthworm population in the

farmland over a period of time as the baby worms grow

out from their cocoons. It infers that slowly over the

years, as the worms build up the soil’s physical, chemi-

cal & biological properties, the amount of vermicompost

can be slowly reduced while maintainin g the same yield.

The yield per hectare may also increase further as the

soil’s natural fertility is restored & strengthened. On the

contrary, in chemical agriculture, the amount of chemi-

cals used per hectare has been steadily increasing over

the years to maintain the same yield as the soil became

‘addict’. Nearly 3-4 times of agro-chemicals are now

being used per hectare what was use d in the 19 6 0s.

Vermicompost is able to retain more soil moisture and

also protects crops from pests & diseases thus reducing

the demand of water for irrigation by nearly 30-40% and

pest & disease control by almost 75%. This significantly

cut down on the cost of production. As it also helps the

crops to attain maturity and reproduce faster, it shortens

the ‘harvesting time’. This further cuts on the cost of

production and also adds to the economy of farmers as

they can grow more crops every year in the same farm

plot.

While vermicompost production & use is an ‘envi-

ronmentally friendly’ practices (salvaging waste & im-

proving soil properties), production of chemical fertiliz-

ers is ‘environmentally damaging’ (generating hazardous

wastes & pollutants and greenhouse gases) in its entire

life-cycle, since harnessing of raw materials from the

earth crust, to their processing in factories (generating

huge waste and pollution) and application in farms (pol-

luting soil & killing beneficial organisms) with severe

economic & environmental implications. Production and

use of 1 kg of chemical nitrogen fertilizer emits 2,500

gm of CO2, 10 gm N2O & 1 gm CH4. Molecule to

molecule, N2O and CH4 are 310 & 22 times more pow-

erful GHG than CO2. Earthworms converts a product of

‘negative’ economic & environmental value i.e. ‘waste’

into a product of ‘highly positive’ economic & environ-

mental values i.e. ‘highly nutritive organic fertilizer’

(brown gold) and ‘safe food’ (green gold). Vermiculture

can maintain the global ‘human sustainability cycle’—

producing food back from food & farm wastes.

Earthworms biomass comes as a valuable by-product

in all vermicomposting practices and they are good

source of nutritive ‘worm meal’. They are rich in pro-

teins (65%) with 70-80% high quality essential amino

acids ‘lysine’ and ‘methionine’ and are being used as

feed material to promote ‘fish ery’ and ‘poultry’ industry.

They are also finding new use as a source of ‘bioactive

compounds’ (enzymes) for production of modern medi-

cines for cardiovascular diseases and cure for cancer in

the making of ‘antibiotics’ from the ceolomic fluid as it

has anti-pathogenic properties. On commercial scale

tons of worm biomass can result every year as under

favorable conditions worms ‘double’ their number at

least every 60-70 days.

If vermi-products (worms, vermicompost & vermi-

wash) are able to replace agrochemicals in food produc-

tion and protein rich worms provide nutritive feeds for

fishe ry an d pou ltry produ ction it wo uld t ruly help achie ve

greater sustainability in production of ‘safe food’ for

mankind in future [83,84].

19. CONCLUSIONS AND REMARKS

Our studies and those of other learned authors have con-

clusively proved that earthworms and its excreta (ver-

micast) or even its body fluids (vermiwash) have tre-

mendous crop growth promoting and protecting potential

and may work as the main ‘driving force’ in sustainable

food production while maintaining soil health and fertil-

ity and can completely replace the use of agro-chemicals

from farm production or just require them as ‘helping

hand’ [83,84]. Vermicompost also reinforce plants phy-

siologically to attain maturity and reproduce faster, thus

reducing the ‘life-cycle’ of crops and also shortening the

‘harvesting time’. Reduced incidence of ‘pest and dis-

ease attack’, ‘controlling pests without pesticides’ and

‘better taste of chemical-free organic food pr oducts esp e-

cially ‘fruits and vegetables’ grown with earthworms and

vermicompost are matter of great socio- economic and

environmental significance.

In case of fruits and vegetable crops presence of

earthworms in soil make a big difference in growth per-

formance. It looks worms have more positive impacts on

flowering of horticultural crops and significantly aid in

fruit development obviously due to secretion of growth

hormones ‘auxins’ and ‘gibberlins’ [22,69,85]. No won-

der then, Surpala, in 10th century A.D. recommended to

add earthworms in pomegranate plants to obtain good

fruits.

Use of vermicompost in farm soil eventually leads to

increase in the number of earthworm population in the

farmland over a period of time as the baby worms grow

out from their cocoons. Slowly over the years, as the

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

worms & vermicompost build up the soil’s physical,

chemical and biological properties of soil and restore its

natural fertility, reduced amount of vermicompost will be

required to maintain productivity. This is contrary to

those with chemical fertilizers whose amount of use has

gradually increased over the years.

More studies is required to develop the potential of ver-

micompost teas (vermiwash) as a sustainable, non-toxic

and environmentally friendly alternative to ‘chemical

pest control’ or at least its application in farming prac-

tices can also lead to significant reduction in use of

chemical pesticides.

Earthworms are truly justifying the beliefs and fulfill-

ing the dreams of Sir Charles Darwin who called earth-

worms as ‘unheralded soldiers’ of mankind’ and ‘friends

of farmers’. It is also justifying the beliefs of Dr. Anatoly

Igonin one of the great contemporary vermiculture sci-

entist from Russia who said ‘Earthworms create soil &

improve soil’s fertility and provides critical biosphere’s

functions: disinfecting, neutralizing, protective and pro-

ductive’ [86].

REFERENCES

[1] Arancon, N. (2004) An interview with Dr. Norman Ar-

ancon. Casting C a ll, 9(2), http://www.vermico. com

[2] US Board of Agriculture, (1980) Report and recom-

mendations on organic farming—case studies of 69 or-

ganic farmers in USA. Publication of U.S. Board of Ag-

riculture.

[3] Kale, R.D. (1998) Earthworm cinderella of organic far-

ming. Prism Book Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, 88.

[4] Martin, J.P. (1976) Darwin on earthworms: The forma-

tion of vegetable moulds. Bookworm Publishing, On-

tario.

[5] Satchell, J.E. (1983) Earthworm ecology-from darwin to

vermiculture. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.

[6] Sadhale, N. (1996) Recommendation to incorporate

earthworms in soil of pomogranate to obtain high quality

fruits. Surpala’s Vrikshay urveda, Verse 131. The Science

of Plant Life by Surpala, 10th Century A.D. Asian

Agri-History Bulletin, Secunderabad.

[7] Bhat, J.V. and Khambata, P. (1996) Role of earthworms

in agriculture. Pub. Of Indian Council of Agriculture Re-

search (ICAR), 22, New Delhi, India, 36.

[8] Ghabbour, S.I. (1973) Earthworm in agriculture: A mod-

ern evaluation. Indian Review of Ecological and Bio-

logical Society, 111(2), 259-271.

[9] Capowiez, Y., Cadoux S., Bouchand P., Roger-Estrade, J.,

Richard G. and Boizard, H. (2009) Experimental evi-

dence for the role of earthworms in compacted soil re-

generation based on field observations and results from a

semi-field experiment. Soil Biology & Biochemistry,

41(4), 711-717.

[10] Li, K.M. (2005) Vermiculture Industry in Circular

Economy, Worm Digest. http://www.wormdigest.org/con

tent/view/135/2/

[11] Bhawalkar, V.U. and Bhawalkar, U.S. (1993) Vermicul-

ture: The bionutrition system. national seminar on in-

digenous technology for sustainable agriculture. Indian

Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, 1-8.

[12] Bombatkar, V. (1996) The miracle called compost. The

Other India Press, Pune.

[13] Singh, R.D. (1992) Harnessing the earthworms for sus-

tainable agriculture. Publication of Institute of National

Organic Agriculture, Pune, 1-16.

[14] Ayres, M. (2007) Suppression of soil—born plant disease

using compost. 3rd National Compost Research and De-

velopment Forum Organized by COMPOST Australia,

Murdoch University, Perth. Ayres. Matthew@saugov.sa.

gov.au

[15] Webster, K. (2007) Compost as part of a vineyard salinity

remediation strategy. 3rd National Compost Research

and Development Forum Organized by COMPOST Aus-

tralia, Murdoch University, Perth. www.compostforsoils.

com.au

[16] Suhane, R. K. (2007) Vermicompost. Publication of Ra-

jendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Bihar, India, 88.

info@kvksmp.org

[17] Munroe, G. (2007) Manual of On-farm Vermicomposting

and Vermiculture. Publication of Organic Agriculture

Centre of Canada, Nova Scotia.

[18] Pajon, S. (2007) The Worms Turn-Argentina. Intermedi-

ate Technology Development Gr oup. Case Study Series 4;

Quoted in Munroe. http:// www.tve.org./ho/doc.cfm?aid=

1450&lang=Engl ish

[19] Canellas. L.P., Olivares, F.L., Okorokova, A.L. and Fa-

canha, R.A. (2002) Humic Acids Isolated from Earth-

worm Compost Enhance Root Elongation, Lateral Root

Emergence, and Plasma Membrane H+ - ATPase Activity

in Maize Roots. Journal of Plant Physiology, 130(4),

1951-1957.

[20] Pierre, V, Phillip, R. Margnerite, L. and Pierrette, C.

(1982) Anti-bacterial activity of the haemolytic system

from the earthworms Eisinia foetida Andrei. Invertebrate

Pathology, 40(1), 21-27.

[21] Atiyeh, R.M., Subler, S., Edwards, C.A., Bachman, G.,

Metzger, J.D. and Shuster, W. (2000) Effects of Vermi-

composts and Composts on Plant Growth in Horticultural

Container Media and Soil. Pedobiologia, 44(5), 579-590.

[22] Agarwal, S. (1999) Study of vermicomposting of domes-

tic waste and the effects of vermicompost on growth of

some vegetable crops. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ra-

jasthan, Jaipur.

[23] Tognetti, C., Laos, F., Mazzarino, M.J. and Hernandez,

M.T. (2005) Composting vs. vermicomposting: A com-

parison of end product quality. Journal of Compost Sci-

ence & Utilization, 13(1), 6-13.

[24] Sinha, R. K. and Gokul, B. (2007) Vermiculture revolu-

tion: rapid composting of waste organics with improved

compost quality for healthy plant growth while reducing

ghg emissions. 3rd National Compost Research and De-

velopment Forum Organized by COMPOST Australia,

Murdoch University, Perth. http:// www. compostforsoils.

com.au

[25] Jadia, C.D. and Fulekar, M.H. (2008) Vermicomposting

of vegetable wastes: A biophysiochemical process based

on hydro-operating bioreactor. African Journal of Bio-

technology, 7(20), 3723-3730.

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

[26] Reganold, J.P., Papendick, R.I.P. and James, F. (1990)

Sustainable Agriculture. Scientific American, 262(6),

112-120.

[27] Sinha, R.K., Herat, S., Valani, D. and Chauhan, K. (2009)

Vermiculture and sustainable agriculture. American-

Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sci-

ences; IDOSI Publication, 1-55. www.idosi.org

[28] Scheu, S. (1987) Microbial activity and nutrient dynam-

ics in earthworms casts. Journal of Biological Fertility

Soils, 5(3), 230-234.

[29] Binet, F., Fayolle, L. and Pussard, M. (1998) Signifi-

cance of earthworms in stimulating soil microbial activity.

Biology and Fertility of Soils, 27(2), 79-84.

[30] Chaoui, H.I., Zibilske, L.M. and Ohno, T. (2003) Effects

of earthworms casts and compost on soil microbial activ-

ity and plant nutrient availability. Soil Biology and Bio-

chemistry, 35(2), 295-302.

[31] Tiwari, S.C., Tiwari, B.K. and Mishra, R.R. (1989) Mi-

crobial populations, enzyme activities and nitrogen,

phosphorus, potassium enrichment in earthworm casts

and in surrounding soil of a pineapple plantation. Journal

of Biological Fertility of Soils, 8(1), 178-182.

[32] Kale, R.D. and Bano, K. (1986) Field trials with vermi-

compost, an organic fertilizer. Proceeding of National

Seminar on ‘Organic Waste Utilization by Vermicom-

posting, GKVK Agricultural University, Bangalore.

[33] Anonymous (2001) Vermicompost as Insect Repellent.

Biocycle.

[34] Edwards, C.A. and Arancon, N. (2004) Vermicompost

Supress Plant Pests and Disease Attacks. Rednova News,

http://www.rednova.com/display/

[35] Rodríguez, J.A., Zavaleta, E., Sanchez, P. and Gonzalez,

H. (2000) The effect of vermicompost on plant nutrition,

yield and incidence of root and crown rot of Gerbera

(Gerbera jamesonii H Bolus). Fitopathologia, 35(2),

66-79.

[36] Buchanan, M.A., Russel, E. and Block, S.D. (1988)

Chemical characterization and nitrogen mineralisation

potentials of vermicompost derived from differing or-

ganic wastes. In: Edward, C.A. and Neuhauser, E.F., Eds.,

Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management,

SPB Academic Publ i s hing, The Hague, 231-240.

[37] Patil, B.B. (1993) Soil and Organic Farming. Proceeding

of the Training Program on ‘Organic Agriculture, Insti-

tute of Natural and Organic Agriculture, Pune.

[38] Barley, K.P. and Jennings A.C. (1959) Earthworms and

soil fertility III; The influence of earthworms on the

availability of nitrogen. Australian Journal of Agricul-

tural Research, 10(3), 364-370.

[39] Dash, M.C. and Patra, U.C. (1979) Worm cast production

and nitrogen contribution to soil by a tropical earthworm

population from a grassland site in Orissa. Indian Review

of Ecological and Biological Society, 16(4), 79-83.

[40] Whalen, J.K., Parmelee, W.R., McCartnney, A.D. and

Vanarsdale, J.L. (1999) Movement of nitrogen (n) from

decomposing earthworm tissue to soil microbial and ni-

trogen pools. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 31(4),

487-492.

[41] Lee, K.E. (1985) Earthworms, their ecology and rela-

tionships with soil and land use. Academic Press, Syd-

ney.

[42] Satchel, J.E. and Martin, K. (1984) Phosphatase activity

in earthworm feces. Journal of Soil Biology and Bio-

chemistry, 16(2), 191-194.

[43] Li, K. and Li, P.Z. (2010) Earthworms helping economy,

improving ecology and protecting health. In: Sinha, R.K.

et. al., Eds. Special Issue on ‘Vermiculture Technology’,

International Journal of Environmental Engineering, In-

derscience Pub. (Accepted).

[44] Tomati, V., Grappelli, A. and Galli, E. (1985) Fertility

factors in earthworm humus. Proceedings of Interna-

tional Symposium on ‘Agriculture and Environment:

Prospects in Earthworm Farming, Rome, 49-56.

[45] Edwards, C.A. and Burrows, I. (1988) The potential of

earthworms composts as plant growth media. In: Edward,

C.A. and Neuhauser, E.F. Eds., ‘Earthworms in Waste

and Environmental Management’, SPB Academic Pub-

lishing, The Hague, 21-32.

[46] Neilson, R.L. (1965) Presence of plant growth substances

in earthworms. Nature, 208(5015), 1113-1114.

[47] Tomati, U. Grappelli, A. and Galli, E. (1987) The Pres-

ence of Growth Regulators in Earthworm-Worke d Wastes.

Proceeding of International Symposium on ‘Earthworms’,

Bologna-Carp i, 423-436.

[48] Tomati, V., Grappelli, A. and Galli, E. (1995) The Hor-

mone like Effect of Earthworm Casts on Plant Growth.

Biology and Fertility of Soils, 5(4), 288-294.

[49] Ansari, A.A. (2008) Effect of Vermicompost on the Pro-

ductivity of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Spinach (Spin-

acia oleracea) and Turnip (Brassica campestris). Wor ld

Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4(3), 333-336.

[50] Yardim, E.N., Arancon, N.Q., Edwards, C.A., Oliver, T.J.

and Byrne, R.J. (2006) Suppression of tomato hornworm

(Manduca quinquemaculata) and cucumber beetles (Aca-

lymma vittatum and Diabotrica undecimpunctata) popu-

lations and damage by vermicomposts. Pedobiologia,

50(1), 23-29.

[51] Arancon, N.Q., Edwards, C.A. and Lee, S. (2002) Man-

agement of plant parasitic nematode population by use of

vermicomposts. Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protec-

tion Conference-Pests and Diseases, Brighton, 2002,

705-716.

[52] Edwards, C.A., Arancon, N.Q., Emerson, E. and Pulliam,

R. (2007) Suppressing plant parasitic nematodes and ar-

thropod pests with vermicompost teas. BioCycle, 48(12),

38-39.

[53] Baker, G.H., Williams, P.M., Carter, P.J. and Long, N.R.

(1997) Influence of lumbricid earthworms on yield and

quality of wheat and clover in glasshouse trials. Journal

of Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29(3/4), 599-602.

[54] Baker, G.H., Brown, G., Butt K., Curry, J.P. and Scullion,

J. (2006) Introduced earthworms in agricultural and re-

claimed land: Their ecology and influences on soil prop-

erties, plant production and other soil biota. Biological

Invasions, 8(6), 1301-1316.

[55] Krishnamoorthy, R.V. and Vajranabhaiah, S.N. (1986)

biological activity of earthworm casts: An assessment of

plant growth promoter levels in the casts. Proceedings of

Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Science), 95(3),

341-351.

[56] Palanisamy, S. (1996) Earthworm and plant interactions.

ICAR Training Program, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Uni-

versity, Coimbatore.

[57] Roberts, P, Jones, G.E. and Jones, D.L. (2007) Yield re-

R. K. Sinha et al. / Agricultura l Sciences 1 (2010) 76-94

sponses of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to vermicompost.

Journal of Compost Science and Utilization, 15(1), 6-15.

[58] Suthar, S. (2005) Effect of vermicompost and inorganic

fertilizer on wheat (Triticum aestivum) production. Na-

ture Environment Pollution Technology, 5(2), 197-201.

[59] Suthar, S. (2010) Vermicompost: An environmentally

safe, economically viable and socially acceptable nutri-

tive fertilizer for sustainable farming; In: Sinha, R.K. et

al., Eds. Special Issue on ‘Vermiculture Technology,

Journal of Environmental Engineering; Inderscience Pub.

(Accepted).

[60] Kale, R.D., Mallesh, B.C., Kubra, B. and Bagyaraj, D.J.

(1992) Influence of vermicompost application on the

available macronutrients and selected microbial popula-

tions in a paddy field. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,

24(12), 1317-1320.

[61] Jeyabal, A. and Kuppuswamy, G. (2001) Recycling of

organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and

its response in rice—legume cropping system and soil

fertility. European Journal of Agronomy, 15(13), 153-

170.

[62] Guerrero, R.D. and Guerrero, L.A. (2008) Effect of ver-

micompost on the yield of upland rice in outdoor con-

tainers. Asia Life Sciences, 17(1), 145-149.

[63] Buckerfield, J.C. and Webster, K.A. (1998) Worm-

worked waste boost grape yield: Prospects for vermi-

compost use in vineyards. The Australian and New Zea-

land Wine Industry Journal, 13(1), 73-76.

[64] Singh, R., Sharma, R.R., Kumar, S., Gupta, R.K. and

Patil, R.T. (2008) Vermicompost substitution influences

growth, physiological disorders, fruit yield and quality of

strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch), Bioresource

Technology, 99(17), 8507-8511.

[65] Webster, K.A. (2005) Vermicompost increases yield of

cherries for three years after a single application. EcoR e-

search, South Australia. http://www.ecoresearch.com.au

[66] Atiyeh, R.M., Subler, S., Edwards, C.A. and Metzger,

J.D. (1999) Growth of Tomato Plants in Horticultural

Potting Media Amended with Vermicompost. Pedobiolo-

gia, 43(4), 1-5.

[67] Gupta, A.K., Pankaj, P.K. and Upadhyava, V. (2008) Effect

of vermicompost, farm yard manure, biofertilizer and

chemical fertilizers (N, P, K) on growth, yield and quality

of lady’s finger (Abelmoschus esculentus). Pollution Re-

search, 27(1), 65-68.

[68] Guerrero, R.D. and Guerrero, L.A. (2006) Response of

eggplant (Solanum melongena) grown in plastic contain-

ers to vermicompost and chemical fertilizer. Asia Life

Sciences, 15(2), 199-204.

[69] Agarwal, S, Sinha, R.K. and Sharma, J. (2010) Ver-

miculture for sustainable horticulture: Agronomic impact

studies of earthworms, cow dung compost and vermi-

compost vis-à-vis chemical fertilizers on growth and

yield of lady’s finger (Abelmoschus esculentus). In:

Sinha, R.K. et al., Eds., Special Issue on ‘Vermiculture

Technology’, International Journal of Environmental

Engineering, Inderscience Pub.

[70] Meena, R.N., Singh, Y., Singh, S.P., Singh, J.P. and Singh,

K. (2007) effect of sources and level of organic manure

on yield, quality and economics of garden pea (Pisum sa-

tivam L.) in eastern uttar pradesh. Vegetable Science,

34(1), 60-63.

[71] Karmegam, N. and Daniel, T. (2008) Effect of vermi-

compost and chemical fertilizer on growth and yield of

Hyacinth Bean (Lablab purpureas). Dynamic Soil, Dy-

namic Plant, Global Science Books, 2(2), 77-81. kanishka

rmegam@gmail.com

[72] Sharma, R. (2001) Vermiculture for sustainable agricul-

ture: study of the agronomic impact of earthworms and

their vermicompost on growth and production of wheat

crops, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

[73] Buckerfield, J.C., Flavel, T.C., Lee, K.E. and Webster,

K.A. (1999) Vermicompost in solid and liquid forms as a

plant—growth promoter. Pedobiologia, 43(6), 753-759.

[74] Giraddi, R.S. (2003) Method of extraction of earthworm

wash: A plant promoter substance. VIIth National Sympo-

sium on Soil Biology and Ecology, Bangalore.

[75] Thangavel, P., Balagurunathan, R., Divakaran, J. and

Prabhakaran, J. (2003) effect of vermiwash and vermi-

cast extract on soil nutrient status, growth and yield of

paddy. Advances of Plant Sciences, 16(1), 187-190.

[76] Saumaya, G., Giraddi, R.S. and Patil, R.H. (2007) Utility

of vermiwash for the management of thrips and mites on

chilli (capiscum annum) amended with soil organics.

Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 20(3), 657-

659.

[77] Suthar, S. (2010) Evidence of plant hormone like sub-

stances in vermiwash: An ecologically safe option of

synthetic chemicals for sustainable farming. Journal of

Ecological Engineering, 36(8), 1089-1092.

[78] CRIDA (2009) Vermicompost from Waste; Pub. Of Cen-

tral Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture; Hydera-

bad, (Unit of Indian Council for Agricultural Research).

[79] Lotzof, M. (2000) Vermiculture: An Australian Technology

Success Story. Waste Management Magazine.

[80] NCSU (1997) Large Scale Vermi-composting Operations

—Data from Vermicycle Organics, Inc., North Carolina

State University, Raleigh.

[81] White, S. (1997) A Vermi-adventure in India. Journal of

Worm Digest, 15(1), 27-30.

[82] Bogdanov, P. (2004) The single largest producer of ver-

micompost in world. In: Bogdanov, P. Ed., Casting Call,

9(3). http://www.vermico.com

[83] Sinha, R.K. (1998) Embarking on the second green rev-

olution for sustainable agriculture in India: A judicious

mix of traditional wisdom and modern knowledge in

ecological farming. Journal of Agricultural & Environ-

mental Ethics, Kluwer Acad. Pub., Dordrecht, 183-197.

[84] Sinha, R.K. (2004) Sustainable Agriculture. Surabhee

Publication, Jaipur, 370.

[85] Grappelli, A., Tomati, V., Galli, E. and Ve rgari, B. (1985)

Earthworm Casting in Plant Propagation. Journal of

Horticultural Science, 20(5), 874-876.

[86] Appelhof, M. (2003) Notable Bits. WormEzine, 2(5),

http://www.wormwoman.com