CSANR
Washington State University
7612 Pioneer Way
Puyallup, WA 98371-4998
USA
Tel. (253) 445-4626
FAX (253) 445-4579
csanr@wsu.edu

Individual results of all 1996 On-Farm Compost Trials

Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA

1996 Report
1996 Brownfield Replant – Gala

Objective

To compare the effect of different composts and different application rates on tree growth and productivity.

Treatments

All rates are on a treated area basis, and reported as wet weight.

Comments

This orchard has been under organic management for many years. Prior to replanting, this block lay fallow one year after the existing orchard was removed. In November 1995, the block was fumigated. Compost treatments were surface applied on 4/26/96 after the trees were planted, using a compost spreader. The experimental design was a randomized complete block, with 4 replications. Each plot consisted of two adjacent rows of about 100’ length. The circumferences of 20 trees per plot were measured on 5/16/96 and again on 10/9/96 to determine the percent trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) growth increment for the season.

A Soil Builder cover crop mix from Peaceful Valley (fababean, pea) was planted in the alleys. Trees were mulched with a windrow of alfalfa hay.

Data

Conclusion

Statistically, there were no differences among treatments. Trees treated with Lincoln chicken compost generally grew more than those with the feedlot compost, perhaps due to the higher N content of the chicken compost. Tree growth should be monitored for several seasons to look for longer-term effects.

1996 Report
Compost and Irrigation Scheduling as Effecting Soil Health

Objective

To determine the effect of applying water beyond tree need as determined by tensiometers; How does this affect the soil microbial populations? Is compost breakdown and nutrient release increased with additional water?

Treatments

An extra sprinkler was used to apply additional water between tree 10 and 20, in rows 40 and 41.

Comments

Chicken compost is applied each year, spring and/or fall. Water in the soil profile was monitored and recorded every 2 days by the grower utilizing tensiometers at 6", 12", 18", and 24". Trunk measurements were taken in mid-June.

Data

Conclusion

Tree circumference needs to be measured this spring to determine any short-term effect on tree growth. Soil tests in 1997 will help determine what the effect has been on compost nutrient release.

Using tensiometers to determine irrigation scheduling requires careful placement. Consider where the tree roots actually are.

1996 Report
1996 Cook Compost Topdress – Fuji

Objective

To determine how much compost is needed to optimize tree growth and fruit production on organically managed apples.

Treatments

4 rates of Nielsen chicken compost (3% total N):

0 scoops (check)

1 scoop per tree (5–6 lb)

2 scoops per tree (10–12 lb)

4 scoops per tree (20–24 lb)

Comments

Treatments were applied to an area of the orchard with 5th leaf Fuji where the trees were growing poorly. Composts were applied by hand in early May. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications, with each row as a replication containing all treatments. A plot consisted of 5 adjacent trees in a row. Trunk circumference was measured at the beginning and end of the season to determine the growth increment. Leaf N was measured in July. Fruit yield and size were measured at harvest. Terminal growth was measured after harvest. When fruit samples were harvested, in some rows fruit from the check (0 lb/ tree) had decidedly redder skin color.

Data

Conclusion

Leaf N increased in a linear fashion with increasing compost rate. Compost is the primary N source in this orchard, and thus the immediate response was seen in one season due to the lack of other major N sources. The SPAD meter provided an accurate relative ranking of the N status of the trees as well. All trees exhibited adequate leaf N. Average trunk cross sectional growth increased with increasing compost rate, but this was not statistically significant due to the high amount of variation. Also, there was greater leader growth where compost was applied compared to the control, but not significant. There were no measurable differences in fruit yield or fruit size. This test should be followed over several seasons and may provide more insight about compost due to the lack of other major nutrient sources.

1996 Report
1996 Goehry – Compost Topdress – Fuji

Objective

To overcome poor growth of apple trees (Fujis on Mark rootstock), grown in sandy soil.

Treatments

3 composts at 3 rates, although 1 compost was unreplicated.

Comments

The composts were surface applied to individual trees by hand in mid April with a scoop shovel (a scoop equals about 2 gal.) Except for checks, which were placed at alternating ends (north vrs. south) of rows, single rows received one compost at one rate. Also, the Stutzman compost was only used on a few trees in an unreplicated area. There were 2 or 4 reps for each treatment. Trunk circumferences were measured at the beginning and end of the season. Leaf N was measured in July. Fruit yield and fruit diameter were measured at harvest. Due to the incomplete and modified block design, the data cannot be statistically analyzed as a whole.

Data

Conclusion

Compared to the check, neither rate of Cedar Grove or Sunland compost yielded trunk cross sectional area increases which were statistically different. Cedar Grove showed a trend of greater trunk growth than the Sunland product. Trees with Stutzman generally had the smallest trunk growth, perhaps because of salts, however yield was not suppressed. When yields are compared, there are significant differences (see letters next to data), with Sunland showing a yield increase over the control. Leaf N was in the high range for all treatments. SPAD meter readings did not correlate well with the leaf N measurements. Fruit diameter was significantly greater than the control only in the Cedar Grove 2 scoop treatment.

1996 Report
1996 Goehry – Compost Banding prior to Planting – Cameo

Objective

To improve soil quality before planting by incorporating compost into the ground and to determine how much compost is needed to significantly improve tree growth.

Treatments

3 rates of Cedar Grove yard waste compost ( 0.9% total N): 0 tons/A; 10 tons/A; and 20 tons/A. Rates are on a treated area basis. A modified randomized complete block design was used with 4 replications. Each row was a replication of all 3 treatments, with the check between the two rates. The 20 ton rate was achieved by a second pass of the spreader.

Comments

This site had never been farmed before and is very sandy. In the fall of 1995, gypsum and 11–52–0 were applied to the site after initial ground preparation. The compost was applied in late March 1996 in a 4’ wide band over the planting row with an adapted lime spreader. (NOTE: Due to the wetness of the compost, application rates were not uniform. In some places compost was added to individual tree holes using a shovel instead. ) After compost application the ground was tilled before tree planting. Cameo on M26 were planted on a 4.5’ x 14’ spacing. Check plots contained 6 trees, while treated plots contained about 30 trees. Some of the tree rows were mulched with 4" alfalfa hay. Trunk growth was measured at the beginning and end of the season, and % trunk cross sectional area increase was calculated. Soil electrical conductivity (a measure of salts) was measured in one row in July.

Data

Conclusion

All trees grew very well in the first year. There were no differences among treatments. Treatment differences may be masked by additional soil amendments applied to all trees. The electrical conductivity was below the damage threshold of about 1.5 mmho/cm in all treatments in the row sampled.

1996 Report
1996 Goehry Compost-in-the-Planting Hole New Planting – Cameo

Objective

To determine the effect of compost in the planting hole of apple trees at a sandy site previously unfarmed.

Treatments

1. Check
2. Leonardite, 1 cup
3. Stutzman chicken compost, 2.5 gal
4. Stutzman chicken compost, 2.5 gal + 1 cup Leonardite
5. Stutzman chicken compost, 4.0 gal
6. Cedar Grove yard waste compost, 2.5 gal
7. Cedar Grove yard waste compost, 5.0 gal
8. Cedar Grove yard waste compost, 5.0 gal + 1 cup Leonardite
9. Cedar Grove yard waste compost, 5.0 gal + 2 cup Leonardite

W – Check with Aliette
WO – Check without Aliette

Total N content of the composts is as follows: Stutzman – 4.8%; Cedar Grove – 0.9%.

E.C. of the composts is as follows: Stutzman – 27 mmho/cm; Cedar Grove – 4 mmho/cm.

Leonardite is a mined humic acid product. Aliette is a fungicidal root dip.

Comments

In fall 1995, gypsum and 11–52–0 were applied to the site, after ground preparation. On tree planting day, the compost was applied using a bucket, and mixed by shovel with existing soil in the augered tree hole. All trees were dipped in an Aliette solution, then immediately planted (Cameo on M26). Plots consisted of 3 consecutive trees, some of which were replicated (F and G). The W and WO treatments were applied in an adjacent row, using 2 trees/plot, replicated 3 times. % trunk cross sectional area was calculated from measuring trunk diameters.

Data

Conclusion

Some trees planted with the Stutzman compost died, most likely due to the elevated E.C. found in the planting holes. Stutzman + leonardite did not ameliorate this problem. The Cedar Grove compost led to consistently greater tree growth than the control. Leonardite appeared to enhance tree growth further when mixed with the Cedar Grove product. There was no significant difference in tree growth due to Aliette, although the untreated trees had greater average tree growth than the treated trees. This study confirms that caution is needed when adding compost to the planting hole. However, this may be the most economical way to elicit a benefit from compost at planting. Further tests are needed on leonardite given the promising initial results.

1996 Report
1996 LBO Compost Topdress

Objective

To improve the growth of apple trees grown in Columbia River sand deposits.

Treatments

Check – no compost
Lincoln chicken compost – 5 gal/ tree (35 lb/tree)
Lincoln chicken compost – 10 gal/ tree (70 lb/tree)
Hubbard chicken compost – 10 gal/ tree

Comments

Block 19 was planted to Scarlett Red Delicious on 7A. The block was fertilized three times with 350 lb/ac of 16–20–0–14 plus K-Mag at 2-week intervals beginning May 20. Compost was surface applied to individual trees in late May. Measurements were taken on groups of 6 consecutive trees in 12 rows during May and November.

Block 28 was planted in 1995, then grafted to another variety. Chicken compost was added to the planting hole. Additional compost was surface applied to individual trees in May 1996. Measurements were taken on 6 consecutive trees in a row during May and November.

Data

No significant differences. CV=6.2%

No significant differences. CV=31.0%

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in trunk growth due to compost, although there was a trend towards greater growth in block 19 with the higher rate. Conventional fertilizer applications may be masking any contribution to tree nutrition by the compost.

1996 Report
1996 Pheasant Compost Topdress – Cameo, Jonagold

Objective

To improve the nutritional quality of apples through the addition of compost; also to determine the quantity of compost needed to improve growth on stressed trees and whether surface applications or incorporation of compost works best.

Treatments

Check
Sunland Chicken 1" deep, incorporated
Sunland Chicken 1" deep, surface
Cedar Grove 1" deep, incorporated
Cedar Grove 1" deep, surface
Cedar Grove 2" deep, incorporated
Cedar Grove 2" deep, surface
Cedar Grove 1" deep, incorporated + 1" deep, surface

Note: 1" compost spread across a 3 1/2’wide row = approx. 1 cubic yard/100’ of row.

Comments

Two blocks of apple trees were treated with compost: 4th leaf Jonagold and 3rd leaf Cameo, both high-density, trellis plantings. There were 2 reps of treatments in each variety. Each plot consisted of 8 – 40 adjacent trees. The entire tree-row strip, 3 1/2’ wide, was treated with compost in late May. Trunk circumference was measured at the beginning and end of the season. Leaf N was measured in July. Fruit yield and size were measured at harvest. All trees were fertilized with N in the fall of 1995.

Data

Conclusion

There were no differences due to compost treatments for any of the measurements, perhaps because the composts were not applied until late May. A number of the trees did not produce much fruit, and thus there was great variability in fruit yield among treatments. Weeds were not fully suppressed in the tree row. Where and when weeding was done, some of the compost in the surface treatments was incorporated, blurring the distinction with the other treatments.

1996 Report
1996 Stevens Replant – Gala

Objective

To compare different composts and different application rates on tree growth and productivity.

Treatments

Rates are on a treated area basis. All treatments with and without leonardite @ 40 lb/ A.

Comments

This site was fumigated in fall 1995 after old apple trees were removed. Composts were applied in early April in bands over the planting row with a lime spreader and subsequently tilled in prior to tree planting. Gala was planted in early June. A randomized complete block design was used, with 5 replications. The area received a uniform application of leonardite (40 lb/ac) as well. An additional 4 rows received various combinations of compost and leonardite, including higher rates of compost. Trunk circumference was measured in June and November, and trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) was then calculated. Attempts were made to monitor soil moisture in some of the contrasting treatments with various hand meters and tensiometers. Robert Kilian, NRCS, measured bulk density and soil moisture in selected plots on 8/8/96.

Data

Moisture readings on 8–8–96

centibars: lower number = wetter (less suction)
MM: 1 = driest ; 10 = wettest (salts can also cause a higher number)