Trees, Orchard Crops
The links below provide some information on EM Technology® for Bioremediation. For a full database of research papers on Effective Microorganisms®, please visit EMRO Japan's website.
Effect of microbial inoculants on Albizia saman germination and seedling growth
B. M. Khan, M. K. Hossain, M. A. U. Mridha
Biography: Bayezid Mahmud Khan (1976–) male, Assistant Professor in the Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, Chittagong-4331, Bangladesh.
Microbial Inoculants as Effective Microorganisms (EM) were applied to find out their effects on germination and seedling growth of Albizia saman in the nursery. The seedlings were grown in a mixture of sandy soils and cow dung (3:1) kept in polybags. The EM solution at different concentrations (0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5% and 10%) was incorporated before and after a week of sowing seeds. Germination and physical growth parameters, including shoot and root length, vigor index, collar diameter, leaf number, fresh and dry weight of shoot and root and total biomass increment over the control were measured. The nodulation status influenced by EM was also observed along with the estimation of chemical parameters like chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoid. Both germination and the measured physical growth parameters were found significantly (P<0.05) higher in seedlings treated with different concentrations of EM solution in comparison to the control. Maximum growth was found at 2% followed by 1% EM solution. Nodulation was higher at 0.1% concentration but it normally decreased with the increase of concentrations. Although there were a higher amount of pigments in leaves of the treated seedlings than of the control, the variations recorded with respect to chlorophyll a, b and carotenoid were not significantly higher in most of the treatments. Treated seedlings showed variable results along with the increment of EM applications and most of the parameters showed best results at the medium range of concentrations. The study indicates that the Microbial Inoculant (EM) technology might be useful to improve the growth of seedlings in the nursery. This also indicates that the associated beneficial organisms along with the polybag soils might be of value in improving the degraded soil or poor field soil for better nutrient and water uptake during the initial growth of transplanted seedlings.
Access full article here.
Improved Soil Chemical and Physical Conditions and their Relations to Yield
and Fruit Quality of Oranges in a Field under Kyusei Nature Farming and EM
Technology in Brazil
Adilson D. Paschoal
University of Sao Paulo,”Luiz de Queiroz” Agriculture College
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Field investigations were conducted with citrus, since 1993, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on the use of Nature Farming and EM technology. EM cultures applied to the soil (EMS), to plants (EMP) and to both plants and soil (EMPS) were compared with the control (C). Under natural soil conditions, i.e., with no fertilizer, no lime and no pesticide, yield of oranges and fruit quality parameters were analyzed comparatively, after one and a half years from the beginning of the experiment and after 18 EM applications. Statistical analyses indicate highly significant differences (P < 0.05) in yield, in treatments EMPS and EMS; relative percentage increases were 15% and 14% respectively. Regarding the EM treatments, higher yields can be correlated with improved soil chemical and physical conditions. Highly significant differences (P < 0.05) in treatment means were also detected for weights of juice and peel. EM treatments raised orange juice content by 17% (EMPS) and 11% (EMP and EMS). Related to the control, the percentage increases in juice content were 8% (EMPS), 7% (EMP) and 3% (EMS). EM treated fruits also presented thinner peels.
In previous papers (Paschoal et al. 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996) we presented the results of a field investigation dealing with the use of EM on a citrus grove in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. In the present paper a correlation is established between yield, fruit quality and improved soil chemical and physical conditions determined by the use of EM. This study attempts to bring new knowledge to the way EM behaves in the soil to improve crop yields and food quality.
Materials and Methods
General features of the experimental site were given elsewhere (See Paschoal et.al, 1993).
The experimental design was a Randomized Complete Block Design, with 4 replicates for each of the following treatments :-
C (control): Water sprayed over the citrus plants at a rate of 5 L/plant, and over the soil at a rate of 0.25 L/m2. The application on the soil surface was made to cover an area 2.5 m wide and 4.0 m long, on each side of a plant, in such a way that each plant would get 5 L (5L/20 m2).
EMS (soil) : EM diluted 1:100 sprayed over the soil at a rate of 0.25 L/m2, equivalent to 2.5 ml of EM/m2, the same way as for the control.
EMP (plant) : EM diluted 1:1,000 sprayed over the citrus plants at a rate of 5 L/plant, equivalent to 5 ml of EM/plant, or about 0.20 ml of EM/m2 of the tree surface (the average plant was 2.75 high with a radius of 1.70 m).
EMPS (plant–soil): EM diluted 1:1,000 sprayed over the citrus plants, at the same rate as for EMP, plus EM diluted 1:100 sprayed over the soil at the same rate as for EMS. EM culture used in the experiment was a modified mixture of the three basic cultures, developed in Brazil at the Mokichi Okada Foundation Centre, in Ipeuna, Sao Paulo, called EM4 or simply EM (Kyusei-EM, in Japan). EM spray frequency was at monthly intervals.
Soil and plants were kept under natural conditions at all times, receiving no fertilizer nor lime or pesticides. Weeds were chopped and let to decay at soil surface as dead mulch, no herbicide or disc harrowing being allowed. Whenever possible, EM applications were made on top of this material, in treatments EMS and EMPS, while it was still green.
Soil samples for chemical analyses were taken from two different depths (0-20 and 20-40 cm) with the aid of an auger. Soil penetration resistance, at a determined soil moisture content level, was evaluated comparatively, on the same day, by means of an impact penetrometer. Two points per plot were sampled under the tree-tops, for resistance to penetration. Soil density was assessed at 0-4 and 20-24 cm depths; 50 cm2 capacity rings were used for sampling bulk density, macropores and
To determine yield, ripened fruits were harvested in late August 1994 and weighed directly in the field. Oranges were picked from all 10 trees in each plot (Paschoal et al, 1993) being transferred to standard plastic boxes with a holding capacity of 28 kg each. The number of boxes, weighing 28 kg, and yield (kg/plants) were determined per block and per treatment. Statistical analyses were then applied to data. Variables in which the F test resulted significant, the multiple comparison technique
through the Tukey test, was used so to allow the comparisons between the means.
Fruit quality was evaluated by sampling trees, one fruit being picked at randon from each of 8 trees in each plot, two marginal trees being disregarded to avoid the border effect. Sampled fruits were all of the same size, being equally ripened and criteriously taken from the same quadrant, at the same plant height, and brought to the laboratory for analysis the day after harvesting. Several features were determined: weight of juice, weight of peel, weight of pulp, weight of seeds, citric acid, brix
Data presented in this paper cover a period of one and a half years, from March 03, 1993 to August 23, 1994.
Results and Discussion
Data on the number of boxes (28 kg/box) of oranges per block and per treatment, yields (kg/plant) per block and per treatment are presented in Table 1. Regarding the mean yield of oranges the analysis of variance resulted significant for the variable treatments. The Tukey test resulted analyses are displayed in Table 1.
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Highly significant differences (P < 0.05) in yield of oranges were obtained for treatments EMPS (53.0 kg/plant) and EMS (52.5 kg/plant) in relation to C (45.9 kg/plant) (Table 1). EMP treatment (48.3 kg/plant) was not statistically different from the control and the other EM treatments. Relative increases in yield of oranges per plant, in relation to the control, were as follows : 15 per cent for EMPS, 14 per cent for EMS, and 4 per cent for EMP. Considering that : 1) the increase in yield for treatment EMPS in relation to C is 7.1 kg/plant; and 2) the number of plants per hectare is 416, the resulting elevation in productivity is 2,953 kg/ha equivalent to 105 boxes. This may represent an extra revenue of about U$ 315 per hectare, at the regular price of U$ 3.00/box priced in 1994. It is worth stressing that this rise in productivity was achieved without the addition of any amendment but EM to the soil or to the plant.
Data on quality of the orange fruits harvested in later August 1994 are presented in Table 2. Regarding the mean weight of juice and weight of peel, the analyses of variance were significant for the variable treatments. The Tukey test resulted analyses are shown in Table 2.
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Highly significant differences (P < 0.05) in weight of juice were obtained for treatments EMPS (672.83 g), EMS (639.94 g) and EMP (638.74 g) relative to C (573.11 g) (Table 2). All three EM treatments did not differ from each other. Relative increases in weight of juice, in relation to the control, were as follows: 17 per cent for EMPS, 11 per cent for EMS and 11 per cent for EMP.
Relative weights of juice to the weights of the fruits they were extracted from showed the following percentages of juices in the fruits: 55 per cent for EMPS, 54 per cent for EMP, 50 per cent for EMS and 47 per cent for C. Related to the control, the percent increases in juice content were as follows: 8 per cent for EMPS, 7 per cent for EMP, and 3 per cent for EMS.
Highly significant differences (P < 0.05) in the weight of peel were also obtained for treatments EMPS (442.67 g) and EMP (454.83 g) relative to C (597.28 g) (Table 2). No statistical differences were found between treatment EMS (525.96 g) and the control. Once again the EM treatments were not significant to each other. Lower peel weights means thinner peels.
The assumed fruit uniformity was corroborated by the results of the analyses of variance. No statistical differences were found for fruit weight (Table 2).
Higher yields, greater juice contents and thinner peels in the EM treatments, can be correlated with improved soil chemical and physical conditions, determined by the use of effective microorganisms. At the time the citrus plants were in bloom and fruits were forming in late winter, soil organic matter, soil pH and soil C.E.C. were significantly higher in all the EM treatments relative to the control (Table 3). The organic matter content of the soil and soil pH increased to highly significant levels (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively) at both depths, in the plots treated with EM over that of the control, EM treatments being not significant to each other (Paschoal et al, 1995). Related to the control, the soil cationic exchange capacity (C.E.C) means were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for all EM treatments, at both depths, EMS excepted at 20 – 40 cm depth, EM treatments being not significant to each other. This finding suggests that citrus plants treated to EM were taking more nutrients out of the soil.
Regarding soil penetration resistance to impact penetrometer a tendency existed for EM treatment means to be lower than the control. The average means strokes per dm, at 0-51 cm depths, indicated EMPS, EMS and EMP soils to be 11 per cent, 7 per cent and 6 per cent less resistant to penetration than the control. The average figures were as follows: EMPS 4.83 s/dm; EMS 5.04 s/dm; EMP 5.13 s/dm; and C 5.45 s/dm (See Paschoal et al, 1995 for further details). This tendency probably indicates that effective microorganisms were able to improve soil physical conditions, reducing compaction. Best results were obtained for EMPS plot where introduced EM culture volumed twice that of the other EM treatments.
At the time fruits were developing and maturing, from spring to fall, significant differences were noticed for the major nutrients Ca, Mg and K. Higher Ca and Mg levels were associated with EMPS in spring and summer times; higher K levels occurred in spring but only for EMP and EMPS relative to EMS. Due to increased major nutrients in soil, the sum of bases increased accordingly. Higher S.B. means were associated with EMPS (See Paschoal et al, 1995 for further details). It is yet too early to try to correlate these findings with improved fruit quality. Perhaps not plant uptake of ions but complex molecules of organic nature would be more desirable to investigate.
Paschoal, A.D., S.K. Homma, M.J.A. Jorge and M.C.S. Nogueira. 1993. Effect of EM on soil properties and nutrient cycling in a citrus agro-ecosystem. Procedings of the Third International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming. Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 203-209.
Paschoal, A.D., S.K. Homma, M.J.A. Jorge and M.C.S. Nogueira. 1994, Papel de microrganismos eficazes no solo e no ciclo natural de nutrientes em um agroecossistema de citros no Brasil. 44-56. Em “Experimentos sobre o uso de microrganisms eficazes (EM) no Brasil, Fundacao Mokiti Okada, S. Paulo. 110 p.
Paschoal, A.D., S.K. Homma, A.B. Sanches and M.C.S. Nogueira. 1995. Performnce of effective microorganisms (EM) on soil, leaves, mite populations, fruit quality and yield of orange trees, in a Brazilian citrus orchard kept under natural conditions. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming, Paris, France.
Paschoal, A.D. and A.B. Sanches. 1996. Organic citrus production by using EM technologies in Brazil. 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 148.
Effect of Effective Microorganisms (EM4*) on the Growth of Citrus Medica
*EM4 is now sold as EM-1® in most countries.
Wibisono A.1 Buwonowati T.2 and Wididana G.N;1.
1Indonesian Kyusei Nature Farming Society, Indonesia.
2Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Nasional, Indonesia.
Two experiments were conducted to determine the effect of EM4 application on the root growth of transplanted citrus medica var. lemon and the effect of EM4 in combination with rice straw application to the growth of citrus medica var. lemon.
These experiments were conducted in Cicurug Sukabumi, West Java province, during May to
November 1993. The type of soil found in the location was Latosol.
The experiment showed that the EM4 treatment gave significantly higher number of root, length of root, fresh weight and dry weight of root of the transplanted plant. The treatment of EM4 and rice straw, gave significantly higher plant, number of shoot and number of leaves.
Citrus is one of the important fruit crops that have important role in Indonesian economic development, especially for the farmers (Soelaeman, 1991). Citrus medica is one of the citrus species that has high economic value and thus planted commercially. It is a good source of vitamins A and C which are important in family nutrition (Sarwono, 1986).
Recently the problems faced by the horticultural farmer is the lack of supply of good quality seedlings (Danumihardja, 1987). Djoehana (1986) proposed that fertilizer application to citrus crops is one of the alternatives in order to increase citrus production.
The application of organic matter to the soil is not only to increase the nutrient content for the plant but also to create the suitable condition for the plant growth by improving soil aeration, facilitating root penetration and improving water holding capacity and quantity of microorganisms occupied in the soil. Rice straw as a source of organic matter have important role to improve soil fertility (Anonimous, 1990).
Higa and Wididana (1991) proposed some theories in relation with the fermentation of soil organic matter by Effective Microorganisms® (EM4) which consisted of Lactobacillus sp., Streptomyces sp., yeast and lactic acid producing bacteria. These microorganisms have the ability to ferment soil organic matter to produce organic compounds, such as sugar, alcohol, amino acid, lactic acid and other organic compounds that can be absorbed directly by plant roots. Higa and Kinjo (1991) showed that the fermented organic matter by EM4 can increase the humus content of soil and also increase plant growth.
The objective of this experiment is to determine the effect of EM4 on the root growth of the marcotted Citrus medica, and the effect of the combined application of rice straw and EM4 on the growth of the Citrus medica seedlings.
Materials and Methods
Experiment 1: Effect of EM4 on the root growth marcotted of Citrus medica.
This experiment was conducted in Cicurug, Sukabumi, West Java in May to November 1993. The experiment consisted of 2 treatments replicated 20 times and laid out in complete randomized design. The treatments were as follows:
T1: Control ( Normal soil media without EM4)
T2: EM4 ( Normal soil media treated with EM4)
Tap water was used in the soil media before marcotting in the control treatment. In EM4 treatment, 0.5% of EM4 was applied in the soil media before marcotting. Root length, number, fresh weight and dry weight were determined after 40 days after marcotting.
Experiment 2: Effects of EM4 and rate of rice straws on the growth of Citrus medica var. lemon.
This experiment was conducted at a model farm in Cicurug, Sukabumi, West Java in June to November 1993. The marcotted Citrus medica var. lemon were planted in polybags containing 10 kg of soil. The kind of soil used was Latosol. The treatments consisted of two levels of EM4 Concentrations and six rates of rice straw application, replicated 10 times and arranged in a randomized complete block design. The treatments were as follows:
RS 0 = Rice Straw 0 t/ha (control)
RS 0.5 = Rice Straw 0.5 t/ha
RS 1.0 = Rice Straw 1.0 t/ha
RS 1.5 = Rice Straw 1.5 t/ha
RS 2.0 = Rice Straw 2.0 t/ha
RS 2.5 = Rice Straw 2.5 t/ha
EMRS 0 = Rice Straw 0 t/ha with EM4
EMRS 0.5 = Rice Straw 0.5 t/ha with EM4
EMRS 1.0 = Rice Straw 1.0 t/ha with EM4
EMRS 1.5 = Rice Straw 1.5 t/ha with EM4
EMRS 2.0 = Rice Straw 2.0 t/ha with EM4
EMRS 2.5 = Rice Straw 2.5 t/ha with EM4
Rice straw was incorporated to the soil before planting. EM4 treatment was applied by drenching 0.5% EM solution to the soil until field capacity every 28 days. The data were collected every 28 days for 6 months.
Results and Discussion
Experiment 1: The effect of EM4 on the growth of marcotted Citrus medica is shown in Table 1. Application of EM4 to the soil used for marcotting media significantly increased the root length, number, fresh weight and dry weight compared to those of control.
This result indicated that EM4 can enhance the root growth of marcotted Citrus medica. Higa and Wididana (1991) explained that EM4 inoculated to the soil can improve soil physical properties. EM4 also increases the auxin content in the soil released by the beneficial microorganisms such as Azotobacter sp., Streptomyces sp. Richard (1981) found that some microorganisms released plant growth substances that can enhance the growth of plant roots.
The fermentation of organic matter in the soil by EM4 was expected to provide nutrients for the root of marcotted plant, which will affect the growth of roots in Experiment 2.
Data on plant height, number of shoot and number of leaves of Citrus medica, collected every 28 days until 140 days after planting are shown in Table 2. The application of rice straw alone significantly affect plant height, number of shoot and number of leaves compared to those without rice straw. The best growth was obtained from 2.5 t/ha of rice straw. The experiment also showed that the combination of EM4 and rice straw gave better growth.
The addition of organic matter to the soil can improve biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil (Parr and Hornick, 1990). The application of rice straw, without EM4 treatment, can improve physical properties of the soil, such that the growth of root improved and consequently affect plant height, number of shoot, and number of leaves.
The role of EM4 in the soil was explained by Higa (1991) who stated that EM4 can increase plant production. The EM4 can change the biological properties of soil, from disease conducive soil into zymogenic and synthetic one. The zymogenic and synthetic soils can be created through the inoculation of zymogenic microorganisms (yeast, Lactobacillus sp. and lactic acid fermenting microorganisms) and synthetic microorganisms (photosynthetic bacteria and nitrogen fixing bacteria) to the soils. Higa and Wididana (1991) proposed that EM4 can ferment soil organic matter which consequently releases sugar, alcohol, amino acid and other organic compounds that can be absorbed by plant roots. It can also increase the photosynthetic and fermentative microorganisms in the soil which synergistically enhance the growth of plants.
Anoniuous, 1990. The Use of Organic Fertilizers in Crop Production. ASPAC, News Letter.
Danumihardja, R.R. 1987. dalam Anonimous, 1987. Bagaimana cara melipatgandakan bibit pohon buah-buahan yang bermutu tinggi dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan, Departemen Pertanian, Seri tanaman pangan, No.004/TP/II/87, Kanwil. Daerah lbukota Jakarta.
Djoehana, S. 1986. Pupuk dan Pemupukan, CV. Simplek, Jakarta, 29 hal. (Fertilizer and Fertilization, cv. Simplek, Jakarta, 29pp.)
Higa, T. 1992. Effective Microorganisms : A Biotechnology for mankind. (eds). 1'st International Conference at Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand, October 17-21, 1989.
Higa, T. the kinjo, S. 1991. Effect of lactic acid fermentation bacteria on the plant growth and soil humus formation. p. 140-147. in J.F. Parr; S.B. Hornick; C.E. Whitman. (eds). 1'st International Conference at Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand,
October 17-21, 1989.
Higa, T. and Wididana, G.N,. 1991. The role of effective microorganisms (EM4) in improving soil fertility and production dalam Bulletin Kyusei Nature Farming, Vol.03/IKNFS/Th. II, Maret 1994. Jakarta, 82-94.
Hornick, S.B. and J.F. Parr. 1990. Personal Communication. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltville, Maryland, USA.
Richard, B. 1981. Microbial Ecology Fundamentals and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 560 p.
Sarwono, 1986. Jeruk dan Pemanfaatannya. Penebar Swadaya. Jakarta. 14 hal.
Soelaeman, T. 1981. Symposium of Asian Greening at 1981 International Citrus Congress, Tokyo dalam Kumpulan Laporan Hasil Penelitian, BALITHORT Lembang, 1981/1982.
Table and wine grapes are grown with EM-1® around the world. We have collected some research from partners around the world and put it here for easy access. For more papers, please visit EMRO Japan's website.
Control of Vine Powdery Mildew by the use of EM Preparations
V. Robotic, R. Bosancic and M. Mojic
“Navip-Fruskogorac”, s.c. Karlovicki put
21131 Petrovaradin, Yugoslavia
Tel. ++ 381 21 431 872
Fax ++381 21 433 177
The possibility of controlling the vine powdery mildew caused by the fungi Unicinula necator (Schw.). Burr. Is studied by the use of EM preparations acceptable in organic vineyard for grape protection. In this paper results of the first experiment with EM preparations in Yugoslavia are presented. The experiment was conducted during cultivation period, in the year 2000, and Riesling Italian vine cultivar was used. Totally 7 treatments were performed. The first spraying was conduced at the vegetative shoots stage 15 (EL stage scale). Preparations EM-1 and EM-5 were used in 5.0 % and 0.2 % concentration respectively. Combinations of these two products were also tested. Conventional fungicide combinations (propiconazole 0.15% + sulphur 0.2% + mankozeb 0.2%) and plant extract preparation Urticum in combination with Humisin (1.0% + 1.0%) were used as the reference products. The efficiency of spraying by EM-1, EM-5 and with combination of both products were 98.91%, 97.64% and 98.28% respectively. The efficacy of spraying by combination of fungicides was higher, while there was no statistically significant, compared to the EM products and plant extract preparation. The wines were produced from the grape from experimental plots. The wine produced from the grape protected with EM-1 preparation had the best sensory characteristic, specially aroma and taste. The results of this one year study shown that EM preparations can be used for the control of vine powdery mildew with positive effect on grape and wine quality.
Keywords: Organic viticulture, Uncinula necator, EM preparation, efficacy
The pathogen Uncinula necator causes a widespread persistent disease of grapevine in world vineyards. It often causes major crop loss and decreases wine quality. Organic viticulture more or less depends on the use of sulphur against powdery mildew to ensure a sufficient success with respect to health and quality aspects of grapes. Even sulphur, a product acceptable in organic farming have the disadvantages of the residues remaining in the wine and the irritation caused to the people that use it.
Efforts are made lately towards the use of the compost extracts in control U. necator in organic viticulture. Other substances used as sprays by organic growers such as sodium silicate and rapeseed oil/ Fischer-Timborn et al, 2000. According to Hofmarn’s (2000) results, spraying of lactic-bacterial extract on the soil in the vineyard increase a higher biological activity and higher populations of antagonists.
Effective Microorganisms (EM), a mixture containing lactic acid and photosynthetic bacteria and yeast, isolated from the respective ecosystems and not just from single source (Sangakkara and Higa, 2000). The use of EM-1 in combination with fungicides against powdery and mildews and grey mold in the vineyard Espelta and Chujo (1999) underlined. The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of controlling the pathogen Uncinula necator by the use of EM preparations and effect by this protection on wine quality.
Materials and methods
The experiments were conducted with Riesling grape variety at the state owned stock company “Navip-Fruskogorac” and lasted one cultivation period. Comparative investigation with biological, plant extract and fungicide preparations against powdery mildew was done. The stock solution of biological preparation EM-1 and EM-5 were supplied by “Multicraft”, Haiding, Wels, Austria. Extended secondary solution of EM-1 and EM-5 were tested in 5.0% and 0.2% concentration respectively. Combination of two product were also tested (in ratio 1:1) Conventional fungicide combination (propiconazole 0.15% + sulphur 0.2% + mankozeb 0.2%) and plant extract preparation “Urticum” in combination with “Humisin” (1.0% + 1.0%) were used as the reference products.
The preparation “Urticum” is formulated by extraction of bio-active materials (essential and aromatic oils) from a mixture of medicinal and spice plants and “Humiin” is a concentrate of special types of lumbrico humus, formulated in the private company “Biolabor”, Subotica, Yugoslavia.
Totally 7 treatments were performed every 12 days in the year 2000. The first spraying was done at the vegetative stage 15 (EL stage scale).
Application treatments were made using a small plot precision knapsack sprayer. Spray volumes ranged from 1000-12001/ha. Plot size was 90m2 in three replication. Disease evaluations consisted of visual assessments f percentage area infected on the bunches. The efficacy of each treatments was calculated with Abbot’s test.
Wines were produced from selected plots. Quality, basic chemical compounds of wines were detected by official methods Recueil d’ OIV, 1990. Sensory evalutions of wines was done in Blind-Testings by three expert testers. Quality parameter of wine were tested using the point method: Clearnes (0-2) colour (0-2) aroma (0- 4) nd taste (0-12) points.
Results and discussion
In the one year investigated period good results were achieved in efficacy against downy mildew by applying EM preparations in grapevine protection. The efficacy of EM preparation to control pathogen U. nectaor was ranged from 97.64% EM-5, 98.28% EM-1 +EM-5 and 98.91% EM-1. There was no statistical significant difference in efficiency between EM products, plant extract preparation and combination of fungicides. Powdery mildew was well controlled by EM preparations in the medium infection rate (51.43) reducing the disease severity on ripening bunches. (Table 1.)
In the last seven years disease pressure was high (Robotic et al 2000) with powdery mildew in Fruska Gora vineyard region except in the year 2000. Will EM preparation be able to provide sufficient level of protection against U. necator in above mentioned circumstances, at high level of infection, is the subject for further investigation. In Table 2 are represented the analysis of the wines produced from the grapes protected with EM preparations. The analytical data of white wine Riesling show that the alcohol content is highest in wines product from grapes protected with EM-1 and EM-5 respectively.
Also, according to Espelta and Chujo (1999) results difference in treated with EM-1 and untreated was found. Treated with EM-1 had 0.5 more alcohol degree than untreated with EM-1. The sensory evaluation, Table 3., show that the wines produced from grapes protected with EM-1 had the special aroma and taste with fruity and floral taste and good freshness, and was the best evaluated from selected wines (16.40 points).
Dupin et al (2000) found that wines produced according to the organic viticultural practices tended to be in average less aromatic (less fruity and floral characters, and weaker taste attributes) than the conventional ones as well as being significantly lower for the vegetal character (herbaceous, green beans attributes).
But in contrary, to above mentioned results we got in our experiment organic wine with floral and fruity taste from the grape protected with EM-1 preparation.
EM preparations, EM-1, EM-5 and combinations of both were highly effective against powdery mildew under medium level of infection in the field conditions, and seem to increase wine quality and some sensory characteristic. Further investigation are necessary to evaluate:
- Eficiency under the high level of infection et al (2000) found that wines produced according to the organic viticultural practices alcohol degree between
- Treatment interval and combinations with other preparations acceptable in organic viticulture
- Responses of different grape varieties
- Effects on wine quality and especially sensory characteristics
1. Dupin, I., Schlich P. and Fischer U. (2000): Differentiation of wine produced by organic or conventional viticulture according to their sensory profiles and arma
composition. Proceedings 6th International Congress on Organic viticulture, 245-253.
2. Espelta, J.M. and Chujo, S. (1990): Experiment for vineyard with EM-1. Separate 1-3.
3. Fischer-Trimborn, B., Weltzien, H. C. and Schruft, G. (2000): Plant protection system in grapevine cultivation. Procedings 6th International Congress or Organic Viticulture.
4. Hofmann, U. (2000) Plant protection strategies against dwny mildew in organic
viticulture. Proc. 6th Internat. Congress of Organic Viticulture, 167-174.
5. Robotic, A., Bosancic, R. and Mojic M. (2001): Efficacy evaluation of the preparation Urticum against powdery and downy mildews in organic vineyard. Proceedings 11th Congress of the Mediterranian Phytopathological Union, 457-460.
6. Sangakkara, U.R. and Higa, T. (2000): Kyusei Nature Farming and Effective Microorganisms for enhanced sustainable production in organic systems. Proceedings 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, 268.
THE USE OF AN INNOVATIVE MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY (EM®) FOR ENHANCING VINEYARD PRODUCTION AND RECYCLING WASTE FROM THE WINERY BACK TO THE LAND
Daly, M.J.(1) and Arnst, B. (2)
(1) New Zealand Nature Farming Society, firstname.lastname@example.org
(2) Seresin Estate, PO Box 859, Blenheim, email@example.com
Effective MicoorganismsTM (EM®) is a technology now widespread around the globe and known for its versatility and effectiveness under a wide range of environmental situations (Higa, 2002). Originally developed for enhancing the soil and promoting growing conditions for food crops, it has also gained a reputation as a very effective tool in waste management.
The technology has been promoted within New Zealand by a non-profit organisation called the New Zealand Nature Farming Society (NZNFS). EM Technology® is being used as a tool in many agricultural growing systems in NZ.
This paper will describe how one of these examples, Seresin Estate, a well-known 145 ha vineyard and olive grove in the Marlborough Region, uses this technology. The management of Seresin estate could be described as a “hand tended” approach under Organic and Biodynamic principles. EM Technology® was first used about 4 years ago, and is now fully integrated into a number of management operations throughout the property.
This paper will describe as a case study the integration of EM Technology® on the Estate. References will be made to published data on the likely impact of each operation. In particular the paper will focus on the technique of recycling the grape waste back to the vineyard as a compost and will present data from a trial conducted on the property to compare the relative differences between compost made using EM•1®, verses a control and the subsequent impact on plant growth.. In addition the technique of treating winery wastewater will be covered and data presented to indicate odour control and pH stabilization differences.
What is EM Technology®?
EM®, short for Effective MicroorganismsTM, is a complex combination of microorganisms that can be found in nature and the food processing industry. This technology was developed in the 1980s, by a Japanese Professor Dr. Teruo Higa. These microbes have been cultured in a special combination and developed as a technology for improving soils and plant growing conditions. In 20 years EM Technology® has developed into a global technology, and is recognized as a powerful and effective tool both in agriculture and horticulture for crop and animal production systems. EM Technology® is used in over 140 countries around the world, and has been used in New Zealand for 9 years. The main focus in New Zealand has been both in Agriculture and waste management. This paper will describe how prominent and successful Vineyard and Olive Grove, Seresin Estate in Marlborough, have introduced EM® into its management.
What is in EM®?
This product, sold as EM•1®, is a mixed combination of 3 main families of microorganisms. These are Yeasts, Lactic acid bacteria, photosynthetic bacteria (Daly & Stewart, 1999). These micro-organisms are completely natural and all are found in the environment, with many found also in food processing applications, (eg Lactic acid bacteria in Yoghurt).
How does EM® work?
The key to the success of EM® is not the microbes working in isolation from each other...but the combination and synergistic effect when they are used together. This is what makes EM® so effective. The diverse combination of microbes in EM® also gives it adaptability. And this is why it works in such a broad range of conditions. The leading roles of each family of microbes will change as the environment applied into is changed. EM® causes a fermentation process when applied to organic matter rather than a putrefying process. EM® will compete with and displace, through competitive exclusion other microbes such as pathogenic microbes, some of which cause disease (eg. “Damping off” disease).
Seresin began using EM Technology® around 4 years ago, initially as a soil and plant application, then latterly as a compost additive and for wastewater treatment. This technology is now well integrated into management applications at Seresin and is considered an important multiple facet technology in the Holistic approach used on this property. Although the property has significant Olive plantings, the focus in this paper will be on the vineyard.
Seresin Estate is a well-known 145 ha vineyard in the Marlborough Region, owned by the well-known New Zealand film Cinematographer, Michael Seresin.
Michael has placed great emphasis on creating a vineyard that works in Harmony with Nature, taking advantage of the natural contours and landforms to produce unique quality wines and extra virgin olive oils. The Vineyard encompasses some distinctive landscapes, and waterways that are enhanced by native plantings. The management uses a “hand tended” approach under Organic and Biodynamic principles, and has been using EM Technology® for 4 years.
How is EM•1® being used around the vineyard?
When EM•1® is supplied, it is a living product, but stable at a pH of 3.5 ( The natural lactic acid brine preserves and stabilises the product until used.
The product can be used directly by diluting with water adding a sugar source (molasses) and applying to the soil or plants or compost. However a more cost effective method is to activate and expand the product. This is done by making a solution containing 5% EM•1® and 5% molasses. This solution is kept warm 30 degrees C for 7 days. In that time the microbial brew increases populations many times over and fully activates the microbes. This in effect, turns 1 litre of EM•1® into 20 litres of Activated EM® (AEM•1®). Making a very cost effective product (cost = 60 cents per litre).
This AEM•1® is then diluted with water and applied in the following operations;
Adding to fertilisers
• AEM•1® is added to foliar fertilisers such as seaweed at 2 litres per ha.
• When the understorey is mown and prunings mulched. AEM•1® is applied to the fresh cut mulch at 10-20 litres per ha AEM•1®
• In the compost making process. AEM•1® is added to the compost at 1-2 lites/cubic metre of compost
• AEM•1® is applied at 1% concentration as a foliar spray to enhance vine health and assist in disease control
Waste water treatment
• AEM•1® is added to the waste water system to control smells and make the system work more efficiently. The water is then recycled onto amenity planted areas for irrigation.
How does Seresin justify the use of EM•1®?
The justification for using EM•1® has come firstly from published data both within NZ and overseas, showing positives results from using EM•1®. Secondly, from our own experience and observations with using EM•1® over a period of several years.
There are numerous results that show EM•1® can increase crop yields (Daly, 1996. Sangakkara & Higa, 2000) and can improve soil quality (Sangakkara & Higa, 2000. Hussain, et al. 2000)
EM•1® has been shown to enhance fertiliser efficacy when combined together at application (Xu, 2000,Hussain, et al. 2000)
EM•1® is used as a foliar application to improve vine health and reduce disease incidence (Robotic et al. 2001)
The justification for using AEM•1® in compost making has been based on our own trial to make two types of compost, one made with AEM•1® and one without AEM•1®, then an independent analyis of the samples. These results, which have been published, previously (Daly, 2004) are presented in the next section.
Compost Trial at Seresin
A common waste product at Vineyards is the Grape pomace (skins seeds and bunch stems). This waste product is being turned into valuable compost.
To test the effectiveness of AEM•1® in the compost making process. Two separate compost batches were made in 2003.
Around 50 cubic metres of each compost type was made. Both treatments had the same base ingredients. 50% grape pomace, 25% wood chips, and 25% paper waste, a small quantity of rock phosphate and elemental sulphur was also added.
1) The compost treated with AEM•1® received 1 litre of AEM•1®/cubic metre, applied to the ingredients as they were mixed. The compost was rolled down, then immediately covered with a black plastic sheet and left to ferment.
2) The standard compost was left uncovered and turned regularly as normal practice for aerobic compost.
After 12 weeks both composts were sampled and sent away for independent analysis and growth comparisons. There was a significant visual difference between the 2 compost treatments. With the AEM•1® treated compost looking more fully composted.
Results from Independent Growth Tests conducted by the Biological Husbandry Unit at Lincoln University were reported as follows;
Glasshouse Experiment Compost comparison (From internal report by Don Pearson, Lincoln University)
“On 23/09/03 a standard seed raising mix was made up in three batches and bulked together. This mix was made up of the following ingredients sieved through a 6mm sieve, three parts composted bark, 1 part steam sterilised soil and 1 part pumice. Samples from composts A (AEM•1® compost) and B (standard compost) passed through a 6mm sieve and added as 10% of the final blend to the respective treatments. The control treatment C contained just the blend, with no added compost.”
“Composts were placed in Flight 60 cell trays. One half of each tray i.e. 30 cells, were planted with one radish seed of the cultivar ‘French Breakfast’ and the other 30 cells with one seed each of ‘green crop’ mustard. On 17/10/03 the plants were harvested. Tops only for mustard were harvested level with the potting mix. For radish, tops were abscised at the top of the hypocotyl with ‘roots’ being the material below this point after the removal of the fine roots. Fresh weight was recorded immediately on harvesting, as was the number of plants present (total of 12 possible). Data was analysed using ANOVA on Minitab and means separated where appropriate using Fischer’s protected LSD.”
Results Compost comparison Glasshouse expt.
“The AEM•1® grape-compost produced significantly higher fresh weights for both mustard and radish than the standard grape compost in the seed raising experiments.” Table 2.
Field Experiment Compost comparison
“On 3/10/04 composts A and B were applied volumetrically at rates of approximately 40 tonne per hectare to 5 plots each of approximately 0.75m2. A third control treatment of no compost application was applied. After application the treatments were lightly cultivated. Lettuce cultivar “Triumph” was planted at 5 plants per plot and 25cm spacings to assess the effect of the treatments on yield. Lettuces were harvested on 10/12/03 and the total number surviving and total yield were measured. From this the mean weight of plants at harvest was derived. Data was analysed using ANOVA on Minitab and means separated where appropriate using Fischer’s protected LSD”
Results Compost comparison Field expt.
“Compost A proved more effective than Compost B though both composts performed the same as the nil control.” Table 4.
“On the whole Compost A performed the best with a clear win against Compost B and control in mustard fresh and dry weights, a win against Compost B in radish tops fresh weight, a combined win with control against Compost B in radish tops dry weight, and a win against compost B for field grown lettuces.”
“Previous experiments have demonstrated the efficacy of EM•1® Bokashi, particularly in pot trials, but not with a direct comparison with aerobic compost from the same materials. This experiment demonstrates the efficacy of the AEM•1® inoculated compost over the ‘non EM•1®’ product. It is also interesting to note that there is much less loss of carbon during the EM•1® process than the aerobic process. So, as products were applied at the same rate, the AEM•1® treated product not only increased plant growth more than the ‘non EM•1®’ product but also allowed the initial residue to be spread over a larger area.”
As can be seen by the above report on the compost performance, the addition of AEM•1® to the composting process produced much higher quality compost at Seresin. In addition with this technique, the speed of composting is greater, allowing quicker turnaround times and more repetitions of compost throughout the year. Because the compost is covered there is less leaching (rainfall effect removed), and the energy used to compost is less because there is no turning with machinery. Overall a much better technique than the standard composting method.
Treating Winery processing waste water
Although Seresin is using AEM•1® in its waste treatment system to improve smell and function, we have not collected any data on this process. However, at another vineyard (Canterbury Wine House), we have been using AEM•1® to control smell and improve the function without the use of chemical, and will present data from there.
The Winery had a smell problem associated with irrigating its treated and processed wastewater. The processed water is used for irrigation onto the feature gardens in front of the main reception and restaurant areas of this Vineyard. This smell problem was not good for business!
The wastewater from the winery contained a number of winemaking chemicals and sediment and residues from cleaning out ferment tanks and barrels. The process for treating this acidic wastewater, was through a biological multi-tank system with aeration in the process. Caustic soda was added to raise the pH.
The Winery Manager at Canterbury House is extremely happy with the results to date, they have reported excellent odour control and growth improvements are evident in the gardens where the water is applied.
The outcomes from treating the waste water at Canterbury House are very positive and similar benefits can be assumed for Seresin Estate.
To summarize, AEM•1® is being used on Seresin in four main activities;
1) Soil and plant health
2) Fertilizer efficacy
3) Compost making
4) Waste water treatment
This diversity of activity of AEM•1® makes it a very unique product and important technology on this property.
AEM•1® is just one of many tools used at Seresin estate, however our research and others has shown this technology to be very effective in many areas of management in and around the vineyard, making it a valuable innovative technology.
Daly, M.J. 1996: Effective MicroorganismsTM (EM®) in broadacre organic vegetable production on New Zealand farms. Proceedings 11th IFOAM Conference 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Daly, M.J. Stewart, D.P.C. 1999. Influence of “Effective Microorganisms” (EM®) on vegetable production and carbon mineralization - A preliminary investigation. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture Vol.14 (2/3).
Daly, Mike. 2004. An Overview of EM Technology® in New Zealand. Proceedings of the EM® European Conference 2004, held at cultural centre de Meervaart Amsterdam,18-20 September 2004 inpress.
Hussain, Tahir., Jilani, G., Haq, N.A., Anjum, S., Zia, M.H., 2000. Effect of EM® application on Soil properties. Proceedings 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, Switzerland 2000. p267.
Higa, T. 2002. Kyusei Nature Farming and Environmental Management Through Effective microorganisms – The Past, Present and Future. In: U.R. Sangakarra, and Y.D.A. Senanayake (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference . Kyusei Nature Farming .published by APNAN; Thailand, pp56-60.
V. Robotic, R. Bosancic and M. Mojic, 2001. Control of Vine Powdery Mildew by the use of EM® Preparations. www.emtech.org/data/pdf/891msvesnarobotic.pdf
Sangakkara, U.R. and Higa, T. (2000): Kyusei Nature Farming and Effective Microorganisms for enhanced sustainable production in organic systems. Proceedings 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, Switzerland 2000 p268.
Xu, Hui-lian. 2000. Effects of a Microbial Innoculant and Organic Fertilisers on the Growth , Photosynthesis and Yield of Sweet Corn. Journal of Crop Production Vol 3, No1(#5) 2000 pp183-214