SuSanA - Forum

Re: Optimising compost and irrigation with wastewater to meet crop nutritional requirements - by: ChrisBuckley

Sun, 05 May 2013 10:00:19 +0000

Greetings

eThekwini Water and Sanitation have a research facility at Newlands Mashu (Durban) where a variety of excreta products will be soon available (UD toilets, LaDePa pellets, bulk urine tanks, struvite production, DEWATS product water from 83 houses, growing tunnel for pot trials and an area for field tests). This facility is used by the Pollution Research Group of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (incorporating engineers, chemists, microbiologists, soil scientists and crop scientists).

Collaboration with other research partners interested in solving the sanitation challenges of the city is encouraged.

Please contact Chris Buckley ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) or Susan Mercer ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Regards

Chris Buckley

Optimising compost and irrigation with wastewater to meet crop nutritional requirements - by: NS01RZS

Thu, 02 May 2013 16:17:03 +0000

Hi

I am Dr Ruben Sakrabani, a Senior Lecturer in Soil Chemistry at Cranfield University, UK. I have been supervising a PhD student from Malawi who has recently completed his research on 'Optimising compost and irrigation with wastewater to meet crop nutritional requirements' at Cranfield University. I attach an abstract of the thesis. In summary we found that a combination of two sources nutrients from compost (slow release) and wastewater (quicker release) was suitable to meet crop requirements. This has implications to reduce fertiliser cost. All of the PhD project was carried out in the UK but we would like to explore its application to developing countries. I would appreciate response from others who have a common interest in this project idea.

Many thanks

Regards

Ruben

Re: What is Terra Preta Sanitation (TPS) all about? Hype or ingenious? - by: JeffHoliman

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:33:57 +0000

Dear Ralf and List,
I appreciate all of the thoughtful discussion points made on this very important topic, and proposing the innovative strategy that is TPS for addressing many important urgent issues facing humanity: closing nutrient loops, building soil while sequestering atmospheric carbon and enhancing food security, restoring water quality and biodiversity.

In regard to your post #3576 the PLOS article regarding Turning the Table with plant endocytosis, I am confused regarding your statement “impossible to have a short cycle”. From my interpretation in the General Considerations section: a) the plant does use energy to take up the bacteria but “justified by the benefit of using microbes as a nutrient source” i.e. by catabolism. b) “ We show that the presence of microbes induces the expression of plant enzymes with divergent functions, such as cellulases and cellulose synthases, and this suggests that the uptake process consist of a succession of distinct and tightly regulated processes, which would exclude the possibility of permanent induction of genes.” To me, it seems that this paper does not imply that the plants can take up pathogens and pass them on up the food chain, but rather digest microbes for energy and nutrients to support anabolic processes. Can you direct me to what I am missing?

To offer up some more evidence how microaerobic composting, which includes acid fermentation, can destroy many stubborn pathogens, specifically Ascaris eggs, here are a couple of interconnected open-source papers which offer some comfort:
1. Turnover of Carbohydrate-Rich Vegetal Matter During Microaerobic Composting and After Amendment in Soil Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2011 September; 165(1): 270–278. This demonstrates that acid fermentation, a process of microaerobic composting, does indeed primarily produce volatile organic acids (VOAs) : acetic, propanoic, butyric, isovaleric, valeric, and caproic acid. It is the presence of these VOAs i.e. short chain fatty acids that inactivate Ascaris reproduction. Additionally, such treatment renders more carbon available to the soil food web and immediately avoids off gassing to atmosphere as CO2 as compared to aerobic decomposition in this experiment.
2. Inactivation of Ascaris suum by Short-Chain Fatty Acids APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, Jan. 2011, p. 363–366

Because public safety is paramount, would like to point to a couple of sources of information regarding simple water tests for E. coli that can be adapted for compost (by suspending in water) and conducted in remote regions. If there is any doubt, testing is warranted.

1. David Omick’s technique also link to well-organized information on barrel composting which could be adapted to TPS.
2. Agua Pura Para El Pueblo has posted worksheets on their similar simple water tests

No doubt that the earth’s forests require reprieve rather than further exploitation by charcoal production. There is much promising research being conducted on the utilization of the vast amounts of agricultural biomass into the residential clean cookstove campaign: transitioning to rice hulls, rice and wheat straw, corn stover, coffee bean husks, bagasse, the shells of nuts, pine needles, perennial weeds, orchard pruning, coppicing, etc.. The gasification and biochar documentation from Dr. Paul Olivier offers some valuable information, to begin. In essence, integrating simple Top-Lit Updraft (TLUD) cookstove design fueled by agriwaste and fabricated locally, stimulates local economy by processing fuel, fabricating stoves, conserves traditional cooking fuel (replaces wood or propane), reduces emissions, and creates biochar which could be integrated into TPS systems, or distribution of value added products.
To me, TPS , though in its relative infancy, offers an ingenious tool in the “restorative systems” toolbox and potentially offers a future of abundance as further optimization occurs in particular urban permaculture and agroecological designs.
Kind regards,
Jeff

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: sharadaprasad

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:27:44 +0000

Thanks Marjin, for your response. My study has two objectives

why do farmers use or don't use fecal sludge?
Why do business transport or don't transport fecal sludge to the farms?

Nepal may be a good case study to understand why farmers and septic tank cleaning truck operators are not using fecal sludge.

I have been trying to get in touch with several people who are working on this issue. But no response so far. Will send you an email regarding this.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: Marijn Zandee

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:24:42 +0000

Dear Sharada,

I have been working in Nepal for a while now and would also be very interested to learn of any working examples of sludge re-use. It is quite possible there are some, but I have not heard about any in the Kathmandu valley. Could be that I missed it, because I am less connected with the ecosan community these days.

Anyway, I think you are already trying to contact people here, but otherwise I would advise you to contact the people behind the report you posted (Enpho and UN-Habitat) before you get here to make sure that this project actually got of the ground.

Regards

Marijn

PS if you have a hard time contacting people, do send me a mail (address below), and I will try put you in touch with some folks.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: sharadaprasad

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:44:41 +0000

Will let Chhabi know. Also, I will be compiling all the information / contacts I am going to collect in the process and share the same with the consent of the people involved.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: muench

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:47:04 +0000

Dear Sharada,

Could you please encourage Chhabi to write his answers directly into the forum (or ask him if you can copy his e-mail reply to the forum)? Then we could all benefit from the exchange.
There is so much happening with ecosan and reuse in Nepal, it would be great to read more from Nepali people in this forum!
I hope he responds.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: sharadaprasad

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:56:46 +0000

Thanks a lot. I just now wrote to Chhabi. I am curious about the factors that enable such businesses. Is it the distance, volume of FS, social acceptability, transportation costs, types of crops etc.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: Bobbie

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:25:54 +0000

Hi Sharada

I recommend you contact Chhabi Goudel who works on reuse of faecal sludge with the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project in Western Nepal in Pokhara, Nepal.

His presentation from FSM2 is at www.susana.org/images/documents/07-cap-d...anitation-nepal.pdf. I am pasting below his abstract.

You can reach him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Regards

Bobbie

The RWSSP-WN has been implemented since 2008 in 54 VDC´s (Village Development Committees) of nine districts in western Nepal. The project piloted an approach called "Community Led Total Behaviour Change (CLTBCHS) in Hygiene and Sanitation" in these VDC´s. In this approach, local bodies are facilitated and local people are trained to ignite awareness and trigger people to build ECOSAN toilets, and to use human shit (after composting) and urine as an organic fertiliser. A total of 553 community level structures and systems were mobilized for the purpose. In total, 6 700 community level sanitation triggers (49% female) were trained from a population of 430 000 in 5 6000 households in the project VDC´s. Included in the project are economic development and energy saving by using human shit to produce bio-gas.

Activities focussed on integrated community led ecological sanitation and sustainable livelihoods have been implemented, helping to mitigate the diverse pressures on the unique Agriculture Ecosystem, and helping to ensure that the needs of local community members are adequately addressed. This includes the development of improved agriculture, energy saving and environmental management practices. The ecological sanitation promotes agricultural products, encourages a hygienic and sanitized community, supports income generation and thus improves the livelihood of the people.

Research shows that the use of human shit and urine demonstrates agricultural production four times that of chemical fertilizer (imported urea in Nepal). Each VDC of Nepal spends approximately USD 5800 (i.e. on average 10 kg/HH x USD 0.58 = USD 5.8 x 1000 HHs = USD 5 800) to buy chemical fertilizer per year. For 3 915 VDCs the annual cost will be USD 227 600 00.

As a result, it is assumed that faecal sludge management, food security and energy saving within the project working area has greatly improved, resulting in a reduction in morbidity and mortality from hygiene and sanitation related diseases. In one example, Mr Bal bahadur Thapa of Mahendrakot VDC of Kapilvastu district has been able to make a profit of about USD 580 per year utilizing shit and urine in his kitchen garden. These profits have enabled him to educate his daughter and son at Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

The lesson learnt from this approach can be replicated in other districts aiming to overcome problems of sanitation coverage and to reduce poverty in Nepal.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: sharadaprasad

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:29:51 +0000

Thank you all for your responses. I will keep you posted on what I find out.

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: mariovaron

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:14:14 +0000

Hello Sharada,

Thanks for sharing the report, is very interesting. You might want to check the one I'm attaching by the Gates Foundation in Asia and Africa.

I will also add, splash.org they are working on water in Nepal, they might help connecting with people in the ground.

Also, I'm co-founder of tansa, a social enterprise, monetizing fecal sludge in India by collecting septage from homes and selling it to biodigester operators for conversion into energy and compost. I will like to know more about your research.

Best,

Mario Varon

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Re: Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: dorothee.spuhler

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:18:15 +0000

Hello Sharada

Three contacts that may help you:
UN-HABITAT Water for Asian Cities Programme Kathmandu (the Authors of the report you already have)
SANDEC at Eawag: they have done extensive work on urine (e.g STUN) and compost (see this document) and probably also on Fecal Sludge.
ENPHO (Environment and Public Health Organisation) had a good library some years ago and was working on FSM.

Regards, Dorothee

Current reuse of fecal sludge in Nepal - by: sharadaprasad

Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:19:16 +0000

Hello All,

This is my first post to SuSanA and I am excited to be a part of the group.

This summer I am planning on going to Nepal to understand the existing business practices that aid the resuse of fecal sludge in agriculture. I came across this report "Status and Strategy for faecal Sludge Management in the Kathmandu Valley". The document does not provide any specific details about the number of farmers or the area of farms that use fecal sludge. I could not find any reliable source that indicates current reuse. I don't need exact locations. I just need some evidence of reuse to plan my research trip to Nepal

I wanted to know whether any of you have any ideas about how to get more information about current reuse. I was thinking of getting the phone number of the septic tank cleaners and talking to them. Any comments?

Is anyone on the forum aware of current reuse in a specific farm in Kathmandu Valley?

Have a good weekend.

Thanks and Regards,
Sharada

Re: How to measure helminth eggs (in a reuse context) - by: joeturner

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:12:09 +0000

Thanks for this post, Constanze. Good questions.

Constanze wrote:

Hello there,

In my opinion you cannot conclude on the effectiveness of any system if you did not place the Ascaris eggs in yourself (tea bag method).
1) How can you justify comparing degradation rates in different systems if you do not even know how much was in the system to start with? The base load should be equal.

I think there is a difference between 'proving' a system and batch-testing a system. In the former, I think you do have to prove claims you are making (kills all Ascaris within 28 days, destroys all cholera etc). And I think the only way you can do this is to spike the samples and measure decay. On the other hand, I think you can form batch-testing protocols which prove that a system is working by showing that it has got to a particular standard - eg <1 Ascaris ova. For me, those are different protocols. As you say, until the system is proven with spiking, you can't compare effectiveness.

2) Soon as you establish the viability of your eggs, they are destroyed. Right? Meaning I can not take a baseline sample and see what will happen with these exact eggs during treatment. This means I have to take a new sample for the next Phase. If I do not use the “tea bag method”, the fact that there might be less Ascaris eggs in this sample does not necessarily mean eggs were destroyed through hygienization. I might just catch/sample less this time. Isn’t the number of Ascaris eggs sampled/detected completely by chance?

Well there is always going to be a sampling effect, hence the need to have good protocols and good statistics. It is true that >1 Ascaris ova might just be because they weren't there in the first place. But again, in a proven system, this might be all you need to know.

3) If you do not place the Ascaris eggs in yourself the health status of the community will be quite an important parameter. Only because one community might be healthier does not mean the system is more effective. Yes, in a healthy community/household I might catch less from the beginning. But maybe I just got lucky with the first sample. Also, how will I get data on the effectiveness of the system if the household just happened to be not affected at the time of the study?

That is to do with the protocols of proving the system.

4) Just sampling the material normally gives you small numbers of Ascaris eggs. The die off rates won’t allow any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the system.

Using Ascaris studies to compare the effectiveness of different system is more tricky then some studies suggest.

I agree with this. But the whole thing is pretty complex already and those systems which are regularly tested for Ascaris seem fairly small, never mind those with an agreed protocol.

Regarding a field kit: I can not see how a field kit would solve the sampling issue to start with. And then talking about the analysis...

This needs a statistican to comment. Sampling highly heterogenous material is a problem.

Re: How to measure helminth eggs (in a reuse context) - by: Constanze

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:45:54 +0000

Hello there,

This discussion is on HOW to measure Helminth eggs. But my problem lies with the starting point, the design of the Ascaris study. Is there any discussion where the actual method of Ascaris studies (not the measuring itself) is discussed? If yes, please ignore the below and just kindly send me the link.

In my opinion you cannot conclude on the effectiveness of any system if you did not place the Ascaris eggs in yourself (tea bag method).
1) How can you justify comparing degradation rates in different systems if you do not even know how much was in the system to start with? The base load should be equal.
2) Soon as you establish the viability of your eggs, they are destroyed. Right? Meaning I can not take a baseline sample and see what will happen with these exact eggs during treatment. This means I have to take a new sample for the next Phase. If I do not use the “tea bag method”, the fact that there might be less Ascaris eggs in this sample does not necessarily mean eggs were destroyed through hygienization. I might just catch/sample less this time. Isn’t the number of Ascaris eggs sampled/detected completely by chance?
3) If you do not place the Ascaris eggs in yourself the health status of the community will be quite an important parameter. Only because one community might be healthier does not mean the system is more effective. Yes, in a healthy community/household I might catch less from the beginning. But maybe I just got lucky with the first sample. Also, how will I get data on the effectiveness of the system if the household just happened to be not affected at the time of the study?
4) Just sampling the material normally gives you small numbers of Ascaris eggs. The die off rates won’t allow any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the system.

Using Ascaris studies to compare the effectiveness of different system is more tricky then some studies suggest.

Regarding a field kit: I can not see how a field kit would solve the sampling issue to start with. And then talking about the analysis...

Cheers
Constanze