beet juice effluent - water resources institute would provide information on the recycling and...

Anna Allen USDA-ARS-SJVASC | 9611 E. RIVERBEND AVE. PARLIER, CA 93648

Can Sugar Beet Juice Effluent Be Used as a Biofertilizer? WRPI/USDA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT REPORT

1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2

Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................................... 4

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................................... 6

2

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by Hispanic-Serving Institution’s Education Program Grant no. 2015-

38422-24058 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

I would like to thank Dr. Gary Bañuelos for his guidance and support, and for his

encouragement to pursue this project. I would also like to thank the USDA-ARS facility in

Parlier, CA, for allowing me the use of the premises for the project. Lastly, I would like to thank

CSU Fresno and CSU San Bernardino for providing the opportunity for this WRPI/USDA

Watershed Management internship.

Executive Summary

When using sugar beets to produce ethanol, a waste byproduct is produced; this byproduct is beet

juice effluent (BJ). In this project, we attempted to determine whether or not this effluent would

be a feasible material for use as a soil biofertilizer to different crops. The three plant species

tested in this experiment were tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheat grass. Results obtained with this

project would provide information on the recycling and utilization of beet juice effluent as a

biofertilizer, rather than simply disposing of it as an undesired waste material. If successful, this

sugar beet byproduct from bioethanol production can be an added environmentally-friendly

bonus to the new green technology associated with ethanol production. Our results showed that

we can safely use beet juice effluent as a bioamendment for eight weeks with no significant

effects on the plants.

Project Objectives

The primary objective of this project was to determine the feasibility of applying sugar beet

juice effluent (Figure 1) as a soil biofertilizer to crops. Sugar beet effluent is a by-product of the

bio-ethanol process technology that uses sugar beet as a plant source for making ethanol. This

Commented [AA1]: (Brief overview of entire project)

Commented [AA2]: (This section should be an

introduction to the project, discuss your potential career

pathway as it pertains to the USDA, and convey what your

original goals were on this project. If your goals changed

over the course of the internship, mention the revised goals

and the reason for the change. You also should discuss the

specific project tasks you originally set out. If your tasks

varied from the original ones, discuss the changes and the

need for the changes.)

3

project aims at identifying recycling options for using residual sugar beet effluent as a

biofertilizer for agricultural production in Central California where sugar beet bioethanol is being

produced. The specific aim was to evaluate sugar beet effluent as a biofertilizer for growing

tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheatgrass. These plants were grown and irrigated with different

amounts of sugar beet effluent added as a fertilizer treatment (fertigation) to two different types

of soil under controlled environmental conditions. After eight weeks, plant growth and

nutritional quality were evaluated after the shoots were harvested, oven-dried, and acid digested.

Samples were analyzed for macro and micro-nutrients using inductively coupled plasma mass

spectrometry (ICPMS), according to Agilent manufacture protocol.

Project Approach

In this project, seeds from the following three plant species were germinated in promix soil:

tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheat grass. After 50 days, these plants were then transferred into two

soils; a low saline (LS) clay loam soil (EC of 2-4 dS/m) collected from Red Rock Ranch in Five

Points, CA, and a non-saline (NS) sandy loam soil (EC of <1 dS/m) collected from Parlier, CA

(Figure 2); these two soil types were chosen to help determine whether the effluent would have a

different effect on a crop depending on the soil type in which it was grown, i.e. LS clay loam soil

versus NS sandy loam soil. Once the plants were transplanted, they were grown under

greenhouse conditions in a completely randomized block. In the two soil types, we used the

following three fertigation treatments (BJ mixed with DI water and applied as irrigation water):

A) control (irrigated with DI water and Miracle Grow® fertilizer in a NS sandy loam soil); B)

soil application of 100% BJ effluent; and C) soil application of 100% effluent and ½ strength

Miracle Gro®. These respective treatments were applied in the afternoon for eight weeks, once

weekly on all plants (except for the controls, which received Miracle Gro® at the same rate as

Commented [AA3]: (Discuss what methods or steps you

took to achieve your goals and your tasks from the above

section. If your approach changed over the course of the

internship, discuss the changes and the reasons for the

changes.)

4

beet juice treatments once every two weeks). On days where the treatments were not applied, the

plants were irrigated daily with 50 mL DI water per pot in the afternoon.

After the treatment period was concluded, plants were all harvested from their pots, and

soil samples were collected. Fresh plant weights were taken immediately after harvest, and dry

weights were recorded after the plant and soil samples were oven-dried for 3 days at 60ºC. Plant

samples for the tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheat grass were then ground and extracted for chloride,

and then acid digested and analyzed for all nutrients by ICP analysis. Soil samples were ground

and then tested for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), chloride, and analyzed for all nutrients by

ICP analysis.

The main obstacle encountered during this trial was that the alfalfa inexplicably did not

grow well in the clay loam soil. Hence, alfalfa was only grown and treated in the sandy loam

soil.

Project Outcomes

The biomass of the tomato plants was reduced when treated with BJ effluent, especially with

Treatment C (100% BJ effluent and ½ strength Miracle Gro®) in the NS sandy loam soil. In tall

wheatgrass grown in NS sandy loam soil, Treatment B (100% BJ effluent applied to the soil)

slightly increased the biomass of the plants. However, the opposite effect was observed in

alfalfa (grown in NS sandy loam soil) with Treatment B; they experienced a decrease in biomass.

Between the two soil types, it was clear that the LS clay loam soil from the west side had

higher concentrations of chlorine, boron, calcium, selenium, manganese, potassium, and,

especially, sodium than the NS sandy loam soil from Parlier. In contrast, the NS sandy loam soil

consistently had higher levels of phosphorus.

Commented [AA4]: (This section should discuss your

results and an analysis of your results, if applicable. If your

results were unexpected or negative, try to explain the

reasons and what could have been done differently. If any

lessons were learned during the course of the internship,

mention them in this section.)

5

Among the plants, the tall wheatgrass, tomato, and alfalfa grown in LS clay loam had

exceptionally high concentrations of tissue boron, chlorine, sodium, and selenium, calcium,

manganese, magnesium, and sulfur. The soil type seemed to vastly influence the levels of the

above listed elements for all tested crops, while the BJ effluent treatments seemed to have no

significant impact on the elemental content in plants.

Conclusions

In this project, beet juice effluent was tested as a biofertilizer on three different plant species in

two different soils under greenhouse conditions: tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheat grass. After 8

weeks of applying the biofertilizer treatments to the soil via fertigation, it was apparent that plant

growth was affected by the BJ treatments, albeit in different ways. At this point, it is clear from

the data that plants of different types have different reactions to treatment BJ effluent. More

studies would be necessary to determine which plants could plausibly be treated with the BJ

effluent to experience a positive effect. However, it is clear that there were no obvious adverse

effects on the plants over during the eight weeks with the tested BJ treatments. Thus, it appears

in this study that the soil type has significantly more influence on the nutrient levels in the plants

than the BJ effluent.

Future studies should focus on increased duration of application of the BJ effluent, since

we only know BJ effluent is not harmful to alfalfa, tomato, and tall wheatgrass for eight weeks.

However, more extensive testing is required to know if this is the case for longer periods of BJ

effluent disposal on plant species. Studies should also focus on selecting other crops to test, and

at different concentrations of BJ effluent.

6

Tables and Figures

Figure 1. Beet Juice Effluent

Figure 2. Sandy loam soil from Parlier (left) and clay loam soil from Red Rock Ranch (right)

7

Figure 3. Analysis of beet juice effluent.

pH EC (mS/cm) Cl (mg/L) N (mg/L)

Beet Juice 4.5 11.75 607 39

Figure 4. Tall Wheat Grass treated with Beet Juice Effluent in NS sandy loam soil

8

Figure 5. Tall Wheat Grass treated with DI water in NS sandy loam soil

Figure 6. Tall Wheat Grass treated with DI water in LS clay loam soil

9

Figure 7. Tall Wheat Grass treated with Beet Juice Effluent in LS clay loam soil

Figure 8. Alfalfa treated with Beet Juice Effluent in NS sandy loam soil

10

Figure 9. Alfalfa treated with DI water in NS sandy loam soil

Figure 10. Tomato treated with DI water in NS sandy loam soil

11

Figure 11. Tomato treated with DI water in LS clay loam soil

Figure 12. Tomato treated with Beet Juice Effluent in NS sandy loam soil

Commented [AA5]: Can BJ be successfully be used on all tested plant species? Was there a difference depending on soil type? Why did you use two different soil types?

12

Figure 13. Boron concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 14. Calcium concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Alfalfa (NS sandyloam)

Tomato (LS clay loam) Tomato (NS sandyloam)

Tall Wheatgrass (LSclay loam)

Tall Wheatgrass (NSsandy loam)

B C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE

Treatment A (DI water + fertilizer)

Treatment B (100% BJ effluent)

Treatment C (100% BJ effluent + 1/2 strength fertilizer)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000


Tomato (LS clayloam)

Tomato (NS sandyloam)



CA

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




13

Figure 15. Chlorine concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 16. Copper concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000






CL

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0





CU

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




14

Figure 17. Iron concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 18. Potassium concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200





FE C

ON

CN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000






K C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




15

Figure 19. Magnesium concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 20. Manganese concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000





MG

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0

20

40

60

80

100

120





MN

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




16

Figure 21. Molybdenum concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 22. Sodium concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0





MO

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000





NA

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

S (M

G/K

G)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




17

Figure 23. Phosphorus concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 24. Sulfur concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000





P C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000





S C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




18

Figure 25. Selenium concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

Figure 26. Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) in plants treated with BJ treatments

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0





SE C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





ZN C

ON

CEN

TRA

TIO

NS

(MG

/KG

)

PLANT AND SOIL TYPE




19

Table 1. Fresh and dry weights of tomato, alfalfa, and tall wheatgrass irrigated with BJ treatments.

Plant Soil: Treated with: Rep:

Plant Fresh

Weight (g)

Plant Dried

Weight (g)

Plant Fresh

Mean and Std.

Dev.

Plant Dry

Mean and

Std. Dev.

Tomato LS Clay Loam Beet Effluent 1 0.96 0.82



Mean 3.33 1.17

Std. Deviation 2.99 0.46

Tomato LS Clay Loam DI Water 1 1.28 0.88

Mean 1.28 0.88


Tomato NS Sandy Loam DI Water 1 124.46 20.30



Mean 122.95 19.67


Tomato NS Sandy Loam Beet Effluent 1 130.78 16.24



Mean 133.96 18.77




Mean 61.96 8.20


Alfalfa NS Sandy Loam DI Water 1 17.46 4.48



Mean 19.72 5.00


Alfalfa NS Sandy Loam Beet Effluent 1 16.60 4.29



Mean 17.72 4.37


Tall Wheatgrass NS Sandy Loam DI Water 1 22.50 5.65



Mean 22.78 5.13


Tall Wheatgrass NS Sandy Loam Beet Effluent 1 30.52 6.85



Mean 27.36 6.19


Tall Wheatgrass LS Clay Loam DI Water 1 5.24 1.28



Mean 8.39 1.83


Tall Wheatgrass LS Clay Loam Beet Effluent 1 10.56 2.49



Mean 7.87 1.83


beet juice effluent - water resources institute would provide information on the recycling and...

Documents