The Impact of Food Waste Compost, Vermicompost, and Chemical Fertilizers on the Growth Measurement of Red Radish (Raphanus sativus): A Sustainability Perspective in the United Arab Emirates

Abstract

The pressing need for sustainable agricultural practices, especially with the increasing population, has directed attention towards alternative fertilizers that enhance crop yield while preserving soil integrity and reducing food loss. The current study investigated the comparative efficacy of food waste compost (FOWC), vermicompost, and chemical fertilizers on the growth of red radish. The present work used a systematic experimental design to evaluate plant growth parameters, including radish weight and height. The soil quality was determined by measuring the pH and electrical conductivity for all soil samples. The results indicated a significant variation in red radish fresh weight among different treatments. For example, the 25% vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC) treatment demonstrated a relatively high mean fresh weight, while the 50% mixed compost (MC) treatment yielded a much lower mean fresh weight. These numbers underscore the potential efficacy of specific food waste treatments in enhancing plant growth, with vermicompost at 50% and VFWC at 25% showing considerable promise in increasing crop yield. The current study concluded that FOWC and vermicompost significantly improved plant growth, advocating for their use as sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical fertilizers. The current findings emphasized the importance of selecting appropriate fertilizer types and concentrations to optimize agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability, supporting the incorporation of food waste into agricultural systems as a beneficial resource.

Keywords: crop yield; environmental sustainability; organic farming; plant growth promotion; sustainable agriculture.

Figure 1

Plant length (cm), root length (cm), and shoot length (cm) of R. sativus treated with different treatments, including chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (V), mixed compost (MC), bread, pasta, and rice waste compost (BPRC), fruit waste compost (FRWC), vegetable waste compost (VWC), vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC), and meat, fish, and chicken waste compost (MFCWC). Bars followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at 0.05 level. ***: Highly significant at p < 0.001, as revealed by one-way ANOVA. The red dotted line differentiates between different treatments.

Figure 2

Leaf width (cm), height (cm), and surface area cm² of R. sativus treated with different treatments, including chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (V), mixed compost (MC), bread, pasta, and rice waste compost (BPRC), fruit waste compost (FRWC), vegetable waste compost (VWC), vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC), and meat, fish, and chicken waste compost (MFCWC). Bars followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at 0.05 level. ***: Highly significant at p < 0.001, as revealed by one-way ANOVA. The red dotted line differentiates between different treatments.

Figure 3

Shoot fresh weight (SFW) (g), root fresh weight (RFW) (g), and plant FW (PFW) (g) of R. sativus treated with different treatments, including chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (V), mixed compost (MC), bread, pasta, and rice waste compost (BPRC), fruit waste compost (FRWC), vegetable waste compost (VWC), vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC), and meat, fish, and chicken waste compost (MFCWC). Bars followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at 0.05 level. ***: Highly significant at p < 0.001, as revealed by one-way ANOVA. The red dotted line differentiates between different treatments.

Figure 4

Shoot dry weight (SDW) (g), root dry weight (RDW) (g), and plant dry weight (PFW) (g) of R. sativus treated with different treatments, including chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (V), mixed compost (MC), bread, pasta, and rice waste compost (BPRC), fruit waste compost (FRWC), vegetable waste compost (VWC), vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC), and meat, fish, and chicken waste compost (MFCWC). Bars followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at 0.05 level. ***: Highly significant at p < 0.001, as revealed by one-way ANOVA. The red dotted line differentiates between different treatments.

Figure 5

Taproot top perimeter (cm), biomass allocation, shoot:root ratio of fresh weight, and shoot:root ratio dry weight of R. sativus treated with different treatments, including chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (V), mixed compost (MC), bread, pasta, and rice waste compost (BPRC), fruit waste compost (FRWC), vegetable waste compost (VWC), vegetable and fruit waste compost (VFWC), and meat, fish, and chicken waste compost (MFCWC). Bars followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at 0.05 level. ***: Highly significant at p < 0.001, as revealed by one-way ANOVA. The red dotted line differentiates between different treatments.