Fertilizer value of urine in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) cultivation

Authors

  • Surendra K. Pradhan Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland
  • Susanna Pitkänen Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland
  • Helvi Heinonen-Tanski Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, PO Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland

Keywords:

Glucose, Nitrogen, Recycle, Sanitation, Vegetables, Waste

Abstract

The fertilizer value of human urine was compared with mineral fertilizer in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) cultivation at a dose of 113 kg N ha-1 with no-fertilization used as control. The growth of the vine was better in urine fertilized pumpkins than in mineral fertilized and non-fertilized pumpkins. Total fruit biomass was higher in mineral fertilized plants compared to urine fertilized and non-fertilized pumpkins. Urine fertilized pumpkins may have suffered from lower potassium or higher chloride, thus they produced fewer flowers and fruits. However, total fruit biomass and the number of fruits were slightly higher in urine fertilized plants than in their non-fertilized counterparts, i.e. 17.2 t ha-1 more pumpkin could be produced with urine fertilizer. The microbial hygiene quality as well as the contents of soluble sugars, protein and taste quality were similar in all treatments, but lower nitrate and higher chloride contents were recorded in urine fertilized pumpkins than other treatments. In conclusion, our study shows that the production rate of urine fertilized pumpkins was somewhat lower than mineral fertilized pumpkins but it was higher than non-fertilized pumpkins. The hygienic quality was equally good with all treatments.;

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Section
Articles

Published

2010-01-01

How to Cite

Pradhan, S. K., Pitkänen, S., & Heinonen-Tanski, H. (2010). Fertilizer value of urine in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) cultivation. Agricultural and Food Science, 19(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.2137/145960610791015032