Literature Review of Worms in Waste Management: Volume 1

Literature Review of Worms in
Waste Management
Volume 1
2007
Second Edition
Recycled Organics Unit
PO Box 6267
The University of New South Wales
Sydney Australia 1466
Internet: http://www.recycledorganics.com
Contact: Angus Campbell
Copyright © Recycled Organics Unit, 1999.
Second Edition.
First Published, 1999.
This document is and shall remain the property of the

Recycled Organics Unit. The information contained in this
document is provided by ROU in good faith but users
should be aware that ROU is not responsible or liable for
its use or application. The content is for information only.
It should not be considered as any advice, warranty, or
recommendation to any individual person or situation.
Recycled Organics Unit Literature Review of Worms in Waste Management – Volume 1 Page 2
Table of Contents
VOLUME 1
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................3
1. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................................................................................5
2. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................7
2.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................7
2.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................7
2.3 DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................................................................7
2.4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................7
2.5 SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................................7
3. VERMICULTURE INDUSTRY OVERVIEW.....................................................................................9
3.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................9
3.2 VERMILOGICAL RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................9
3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................................................................9
4. CURRENT STATUS OF VERMICULTURE IN AUSTRALIA .......................................................... 11
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................11
4.2 INDUSTRY SECTORS ..............................................................................................................................11
4.2.1 Primary Industry..........................................................................................................................11
4.2.2 Secondary Industry ......................................................................................................................11
4.2.3 Tertiary Industry ..........................................................................................................................12
4.3 EARTHWORMS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................12
5. VERMILOGICAL RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 13
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................13
5.2 EARTHWORM CATEGORIES ...................................................................................................................13
5.3 COMMON COMPOST WORM SPECIES ...................................................................................................13
5.4 OTHER COMPOST WORM SPECIES ........................................................................................................14
5.5 COMPOST WORM KNOWLEDGE ...........................................................................................................14
5.6 VERMICOMPOSTING SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................................15
5.7 COMPOST WORM CONSUMPTION RATES.............................................................................................15
5.8 VERMICOMPOST/VERMICAST AS A MEDIUM ..........................................................................................15
5.8.1 Microbial Populations .................................................................................................................15
5.8.2 Structure ......................................................................................................................................15
5.8.3 Nutrient Value..............................................................................................................................16
5.8.4 Pathogens ....................................................................................................................................16
6. VERMICULTURE IN AGRICULTURE.......................................................................................... 17
6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................17
6.2 WORM FARMING .................................................................................................................................17
6.3 VERMICULTURE PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................17
6.3.1 Livestock and Cocoons ................................................................................................................17
6.3.2 Fishing (Live Bait) .......................................................................................................................18
6.3.3 Vermimeal....................................................................................................................................18
6.3.4 Vermicompost and Vermicast ......................................................................................................18
6.3.5 Vermiliquid ..................................................................................................................................19
6.4 FARMING WITH WORMS ......................................................................................................................19
7. VERMICULTURE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 20
7.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................20
8. VERMICULTURE IN WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 21
8.1 ORIGINS OF THE INDUSTRY ..................................................................................................................21
8.2 SCALE CLARIFIED ..................................................................................................................................21
8.3 VERMITECHNOLOGY.............................................................................................................................22
8.3.1 Windrow Systems .........................................................................................................................22
8.3.2 Continuous Flow Systems ............................................................................................................22
8.3.3 Tray or Stacking Systems .............................................................................................................23
8.3.4 Batching Systems .........................................................................................................................23
8.3.5 Wedge Systems.............................................................................................................................24
8.3.6 Vermiculture Ecotechnology Systems ..........................................................................................24
8.4 VARIABLES IN VERMICOMPOSTING........................................................................................................24
8.5 KEY VARIABLES IN VERMICOMPOSTING .................................................................................................25
8.5.1 Management/Maintenance...........................................................................................................25
8.5.2 Environmental Conditions ...........................................................................................................25
8.5.3 Feedstock Variables.....................................................................................................................28
8.5.4 Loading Rates ..............................................................................................................................32
8.5.5 Carrying Capacity (Stocking Capacity).......................................................................................33
8.5.6 Processing Capacity (Conversion rate) .......................................................................................35
8.6 OTHER VARIABLES IN VERMICOMPOSTING............................................................................................35
8.6.1 Square Metre Surface Feeding Area............................................................................................35
8.6.2 Bed Depth ....................................................................................................................................35
8.6.3 Inputs ...........................................................................................................................................36
8.6.4 Outputs.........................................................................................................................................36
8.6.5 Stabilisation .................................................................................................................................36
8.6.6 Transferability .............................................................................................................................37
8.7 ORGANIC MATTER TREATED USING VERMICULTURE .............................................................................37
8.8 VERMICULTURE ORGANICS PROCESSING RESEARCH .............................................................................38
8.9 AUSTRALIAN MID-SCALE VERMICOMPOSTING.......................................................................................40
8.9.1 Units Identified ............................................................................................................................40
8.9.2 Issues Impacting on Mid-scale Implementation...........................................................................41
9. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 43
9.1 Vermicomposting Trials..................................................................................................................43
9.2 On-Site Technology Options ...........................................................................................................45
9.2 Particle Size Reduction Technology ...............................................................................................45
10. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 46
VOLUME 2
11. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................
11.1 DIRECTORY OF RELEVANT INTERNET SITES ................................................................................. 58
11.2 LIST OF RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS, MANUFACTURERS AND CONTACTS .......................................... 60
11.3 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 61
11.4 COPIES OF KEY LITERATURE ..................................................................................... ATTACHMENTS
11.5 PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL FOR MID SCALE VERMICULTURE SYSTEMS ............................ ATTACHMENTS
1. Glossary of Terms
Aerobic Conditions – composting and vermiculture systems require free oxygen to be
available.
Anaerobic Conditions – processing without oxygen.
Capsule (Cocoon) – the oval shaped case containing worm eggs.
Carrying Capacity – the total biomass in kilograms of worms that a specified surface area
in m2 can contain under managed steady state environmental conditions. The
maximum carrying capacity of biomass will vary widely depending upon:
environmental conditions; individual worm species or mix of species; number, age
and maturity of the population.
Castings – the exretia of worms.
Compost – material resulting from the controlled microbial transformation of organic
materials under aerobic and thermophilic conditions.
Compost Worm – selected species of earthworms appropriate for employment in organic
waste management systems, and commonly cultivated commercially for such
purposes.
Feedstock – raw or pre-processed mixture of organic wastes in a form suitable for
vermiculture application.
Liquefied Castings – the liquid form of vermicast produced by steeping solid vermicast in
aerated and circulated water, allowing to settle and sieving through fine gauze to
remove suspended solids.
Liquid Castings – liquids produced by the decomposition of organic materials combined
with excess worm bed moisture , not fully worked through a worms digestive tract.
Loading Rate – refers to the gross weight (kg) of a feedstock material that can be applied to
a vermicomposting unit or system (equivalence in mm thickness per square metre
surface feeding area) whilst maintaining aerobic conditions and moderate temperature
range (15 – 30°C). Loading rate will be dependent upon: feedstock variables, compost
worm spp. Employed, and to a lesser degree ambient temperatures.
Manure – any organic product composed mainly of animal excreta.
Mixing – blending of nitrogen rich compostable organic wastes with carbonaceous bulking
agents and/or additives as required to produce feedstock into a form suitable for
Pre-processing – size reduction of compostable organic wastes (by chopping, macerating,
grinding, blending or other like process) and mixing (see above) to produce feedstock
suitable for vermiculture application.
Pre-treatment – the primary digestion of raw or pre-processed organic wastes prior to
Processing Capacity –the maximum gross weight of a feedstock (kg) per unit area (square
metres) that can be applied per unit time under managed environmental conditions.
Processing capacity will vary with: environmental conditions; loading rate (including
feedstock variables); and, carrying capacity (including compost worm spp. employed).
Soil Conditioner – any composted or non-composted material of organic origin, that is
produced or distributed for adding to soils. This term also includes "soil amendment",
"soil additive", "soil improver" and similar terms, but excludes polymers which do not
biodegrade such as plastics, rubber, and coatings.
Vermicast – the excreta of worms in its pure form, produced by the action of
microbiological life within the digestive tract of the worm.
Vermicompost – mixture of vermicast and unprocessed organic matter, it may also contain
worm capsules and small worms.
2. Introduction
2.1 Purpose
The Southern Sydney Waste Board has identified mid-scale vermicomposting as one
available technology option for on-site organic waste stabilisation that may contribute to
the waste management needs of a range of commercial and industrial (C&I) sector
enterprises. The purpose of this study is to contextualise the depth of knowledge and
application of mid-scale vermicomposting technology and systems for the on-site treatment
of organic waste, and the potential use of products from this waste management technique.
2.2 Objectives
This report is a literature review of vermiculture with two key objectives:
1. To establish the current status of mid-scale vermiculture; and,
2. To investigate the range of relevant organic matter that could be managed through
vermiculture systems.
Particular attention has been given to reviewing the use of worms in waste treatment and
identifying the: types of material consumed; consumption rates; quality of vermicast;
and, specific mid-scale vermicomposting units in Australia for on-site C&I sector food
waste treatment.
2.3 Deliverables
The deliverables from this study include:
1. Literature review;
2. Directory of relevant internet sites (Appendix 1);
3. List of major research institutions with organisational contacts, and Australian
manufacturers with organisational contacts (Appendix 2);
4. Annotated bibliography (Appendix 3);
5. Copies of key literature as permissible under IPR constraints (Appendix 4);
6. Copies of promotional material and product specifications for commercially available
mid-scale units. Units capable of processing 20 kg - 250 kg/wk (Appendix 5).
2.4 Methodology
Methods used in this study involved: the investigation of available Australian and
international vermiculture literature and internet resources for review; site visits to view
mid-scale vermiculture installations; and, direct communication with current developers
and manufacturers of on-site mid-scale vermiculture units in Australia. Direct
communication with innovators in this dynamic industry was necessary to develop an
understanding of their experience in installation, on-site management and development of
vermiculture technologies appropriate to the on-site management needs of the C&I sector
enterprises.
2.5 Scope
Vermiculture is an emerging technology and the mid-scale sector of the vermiculture
industry has largely been neglected until recently. This is a young and dynamic industry,
characterised by a number of very new products, most technologies are immature and are
still under development. The market is characterised by rapid entry and exit of
technologies. This report will give an overview of the vermiculture industry and identify
the key areas of activity in vermiculture including: vermilogical research; vermiculture in
agriculture; vermiculture in environmental management; and, vermiculture in waste
management.
Emphasis will only be given to those parts of the industry that relate directly to the use of
composting worms in waste management. A range of other areas outside of this main
focus are sign posted only. Specific attention is given to identifying and discussing:
• Vermitechnology;
• Variables in vermicomposting;
• Organic matter treated with an emphasis on C&I waste streams; and,
• Australian mid-scale vermicomposting.
3. Vermiculture Industry Overview
3.1 Introduction
In this report reference is given to the body of literature available to investigate various
components of the vermiculture industry. The vermiculture industry consists of several
interconnected key areas of activity, including:
Vermilogical Research – scientific investigation of all things relating to earthworms;
Vermiculture in Waste Management – the use of earthworms and earthworm technology in
waste management practices;
Vermiculture in Agriculture – the use of earthworms and related products in agricultural
practices such as worm farming and farming with worms; and,
Vermiculture in Environmental Management – the use of earthworms and related products
for environmental management and assessment.
Earthworms in agriculture and environmental management are largely outside the scope of
this report and will only be outlined in brief. These vermiculture activities, as opposed to
waste management vermiculture activities, generally involve: the use of different
earthworm species and associated biota; a range of different ecosystem requirements;
and, different management practices and objectives. There is, however, some overlap with
the activities of vermiculture in waste management and some relevance to the C&I sector.
These convergences will be identified below.
3.2 Vermilogical Research

The term vermilogical research is a broad 'brush-stroke' term used here to describe
scientific investigation of the biology and ecology of earthworms. Much of this research
informs the application of the other three core areas of activity in vermiculture.
3.3 Waste Management

The use of earthworms in waste management by utilising and breaking down organic
wastes has received increasing attention over the last 20 years, where research programs
and commercial projects have been developed in many countries on all continents. There
have been several catalysts for this including:
The growing recognition in developed countries that organic matter in the waste stream
can be used as a resource rather than going to landfills where it creates a range of
environmental problems that are costly to ameliorate;
The diversion, remediation and recycling of organic matter from the waste stream can be
achieved by a range of alternative treatment methods that create a marketable product for
sale instead of disposal to landfill sites. Waste disposal fees are becoming extremely
costly, especially in Europe and North America, where many innovations in
vermicomposting are occurring;
Increasing recognition of vermiculture, as a viable alternative to composting, by utilising
the vermicomposting process which dramatically increases the turn around time between
treatment and end-use;
A rapid increase of detailed scientific research into the treatment of a broad range of
organic residuals by earthworms and the subsequent development and implementation of
vermitechnology for domestic, commercial and industrial purposes; and,
An increase in the application of worm farming, domestic vermicomposting and larger-
scale pilot project vermicomposting systems that, if managed correctly, are odourless,
efficient, and produce a high quality range of value added products.
Vermicomposting is the method used in the vermiculture industry for waste management.
Vermicomposting is engaged to achieve one, or more, of the following three outcomes:
• To produce earthworm biomass for the purposes of worm farming;
• To produce vermicast for the purposes of agriculture and environmental management;
• To reduce organic waste volumes through vermistabilisation.
4. Current Status of Vermiculture in Australia
4.1 Introduction
The vermiculture industry in Australia is still in its infancy (Abbott and Atkins, 1997; Cheal
and Lewis, 1997). It is still an emergent technology where most activity has been targeted
at developing the domestic market with the promotion of small-scale vermicomposting
units for point-source remediation (Christenson and McLachlan, 1994; Reln, 1996). More
recently, the large-scale commercial and industrial vermicomposting market has gained a
foothold in treating, for example: municipal biosolids mixed with yard trimmings in
Hobart, Tasmania (Williams, 1994; Applehof et al, 1996); biosolids and vegetable
residuals in Newcastle, New South Wales (Applehof et al, 1996); mixes of sewage sludge,
factory waste and animal manure in Redlands, Queensland (Lotzof, 1998); biosolid and
green waste mixes in Bathurst, New South Wales (Scarborough, 1999). Commercially
viable vermicomposting technologies have been investigated since 1993 with in excess of
300 tonnes per week being processed (Williams, no date).
The mid-scale market has been largely neglected until very recently with most activity
being engaged in schools as a part of waste education (Buckerfield and Wiseman, 1996;
Natoli, 1996; Campbell, 1998; Carroll, 1999), or, through trials of mid-scale systems for
businesses (Scott, 1998; Greenscene, no date). There is a paucity of material and
available data on mid-scale (see section 7.1) vermiculture in Australia for review,
especially, with respect to the objectives of this report.
The use of earthworms in waste management cuts through the boundaries between
primary, secondary, and tertiary industries. In Australia, as is evident overseas, there are
several core sectors within these industries associated with earthworms in waste
management.
4.2 Industry Sectors

4.2.1 Primary Industry
Worm farming – the production of worms for livestock, vermimeal (protein supplement),
live bait (fishing), and medicinal uses.
Vermicomposting – focuses on using worms for the production of vermicasting products as
soil amendments and potting mixes.
Vermistabilisation – focuses on using worms by utilising vermicomposting techniques to
stabilise and reduce the volume of specific waste streams.
Farming with worms – using worms in agriculture for on-site waste management,
productivity improvements of crops and pastures, and in horticulture to enhance plant
growth and propagation.
4.2.2 Secondary Industry
Manufacturing – the production of vermitechnology equipment and related products such
as vermicomposting systems and harvesting equipment.
Processing – the processing of vermiproducts such as vermicast blends and packaging,
protein feed supplements (vermimeal processing).
4.2.3 Tertiary Industry
Vermilogical Research – scientific investigation of all things related to vermiculture.
Waste Services – the supply of consulting and contracting services to conduct waste audits
and to advise, and set up, vermicomposting/worm farming/etc facilities and businesses.
Marketing and Retail – the promotion, distribution and sale of vermiculture related
products.
4.3 Earthworms in Waste Management

The use of earthworms in waste management is largely a straight forward process (ie. waste
in – worms do the vermicomposting – products out). It remains the same for all of these
sectors, the objective, or desired outcome, will determine the focus of activity and the
route taken to achieve the end result. Hence, the focus will determine the various
decisions made for the technology used, the scale of operation, the
processes/systems/strategies engaged, and the quality of the products.
The expansion of the vermiculture industry in Australia has been hampered in two ways:
1. the recent failure of worm farming buy-back schemes;

2. differing processing methods, levels of quality/process control and varying feedstocks
result in, different quality and performance of vermicompost products on the market.
With respect to this second point, there is however, a burgeoning knowledge base on the
effects of vermicompost product applications for increasing productivity in crops and
pastures, earthworms as bioaccumulators and pathogen consumers. The Australian Worm
Growers Association (AWGA) are currently circulating draft "Best Practice Guidelines" and
are engaged in industry consultation attempting to address these issues (refer to Appendix 2
- Internet directory).
5. Vermilogical Research
5.1 Introduction
Vermilogical research involves an understanding of earthworm morphology, taxonomy,
biology, physiology, biogeography, and ecology. Progress in all aspects of this research has
periodically been summarised in key texts such as: Edwards and Lofty (1972); Edwards and
Lofty (1977); Satchell and Martin (1985); and, Edwards and Bohlen (1996). Six
International Symposium's on Earthworm Ecology (ISEE) have been held since 1981, the
latest was ISEE 6 in 1998. The ISEE's represent a core forum for presentation of earthworm
research and has resulted in several edited publications including: Satchell (1983);
Bonvicini-Pagliai and Omodeo (1987); Kretzschmar (1992); and, Edwards (1997). Key texts
that focus specifically on earthworm ecology include: Lee (1985); and, Edwards (1998a).
Not all vermilogical research is relevant to the application of vermiculture in waste
management. The relevance largely depends on the type of systems being applied and the
species that are most appropriate for the job.
5.2 Earthworm Categories

Earthworms may be grouped into three categories: epigeic; anecic; and, endogeic
(Edwards and Bohlen, 1996). These groupings generally reflect morpho-ecological
distinctions between species adapted to different habitats. These categories are character
extremes, and many worm species evidence behaviours from more than one category.
Others will sit squarely within the category definition.
The epigeic group are generally surface dwelling species that inhabit and feed on
decomposing litter on the soil surface, rarely ingesting soil. They have rapid mobility, are
relatively short-lived, small to medium in size, grow and reproduce quickly. The
earthworm species that have evolved with these characteristics are predominantly used in
vermicomposting.
The anecic group are burrowing earthworms that construct large, permanent, vertical
burrows and feed on decomposing litter at the soil surface or pull it into their burrows.
They have a rapid withdrawal response, are large in size, relatively long-lived and have a
longer growth and reproduction time than epigeic species. Anecic species may be used in
vermicomposting but usually in combination with epigeic species.
The endogeic group of earthworms live in extensive horizontal burrows and feed on
mineral soil and rich organic matter. These species are never used in vermicomposting.
5.3 Common Compost Worm Species

In Australia, the CSIRO has conducted surveys of the earthworm species predominantly
found in Australian regions (Baker and Kilpin, 1992; Baker and Barrett, 1994) and
identified the range of species most commonly found in compost piles and
vermicomposting facilities. They are mostly of European origin, introduced accidentally at
the end of the nineteenth century, probably in potted plants. The species commonly found
in composts and vermicomposts include:
Eisenia andrei (red tiger worm, commonly sold as red or red wriggler);
Eisenia fetida (tiger worm);
Eudrilus eugeniae (African nightcrawler);
Lumbricus rubellus (red worm);
Perionyx excavatus (Indian blue worm);
Fletcherodrilus spp. (native to Australia);
Heteroporodrilus spp. (native).
The E. eugeniae and P. excavatus are of tropical origin and are best suited to indoor or
temperature controlled environments, but P. excavatus has been cultivated successfully as
far south as central Victoria (Murphy, 1993).
Eisenia spp. are the dominant commercial compost worm for temperate areas, including
the Sydney bioregion. There are several reasons why they are preferred for composting,
these include:
1. Their rapid consumption of food, rate of breeding and rate of natural increase;
2. Capacity to inhabit, consume and breed in a high nutrient environment;
3. Suited to a broad range of climates and environmental conditions; and,
4. They are disinclined wander if acceptable environmental conditions and feed are
available.
This paper focuses on Eisenia spp. and P. excavatus as the compost worm species
commercially cultivated and available. These species are appropriate compost worms for
temperate areas, including the Greater Sydney Region.
5.4 Other Compost Worm Species

Baker and Kilpin (1992) also rate compost as a suitable habitat for several other species,
but these were only occasionally found in compost during their survey:
• Amynthus corticis;
• Eiseniella tetraedra;
• Microscolex dubius;
• Polypheretima elongata;
• Diplotrema spp. (native);
• Spenceriella spp. (native).
Such worms are not recommended, preferred, or cultivated commercially by the
vermiculture industry in Australia, although, they may be present in mixed
vermicomposting systems and contribute to the digestion process of organic wastes.
5.5 Compost Worm Knowledge

All earthworm species have a specific range of environmental conditions and ecological
requirements that must be met for them to thrive. The most successful vermicomposting
species are those with a fairly broad range of tolerances. The optimum environmental
conditions required by the most common species used in vermicomposting facilities is
relatively well known. Although, Edwards (in Slocum, 1998: 19) claims that:
“Much of the basic research into temperature, pH, ammonia, salt and moisture
tolerances, feedstock potential's and growth and reproductive rates of worms with
the potential for use as waste managers has not yet been done.”
5.6 Vermicomposting Systems
The challenge to design systems that accommodate these needs for maximum efficiency in
processing organic wastes is still an emergent vermiculture technology. What is known for
specific species and waste streams will be highlighted below.
5.7 Compost Worm Consumption Rates

Earthworms can ingest more than their own body weight in organic matter each day and
some vermicomposting species can process vast quantities very rapidly given optimum
conditions. This rate of ingestion is more commonly observed to be between 50-100% of
worm biomass. However, the rate of ingestion is largely dependent upon the species of
earthworm, the maturity of individuals, the rate of reproduction, the population densities
and several feedstock variables, given optimum environmental conditions.
5.8 Vermicompost/Vermicast as a Medium

5.8.1 Microbial Populations
Earthworms play a major role in the breakdown of organic matter and in the cycling of
nutrients in natural ecosystems. They are a part of a complex chain of chemical,
biochemical, biological, and ecological interactions. Earthworm mouthparts are not
capable of chewing or biting, so they rely on the decomposition of organic matter by
microorganisms such as, bacteria, algae, fungi, nematodes, protozoa, rotifers and
actinomycetes, before they can ingest the softened material along with the microorganisms.
Earthworms possess a grinding gizzard that fragments the organic residuals. They ingest
microorganisms and depend on them as their major source of nutrients (Edwards and
Bohlen, 1996), but also, the earthworm gut secretes mucus and enzymes that selectively
stimulates beneficial microbial species (Doube and Brown, 1998). Earthworms promote
further microbial activity in the residuals so that the faecal material, or casts that they
produce, is much more fragmented and microbially active than what the earthworms
consumed (Edwards, 1995). Effectively, earthworms inoculate the soil, or organic matter,
with finely ground organic residuals and beneficial microorganisms which increases the
rate of decomposition and enables further ingestion of microorganisms by earthworms.
5.8.2 Structure
Castings are pH neutral and well aggregated in structure, they retain moisture and enhance
aerobicity. In effect, earthworms create their own ideal environment for enhancing
earthworm and beneficial microbial activity. Castings also provide the ideal habitat for
cocoon (egg capsule) survival in otherwise toxic environments (Mba, 1989). The good
structure of castings is due to the action of worms in digestion and aggregation of organic
material into crumbs. The material is also susceptible to compaction in a vermicomposting
unit where composting worm species usually inhabit only the top 100 - 200 mm. It has
been suggested that in depths of over 450 mm, compaction will result in an absence of
oxygen and hence, no worm activity. Three issues arise out of the compaction question:
1. Technological design issues – for example, the design depth of a vermicomposting
chamber or, do continuous flow reactors allow sufficient aeration through the system;
2. Management issues – rarely are vermicomposting units aerated manually; and,
3. Species selection issues – for example, are polycultures of burrowing and composting
worm species a solution where burrowing earthworms will aerate the soil at depth.
5.8.3 Nutrient Value
Edwards (1995) claims that, through the vermicomposting process the important plant
nutrients in the organic material — particularly nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and
calcium — are released and converted through microbial action into forms that are more
soluble and available to plants than those in the parent compounds. Many comparative
studies between vermicomposting and composting systems have shown that earthworms
(especially in trials conducted using composting worms) will accelerate the mineralisation
of organic matter, accelerate the breakdown of polysaccharides, increase humification,
lower the C:N ratio, lower the bioavailability of heavy metals (Elvira et al, 1996a, 1998;
Dominguez, 1997; Edwards and Bohlen, 1996).
It should be noted however, that the nutritional quality of the vermicompost is largely
dependent on the nutritional quality of the feedstocks. Earthworms will transform, or
convert, organic nutrients into more available inorganic forms, but they cannot create
nutrients when they are not present to begin with.
Research has tended to focus on the benefits to plants and soil structure through the
activity of earthworms (Edwards and Shipitalo, 1998; Kretschmar, 1998; Doube & Brown,
1998; Baker, 1998). Plant growth trials comparing vermicomposts consistently outperform
composts and commercial plant growth media (Edwards and Burrows, 1988; Edwards,
1998b; Subler et al, 1998). Vermicomposts have a better structure than other media and it
is suggested that vermicomposts contain plant growth hormones, soil enzymes, high
microbial populations, and that earthworms selectively cull pathogens and harmful
microorganisms in the soil (Benitez et al, 1999; Edwards and Bohlen, 1996).
5.8.4 Pathogens
There is increasing evidence that human pathogen species of microorganisms, are
selectively culled by earthworms (Dominguez, 1997; Doube and Brown, 1998;
Scarborough, 1999), and pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella sp. do not
survive vermicomposting (Edwards and Bohlen, 1996). Dominguez (1997), conducting
trials with small-scale continuous flow reactors using biosolid feedstocks, found that faecal
coliform bacteria dropped from 39,000 MPN/g to 0 MPN/g after 60 days vermicomposting.
6. Vermiculture in Agriculture
6.1 Introduction
For vermiculture in agriculture, overlapping interest occurs at either end of the waste
management stream. At one end, is the need to deal with specific agricultural by-products,
or wastes, and vermicomposting is identified as one sustainable method of utilising these
wastes and turning them into a resource. This has been engaged on a large commercial
scale mainly using windrows for the treatment of pig solids (Edwards et al, 1985; Chan and
Griffiths, 1988; Wong and Griffiths, 1991) and cattle solids (Hand et al, 1988; Edwards,
1998b). At the other end is the use of the resultant vermicompost products, such as: the
application of vermicompost as soil amendments in agroecosystems; the use of vermicast
in potting mix blends for plant propagation; and, vermicompost, or vermicast, as a plant
growth stimulant.
There is a very large body of literature on most aspects of farming with worms and worm
farming. These resources will be identified in Appendix 1 – Annotated Bibliography.
6.2 Worm Farming

A number of introductory and more detailed texts cover the broad issues of worm farming.
Some of these texts target the domestic scale for home based waste reduction and
gardening including: Applehof (1997); Brown (1994); Grossman and Weitzel (1997);
and, Windust (1994). A number of texts that target worm farming in Australia include:
Murphy (1993); Lambert (1994); Petit (1996); and, Windust (1997).
Worm farming is a primary industry (stock husbandry for the purpose of natural population
increase) and therefore, as a microlivestock production process, it fits relatively easily into
the broad descriptive activity of vermiculture in agriculture. Due to the very nature of the
production process for worm farming, the utilisation of organic waste products for inputs
determines an engagement with vermiculture in waste management regardless of the focus
on the end product. However, the end product focus determines the method of operation
and production process choices made by the worm farmer.
Rarely does a worm farmer focus on only one of the five core products identified below.
Profitable synergies tend to be exploited wherever opportunities are identified. In all cases,
management, education, and marketing, are crucial factors for business success. The
production of vermicompost or vermicastings for sale, although not the primary focus, is
almost always considered as a secondary, and even the primary, income stream.
6.3 Vermiculture Products

6.3.1 Livestock and Cocoons
For livestock production the focus is not necessarily on earthworm biomass increase (kg)
but population increase (number). Although, most farmers in Australia sell worms by the
kilogram and biomass is the easiest method to quantify, an approximate measure of 4000
worms per kilogram is often used to estimate worm populations. Critical factors include:
Production processes for harvesting and separation of worms and cocoons from castings;
Production processes for maximising the breeding cycle such as regular feeding; and,
Species are selected for faster growth, maturity and fecundity, including epigeic species
such as Eisenia fetida, Eisenia andrei, Lumbricus rubellus and Perionyx excavatus.
6.3.2 Fishing (Live Bait)
For the production of live bait the focus is on biomass. Large, fat worms are considered the
best quality product and these command a high price from fishermen. Critical factors for
the production of live bait include:
The use of specific feedstocks for fattening worms such as including corrugated cardboard
bonded with edible glue (Murphy, 1993), raising worms on dog faeces (Moran, 1999), or
paper sludge (Fayolle et al, 1997);
Managing the population by removing cocoons to reduce competition (Murphy, 1993);
Species selection such as Perionyx excavatus – the Blue worm (Murphy, 1993), Eudrilus
eugeniae – the African nightcrawler (Windust, 1997), Lumbricus terrestris – the Canadian
nightcrawler (Windust, 1997), or Dendrobaena veneta (Fayolle et al, 1997);
The 'nightcrawlers', as the name suggests, have a tendency to wander, so attention to stock
containment considerations in vermiculture facility/technology design and management is
crucial.
Eisenia fetida, the most common composting worm used in worm farming, is unsatisfactory
for use as live bait because, when threatened, it will exude a fetid, unpleasant-smelling
yellow coelomic liquid (Murphy, 1993; Edwards and Bohlen, 1996). Also, several trials
using E. fetida as a vermimeal feedstock for rainbow trout and eels found this species to be
unpalatable and will not support fish growth (Stafford and Tacon, 1988).
6.3.3 Vermimeal
For the production of livestock for vermimeal the focus is on producing worms that are not
contaminated and contain sufficient quantities of specific proteins and essential amino
acids. The quality of feedstocks plays a key role. Also, the presence and quantity of
different proteins varies between different species (Stafford and Tacon, 1988). Only a
limited amount of research has been engaged on the production of earthworms as a high-
protein feed supplement (Williams, no date). Sabine (1988) gives an overview of
earthworms as animal feed and highlights the research needs of this process. Edwards and
Neiderer (1988) give a detailed analysis of the production and processing requirements
necessary for vermimeal and Edwards (1998b) gives an overview of the production of
worm protein and technologies. The potential of this market has not yet moved from
research to commercial production in Australia.
6.3.4 Vermicompost and Vermicast
When vermicast, or vermicompost, production becomes the primary focus, more attention
must be paid to the quality and mix of feedstock inputs. This is a very different motivation
to waste management systems, particularly on-site vermistabilisation systems, which aim to
manage any and all food organics produced as a substitute to sending such materials to
landfill. Vermicast production is a very different process as a result, and requires
significant variance in management. Such vermicomposting systems aim to maximise
throughput, and the quality of castings as outputs.
Vermicast is the excretia of worms in their purest form, whereas, vermicompost is a
mixture of vermicast and unprocessed organic matter. There are a range of commercial
products on the market that vary in quality and mix. Some vermicomposts are produced as
soil amendments and others are produced as potting mix blends.
There is a fairly large body of literature that has investigated comparative studies of
vermicompost with potting mix mediums and composts, nutritional quality of
vermicastings and vermicomposts, the application of vermicast and vermicompost as plant
growth mediums and soil amendments. However, the vast majority of these studies have
used agricultural wastes (eg. manures), large-scale industrial wastes (eg. papermill sludge)
and municipal wastes (eg. sewage sludge) as their main feedstocks and substrates in
vermicomposting operations. This literature is identified in Appendix 1 – Annotated
Bibliography.
6.3.5 Vermiliquid
Vermiliquid is essentially a by-product of the vermicomposting process. There are two
forms of vermiliquid. Liquid castings are the liquids produced by the decomposition of
organic materials and the excess bed moisture that has percolated through vermicompost.
Liquefied castings is the liquid form of vermicast which is produced by steeping vermicast
in aerated and circulated water and then sieved to remove the solids.
Some worm farmers produce and market vermiliquid as a high nutrient liquid fertiliser.
Determining the quality of vermiliquid is an inexact science, using the colour as the quality
determinate. One method used to increase the production of liquid castings is to regularly
'soak' (never more than 100% moisture) the vermicompost unit and catching the liquid
castings after it has percolated through the vermicompost bedding. The evidence for the
nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.
There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of
vermiliquids.
6.4 Farming with Worms

The use of vermiculture in agroecosystems is largely outside the scope of this report. It is
signposted here as farming with worms, in recognition that worm farming and farming with
worms are largely different approaches to the use of earthworms for productivity
improvements (Buckerfield, 1994). These vermiculture activities, as opposed to waste
management vermiculture activities, generally involve: the use of different earthworm
species and associated biota; a range of different ecosystem requirements; and, different
management practices and objectives. There is, however, some overlap with the activities
of vermiculture in waste management. These convergences are identified in the use of
vermicomposting systems to utilise and convert agricultural waste streams such as,
manures and vineyard, or orchard, green waste clippings. Also, in the use of vermicast
blends as potting mix media and fertiliser, vermicompost as a soil amendment, inoculation
of earthworms (some burrowing species raised intensively) for productivity improvements
in crops and pastures, and the use of vermicast for plant propagation and as plant growth
stimulants in the horticulture industry.
Some key references include: the proceedings of a symposium on the ecology and
biogeography of earthworms in North America (Hendrix, 1995); Curry (1998) gives a
literature review of factors that affect earthworm abundance in soils; Hendrix (1998)
summarises current research on earthworms in agroecosystems; and, Baker (1998) makes
reference to southern Australia in an overview of the ecology, management, and benefits of
earthworms in agricultural soils.
7. Vermiculture in Environmental Management
7.1 Introduction
There is an overlapping of activities between vermiculture in environmental management
and vermiculture in waste management. This is mainly in the vermicompost production
process of waste steam selection and utilisation where, knowledge of earthworm tolerance
to the toxicity of specific waste streams is applied in the design process for system
management. Earthworms reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals. Dominguez (1997)
reported that even though carbon losses, through mineralisation, increased the total
amount of heavy metals in a vermicomposting system, the amounts of bioavailable heavy
metals is decreased significantly. Ecotoxicology also plays a role in research engaged to
determine how, and to what degree, earthworms act as bioaccumulators of pesticides and
heavy metals (Eijsackers, 1998; Edwards and Bohlen, 1996). There is also overlap with the
use of vermicompost in environmental remediation of contaminated sites, or denuded
land, in conjunction with earthworm inoculation. To a lesser extent, earthworms are used
in landscaping.
Much of the ecotoxicology research was highlighted at a conference on the ecotoxicology
of earthworms held at Sheffield University, UK in 1991 (Greig-Smith et al, 1992). A
precursor to this are the sections on earthworms as indicators of environmental
contamination, and their role in land reclamation, soil amelioration and land
improvements (Edwards and Neuhauser, 1988). More recently Eijsackers (1998) has
reviewed the literature on earthworms in environmental research and Reinecke and
Reinecke (1998) evaluate new approaches in the use of earthworms in ecotoxicological
evaluation and risk assessment.
8. Vermiculture in Waste Management
8.1 Origins of the Industry
Vermilogical research into waste management was initiated in the late 1970's with a
conference held in Syracuse, New York, USA (Hartenstein, 1978), highlighting research
into the conversion of biosolids through vermicomposting being engaged by researchers at
Cornell and Syracuse Universities. This was followed by a workshop in Kalamazoo,
Michigan, USA, on the stabilisation of organic residues (Applehof, 1981). The waste
management focus was further enhanced by a symposium on earthworms in waste and
environmental management held in Cambridge, UK, and the subsequently influential
publication of the proceedings (Edwards and Neuhauser, 1988). Edwards (forthcoming) is
soon to publish an edited "Manual of Vermicomposting" which will be a summary of the
state of knowledge in vermicomposting ranging from various technologies in use to studies
on vermicompost quality.
8.2 Scale Clarified

This paper adopts three scales of vermiculture technology for on-site application: the
small-scale (domestic); the mid-scale (either domestic or commercial); and, the large-
scale (commercial). The categories are fairly arbitrary, and the boundaries between these
scales are not rigidly fixed. Defining the scale also depends on the criteria being used to
determine the scale. Two distinct criteria will result in different scale interpretations.
These scale criteria may be defined as:
Quantity Scale — based on quantity (by weight/week) of organic matter being treated; and,
2
Unit Scale — based on size (m of feeding surface area) of the units used to treat organic
1
matter .
The following table is a suggestion for defining the boundaries between the various scales
according to the criteria. These definitions have been used to determine applicability of
vermiculture units and vermiculture operations when compiling this report on mid-scale
vermiculture.
Table 1: Definitions of scale for vermicomposting operations and units

Scale
Criteria
Small-Scale Mid-Scale Large-Scale
Quantity Scale < 20 kg/wk 20 - 250 kg/wk > 250 kg/wk

2 2 2
Unit Scale < 0.5 m 0.5 - 3.5 m > 3.5 m
It was necessary to take both criteria into account when assessing whether mid-scale is in
use. The quantity scale can, however, be misleading on two counts, if used on its own:
The processing rate for different organic matter will vary according to: a) the waste stream;
b) the species of worms; and, c) the management practices.
1
Note that a 'Unit' is not the same as a 'System'.
Units are often modular in design. A vermiculture operation may employ the use of a
number of mid-scale units to process a large-scale quantity of organic matter.
Small-scale vermiculture units have been manufactured and strategically marketed to the
domestic (or household) consumer for several years now. More recently, large-scale
vermiculture units have been developed in conjunction with a push into industrial based
vermiculture applications. In some cases mid-scale units have also been developed and
used in these large-scale operations.
The development of mid-scale vermiculture units to treat mid-scale commercial and
industrial waste streams on-site is the most recent focus for vermiculture projects. Hence,
mid-scale vermiculture is an emerging technology. It is a dynamic niche market
highlighted by rapid entry and exit of a number of very new products. It shows promise,
but there is as yet very little available data on how effective these systems are and the
processing rates for different waste streams that these systems are capable of. Most
available data is in the form of gross mass figures supplied by the manufacturers of the
units.
8.3 Vermitechnology
There is a broad range of vermitechnology that has been developed, adapted, and
manufactured for use in the vermiculture industry. This ranges from equipment and
instruments, processes and strategies in management and marketing, and methods and
systems. For this report, the range of vermicomposting systems are described here,
because they are directly relevant to mid-scale vermicomposting and will impact on the
choices made for on-site C&I waste management.
8.3.1 Windrow Systems
Windrows are the traditional, low-tech method for large-scale vermicomposting (Jensen,
1998). For the windrow method, organic materials are placed on the ground up to 50 cm
in depth in long rows and worms are introduced to the material. Windrow systems on the
soil surface are relatively inefficient (Edwards, 1998b) and generally result in an inferior
vermicompost product because nutrients are lost through volatilisation and leaching
(Edwards, 1999). In Australia, windrow systems are still the predominant method of
vermicomposting (Edwards and Steele, 1997).
Other drawbacks of windrow systems include: the requirement of large areas of land; they
are labour intensive for feeding and harvesting (biomass and castings); they process
organics relatively slowly, taking six to eighteen months to produce a stable vermicast
(Edwards, 1995); and, they are usually exposed to a broad range of environmental
conditions. Windrows are not appropriate for on-site C&I waste treatment.
8.3.2 Continuous Flow Systems
Continuous flow vermicomposting system technology was first developed and tested in
1981 at the Rothamstead Experimental Research Station, Silsoe, UK (Edwards, 1995). A
continuous flow reactor is at the high-tech end of vermicomposting systems, but there are
low-tech designs as well. It can be designed for manual or automated operation for feeding
and collection. Examples of automation include travelling gantries (Edwards, 1995; Subler,
1999) and trickling filters (Hand, 1988).
The basic aspects of design are: the vermicomposting container is raised on legs above the
ground; the bottom is a mesh floor and a breaker bar loosens the bottom layer of castings
so they can fall through for collection; and, it enables top feeding of feedstocks. Edwards
(1995) claims that a continuous flow reactor, managed effectively, can fully process 900
mm deep layers of suitable organics in less than 30 days (ie. approximately 30 mm per day
loading rate).
Continuous flow reactors are presently being manufactured for the small-scale to the large-
scale. They are the most common mid-scale vermicomposting systems in use.
Commercial, or manufactured, examples of this system include: the 'eliminator'; the
'worm wigwam'; the 'VC 2000'; and, tumbleweed's mid-scale unit. DIY examples that
use continuous flow principles include: the 'OSCR reactor' which has been utilised
extensively and adapted by some in the USA (Holcombe and Longfellow, 1995; Cornish,
1998); and, the 'raised worm ranch' which has been advocated and implemented in
Australian schools (Campbell, 1998; Carroll, 1999).
8.3.3 Tray or Stacking Systems
Tray, or stacking, vermicomposting systems are another popular method. These systems,
along with the batching systems, are the most common technologies used for small-scale
(domestic) applications (Applehof, 1988), although they are also used in some mid-scale
operations (Scott, 1998).
A tray system involves stacking several trays (usually up to three 150 mm in depth) on top
of one another. Feedstocks are applied to the bottom most tray and when the tray is full of
vermicompost the next tray is added and feedstocks are applied to the next upper most tray
to encourage the worms to move out of the bottom tray and consume the fresh feed.
When the next tray is full of vermicompost a third tray is added and the first tray should be
relatively free of worms enabling the harvesting of castings. This tray is then empty and
ready to be placed on top again.
Edwards (1988) assessed the performance and design components of tray systems and
concluded that these systems can be relatively labour intensive, requiring lifting of the
upper trays to access the lower trays and the larger the vermicomposting unit becomes the
more difficult this operation for castings removal is. Automated rotating tray systems may
be an answer but this would involve higher, initial, capital expenditure.
The Worm Network vermicomposting tray design utilises sliding draw trays, 200 mm in
depth, which circumvents the need for lifting, but due to the mid-scale size of this unit, full
trays are still very cumbersome, requiring design modifications such as ball bearings (Scott,
1999). A climatic advantage of the tray system is that in a warm temperate environment
where cold temperature extremes do not present a problem, the extra surface area to
volume ratio ameliorates against a system over heating, however, moisture loss is higher if
it is not an enclosed system.
Another advantage of a tray system, especially with respect to the limited space available
for a commercial premises to implement a vermicomposting system, is that several trays
may be used for feedstock application at one time. Therefore, reducing the
vermicomposting units footprint and achieving greater efficiencies in a smaller space.
8.3.4 Batching Systems
Batching systems, or box systems, are a relatively popular and simple design for small-scale
vermicomposting units (Applehof, 1988; Slocum and Frankel, 1998; Slocum, 1999a).
Batching systems have been experimented with on all scales, but many of the
disadvantages (without the advantages) associated with the tray systems are also applicable
for the batching system (Edwards, 1988).
An Australian mid-scale example of a batching system is the 'Worrigee' DIY unit used by
the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital in Nowra, New South Wales (Lawler, 1999).
This unit exemplified the labour intensive requirements for the extraction of castings and
separation of worms observed by Edwards (1988).
Due to the labour intensive methods required to harvest a by product from a batching
system, these system, for mid-scale applications, are usually by passed, in the C&I sector,
in favour of tray and continuous flow systems. Batching systems are often applied in
situations where there is very little start-up capital and by not-for-profit organisations such
as, schools (Applehof et al, 1993; Payne, 1999) and hospitals (Lawler, 1999).
8.3.5 Wedge Systems
These systems are largely unexplored in the literature and Edwards (1999) identified the
need for trials with this system to investigate it's potential. In a wedge system, the
horizontal feeding method is used, where feed is applied to an 'open face' of the bedding,
usually at a 45˚ angle, in an even layer (Mitchell, 1997). Edwards has suggested the use of
a wall to start a system off and then move outwards, harvesting castings from behind
(1999). However, Mitchell (1997) found the horizontal method of feeding to be less
successful than the vertical or furrow methods used in other systems. Even though a spare
wall may be allocated to use this method for on-site vermicomposting, the waste treatment
process is not contained and would utilise too much space.
8.3.6 Vermiculture Ecotechnology Systems
The vermiculture ecotechnology system has been developed over many years of
experimentation and application by Bhawalker (1999), of the Bhawalker Earthworm
Research Institute in Pune, India. It is used extensively in India (White, 1995), with some
recent trial applications in the U.S.A (Werner, 1997; Boggess and Frankel, 1997; Frankel
and Boggess, 1997, 1998). Vermiculture ecotechnology is applicable from small-scale (in-
vessel) to very large-scale (in-ground) vermicomposting.
The vermiculture ecotechnology system is an holistic ecosystem approach to organic waste
treatment, utilising burrowing earthworms, microorganisms and the root zone of specific
plant species adapted to high nutrient soil conditions. This system of vermicomposting is
largely ignored in the scientific literature because of the perception that burrowing
earthworm species are only suitable to agroecosystems and not vermicomposting (Slocum,
1999b). This method has not been scientifically trialed in Australia and therefore, is an
unknown quantity with respect to on-site mid-scale vermicomposting. Although, Butt
(1993) successfully used the burrowing earthworm Lumbricus terrestris for soil
ameriolation, it has also been used to treat solid paper mill sludge and spent brewery yeast.
8.4 Variables in Vermicomposting

Vermicomposting is a biooxidation and stabilisation process of organic material that
involves the joint action of earthworms and microorganisms. The earthworms turn,
fragment and aerate the organic matter in a vermicomposting system (Dominguez et al,
1997a). There are several key variables that will affect the performance of
vermicomposting systems. These include: management and maintenance; environmental
conditions; feedstock variables; loading rate; carrying capacity; and, processing capacity.
These variables are identified below in section 7.5.
Other variables will determine the size and type of the vermicomposting system utilised.
These include: square metre surface feeding area; bed depth; inputs; outputs;
stabilisation of castings; and, transferability between scales. These other variables are
identified below in section 7.6.
8.5 Key Variables in Vermicomposting

8.5.1 Management/Maintenance
Management/maintenance is of crucial importance in the operation of vermicomposting
facilities (Subler, 1999). It is however, a variable that is addressed, all too regularly, in a
superficial manner and the failure of vermicomposting systems can often be traced to
inadequacies in the systems management.
“Tossing” the bedding, the process of loosening and aerating bedding without turning or
burying food, is rarely considered in the management of vermicomposting units. This
method helps to aerate the substrates and maximise oxygen penetration. Without oxygen,
a vermicompost unit should not exceed an absolute maximum depth of 450 mm, or
compaction will be a problem. Compaction effects the efficiency of the system through a
lack of oxygen and will ultimately have an effect on the optimum carrying capacity. This
issue of maintenance is largely neglected in the literature and by practitioners, limited time
is usually cited as a limiting factor.
Preparation of feedstocks is another time consuming aspect of maintenance. If a feedstock
needs to be mixed, pre-treated, or pre-processed and this is not adequately performed, then
this will impact upon the processing capacity of a vermicomposting unit.
For on-site C&I mid-scale vermicomposting, the enthusiasm of an employee, or proprietor,
is often a critical factor in the successful performance of a system. Staff turn over,
however, is sometimes cited as the reason for the failure of some systems.
Training is critically important for the implement of vermicomposting units on-site, that do
not require on-going maintenance contracts to manage the system. The need for training is
often mentioned as an important concept, by practitioners. The reality is however, there
are very few training resources available for the novice and there are no facilities that
engage best practice management courses.
Maintenance contracts are expensive. Training of operators, with follow-up service is likely
to be far more cost effective. The cost effectiveness of an on-site system is a combination
of reduction in waste disposal fees and the potential sale of vermicompost products. is a
factor that may influence decisions to implement on-site remediation through mid-scale
vermicomposting.
Another management issue for on-site (or point source remediation) is whether imports of
material, such as bulking agents, are required to make a system work.
8.5.2 Environmental Conditions
Temperature and moisture are the most important environmental factors in
vermicomposting systems (Edwards, 1995, 1998). The optimum environmental conditions
have been well researched and they are fairly similar for all composting species.
This section focuses on Eisenia spp. and P. excavatus as the commercially available
composting worm species appropriate to temperate areas, including the Greater Sydney
Region (see section 5.3).
Temperature
Temperatures referred to relate to temperature of substrate, or bedding mass, not to
ambient air temperature. The decomposition of organic matter will heat up a system from
the metabolic processes of microorganisms. Earthworms aid and abet the increase of heat
to foster microorganism activity and further increasing this activity with the exponential
increase of microorganism populations in their castings (Edwards and Bohlen, 1996).
Earthworm activity can also enables a system to aerate and release heat (up to a maximum
bedding depth).
It has been observed for P. excavatus, that as the vermicomposting system approaches
30˚C, growth and sexual maturity accelerate, cocoon incubation times shorten and
hatching success increases, although, reproduction is highest at 25˚C (Edwards et al, 1998).
A balanced vermicomposting system is usually 15-25˚C. The optimum temperature for
Eisenia spp. is generally regarded as 20˚C (Edwards, 1998b), although, E. fetida has the
broadest temperature tolerance (Reinecke et al, 1992).
Constant temperatures above 30˚C are deadly for all species of composting earthworms.
Earthworm activity will increase up to 30˚C and E. fetida has been observed to survive for
short periods up to 45˚C (Reinecke et al, 1992), but from this temperature and above
thermophilic composting is optimised.
Surface area to volume ratio will also play a role in heating up a system. The larger the
system, the lower is the surface area to volume ratio to allow the microbial heat to
dissipate. This is one of the advantages of continuous flow and tray systems because they
have a larger surface area to allow heat to dissipate.
The literature suggests optimum temperatures for bedding mass in on-site vermiculture
systems will vary within the 20°C – 30°C range, depending upon the species or variety of
compost worm species employed.
Moisture
Compost worms require a moist environment to move through substrates and prevent
dehydration. Excess moisture may cause the system to become anaerobic and too little
may cause dehydration of compost worm stock.
Compost worms can function in moisture's as low as 40%. The optimum range of moisture
for: E. andrei is 80-90% and best growth is achieved at 85% (Dominguez and Edwards,
1997); E. fetida is 70-80% (Venter and Reinecke, 1988); and, P. excavatus is 76-83%
(Hallatt et al, 1990).
The literature suggests 80% moisture level is recommended as the optimum moisture levels
for systems of mixed worm stock appropriate for temperate environments.
Aeration and Structure
Worms absorb oxygen through their skin and require well oxygenated environments to
enable air flow to dissipate heat and prevent anaerobic (low oxygen) conditions from
developing.
Good substrate structure is required to allow oxygen penetration and good moisture
retention. Castings support good structure and aerobic conditions, and earthworms
selectively cull anaerobic bacteria while aerating the substrate by moving through it
(Doube and Brown, 1998).
A depth of bedding in excess of 450 mm will influence compaction of the substrate
creating a low oxygen environment and deterring earthworm activity (Edwards, 1995).
Commercial worm farming literature recommends “tossing the beds”, a process of
loosening the bedding substrate to aerate, without inverting materials. This process does
not bury fresher waste materials, but rather seeks to retain the natural profile of the system.
This process can be mechanical (more efficient, also more destructive of worm stock –
suited to large scale operations), or can be engaged by hand with the aid of a garden fork
for on-site and mid scale application (Wilson, 1999).
Feedstocks need to exhibit a range of particle sizes to enhance surface area and oxygen
penetration. Fibrous and bulky material provide structure and increase the
Carbon:Nitrogen (C:N) ratio.
The literature suggests bedding depth of less than or equal to 450mm is recommended as
appropriate for on-site vermiculture system design. Worm farming literature suggests that,
particularly at the higher end of this range of bedding depth, that vermiculture systems will
benfit from periodic “tossing” of bedding for purpose of aeration.
Salt & Ammonia

Salt and ammonia levels should not exceed 0.5 mg/litre. Above this level earthworm
survival drops off rapidly. Ammonia is less likely to cause problems if a substrate remains
below a pH of 8 because it is in the solid form of NH4+. Above a pH of 8 ammonia NH3
(aqueous ammonia) becomes prevalent and this ammonia state will cause problems if the
concentrations are high (Miller, 1993).
Salt and ammonia are present in high concentrations within some substrates such as
sewage sludge, fish slurry, cattle sludge and pig slurry. These substrates will require pre-
treatment, or pre-processing, to reduce the toxic quantities of salt and/or ammonia to
acceptable levels for the introduction of earthworms. Pre-treatment may involve washing
salt concentrations out of a substrate and pre-processing may involve pre-composting or
mixing substrates with complementary feedstocks.
There is still not enough known about the effects of salt and ammonia on earthworms or
best management practices to reduce the toxicity these biochemicals (Edwards, 1999).
The literature suggests maintaining pH levels of less than pH8 to
pH
The pH of most waste streams decreases to the acidic range as microorganisms decompose
organic residues.
All earthworm species have a fairly broad range of tolerance to pH levels between a pH of
4.5 and a pH of 9. Earthworms will operation the entire range. Edwards recommends that
compost earthworms will function best in a substrate with a pH of 5.9 (Biocycle, 1998).
Reinecke et al (1992) claim a pH of 7 (neutral) is optimal for P. excavatus. Murphy (1993)
recommends a pH of 6.5 as suitable for compost worms.
Vermicomposting units will normally shift towards a pH of 7 because earthworm castings
are usually pH neutral. Mba (1989) has observed that cocoon survival is more likely to be
achieved in castings than the surrounding organic matter, which, in some substrates, is
completely toxic to cocoons.
Odour
Odour is an indicator that the system is out of balance. It is often a sign that the system is
going anaerobic because of the odours produced by anaerobic bacteria.
Earthworms can remove odour from putrescible organics within 24 to 48 hours (Biocycle,
1998), presumably, by selectively culling the anaerobic bacteria (Doube and Brown,
1998).
8.5.3 Feedstock Variables
Feedstock preferences
Different species of worms have different feedstock preferences and this will be reflected in
stocking capacity and processing capacity. Few studies have shown which feedstocks
individual compost worm species prefer from typical C&I sector waste streams. Most
studies have concentrated on whether earthworms will or will not process a particular
feedstock.
Knowledge of feedstock preferences will inform how a feedstock needs to be applied, or
whether it benefits from pre-treatment, or whether a feedstock needs to be mixed and to
what quantities with complementary feedstocks. Doube et al (1997) conducted food
preference studies using the composting worm Lumbricus rubellus and 3 other burrowing
Lumbricid earthworm species, but this trial did not apply typical C&I sector wastes, and the
earthworm species involved are of questionable relevance.
Type or mix (waste stream)

There are a diversity of compostable organic materials produced from C&I sector waste
streams. Great diversity exists within the food waste stream alone. The composition of the
wastes will impact on the processing capacity of an on-site system, and on the pre-
processing methods required. With respect to this, The UNSW Green Waste technology
Unit has submitted the following sub-categories for inclusion in the Australian Waste
Database, specifically to support the consideration of on-site management options.
Material Composition Codes from the Regional Waste Database, 1999
The RWD is an adaptation of the Australian Waste Database (Gia Underwood, Western Sydney Waste Board)
MC = material composition, MDC = material description code, MDSC1C = material description sub category 1 code
MC Code Description MTC MDC MDSC1C Broad Description
0 Mixed Waste 0 0 0 Mixed Waste
A Paper A Paper
B Organic Compostable B Organic Compostable
B01 Organic Compostable Food B B01 Organic Compostable
B011 Fruit & vegetable B B01 B011 Organic Compostable
B012 Meat & poultry B B01 B012 Organic Compostable
B013 Fats & oils B B01 B013 Organic Compostable
B014 Seafood (including shellfish, excluding oyster shells) B B01 B014 Organic Compostable
B015 Recalcitrants (large bones >15mm diameter, oyster B B01 B015 Organic Compostable
shell, coconut shells...)
B016 Dairy (solid and liquid) B B01 B016 Organic Compostable
B017 Bread, pastries & flours (including rice & corn flours) B B01 B017 Organic Compostable
B018 Food soiled paper products (hand towels, butter B B01 B018 Organic Compostable
wrap...)
B019 Biodegradeables (cutlery, bags, polymers) B B01 B019 Organic Compostable
B02 Organic Compostable Garden B B02 Organic Compostable
B021 Putrescible (grass clippings) B B02 B021 Organic Compostable
B022 Non-woody (<5mm diameter) B B02 B022 Organic Compostable
B023 Woody(>5mm diameter) B B02 B023 Organic Compostable
B024 Trees / limbs (>150mm diameter) B B02 B024 Organic Compostable
B03 Organic Compostable Other Putrescible B B03 Organic Compostable
C Other Organic C Other Organic
C01 Other Organic Wood/timber C C01 Other Organic
C011 Wood furniture C C01 C011 Other Organic
C012 pallets, packaging, offcuts C C01 C012 Other Organic
C013 sawdust C C01 C013 Other Organic
C014 shavings C C01 C014 Other Organic
C015 Composite products (MDF, particleboard, plywood) C C01 C015 Other Organic
C016 Treated timber C C01 C016 Other Organic
D Glass D Glass
E Plastic E Plastic
F Ferrous F Ferrous
G Nonferrous G Nonferrous
H Special H Special
I Earth Based I Earth Based
Some waste materials may be fed directly, others may require size reduction and/or mixing
with bulking agent and additives to create an appropriate feedstock mixture. Most
feedstocks generated from a mono-stream, or one particular type of waste material require
the addition of, or mixing with, complementary materials to produce feedstocks.
Complementary feedstocks can be sourced from other waste materials for on site
vermiculture applications (see section 8.5.3.6 below).
Quantity
For on-site installations, the quantity and composition of feedstocks will firstly need to be
assessed by conducting a waste audit. Then a system installed of adequate size for
managing the maximum waste flow should be identified, installed, and commissioned with
sufficient worm stock and bedding to process the intended entire waste flow.
The determination of adequate system size depends upon the stock population capacity of
the unit under managed environmental conditions, and the resident worm populations
processing capacity for the specific feedstock produced. Reliable outcomes in terms of
system sizing and stocking rate and installation would be derived from knowledge of:
• Stock carrying capacity per square metre (provided adequate bedding depth is
continually maintained);
• That feed is applied in an appropriate feed formula (feedstock);
• Processing capacity per square metre surface of feeding area for given feedstock;
• Management of environmental conditions appropriate to maintain consistent
processing capacity.
There is a paucity of quantitative information in the literature, and the lack of relevant
information in these areas severely restricts the capacity for reliable installation and
management of on-site vermiculture systems. Some documented evidence is reported in
the literature, material, however such work has not been directed so as to provide
information supporting on-site applications. Previous work in this area has not focused on
evaluation of these on-site criteria, as such work has not focused on on-site application.
The basic information required for to support the selection of on-site systems (according to
quantity of waste materials requiring processing) is not currently available.
Particle size
Size reduction should be considered to convert wastes into a form suitable for vermiculture
application, andto increase the rate of breakdown of wastes. The smaller the particle size
the more surface area available for microbial attack, and the easier it is for earthworms to
ingest and grind the particles down further.
A chopping, grinding, macerating, or blending process is a desirable form of pre-processing
for most food waste materials for the purpose of size reduction and homogenisation. The
resulting material can then be mixed with a bulking agent to produce an appropriate
feedstock mix.
If all particles in the feedstock mix were very small (<5mm) there could be little capacity
for maintaining aerobic conditions, and there is risk of developing anaerobic conditions,
leading to significant odour generation. Therefore, a range of particle sizes is desirable for
maintaining structural stability and aerobic conditions. This can be achieved by the
addition of complementary materials as bulking agents which will aid structure and C:N
ratio, resulting in appropriate processing through vermicomosting systems.
Importantly, size reduction options vary for different material sub-categories. Fruit and
vegetable food wastes can be effectively reduced in relatively small volumes using a
bucket and chopping with a spade.
Meats, poultry and seafood (including crustaceans) will require a more involved method
and technology for effective size reduction if bones and exoskeletal fractions are to be
effectively broken down. Appropriate options for such tasks include grinding, maceration
or chipping. Such technologies are more expensive, and require greater time investment in
setup and cleaning for each period of operational use. These technologies may also be
appropriate for softer food wastes, but are an over engineered option if the dominant
wastes requiring management are soft food wastes for which bucket and spade are
appropriate.
Size reduction and pre-processing options for common waste materials as paper and
cardboard boxes for use as complementary bulking agent are also uncertain at this point,
and are outside the scope of this paper. Appropriate technology options for such tasks that
are efficient and cost effective may have major impact on the financial viability of on-site
systems, whether they be vermiculture or composting systems.
Size reduction technology options for on site systems are currently being investigated by
the Green Waste Technology Unit.
Pre-treatment
A supplemental strategy after pre-processing is pre-treatment, involving the primary
digestion of materials via aerobic (or other forms of digestion) or by leaching of materials.
It may be necessary for some specific waste streams (problematic waste streams) to
undergo primary decomposition, or pre-composting, as a pre-treatment to application to a
vermicomposting system. This form of pre-treatment can contribute to reducing the toxicity
of feedstock materials through the reduction of ammonia.
Leaching is another form of pre-treatment, engaged primarily to reduce salt levels in
feedstock materials, thereby improving acceptability to worms, and for improving the
quality of the final product..
These pre-processing options are used predominantly for manures and agricultural wastes
(Edwards, 1999). Such options may be engaged as a complimentary strategy to pre-
processing by mixing it with a bulking agent and a known preferential feedstock (Subler,
1999).
Carbon to Nitrogen (C:N) ratio

A high proportion of organic waste in a range of C&I sector waste streams, particularly
hospitality sector enterprises are food wastes, which tend to be rich in nitrogen. To ensure
efficient vermicomposting, these nitrogen rich materials should be blended with
complementary carbonaceous materials to achieve a C:N ratio of 20 – 25 parts carbon to
every one part of nitrogen on a dry matter basis (C:N ratio of 20-25:1).
These carbon rich materials are often referred to as bulking agents, as they provide
structural stability to the mix, allowing air exchange and continued aerobic conditions.
Such conditions are critical for optimal worm activity and worm survival.
Carbon rich materials that could be considered as bulking agents may include: shredded
paper; shredded cardboard; shredded leaves; compost; coconut fibre (coir); straw;
wood chips/sawdust; rotted manure. Paper and cardboard products are common waste
products of the C&I sector, and provide a useful on-site source of carbonaceous bulking
agents. Appropriate time and cost effective processes for size reduction and moistening of
such complementary materials are currently under investigation by the Green Waste
Technology Unit.
Inorganic Amendments
Amendments are often added to adjust pH to within accepted tolerances within the
bedding mass, and for incorporation into feedstocks prior to application.
Inorganic amendments available to increase pH include lime, dolomite, or rock dust.
These additives increase pH from the acid range (<7) towards neutrality (~7) required for
optimal earthworm activity.
Acidifying additives can be incorporated into a feedstock reduce pH of the feedstock mix
to below pH 8, and this alters the equilibrium between NH4+ and NH3 in the mix, thereby
reducing the presence of toxic ammonia.
Zeolite is sometimes added to systems primarily to contribute to odour control.
8.5.4 Loading Rates
Loading rate refers to the gross weight (kg) of a feedstock material that can be applied to a
vermicomposting unit or system (equivalence in mm thickness per square metre surface
feeding area) whilst maintaining aerobic conditions and moderate temperature range (15 –
30°C). Loading rate will be dependent upon: feedstock variables; compost worm species
employed; and to a lesser degree ambient temperatures which will impact on bedding
temperature.
Loading rate is expected to translate to a maximum thickness of feedstock material in a
“top feeding” system (the most efficient method for organic waste conversion to
vermicompost (Slocum, (1999). Feedstocks added in excess at any one time will result in:
• Composting: heat generated by microbial activity will be retained by the insulative
capacity of the feedstock, developing temperatures in excess of the appropriate range
for compost worms (20 - 30°C); and/or,
• Insufficient oxygen supply to the system due to limited diffusion through the excessive
feedstock thickness.
Each waste stream feedstock may have a different loading rate due to variance in physical
structure and chemical composition. For the relevant organic waste streams present in C&I
sector, loading rates are largely undocumented or unknown. The loading rate will also
vary according to the method of application.
Loading rate is a separate concept to sustainable processing capacity, or feedstock
throughput per unit time (see below).
Several application methods have been identified and assessed in the literature, including:
Horizontal (or wedge) feeding

Feed is applied to an 'open face' of the bedding, usually at a 45˚ angle, in an even layer,
often used in wedge and windrow systems;
Furrow feeding
Feed is applied in trenches across the bedding and usually covered with existing or fresh
bedding material;
Pocket feeding
Burying clumps or “hot spots” of feed into sections of the bedding, often employed in
domestic systems; and,
Vertical (surface layer or top) feeding

Feed is applied in a thin layer, approx 10 cm in depth, across the whole of the surface area
of the system and then covered with either existing bedding or fresh bedding material or
covers made of hessian, plastic, underfelt, etc.
Slocum (1999a) identified pocket and top feeding as the most common methods in use and
concluded that the choice of method largely depends on the individual's preferences.
Mitchell (1997) compared the performance of furrow, horizontal and vertical feed
application methods using cattle manure as the feedstock. His results suggested that
vertical feeding is the most efficient method for organic waste conversion to vermicompost,
promoting significant increases in worm biomass. However, layers of fresh feed should not
exceed 20 cm in depth due to the development of anaerobic conditions, which inhibits
earthworm penetration. The vertical feed application method is regarded by many as the
most efficient method and is commonly used in continuous flow systems.
Subler (1999), who has experimented with very large-scale top-feeding continuous flow
reactors at Ohio State University recommends 2.5 cm of feedstock per day, but adds that
this is very much an inexact science, it is only a “rule of thumb”.
“It depends on whether you're giving [applying] material that's already been pre-
heated or whether you're getting fresh material that is super high in readily available
carbon.” Subler (1999)
Carbon in pre-heated (pre-composted) material that has already started to decompose
(breakdown) and be transformed into microbial biomass, is readily amenable to processing
through worm activity. The decompositional state of the material, therefore will influence
the processing capacity of the system, enabling the application of higher loading rates.
Also, decomposing feedstocks have less energy to over-heat a system. Fresh feedstocks that
contain higher concentrations of available carbon should be added at a lower rate (relative
to pre-treated feedstocks) to reduce potential problems associated with heat production.
8.5.5 Carrying Capacity (Stocking Capacity)
Carrying capacity is defined as the total biomass in kilograms of worms that a specified
surface area (in square metres) can support under managed steady state environmental
conditions.
The maximum carrying capacity of biomass will vary widely depending upon:
environmental conditions; individual worm species or mix of species; number, age and
maturity of the population. Managed environmental conditions are identified above (in
sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 respectively).
The studies that focus on the different variables of composting worm growth, reproduction,
fecundity, population dynamics and species mix have produced varying results, as a result
it is very difficult to tease out quantitative data on carrying capacity.
Anecdotal evidence follows that the general ‘rule-of-thumb’ for estimating feedstock inputs
and inoculating density for a new bed is 5 kg of feedstock per 10 kg of worm biomass per
square metre surface area of bedding. For the purposes of on-site vermistabilisation of C&I
waste streams, we are more interested in carrying capacity than initial stocking rates for
purpose of natural increase and harvest of wormstock. It is important to note that
references to carrying capacity, stocking rates (Edwards, 1998), and references to steady-
state populations (Jefferies and Audsley, 1988) emphasise harvesting earthworm biomass
for export from the system as the primary motivation.
Murphy (1993) claims to have observed densities up to 10 kg of “commercial composting
worm” biomass per square metre of feeding surface in a manure feedstock. This is the
clearest figure representing steady state carrying capacity available in any of the literature.
Species type and mix

The five most common composting worm species found in Australia are identified in
section 4.3.
Polycultures of composting worms do not necessarily increase the stocking capacity (Elvira
et al, 1996) or the conversion of waste to castings (Neuhauser et al, 1988). It is also
suggested that populations of E. fetida and E. andrei should not be mixed because they will
engage inter-specific matings, which reduces cocoon fertility (Sheppard, 1988; Haimi,
1990). However, the commercial cultivation of compost worm species does not attempt to
separate E. fetida and E. andrei, maintaining that is neither necessary nor cost effective to
do so. Industry consultation identifies no known commercial source for the separate supply
of either E. fetida or E. andrei.
It is not clear whether a combination of composting worms and burrowing earthworms
would improve conversion rates and biomass increases, given the different habitat niches
these worms fill in natural ecosystems. Research is needed to investigate the use of
polycultures with a mix of these species (epigeic and anecic) to identify whether
productivity, processing capacity and biomass increases can be achieved.
Number, age and maturity

Studies on all five common species of composting worms have identified that an increase
in population density directly correlates with a decrease in: size and maturation per worm;
reproduction per worm and consumption per worm (Reeh, 1992; Dominguez and
Edwards, 1997; Frederickson et al, 1997). Dominguez and Edwards (1997) however, note
that high stocking rates influence an increase in conversion rates (Haimi and Huhta, 1986).
Hatchlings and juveniles increase in biomass faster and process more waste by body
weight than adults (Jefferies and Audsley, 1988; Mba, 1989; Viljoen and Reinecke, 1989,
1992; Reeh, 1992; Elvira et al, 1996b; Edwards et al, 1998; Edwards and Bater, 1992).
Haimi (1990) and Dominguez et al (1997b) observed that the individual body weight (of
0.4 g) for the species E. andrei tends to be a factor in its maturation from juvenile to
clitellated (breeding) adults. The maturation of individuals from preclitellate to clitellate
subsequently results in a reduction of the individuals food consumption and an increase in
reproductive activity.
Rate of Increase (cocoon production and fertility of cocoons)

Cocoon production and the viability of them will be affected by increases in biomass
(Edwards and Bater, 1992; Edwards et al, 1998;), feedstock type (Mba, 1989) and
availability (Reinecke and Viljoen, 1990).
Reinecke and Viljoen (1990) observed that regular feeding gave high growth and
reproduction rates and sporadic feeding or removal of feed decreased fertility.
Recommended carrying capacity

The literature fails to make any specific recommendation as to an optimum carrying
capacity for common compost worm species in a steady state system under managed
environmental conditions.
It is suggested that initial stocking rates be established at 10 kg per metre square of surface
feeding area as a best estimate of carrying capacity, and that subsequent experimental
design methodology monitor and document changes in worm biomass under managed
environmental conditions to assess the validity of this figure.
8.5.6 Processing Capacity (Conversion rate)
Processing capacity is defined as the maximum gross weight of a feedstock (kg) per unit
area (square metres) that can be applied per unit time under managed environmental
conditions. Processing capacity will vary with: environmental conditions; loading rate
(including feedstock variables); and, carrying capacity (including compost worm species
employed). Processing capacity directly correlates to the mass of organic waste that can be
diverted from landfill.
There is very little data on processing capacities which take into account all of the
variables which affect vermicomposting. No where in the literature is there a suitable set of
tables, or model, that will enable a clear estimate of processing capacity for specific waste
streams or feedstocks from combined waste steams. Such information would support the
successful application of on-site vermiculture technology as an organic waste management
option.
8.6 Other Variables in Vermicomposting

8.6.1 Square Metre Surface Feeding Area
Carrying capacities determined by volumetrically (m3) are inappropriate for
vermicomposting systems. Measurements based on surface feeding area (m2) is a more
appropriate way to determine the carrying capacity of a vermicomposting system. This is
because composting worms are not evenly distributed throughout the entire mass; they
tend to inhabit the top most 10 cm of a vermicomposting system where new feed is
present.
8.6.2 Bed Depth
It has been found that depths over 45 cm in vermicomposting systems results in
compaction, leading to reduce oxygen penetration and the formation of anaerobic
conditions and worm death. Three issues arise out of the compaction question:
• Technological design issues – the designed depth of a vermicomposting chamber, and

whether continuous flow reactors allow sufficient aeration through the system;
• Management issues –vermicomposting units are rarely aerated manually through
loosening of the bedding; and,
• Species selection issues – the addition of burrowing worms with composting worms (to
form a polyculture) to a vermicomposting system may assist with aeration of material
lower in the unit.
The depth of bedding required to support a worm population within a vermicomposting
unit is also important. The literature suggests that bedding depth should be maintained
between a minimum of 10 cm and a maximum of 45 cm. Above a depth of 45 cm,
compaction and anaerobic conditions form which may cause worm death. The upper limit
of bed depth may be exceeded if “tossing” of the bedding substrate is performed
periodically. Tossing reduces compaction and assists with aeration.
8.6.3 Inputs
Inputs into a vermicomposting system will be dependent upon the availability of materials
and the type of materials generated on-site. Inputs will be determined by a waste audit,
which will determine the quantities and type of organic matter generated. Once this is
determined, on-site bulking materials, if necessary, can be quantified. If there is no on-site
source for bulking materials then they will need to be imported for efficient operation of a
vermicomposting unit. The size of the vermicomposting system required for a given
situation can then be calculated.
8.6.4 Outputs
The products of a vermicomposting system include: worms; cocoons; castings; liquid; and,
education/replication. These outputs have been identified above in the Vermiculture in
Agriculture section except for the latter, education/replication.
There is a large amount of work being done by vermiculture practitioners to integrate
vermicomposting as a component of the school curriculum by installing vermicomposting
units in the school grounds (custom-made mid-scale units) and the classroom (small-scale
manufactured domestic units).
Education also occurs on-site where vermicomposting units have been installed at
commercial premises. Demonstrations are requested, people working in the vicinity ask
questions and are curious about the vermicomposting system, the worms themselves, and
quite often want some castings for their gardens at home, or worms for fishing. In some
cases, sale of castings, liquid and excess worms to staff and friends off-sets the capital cost
associated with the purchase of the system. These benefits have influenced the spread of
mid-scale units in hospitals in NSW (Lawler, 1999). From the positive experiences of one
hospital (Shoalhaven District Hospital, Nowra), several other hospitals have implemented
similar mid-scale units. These institutions sell castings, liquid and worms by word-of-
mouth, and through a newsletter. The vermicomposting system also results in reduced
tipping costs, and the savings incurred supports the employment of a vermicomposting
coordinator.
8.6.5 Stabilisation
Fresh castings produced by vermicomposting systems are well structured and moderately
stable. For a period a time following intensive earthworm activity, castings still undergo
decomposition by microorganisms. According to Subler (1999), vermicomposting systems
are susceptible to overheating when operating near their maximum processing capacity, as
the layer of castings which accumulate continue to be decomposed by microorganisms,
resulting in heat generation. Subler (1999) and Edwards (1999) both suggest that castings
need a short curing time after harvesting to ensure that the stabilisation process is
complete.
8.6.6 Transferability
Transferability refers to the process of adapting vermicomposting results from a small-scale
to a mid- or large-scale.
Laboratory-scale experiments reported in the research literature are often performed at the
micro-scale. For example, an experiment may be conducted in a small unit (<100 mL) with
less than 10 worms. Laboratory data from these types of experiments, as a consequence,
are not usually directly transferable to larger-scale units. Transferability of carrying
capacities, loading rates and processing capacities between different scales (ie. small-, mid-
to large-scale) is not known.
Some questions with regard to transferability include:
• Does carrying capacity and processing capacity change with the surface area of the
unit?
• Are larger systems more effective in processing problematic wastes, such as meat, fats,
seafood, dairy, and bulk citrus?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the impact of problematic wastes on small systems is
significantly greater than on larger systems. Informal comparisons between a mid-scale
vermiculture system trial (Kater, 1998) and a concurrent domestic vermicomposting trial
conducted at the University of New South Wales (Environment Management Program,
1999) suggested that mid-scale systems may be more tolerant of problematic wastes,
though the reasons for this were not determined.
Given the problems associated with the transferability of results between different sized
units, it is recommended that the results of small-scale trials be subsequently validated in
mid-scale units, of the type and scale most likely to be used for on-site treatment.
8.7 Organic Matter Treated Using Vermiculture

Almost all biological matter can be consumed by earthworms, though many organic
materials need some form of pre-processing and/or pre-treatment to be amendable for use
as a feedstock in vermicomposting.
Pre-processing may involve:
• Leaching – used to remove excess salts from the material;
• Size reduction – used to grind and reduce the particle size of the materials, which
increases the surface area available for microbial attack. This process can speed up the
rate of decomposition; and,
• Mixing – used to combine materials of contrasting chemical and physical
characteristics to achieve a suitable structure and balance of nutrients required for
decomposition (C:N ratio) (Edwards, 1995).
Pre-treatment may involve:
• Pre-treatment and/or some form of primary decomposition via composting, or like
process, to improve the digestibility of materials to worms, thereby increasing the rate
of decomposition. This process can also release ammonia, sometimes released by
materials high in protein under high pH conditions during the initial stages
vermicomposting;
Edwards (1995, 1998) recommends that mixed food wastes are processed by earthworms
more readily than mono-streams of specific waste types and result in a better
vermicompost product.
“Mixtures of several different materials can be processed more readily than

individual ones, are usually easier to maintain aerobically, and result in a better
product. This is primarily due to the wet and sloppy characteristics of some
materials, which require the addition of a bulking agent for better handling. Cattle
and horse manures, residuals from the paper industry, biosolids and urban organics
are particularly suitable for vermicomposting” (Edwards, 1995).
This claim is based on a wide range of research that documents investigations into the
successful processing of a broad range of appropriate mixes of specific waste streams using
vermiculture based systems.
8.8 Vermiculture Organics Processing Research

Organic wastes produced by agriculture, industry and urban environments, in many cases,
can be successfully vermicomposted when mixed with complementary materials to
achieve correct structure and nutrient balance. Vermicomposting of these mono-streams by
themselves, in most cases, cannot be achieved (for more detail, refer to Appendix 3 –
Annotated Bibliography). Faeces from sheep, cattle, dog, pig, horse, poultry, rabbit, duck,
turkey and fish; sewage sludge; biosolids and domestic toilets; greywater; olive cake;
abattoir wastes; paper mill pulp; brewery wastes; potato waste; mushroom compost; coffee
pulp; cotton residues, and dry leaves can all be successfully vermicomposted when
combined with complementary materials.
C&I waste streams that are amenable to vermicomposting include: pastry/bread; lawn
clippings and yard debris; shredded paper and cardboard; mixed meat and poultry;
seafood; vegetable waste; dairy; pet faeces; and mixed food waste (pre and post consumer
as well as cooked and uncooked).
Studies that have evaluated the feasibility of vermicomposting C&I waste streams are listed
below:
• Green waste – yard debris (Edwards, 1995; Frederickson et al, 1997);

• Vegetable scraps (Shanthi et al, 1993);
• Domestic food waste (Haimi, 1990; Haimi and Huhta, 1988);
• Commercial food waste (Edwards, 1995; Kater, 1998);
• Bakery waste (Greenscene, no date);
• Commercial kitchen scraps (Scott, 1998);
• Kitchen waste (Gosh et al, 1999).
There appears to be a significant information gap in the research literature with regard to
many of the variables which affect on-site vermicomposting processes, and the range and
combination of wastes which can be treated.
Studies have tended to focus broadly on whether vermicomposting can be applied
successfully, and not on the determination of processing capacities per unit area per unit
time per worm biomass. Studies have also tended to fail to monitor key environmental
variables, all of which are important for intensive, on-site metropolitan-based systems.
Furthermore, vermicomposting system design and performance is rarely documented in the
literature.
8.9 Australian Mid-scale Vermicomposting
8.9.1 Units Identified
Table 2: Mid-scale vermicomposting units identified in this study.
Surface Claimed Maximum Price
Unit Name System Feeding Maximum Bedding
(retail -
(manufacturer) Type Area (m2) Processing Depth
Capacity excluding
(mm)
(kg/wk) worm stock)
Tray System Tray 2.88 70-230 200 $1800

(The Worm Network)
Worm Wigwam Continuous 0.64 31.5 500 $1000
Flow
(USA Import) diameter
0.9m.
Eliminator 1200 Continuous 0.58 ~45 450 $597
Flow
(V.R.I.)
Eliminator 1800 Continuous 0.87 ~67.5 450 $820
Flow
(V.R.I.)
Eliminator 2400 Continuous 1.16 ~90 450 $1420
Flow
(V.R.I.)
Vermi-Converter Continuous 9.5 100 - 250 1000 Ex tax $8,000
Flow (incl training +
2000 (1.5 x 2.3
30kg stock +
footprint)
(Vital Earth Company) follow up.
Vermi-Converter Continuous ~ 18 to 450 - 1300 $9,000

Flow 500 (incl training +
4000 (1.8 x 2.3
30kg stock +
footprint)
(Vital Earth Company) follow up.
Tumbleweed Continuous 1.21 Untested7u 650 $1000 est.

Flow
(Tumbleweed)
Raised Worm Ranch Continuous 1.58 65 Rec < $400
Flow 300 DIY materials
(Inst. Local Self Reliance)
OSCR Continuous 1.08 47 300 $550 est.
Flow
(Oregon Soil
Corporation)
Worrigee Batch 1.2 35 400 $400 est.
(Shoalhaven Hospital)
Four additional systems were identified, though repeated contact failed to secure a
response. Some data on these systems was collated and this has been placed in Appendix
5. Therefore, it is presumed that these systems are no longer available or being
manufactured, or the business has ceased operating. These systems are:
• ‘Enviro Bin’ by Vermi Co-op;
• ‘Vermitainer’ by Vermiculture Waste Management;
• ‘W.O.S. Bin’ by Network Composting Systems; and,
• ‘O.O.R.M. mark II’ by Worms R' Us, Sydney.
All, except two, of the mid-scale vermicomposting systems identified in Table 2 above
operate on a continuous flow principle, one being a tray system and the other a batch
system. The abundance of continuous flow systems on the market possibly reflects the
simplicity and effectiveness of the design and its ease of use.
The last three units identified in Table 2 are do-it-yourself (DIY) units. Of these: the ‘Raised
Worm Ranch’ (designed by Angus Campbell) is a low cost, robust system specifically for
schools. This system is now in common use in schools in the Sydney region; the ‘Worrigee’
is used by several hospitals in New South Wales, originating from Nowra; and, the ‘OSCR’
is a North American design used extensively in the USA and Canada for schools, non-profit
groups and café's. The DIY units are much cheaper to install, often using recycled
materials in their construction. These units are most commonly installed in places where
profit is not a motive and money can be made from the sale of products by word-of-mouth,
or through free advertising. It should be noted that costs presented in Table 2 are retail and
they do not include the cost of start up stock (unless indicated otherwise).
As shown in Table 2, the claimed processing capacity of these systems varies considerably
with product design and bedding depth. Most units are designed on the principle that
depth should not exceed 45 cm, appropriate to avoidance of excessive compaction.
8.9.2 Issues Impacting on Mid-scale Implementation
Processing Capacity/Feed Surface Area per Footprint Area

It is worth noting that with most commercial data, processing capacity of the system is
almost always exaggerated, perhaps because there is no independent mechanism or
agency in place that can validate their claims.
The loading rate per surface feeding area has been discussed in some detail above (see
section 8.5.4). However, with respect to many C&I sector enterprises, space availability
may provide significant limitations to on-site installations. Tray systems, for example, such
as the Worm Network product (Table 2), and new designs like the Vermi-Converter may
provide the opportunity for on-site installations where space limitations exist, by providing
greater surface feeding area and potentially higher processing capacity per unit footprint.
Processing Capacity and Infrastructure Investment

Processing capacity will determine the size of the vermiculture system required, and the
infrastructure investment necessary to treat waste on-site. It is outside the scope of this
report to recommend any system, as the vermicomposting units identified are new market
entrants, are still in product development, and have not been independently assessed to
confirm their performance.
On-site Management vs Source Separated Collection
On-site organic waste management options are only likely to succeed if they are seen to
be:
• Effective and financially viable;

• Pose no unreasonable health or safety risk;
• Easily manageable; and,
• That appropriate training and support services are available.
The issues above pose real and/or perceived barriers to adoption of on-site systems.
Consideration of on-site technologies may be motivated by, and intrinsically related to
perceptions that such options have the least environmental impact. Whilst environmental
consideration may motivate consideration of on-site management, organic waste
management choices will largely revolve around financial incentives, and overcoming
existing barriers as identified above.
Maintenance/Management
Issues of management and maintenance are possibly the most important considerations
with regard to on-site vermicomposting. These issues have been discussed in more detail
above (see section 8.5.1)
Cost
Cost will always be a determining factor in technology choice. Absolute cost and relative
costs (compared to disposal) are both relevant.
Associated costs of management include:
• Training of and management by existing staff; or,
• Engaging a management contract.

There are a lack of adequate training opportunities available for appropriate skills
development amongst existing staff. The true costs of on-site management are often under
estimated. If staff turn over is high, a management contract may be the only viable option.
In many instances, management agreements are likely to be cost prohibitive.
End Goals (e.g. waste conversion oriented or product output oriented)

If an organisation’s objective is organic waste treatment to avoid costs associated with
disposal in landfill, the relevant selection criteria for evaluating technology and
management options will reflect these objectives. If the primary objective is to produce
horticultural products for a specific purpose, the relevant selection criteria may differ
significantly. The objectives of the organisation or enterprise, and site specific information
should be of primary concern in the evaluation of on-site options.
Management support
Operation of on-site installations by staff requires management support. Time must be
allocated to develop and institute a separate waste collection system, to educate and
support staff in source separation, to prepare and apply feedstocks, to perform maintenance
as required, and to ensure that the system is functioning effectively.
9. Recommendations
9.1 Vermicomposting Trials
A. Food Preference Trials
Consideration should be given to conducting simple food preference trials for the three
main temperate composting worm species on specific C&I waste streams utilising the
methodology developed by Doube et al (1997). The choice chamber method involves a
seven day study period, and provides a simple and inexpensive process for evaluating food
preferences of earthworms for various applications. The knowledge generated from this
will assist in the development of recommendations for feedstock mixes, and for pre-
processing and/or pre-treatment requirements for specific waste streams.
B. Specific Waste Mono-streams Trial
As identified in this report, there is no background data available on the carrying capacity,
loading rates or processing capacity for specific waste mono-streams. This trial should aim
to:
• Determine processing capacity of vermiculture systems for specific waste mono-

streams of feedstock mixtures derived from C&I sector organic wastes;
• Apply resulting data on these specific waste mono-streams to extrapolation into tables
(with due consideration of appropriate environmental conditions for vermicomposting)
designed to facilitate determination of the processing capacity of vermiculture systems
with regard to the application of ‘typical’ mixed waste stream feedstocks; and,
• Quantify and document the peak (steady state) worm carrying capacity in biomass per
square metre surface area under managed conditions.
Trial data should be relevant to both small scale (domestic) and mid scale (on-site C&I
sector) vermiculture technologies.
C. Mixed Waste Streams Trial
The purpose of this trial will be to:
• Assess the processing capacity of vermiculture systems for “typical” mixed organic
wastes from C&I sector enterprises (ie. café, restaurant, bakery, etc.)
• Evaluate and improve accuracy of the processing capacity estimates for mixed waste
based feedstocks from the tables generated out of trial B;
• Establish initial processing capacity per investment in vermiculture infrastructure (as
relevant to on-site application);
• Calculate processing capacity per investment in worm stock.; and,
• Quantify under a scientific trial processing capacity of small scale (domestic)
vermiculture units.
D. On-Site Bulking Agents Trial
With the objective of maximising the use of on-site materials, this trial will involve the:
• Identification of on-site size reduction processes for suitable bulking agents materials;
and,
• Assess the processing capacity of specific waste streams when combined with a range
of different bulking agents commonly found on-site, such as papers, cardboards, saw
dust, etc.
E. Transferability Trial
As identified in the report, the transferability of results generated on small bench testing
units to mid scale or to large scale on-site vermiculture units is not known. The purpose of
this trial is to:
• Determine the transferability of processing capacity data represented in the tables
(developed in trial B and refined in trials C & D) to be applied at different scales (unit
2
scales by m surface feeding area) given same carrying capacity, species,
environmental conditions, feedstock variables, etc;
• Establish standard management and monitoring regime and associated manual;
• Quantify processing capacity per total investment (infrastructure + worm stock); and
• Provide detailed and accurate cost benefit analysis of on-site organic waste
management options.
F. Development of Resources
As identified in the report, the outcomes of these trials will make a significant contribution
to the gaps in our knowledge base concerning best practice management of on-site C&I
vermicomposting installations and the development of specific resources that address
management and maintenance issues. Support for successful implement of on-site
vermiculture system installations requires development of:
• Data and tables to determine processing capacity for specific and mixed waste streams
so that the size of a vermicomposting system, required worm stock for managing a
given waste stream (as determined by waste audit) may be calculated and costed;
• Manual(s) for mid scale, on-site vermiculture system management, including regular
monitoring and maintenance requirements, appropriate equipment and associated
techniques; and,
• Appropriate skills based training program(s) for development and management of on-
site organic waste management installations.
9.2 On-Site Technology Options
On-site mid-scale vermicomposting systems are not the only options for the on-side
management of organic wastes. Vermicomposting systems possess significant potential for
on-site application, however, even in conjunction with pre-processing methods, they have
certain (but unquantified) limitations with respect to treating the ‘problematic’ waste
streams, such as meat and dairy.
It is recommended that an investigation of alternative on-site organic waste management
technology options available be engaged, and that the application of such technologies be
assessed so that C&I sector enterprises are well positioned to evaluate the full range of on-
site processing options available. Note that the Green Waste Technology Unit is currently
engaged in preliminary investigations of such alternative technologies.
9.2 Particle Size Reduction Technology
The performance of on-site systems, whether vermiculture- or composting-based, will
benefit markedly from pre-processing in the form of size reduction of food wastes and
blending with carbonaceous bulking agents. Technology that is available for this purpose is
cost prohibitive for the vast majority of hospitality and other C&I sector on-site
applications. Exploration and development of appropriate, cost effective technology that is
capable of appropriate size reduction for the range of food wastes and complementary
bulking agent wastes for blending to produce feedstocks for on-site systems is required.
It is recommended that cost effective technologies for size reduction for on-site pre-
processing of organic wastes be investigated. Note that the Green Waste Technology Unit
is currently engaged in preliminary investigations of such alternative technologies.
10. References
Abbott, J. and Atkins, I. (1997) Problems with vermiculture - where to for the industry? In
Compost 97: green putrescible waste management beyond 2000. Proceedings of
Compost 97 Conference held 14-15 July 1997, Brisbane. Waste Management
Research Unit: Griffith University, Brisbane.
Applehof, M. (ed.) (1981) Workshop on the Role of Earthworms in the Stabilisation of
Organic Residues. Vol.1, Proceedings. Beech Leaf Press: Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Applehof, M. (1988) Domestic vermicomposting systems. In Earthworms in Waste and
Environmental Management (eds, C.A. Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser). Academic
Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Applehof, M. (1997) Worms Eat My Garbage. Flower Press: Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Applehof, M., Fenton, M.F. and Harris, B.L. (1993) Worms Eat Our Garbage: classroom
activities for a better environment. Flower Press: Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Applehof, M., Webster, K. and Buckerfield, J. (1996) Vermicomposting in Australia and
New Zealand. BioCycle 37 (6): 63-66.
Australian Worm Growers Association (AWGA) (1999) Draft Industry "Minimalist" Best
Practice Guidelines.
Baker, G.H. (1998) The ecology, management, and benefits of earthworms in agricultural
soils, with particular reference to southern Australia. In Earthworm Ecology (ed. C.A.
Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Baker, G. and Barrett, V. (1994) Earthworm Identifier. CSIRO Publications: East
Melbourne.
Baker, G. and Kilpin, G. (1992) CSIRO's Double Helix Science Club Earthworm Identifier.
CSIRO Publications: East Melbourne.
Benitez, E., Nogales, R., Elvira, C., Masciandaro, G. and Ceccanti, B. (1999) Enzyme
activities as indicators of the stabilization of sewage sludges composting with Eisenia
foetida. Bioresource Technology, 67: 297-303.
Bhawalker, U. (1999) Vermiculture Ecotechnology. BERI: Pune, India.
BioCycle, (1998) Edwards, C.A., in, Report on the BioCycle West Coast Conference.
Held March 1998, Seattle, Washington.
Boggess, J. and Frankel, S.Z. (1997) The art of small-scale vermicomposting and
vermiculture ecotechnology. Worm Digest, 16: 24-25.
Bonvicini-Pagliai, A.M. and Omodeo, P. (eds) (1987) On Earthworms. Proceedings of 4th
International Symposium Earthworm Ecology. Selected Symposia and Monographs 2.
Mucchi Editore: Moderna, Italy.
Brown, A. (1994) Earthworms Unlimited: backyard earthworm breeding. Kangaroo Press:
Kenthurst, NSW.
Buckerfield, J.C. (1994) Appropriate earthworms for agriculture and vermiculture.
Technical Report, 2/1994. CSIRO Australia, Division of Soils: Adelaide.
Buckerfield, J. and Wiseman, D. (1996) Earthworm research goes to school. Worm Digest
13: 6.
Butt, K.R. (1993) Utilisation of solid paper-mill sludge and spent brewery yeast as a feed
for soil-dwelling earthworms. Bioresource Technology, 44: 105-107.
Campbell, A. (1998) The Raised Worm Ranch. Institute for Local Self Reliance, NSW:
Newtown, NSW.
Carroll, P. (1999) If You Didn't Eat Your Greens: a practical guide for managing green
waste in schools. SCRAP, NSW: Liverpool, NSW.
Chan, P.L.S. and Griffiths, D.A. (1988) The vermicomposting of pre-treated pig manure.
Biological Wastes, 24: 57-69.
Cheal and Lewis, (1997) Vermiculture - an industry perspective. In Compost 97: green
putrescible waste management beyond 2000. Proceedings of Compost 97 Conference
held 14-15 July 1997, Brisbane. Waste Management Research Unit: Griffith
University, Brisbane.
Christenson, C. and McLachlan, S. (1994) The Reln Worm Factory Education Booklet:
primary school. Reln Pty. Ltd.
Cornish, P. (1998) The ASUC project: Berkeley worms. Worm Digest, 19: 4-5, 7.
Curry, J.P. (1998) Factors affecting earthworm abundance in soils. In Earthworm Ecology
(ed. C.A. Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Dominguez, J. (1997) Testing the impact of vermicomposting. BioCycle, 38 (4): 58.
Dominguez, J. and Edwards, C.A. (1997) Effects of stocking rate and moisture content on
the growth and maturation of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) in pig manure. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry, 29 (3/4): 743-746.
Dominguez, J., Edwards, C.A. and Subler, S. (1997a) A comparison of vermicomposting
and composting. BioCycle, 38 (4): 57-59.
Dominguez, J., Briones, M.J.I. and Mato, S. (1997b) Effect of diet on growth and
reproduction of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia, 41: 566-
576.
Doube, B.M. and Brown, G.G. (1998) Life in a complex community: functional
interactions between earthworms, organic matter, microorganisms, and plants. In
Earthworm Ecology (ed. C.A. Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Doube, B.M., Schmidt, O., Killham, K. and Correll, R. (1997) Influence of mineral soil on
the palatability of organic matter for Lumbricid earthworms: a simple food preference
study. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29 (3/4): 569-575.
Edwards, C.A. (1988) Breakdown of animal, vegetable and industrial organic wastes by
earthworms. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A.
Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser). Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Edwards, C.A. (1995) Historical overview of vermicomposting. BioCycle, 36 (6): 56-58.
Edwards, C.A. (ed.) (1997) ISEE 5, 5th International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology
held in 1994. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 29 (3/4): 215-766.
Edwards, C.A. (ed.) (1998a) Earthworm Ecology. St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Edwards, C.A. (1998b) The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of
organic wastes. In Earthworm Ecology (ed., C.A. Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca
Raton, Florida.
Edwards, C.A. (1999) Interview with Dr. Clive Edwards - part two. Casting Call, 4 (2): 3-
7.
Edwards C.A. (forthcoming) Manual of Vermicomposting.
Edwards, C.A. and Bater, J.E. (1992) The use of earthworms in environmental
management. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24 (12): 1683-1689.`
Edwards, C.A. and Bohlen, P.J. (1996) Biology and Ecology of Earthworms. 3rd edn.
Chapman & Hall: London.
Edwards, C.A. and Burrows, I. (1988) The potential of earthworm compost as plant
growth media. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A.
Edwards, C.A. and Lofty, J. R. (1972) Biology of Earthworms. Chapman & Hall: London.
Edwards, C.A. and Lofty, J. R. (1977) Biology of Earthworms. 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall:
London.
Edwards, C.A. and Neiderer, A. (1988) The production and processing of earthworm
protein. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A. Edwards
& E.F. Neuhauser). Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Edwards, C.A. and Neuhauser, E.F. (eds) (1988) Earthworms in Waste and Environmental
Management. Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Edwards, C.A. and Shipitalo, M.J. (1998) Consequences of earthworms in agricultural
soils: aggregation and porosity. In Earthworm Ecology (ed. C.A. Edwards). St. Lucie
Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Edwards, C.A. and Steele, J. (1997) Using earthworm systems. BioCycle, 38 (7): 63-64.
Edwards, C.A., Dominguez, J. and Neuhauser, E.F. (1998) Growth and reproduction of
Perionyx excavatus (Perr.) (Megascolidae) as factors in organic waste management.
Biology and Fertility of Soils, 27: 155-161.
Edwards, C.A., Burrows, I., Fletcher, K.E. and Jones, B.A. (1985) The use of earthworms
for composting farm wastes. In Composting of Agricultural and Other Wastes (ed.
J.K.R. Gasser). Elsevier Publications: Amsterdam.
Eijsackers, H. (1998) Earthworms in environmental research: still a promising tool. In
Elvira, C., Dominguez, J. and Mato, S. (1996a) The growth and reproduction of Lumbicus
rubellus and Dendrobaena rubida in cow manure mixed cultures with Eisenia andrei.
Applied Soil Ecology, 5: 97-103.
Elvira, C., Goicoechea, M., Sampedro, L., Mato, S. and Nogales, R. (1996b)
Bioconversion of solid paper-pulp mill sludge by earthworms. Bioresource
Technology, 57: 173-177.
Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Benitez, E. and Nogales, R. (1998) Vermicomposting of sludge
from paper mill and dairy industries with Eisenia andrei: a pilot-scale study.
Bioresource Technology, 63: 205-211.
Environment Management Program, (1999) Domestic compost bin and worm farm
research project. University of New South Wales: Sydney, Australia.
Fayolle, L., michaud, H., Cluzeau, D. and Stawiecki, J. (1997) Influence of temperature
and food source on the life cycle of the earthworm Dendrobaena veneta (Oligochaeta).
Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29 (3/4): 747-750.
Frankel, S.Z. and Boggess, J. (1997) Restaurants/food co-op plan a vermiprocessing
demonstration site. Worm Digest, 16: 8-9.
Frankel, S.Z. and Boggess, J. (1998) Vermiprocessing demonstration site. Worm Digest,
17: 8-9.
Frederickson, J., Butt, K.R., Morris, R.M. and Daniel, C. (1997) Combining vermiculture
with traditional green waste composting systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29
(3/4): 725-730.
Gosh, M., Chattopadhyay, G.N. and Baral, K. (1999) Transformation of phosphorus
during vermicomposting. Bioresource Technology, 69: 149-154.
Greenscene, (no date) Report on the Patchetts Pies Vermicomposting Trial. Unpublished
report for the Southern Sydney Waste Board, NSW. Greenscene Australia: Avalon,
NSW.
Greig-Smith, P.W., Becker, H., Edwards, P.J. and Heimbach, F. (eds) (1992) Ecotoxicology
of Earthworms. Intercept Publishers: Andover, U.K.
Grossman, S.C. and Weitzel, M.T. (1997) Recycle With Earthworms: the red wriggler
connection. Shields Publications: Eagle River, Wisconson.
Haimi, J. and Huhta, V. (1986) Capacity of various organic residues to support adequate
earthworm biomass for vermicomposting. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 2: 23-27.
Haimi, J. (1990) Growth and reproduction of the compost-living earthworms Eisenia
andrei E. fetida. Revue D'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 27 (4): 415-421.
Haimi, J. and Huhta, V. (1988) Comparison of composts produced from identical wastes
by "vermistabilisation" and conventional composting. Pedobiologia, 30: 137-144.
Hallatt, L., Reinecke, A.J. and Viljoen, S.A. (1990) Life cycle of the oriental compost
worm Perionyx excavatus (Oligochaeta). South African Journal of Zoology, 25 (1): 41-
45.
Hand, P. (1988) Earthworm biotechnology (vermicomposting). In Resources and
Applications of Biotechnology: the new wave (ed. R. Greenshields). MacMillan:
London.
Hand, P., Hayes, W.A., Satchell, J.E. and Frankland, J.C. (1988) The vermicomposting of
cow slurry. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A.
Hartenstein, R. (ed.) (1978) Utilization of Soil Organisms in Sludge Management.
National Technology Information Service: Springfield, Virginia.
Hendrix, P.F. (ed.) (1995) Ecology and Biogeography of Earthworms in North America.
Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, Florida.
Hendrix, P.F. (1998) Earthworms in Agroecosystems: a summary of current research. In
Holcombe, D. and Longfellow, J.J. (1995) Oregon Soil Corporation Reactor: blueprint for
a successful vermiculture compost system. Oregon Soil Corporation: Eugene, Oregon.
Jefferies, I.R. and Audsley, E. (1988) A population model for the earthworm Eisenia
foetida. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A. Edwards &
E.F. Neuhauser). Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Jensen, J. (1998) The KISS plan for vermicomposting on modern dairy…or horse…or hobby
farm. Worm Digest, 18: 1-3.
Kater, J. (1998) The Continuous Flow Worm Bed for On-site Organic Waste Management.
Report of a project funded by the New South Wales Government Waste Reduction
Grants Program. New South Wales Environment Protection Authority: Sydney.
Kretschmar, A. (ed.) (1992) ISEE 4, 4th International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology
held in 1990. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 24 (12): 1193-774.
Kretschmar, A. (1998) Earthworm interactions with soil organisation. In Earthworm
Ecology (ed. C.A. Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Lambert, D. (1994) Earthworm Breeding for Profit: practical production and marketing of
earthworms in Australia and New Zealand. David Lambert: Naremburn, NSW.
Lawler, M. (1999) pers. com. Meeting in Nowra, NSW, on 1st October, 1999.
Lee, K.E. (1985) Earthworms: their ecology and relationships with soils and land use.
Academic Press: Sydney.
Lotzof, M. (1998) Successful biosolids benefication with Vermitech's large-scale
commercial vermiculture facility in Redlands. Waste Disposal and Water Management
in Australia Sept/Oct: 3-13.
Mba, C. (1989) Biomass and vermicompost production by the earthworm Eudrilus
eugeniae (Kinberg). Revista de Biologica Tropical, 37 (1): 11-14.
Mill, F.C. (1993) Composting as a process based on the control of ecologically selected
factors. In Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental
Management (ed. F. Blaine Metting Jr.), pp. 515-544. Marcell Dekker Publishing: New
York, U.S.A.
Mitchell, A. (1997) Production of Eisenia fetida and vermicompost from feed-lot cattle
manure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29 (3/4): 763-766.
Moran, R. (1999) pers. com. Meeting in Oatlands, NSW, on 14th October, 1999.
Murphy, D. (1993) Earthworms in Australia: a blueprint for a better environment. Hyland
House: South Melbourne.
Natoli, J. (1996) Worming into the community. Worm Digest 13: 20-23.
Neuhauser, E.F., Loehr, R.C. and Malecki, M.R. (1988) The potential of earthworms for
managing sewage sludge. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management
(eds, C.A. Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser). Academic Publishing: The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Payne, B. (1999) The Worm Café: mid-scale vermicomposting of lunchroom wastes - a
manual for schools, small businesses, and community groups. Flower Press:
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Petit, J.M. (1996) Getting Started in Commercial Worm Farming. Jacky M. Petit: Wandi,
WA.
Reeh, U. (1992) Influence of population densities on growth and reproduction of the
earthworm Eisenia andrei on pig manure. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24 (12):
1327-1331.
Reinecke, A.J. and Viljoen, S.A. (1990) The influence of feeding patterns on growth and
reproduction of the vermicomposting earthworm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta). Biology
and Fertility of Soils, 10: 184-187.
Reinecke, A.J. and Reinecke, S.A. (1998) The use of earthworms in ecotoxicological
evaluation and risk assessment: new approaches. In Earthworm Ecology (ed. C.A.
Edwards). St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, Florida.
Reinecke, A.J., Viljoen, S.A. and Saayman, R.J. (1992) The suitability of Eudrilus eugeniae,
Perionyx excavatus and Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta) for vermicomposting in southern
Africa in terms of their temperature requirements. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24
(12): 1295-1307.
Reln, (1996) Better waste minimisation through better design. Worm Digest 13: 9, 13.
Sabine, J.R. (1988) Earthworms as animal feed: an overview. In Earthworms in Waste and
Environmental Management (eds, C.A. Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser). Academic
Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Satchell, J.E. (ed.) (1983) Earthworm Ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Chapman &
Hall: London.
Satchell, J.E. and Martin, K. (1985) A Bibliography of Earthworm Research. Institute of
Terrestrial Ecology: Grange-over-Sands, U.K.
Scarborough, J. (1999) BioGreen Castings: scientifically assessing the merits of
vermicomposting biosolid and green waste mixes. Unpublished report for The Wast
Challenge, EPA, NSW. Bathurst City Council, NSW.
Scott, S. (1998) Enterprise Bargaining - too far? Press Release by The Worm Network,
17th September, 1998.
Scott, S. (1999) pers. com. Meeting in Ultimo, NSW, on 1st October 1999.
Shanthi, N.R., Bhoyar, R.V. and Bhide, A.D. (1993) Vermicomposting of vegetable waste.
Compost Science & Utilization, 1 (4): 27-30.
Sheppard, P.S. (1988) Specific differences in coccoon and hatchling production in E.
fetida and E. andrei. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds,
C.A. Edwards & E.F. Neuhauser). Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Slocum, K. (1998) Myriad worms: choosing the right one for the job. Worm Digest, 19: 1,
19-21.
Slocum, K. (1999a) Worm composting system management. Worm Digest, 21: 16-18.
Slocum, K. (1999b) The worms themselves. Worm Digest, 21: 10-11.
Slocum, K. and Frankel, S.Z. (1998) The art of small-scale vermicomposting. Worm
Digest, 21.
Stafford, E.A. and Tacon, A.G.J. (1988) The use of earthworms as a food for rainbow trout
Salmo gairdneri. In Earthworms in Waste and Environmental Management (eds, C.A.
Subler, S. (1999) Interview with Dr. Scott Subler. Casting Call, 4 (3): 4-8.
Subler, S., Edwards, C.A. and Metzger, J. (1998) Comparing vermicomposts and
composts. BioCycle, 39 (7): 63-68.
Venter, J.M. and Reinecke, A.J. (1988) The life-cycle of the compost worm Eisenia fetida
(Oligochaeta). South African Journal of Zoology, 23: 161-165.
Viljoen, S.A. and Reinecke, A.J. (1989) Life-cycle of the African nightcrawler, Eudrilus
eugeniae (Oligochaeta). South African Journal of Zoology, 24 (1): 27-32.
Viljoen, S.A. and Reinecke, A.J. (1992) The temperature requirements of the epigeic
earthworm species Eudrilus eugeniae (Oligochaeta) - a laboratory study. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry, 24 (12): 1345-1350.
Werner, M. (1997) Earthworms team up with yard trimmings in orchard. BioCycle, 38
(6): 64-65.
White, S. (1995) Vermifiltration of sewage. Worm Digest, 8: 10-11.
Williams, T. (1994) Worm your way through waste: a financially viable, ecologically
sustainable, practical alternative. In Compost 94: options for management of organic
waste. Proceedings of Compost 94 Conference held 3-4 May 1994, Brisbane. Waste
Management Research Unit: Griffith University, Brisbane.
Williams, T.G. (no date) Worms in commercial waste management. In 3rd National
Hazardous & Solid Waste Convention. Conference Proceedings of the 3rd National
Hazardous & Solid Waste Convention & Trade Exhibition.
Wilson, E. (1999) Worm Farm Management: practices, principles, procedures. Kangaroo
Press: Sydney, Australia.
Windust, A. (1994) Worms Downunder Downunder: for farm, garden, schools, profit and
recycling. Allscape: Mandurang, Vic.
Windust, A. (1997) Worm Farming Made Simple. Allscape: Mandurang, Vic.
Wong, S.H. and Griffiths, D.A. (1991) Vermicomposting in the management of pig-waste
in Hong Kong. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 7: 593-597.

Literature Review of Worms in Waste Management: Volume 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Literature Review of Worms in Waste Management: Volume 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Literature Review of Worms in

Contact: Angus Campbell

Copyright © Recycled Organics Unit, 1999.

This document is and shall remain the property of the

• Australian mid-scale vermicomposting.

3.2 Vermilogical Research

3.3 Waste Management

4.2 Industry Sectors

4.3 Earthworms in Waste Management

1. the recent failure of worm farming buy-back schemes;

5.2 Earthworm Categories

5.3 Common Compost Worm Species

5.4 Other Compost Worm Species

5.5 Compost Worm Knowledge

5.7 Compost Worm Consumption Rates

5.8 Vermicompost/Vermicast as a Medium

6.2 Worm Farming

6.3 Vermiculture Products

6.4 Farming with Worms

8.2 Scale Clarified

Table 1: Definitions of scale for vermicomposting operations and units

Quantity Scale < 20 kg/wk 20 - 250 kg/wk > 250 kg/wk

8.4 Variables in Vermicomposting

8.5 Key Variables in Vermicomposting

Salt & Ammonia

Type or mix (waste stream)

MC Code Description MTC MDC MDSC1C Broad Description

0 Mixed Waste 0 0 0 Mixed Waste

B01 Organic Compostable Food B B01 Organic Compostable

B011 Fruit & vegetable B B01 B011 Organic Compostable

B012 Meat & poultry B B01 B012 Organic Compostable

B013 Fats & oils B B01 B013 Organic Compostable

B016 Dairy (solid and liquid) B B01 B016 Organic Compostable

B019 Biodegradeables (cutlery, bags, polymers) B B01 B019 Organic Compostable

B02 Organic Compostable Garden B B02 Organic Compostable

B021 Putrescible (grass clippings) B B02 B021 Organic Compostable

B022 Non-woody (<5mm diameter) B B02 B022 Organic Compostable

B023 Woody(>5mm diameter) B B02 B023 Organic Compostable

B024 Trees / limbs (>150mm diameter) B B02 B024 Organic Compostable

B03 Organic Compostable Other Putrescible B B03 Organic Compostable

C Other Organic C Other Organic

C01 Other Organic Wood/timber C C01 Other Organic

C011 Wood furniture C C01 C011 Other Organic

C012 pallets, packaging, offcuts C C01 C012 Other Organic

C013 sawdust C C01 C013 Other Organic

C014 shavings C C01 C014 Other Organic

C016 Treated timber C C01 C016 Other Organic

I Earth Based I Earth Based

Carbon to Nitrogen (C:N) ratio

Horizontal (or wedge) feeding

Vertical (surface layer or top) feeding

Species type and mix

Number, age and maturity

Rate of Increase (cocoon production and fertility of cocoons)

Recommended carrying capacity

8.6 Other Variables in Vermicomposting

• Technological design issues – the designed depth of a vermicomposting chamber, and

8.7 Organic Matter Treated Using Vermiculture

“Mixtures of several different materials can be processed more readily than

8.8 Vermiculture Organics Processing Research

• Green waste – yard debris (Edwards, 1995; Frederickson et al, 1997);

Tray System Tray 2.88 70-230 200 $1800

Vermi-Converter Continuous ~ 18 to 450 - 1300 $9,000