A COMPARISON OF ORGANIC AND CHEMICAL

FERTILIZERS FOR TOMATO PRODUCTION

H. Kochakinezhad1, Gh. Peyvast2, A.K. Kashi1, J.A. Olfati2*
& A. Asadii2
1.Islamic Azad University, Karaj branch, Karaj, Iran I.R.
2. University of Guilan, Horticultural Department, Rasht, Iran I.R.
*Email: jamalaliolfati[a]gmail.com

Abstract
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is one of the most popular and versatile
vegetables in the world, and organic production with a high yield and desirable quality is a
target of many producers. The effect of four different fertilizers (chemical, municipal solid
Archived at http://orgprints.org/24273

waste compost, cattle manure, and spent mushroom compost) on four commercial
tomato cultivars (Redstone, Flat, Peto Pride and Chief) was assessed in this research.
The highest yield was obtained with the Chief cultivar when fertilized with chemical
fertilizer and the lowest value was obtained with Peto Pride fertilized with 20 tonnes per
hectare (t/ha) of cow manure. The difference between the two classes of fertilizers
(organic and chemical) was not very high so that organic fertilizers are competitive and
may be a suitable replacement for chemical fertilizer. According to our results, to achieve
maximum yields with organic fertilizers, 20 t/ha of spent mushroom compost can be
recommended for the Redstone cultivar, 30 t/ha of cow manure for Flat, 300 t/ha of
municipal solid waste compost for Peto Pride, and 300 t/ha of municipal solid waste
compost or 20 t/ha of spent mushroom compost can be recommended for the Chief
cultivar. These recommended organic fertilizing regimes achieved cultivar yields
comparable to the chemical fertilizer treatments, achieving a yield of 98.4% for Redstone,
99.5% for Flat, 97.6% for Peto Pride, and 95.7% for Chief.

Keywords: Tomato, municipal solid waste compost, cattle manure, cow manure, spent
mushroom compost, organic agriculture.

Introduction
Iran has a total annual production of 4,826,396 tonnes of tomatoes and ranks seventh in
the world for tomato production. Conventional production uses chemical fertilizers mainly
urea, superphosphate and potash. However, the continuous use of chemical fertilization
leads to deterioration of soil characteristics and fertility, and may lead to the accumulation
of heavy metals in plant tissues which compromises fruit nutrition value and edible quality
(Shimbo et al., 2001). Chemical fertilizer also reduces the protein content of crops, and
the carbohydrate quality of such crops also gets degraded (Marzouk & Kassem, 2011).
Excess potassium content on chemically overfertilized soil decreases Vitamin C, carotene
content and antioxidant compounds in vegetables (Toor et al., 2006). Vegetables and
fruits grown on chemically overfertilized soils are also more prone to attacks by insects
and disease (Karungi et al., 2006).

14 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

Although chemical fertilizers have been claimed as the most important contributor to the
increase in world agricultural productivity over the past decades (Smil, 2001), the
negative effects of chemical fertilizer on soil and environment limit its usage in
sustainable agricultural systems (Peyvast et al., 2008). Weakening soil quality requires
increasing inputs to maintain high yields. This, in turn, threatens future food security and
raises production costs for often already poor farmers.

Research comparing soils of organically and chemically managed farming systems have
recognized the higher soil organic matter and total nitrogen (N) with the use of organic
agriculture (Alvarez et al., 1988; Drinkwater et al., 1995; Reganold, 1988). Soil pH
becomes higher, plant-available nutrient concentrations may be higher, and the total
microbial population increases under organic management (Clark et al., 1998; Dinesh et
al., 2000; Reganold, 1988; Lee, 2010).

Organic fertilizers, which mainly come from agricultural waste residues such as cow
manure and spent mushroom compost or municipal solid waste compost (MSWC), are
often identified as suitable local organic fertilizers. These contain high levels of nutrients,
e.g. N and P and high amounts of organic matter (Peyvast et al., 2007, Peyvast et al.,
2008; Olfati et al., 2008; Shabani et al., 2011). According to these studies, the usage of
MSWC can be an effective alternative to chemical fertilizers. However, the apparent
deficiency of an adequate supply of plant-available N from organic fertilizer, resulting from
a slow rate of mineralization, makes crop yields in fields treated with organic fertilizer
lower than in those treated with chemical fertilizers (Blatt, 1991; Lee, 2010). Organic
fertilizers should be used in appropriate amounts to achieve suitable yield and quality.

The aim of this study was to determine appropriate amounts of different organic fertilizers
in tomato fields to achieve maximum yield and quality.

Materials and methods

The tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Cvs. Chief, Redstone, Peto Pride and
Flat) were grown in a research field at the University of Guilan (altitude 7 meters below
mean sea level, 37°16′N, 51°3′E). The experiment was arranged in a randomized block
design and comprised three different fertilizers, namely cow manure (20, 30 and 40 t/ha),
spent mushroom compost (10, 20 and 30 t/ha), and municipal solid waste compost (100,
200 and 300 t/ha), as well as chemical fertilizer (150N-100P-300K kg/ha) and unfertilized
plots as control. Each treatment had three replications with 10 plants in each replicate.
After sowing, seedlings were transferred to a potting medium containing peat and cattle
manure (1:1 v/v) and irrigated when it was necessary by tap water. Seedlings were
transplanted with a distance of 0.5 m × 0.5 m between rows and plants, respectively.

The soil was a clay loam, pH 7.2, containing total N (1.2%), total C (0.6%), a C/N ratio of
0.5, with 12, 68, 167 mg/kg of Ca, P, and K, respectively, and with an EC of 0.09 dS/cm.
Compost was purchased from Bazyafte Zobaleh Company in Rasht, Iran, and analyzed
before using in the field (Table 1). The soil was prepared by ploughing and disking. Fruits
were harvested manually when they had reached maturity stage 5 (Californian Tomato
Commission, 2002) and total yield was calculated on a hectare basis. Chopped fruit
tissues were placed in a forced air drying oven at 75°C for 48 h for dry matter
determination.

ISSN 1177-425 15
Journal of Organic Systems, 7(2), 2012

Table 1. Chemical and physical characteristics of cow manure, municipal solid

waste compost and spent mushroom compost.
Municipal solid waste Spent mushroom
Type of organic fertilizer Cow manure
compost compost
Total-N (g/kg) 28.6 25.6 21
Organic-C (g/kg) 411.7 500 645

C:N ratio 14.4 19.5 30.7

Total-P (g/kg) 9.5 15.8 18

EC (dS/m) 8.8 4.9 10

pH 8.8 7.1 6.8

Ca (g/kg) 29.6 5.32 28

Mg (g/kg) 4 3.3 18

K (g/kg) 5 6.8 20

Phosphorus, calcium and magnesium (P, Ca & Mg) in fruits and leaves were measured
by spectrometry (JENWAY 6105 U.V/V) (Elliot & Dempsey, 1991). Potassium (K) was
determined by flame photometer (Latiff et al., 1996). One gram of dry matter was ashed
at 550°C for 6 h (Gbolagade et al., 2006).

Data were subjected to analysis of variance in SAS (SAS Inc., Cary, N.C.). If interactions
were significant they were used to explain the data. If interactions were not significant,
means were separated with Tukey test.

Results
ANOVA determined that cultivar, type of fertilizer and their two way interactions had a
significant effect on all measured characteristics of tomato (Tables 2-4). Due to the
significant interactions between type of fertilizer and cultivar we were unable to propose
an overall preferred type of fertilizer for all cultivars, but instead we have nominated one
or several preferred fertilizer types for each cultivar.

Table 2. ANOVA table of cultivars and fertilizers on tomato total yield and yield
characteristics.
Mean square

Number of fruit Fruit length Fruit width Mean of fruit Total yield
d.f.
S.O.V. per plant (mm) (mm) weight (g) (t/ha)

Block 2 23.92** 1.1 ns 5.55 ns 1.62 ns 0.7 ns

Cultivar (C) 3 271.74** 245.4** 1,504.35** 15,054.43** 358.8**
Fertilizers (F) 10 48.15** 155.6** 87.74** 1,374.84** 25.4**

C*F 30 11.54** 26.67** 27.22** 429.19** 7.2**

Error 86 1.91 0.98 2.06 1.18 1.49

C.V. (%) 14 1.77 2.89 1.33 0.24

(S.O.V. = Sources of variation; d.f. = degrees of freedom; C.V. = coefficient of variation; ns, **, *:
non significant, and significant at P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.05 respectively)

16 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

Table 3. ANOVA table of cultivars and fertilizers on tomato fruit and leaves dry
matter and ash.

Mean square
Fruit dry matter Leaf dry matter Fruit ash Leaf ash
S.O.V. d.f.
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Block 2 1.64 ns 0.03 ns 0.76 ns 0.03**
Cultivar (C) 3 5.01** 9.07** 6.83** 248.41**
Fertilizers (F) 10 1.77** 4.23** 2.43** 47.6**
C*F 30 1.36** 5.43** 1.29** 24.53**
Error 86 0.61 0.12 0.17 0.003
C.V. (%) 11.08 2.02 9.27 0.46
(S.O.V. = Sources of variation; d.f. = degrees of freedom; C.V. = coefficient of variation; ns, **, *:
non significant and significant at P≤0.01 and P≤0.05 respectively)

Table 4. ANOVA table of cultivars and fertilizers on tomato fruits and leaves P, K, Ca
and Mg.

Mean square
P K Ca Mg
(mg·100 g FW) (mg·100 g FW) (mg·100 g FW) (mg·100 g FW)
S.O.V. d.f.
Fruit Leaf Fruit Leaf Fruit Leaf Fruit Leaf

Block 2 177.02** 25.12 ns 37.42** 1009.8** 348.2** 11.72 ns 0.14 ns 1.01 ns

Cultivar
3 352.92** 11,503.36** 62,985.86** 19,599** 184.4** 734.33** 50.83** 272.4**
(C)
Fertilizers
10 257.75** 10,358.88** 15,075.3** 19,122** 385.7** 2,477.17** 233.64** 434.78**
(F)
C*F 30 112.95** 3,600.61** 17,387** 6,797** 134.8** 763.77** 72.87** 139.4**

Error 86 12.68 15.54 7.49 50.06 18 4.11 3.62 0.69

C.V. (%) 10.69 2.75 0.73 3.47 10.2 3.24 5.4 4.48
(S.O.V. = Sources of variation; d.f. = degrees of freedom; C.V. = coefficient of variation; ns, **, *:
non significant and significant at P≤0.01 and P≤0.05 respectively)

The interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on number of fruit per plant showed
that the highest number of fruit per plant was obtained in Flat cultivar fertilized with
chemical fertilizer and the lowest value was obtained with Peto Pride fertilized with 30 t/
ha of spent mushroom compost. ‘Red stone’ showed the highest number of fruit per plant
when fertilized with 100 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost, while Flat brought on the
highest number of fruit per plant when it was fertilized with chemical fertilizer. The highest
number of fruit per plant by other cultivars was obtained when they were fertilized with
200 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost (Table 5).

ISSN 1177-425 17
Journal of Organic Systems, 7(2), 2012

Table 5. Influence of different cultivars and fertilizers interaction on tomato total

yield and yield characteristics.
Cultivars Fertilizers Number of Fruit lengthFruit Mean of fruit Total yield
fruit per (mm) width weight (t/ha)
plant (mm) (g)
Redstone Control 15±0.7 54±0.01 42±0.1 59±0.5 41±0.6
Redstone Chemical fertilizer 11.87±0.5 56±0.3 43±0.6 65.5±0.2 44±0.01
Redstone 10 t/ha SMC 15.66±0.4 59±0.3 42±0.2 66.5±0.5 42.5±0.2
Redstone 20 t/ha SMC 18.27±0.6 55±0.3 43±0.6 63.5±0.4 43.3±0.2
Redstone 30 t/ha SMC 13.25±0.5 60±0.6 43±0.4 69.7±0.5 41.3±0.04
Redstone 20 t/ha CM 13±0.7 56±0.5 43±0.9 62.5±0.6 41.3±0.03
Redstone 30 t/ha CM 11.41±0.5 56±0.6 45±0.5 63.5±0.6 41.4±0.2
Redstone 40 t/ha CM 14.19±0.4 59±0.4 46±0.2 75.3±0.5 41.5±0.1
Redstone 100 t/ha MSWC 19.58±0.3 57±1.2 40±0.5 58.2±0.5 42.4±0.3
Redstone 200 t/ha MSWC 14.5±0.3 50±0.5 41±0.2 55±0.2 42.5±0.2
Redstone 300 t/ha MSWC 19.52±0.3 44±0.2 39±0.6 38±0.5 41.3±0.2
Flat Control 11.58±0.5 55±0.4 51±0.3 81.4±0.3 39.6±0.5
Flat Chemical fertilizer 23.25±0.3 56±0.7 51±0.4 86±0.5 43.7±0.4
Flat 10 t/ha SMC 12.83±0.1 51±0.5 49±1 74.3±0.5 41.7±0.01
Flat 20 t/ha SMC 15±1.7 56±0.7 52±0.9 85.6±0.5 42.2±0.3
Flat 30 t/ha SMC 11.35±1.1 60±0.5 51±0.6 90.7±0.2 42.5±0.1
Flat 20 t/ha CM 11.5±0.3 53±0.6 53±0.4 86.7±0.3 41.4±0.4
Flat 30 t/ha CM 11.91±0.7 54±0.1 51±0.6 79.6±0.2 43.5±0.2
Flat 40 t/ha CM 13.52±0.3 52±0.3 52±0.9 78.5±0.6 42.8±0.4
Flat 100 t/ha MSWC 17.38±1.2 56±0.4 48±0.7 82.9±0.9 43±0.01
Flat 200 t/ha MSWC 19.5±1.1 51±0.5 47±0.5 89.5±0.5 43±0.01
Flat 300 t/ha MSWC 17.4±1.1 46±0.7 44±0.5 65.7±0.7 43±0.2
Peto Pride Control 8±0.1 66±0.5 68±0.6 154.3±0.4 39.4±0.1
Peto Pride Chemical fertilizer 9±0.6 62±0.3 63±1.2 127.9±0.3 46.6±0.2
Peto Pride 10 t/ha SMC 8.5±0.6 60±0.6 58±0.2 95.8±0.6 43.3±0.4
Peto Pride 20 t/ha SMC 10.5±0.6 60±0.5 57±2.8 108.5±0.7 39.6±0.1
Peto Pride 30 t/ha SMC 7.75±0.1 65±0.6 54±1.1 112.3±0.6 39±0.005
Peto Pride 20 t/ha CM 8.5±0.3 66±0.4 62±1 127.2±0.6 37.5±0.2
Peto Pride 30 t/ha CM 10±0.5 60±0.2 57±0.9 106.9±0.8 42±0.04
Peto Pride 40 t/ha CM 8.41±0.4 63±0.4 58±1.4 117.6±0.4 42.4±0.2
Peto Pride 100 t/ha MSWC 10.16±0.6 58±0.5 62±0.4 137±0.2 39±0.3
Peto Pride 200 t/ha MSWC 12.16±0.6 48±0.5 46±0.2 85±0.4 40.5±0.2
Peto Pride 300 t/ha MSWC 8.41±0.8 52±0.3 58±0.2 76.5±0.7 45.5±0.3
Chief Control 14.83±1 56±0.5 52±0.5 77.3±0.3 48.3±0.1
Chief Chemical fertilizer 15.83±0.6 56±0.5 47±0.4 81±0.2 53±0.5
Chief 10 t/ha SMC 16.27±0.4 54±0.6 46±0.3 67.7±0.6 48±0.5
Chief 20 t/ha SMC 14.75±0.8 56±0.2 50±0.3 78.3±0.3 50.5±0.1
Chief 30 t/ha SMC 15.66±0.8 55±0.6 48±0.6 76.3±0.6 47.9±0.2
Chief 20 t/ha CM 13.66±0.2 61±0.2 50±0.6 84±0.6 46.8±0.2
Chief 30 t/ha CM 13.41±1.7 53±0.4 49±0.2 72.5±1.1 48.8±0.04
Chief 40 t/ha CM 13.16±0.2 60±0.6 50±0.6 86.4±0.6 45±0.4
Chief 100 t/ha MSWC 15.5±1.1 51±0.2 45±0.2 62.3±0.9 46.4±0.2
Chief 200 t/ha MSWC 16.66±1.5 51±0.4 45±0.8 62.6±0.2 47.5±0.3
Chief 300 t/ha MSWC 16.58±2 51±0.6 45±0.4 67.8±0.3 50.7±0.4
(SMC = Spent mushroom compost, CM = cow manure, MSWC = municipal solid waste compost)

18 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

The interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on fruit length showed that the
longer fruit was obtained in Peto Pride fertilized with 20 t/ha of cow manure and control,
and the lowest value was obtained in Redstone fertilized with 300 t/ha municipal solid
waste compost. ‘Red stone’ and Flat cultivars showed the highest fruit length when
fertilized with 30 t/ha spent mushroom compost. Chemical fertilizer didn’t have any
positive effect on Chief cultivar (compared to the control), and decreased Peto Pride fruit
length (compared to the control). Chief cultivar showed the highest fruit length when
fertilized with 20 t/ha cow manure (Table 5).

The highest fruit width was obtained in Peto Pride cultivar without any type of fertilizer
(control), and the lowest value was obtained in Redstone fertilized with 300 t/ha of
municipal solid waste compost. Redstone and Flat have showed the highest fruit length
when fertilized with 40 and 20 t/ha of cow manure respectively. For the cultivar Chief all of
the fertilizers decreased the fruit width, compared to the control (Table 5).

The highest mean of individual fruit weight was obtained in Chief without any type of
fertilizer (control), and the lowest value was obtained with Redstone fertilized with 300 t/
ha of municipal solid waste compost. ‘Red stone’ and Chief showed the highest fruit
length when fertilized with 40 t/ha of cow manure. For Peto Pride fertilizers reduced fruit
weights, compared to the control (Table 5).

The highest yield was obtained in Chief when fertilized with chemical fertilizer and the
lowest value was obtained in Peto Pride fertilized with 20 t/ha of cow manure. Between
different organic fertilizers the higher yield was obtained in Redstone and Chief when
fertilized with 20 t/ha spent mushroom compost. The yield of Flat cultivar peaked when
fertilized with 30 t/ha cow manure or chemical fertilizer. Similarly, the yield of Peto Pride
peaked when fertilized with 300 t/ha municipal solid waste compost or chemical fertilizer
(Table 5).

Interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on dry matter percent in tomato fruit
showed that the highest dry matter was obtained in Peto Pride fertilized with 200 t/ha of
municipal solid waste compost, and the lowest value was obtained in Chief fertilized with
40 t/ha of cow manure. ‘Red stone’ showed the highest dry matter of fruit when fertilized
with 10 t/ha of spent mushroom compost, while chemical fertilizer decreased the dry
matter in fruit. Flat showed the highest dry matter percent in fruit when fertilized with
municipal solid waste compost. The highest dry matter percent in fruit was obtained by
Peto Pride and Chief when fertilized with 200 and 100 t/ha of municipal solid waste
compost respectively (Table 6).

The interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on dry matter percent in tomato
leaves showed that the highest dry matter was obtained in Peto Pride fertilized with
chemical fertilizer, and the lowest value was obtained in Chief when fertilized with 40 t/ha
of cow manure. All types of fertilization decreased Redstone leaves dry matter. Flat
cultivar showed the highest dry matter percent in leaves when fertilized with 20 t/ha of
cow manure. Chemical fertilizer increased Peto Pride leaves dry matter while organic
fertilizers didn’t show any significant effect. In contrast to the Peto Pride response to
different types of fertilizer, Chief leaves dry matter decreased with chemical fertilizer and
200 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost achieved the highest dry matter percent in
tomato leaves (Table 6).

ISSN 1177-425 19
Journal of Organic Systems, 7(2), 2012

Table 6. Influence of different cultivars and fertilizers on tomato fruit and leaves dry
matter and ash.
Fruit dry matter Leaf dry matter Fruit ash Leaf ash
Cultivars Fertilizers (%) (%) (%) (%)

Redstone Control 6.9±0.2 18.2±0.03 3.7±0.1 11.9±0.05

Redstone Chemical fertilizer 6.2±0.1 17.4±0.04 4.3±0.1 9.8±0.1
Redstone 10 t/ha SMC 8.6±0.6 17±0.05 3±0.5 9.7±0.005
Redstone 20 t/ha SMC 6.8±0.5 17.4±0.005 2.6±0.2 7.8±0.005
Redstone 30 t/ha SMC 7.5±0.3 16.9±0.05 4.5±0.03 4±0.002
Redstone 20 t/ha CM 7.6±0.5 17±0.005 3.8±0.1 15.8±0.05
Redstone 30 t/ha CM 7.2±0.3 17.9±0.05 4.5±0.2 8.1±0.005
Redstone 40 t/ha CM 6.6±0.2 17.3±0.05 4.3±0.1 11.9±0.005
Redstone 100 t/ha MSWC 7.4±0.5 16.7±0.04 4.5±0.1 5.9±0.005
Redstone 200 t/ha MSWC 6.6±0.2 17.7±0.05 4.4±0.1 17.5±0.05
Redstone 300 t/ha MSWC 7.6±0.6 16.6±1 4.5±0.1 11.3±0.005
Flat Control 6.54±0.2 18.56±0.03 4.7±0.05 17.2±0.005
Flat Chemical fertilizer 6.7±0.5 17.29±0.05 3.2±0.03 13.7±0.005
Flat 10 t/ha SMC 6.8±0.3 16.69±0.04 5.2±0.05 17.9±0.01
Flat 20 t/ha SMC 6.26±0.5 17.45±0.03 4.2±0.1 15.6±0.005
Flat 30 t/ha SMC 6.62±0.4 17±0.05 4.3±0.02 11.6±0.005
Flat 20 t/ha CM 6.19±0.4 21.87±0.05 3.8±0.1 19.6±0.01
Flat 30 t/ha CM 6.2±0.05 17.96±0.03 4.3±0.2 20.7±0.02
Flat 40 t/ha CM 6.64±0.6 17.26±0.1 2.8±0.3 17.9±0.01
Flat 100 t/ha MSWC 7.29±0.1 17.14±0.1 5.5±0.05 17.5±0.05
Flat 200 t/ha MSWC 7.15±0.5 17.85±0.005 4.6±0.05 17.9±0.01
Flat 300 t/ha MSWC 7±0.3 16.4±0.005 4.3±0.1 13.7±0.005
Peto Pride Control 6.92±0.04 17.42±0.02 5.6±0.2 10.5±0.005
Peto Pride Chemical fertilizer 7.69±0.4 23.9±0.01 4.5±0.1 8.6±0.005
Peto Pride 10 t/ha SMC 7±0.4 17.1±0.01 3.8±0.1 15±0.005
Peto Pride 20 t/ha SMC 6.43±0.5 18.61±0.02 4.6±0.04 7.9±0.005
Peto Pride 30 t/ha SMC 6.98±0.1 17.36±0.4 5.5±0.2 10±0.005
Peto Pride 20 t/ha CM 7.61±0.05 17.99±0.1 3.5±0.2 10±0.01
Peto Pride 30 t/ha CM 6.83±0.6 18.31±0.004 4.9±0.4 11.7±0.01
Peto Pride 40 t/ha CM 8.52±0.7 17.92±0.1 4.3±0.2 10±0.005
Peto Pride 100 t/ha MSWC 7.89±0.5 18.04±0.01 6±0.2 8±0.005
Peto Pride 200 t/ha MSWC 9.31±0.2 17.28±0.005 5.1±0.05 15.3±0.005
Peto Pride 300 t/ha MSWC 7.67±0.05 17.37±0.004 4.2±0.05 10±0.005
Chief Control 6.37±0.3 17.34±0.02 5.5±0.2 16.3±0.005
Chief Chemical fertilizer 7.68±0.4 16.54±0.03 5.3±0.05 12±0.005
Chief 10 t/ha SMC 6.65±0.2 17.63±0.005 5.4±0.1 17±0.005
Chief 20 t/ha SMC 5.84±0.4 17.13±0.05 4.4±0.1 16±0.005
Chief 30 t/ha SMC 6.85±0.2 16.17±0.03 5.2±0.3 13±0.005
Chief 20 t/ha CM 7.78±0.5 16.96±0.005 4.7±0.5 14±0.01
Chief 30 t/ha CM 6.79±0.2 16.79±0.01 3.8±0.03 11±0.005
Chief 40 t/ha CM 5.62±0.2 15.6±0.02 4.7±0.1 14±0.005
Chief 100 t/ha MSWC 8.29±0.6 17.58±0.03 4.8±0.5 15.7±0.01
Chief 200 t/ha MSWC 6.57±0.4 18.11±0.004 5.6±0.05 13.7±0.005
Chief 300 t/ha MSWC 6.42±0.5 17.4±0.03 5.5±0.4 13±0.02
(SMC = Spent mushroom compost, CM = cow manure, MSWC = municipal solid waste compost)

20 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

The interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on percent of ash in tomato fruits
showed that the highest ash was obtained in Peto Pride and Redstone cultivars when
fertilized with 100 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost (while Peto Pride also responded
equally well on this measure with 20 t/ha of SMC, 30 t/ha of CM, and 300 t/ha of MSWC).
The lowest value was obtained in Redstone fertilized with 20 t/ha of spent mushroom
compost. For the Flat fruits, 100 t/ha of MSWC or 10 t/ha spent mushroom compost
achieved the greatest increases in the ash percent, compared to the control and chemical
fertilizer. For `Peto Pride` and Chief fruits, the highest ash percent was obtained with 100
and 200 t/ha of municipal solid wastes compost respectively (Table 6).

The highest ash percent of leaves was obtained in Flat fertilized with 30 t/ha of cow
manure, and the lowest value was obtained in Redstone fertilized with 30 t/ha of spent
mushroom compost. The highest ash percent in the Redstone cultivar leaves was
obtained when fertilized with 20 t/ha of cow manure or 200 t/ha of MSWC. The highest
ash percent in Flat and Chief cultivar leaves were obtained when fertilized with 30 t/ha of
cow manure and 10 t/ha of spent mushroom compost, respectively. The highest ash
percent in Peto Pride cultivar leaves was obtained when fertilized with 10 t/ha of spent
mushroom compost and 200 t/ha of MSWC. Chemical fertilizer decreased the leaf ash
percent in all varieties, compared to the controls (Table 6).

Interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on P content in tomato fruits and leaves
showed that the highest P content were obtained in the Peto Pride cultivar fertilized with
200 t/ha of MSWC, and the Chief cultivar when fertilized with chemical fertilizer. The
lowest values were obtained in Flat cultivar fertilized with 20 t/ha of spent mushroom
compost, and Chief cultivar fertilized with 20 t/ha of cow manure. In the Redstone cultivar,
the highest P content in fruits and leaves were obtained when fertilized with 20 and 40 t/
ha of cow manure respectively, while in the Flat cultivar the highest P content in fruits and
leaves were obtained when fertilized with 20 and 30 t/ha of cow manure respectively. In
the Peto Pride and Chief cultivars, the highest P content in leaves were obtained when
fertilized with chemical fertilizer, while the highest amount in fruit were obtained when
fertilized with 200 and 100 t/ha of MSWC respectively (Table 7).

The interaction between cultivar and type of fertilizer on K content in tomato fruits and
leaves showed that the highest K content were obtained in the Redstone cultivar fertilized
with 200 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost, and Chief cultivar when fertilized with
chemical fertilizer, and the lowest values were obtained in the Flat cultivar fertilized with
chemical fertilizer, and the control. The reaction of cultivar to different type of fertilizer was
quite varied (Table 7).

The highest Ca and Mg in tomato fruit was obtained from Chief cultivar with no fertilizer,
and Peto Pride cultivar fertilized with 200 t/ha of MSWC. There was not any significant
correlation between element content in tomato leaves and tomato fruits (Table 8).

ISSN 1177-425 21
Journal of Organic Systems, 7(2), 2012

Table 7. Influence of different cultivars and fertilizers on tomato fruits and leaves P
and K.
P K
(mg·100 g FW) (mg·100 g FW)
Cultivars Fertilizers Fruit Leaf Fruit Leaf
Redstone Control 27.2±1.7 113±0.2 317±0.4 159±1.7
Redstone Chemical fertilizer 28.2±1 151±0.2 371±0.1 201±0.9
Redstone 10 t/ha SMC 38±2.3 160±3 422±0.2 221±0.5
Redstone 20 t/ha SMC 37±1.8 156±0.01 393±0.3 224±2
Redstone 30 t/ha SMC 35±3 154±0.5 449±0.2 206±3
Redstone 20 t/ha CM 46±0.5 170±0.01 452±0.3 194±1.7
Redstone 30 t/ha CM 36.7±2.7 122±0.3 406±0.01 193±3
Redstone 40 t/ha CM 37.5±0.6 211±0.9 359±0.3 248±3
Redstone 100 t/ha MSWC 30±1.5 146±0.6 309±0.9 182±2.8
Redstone 200 t/ha MSWC 34±0.3 140±0.4 598±0.3 185±3
Redstone 300 t/ha MSWC 27±1.7 148±3 328±0.4 200±3
Flat Control 27.5±1.8 108±0.2 329±0.2 97±1.5
Flat Chemical fertilizer 26±2.1 185±0.7 225±0.1 275±1.2
Flat 10 t/ha SMC 32.5±0.8 94±0.2 369±0.7 174±1.5
Flat 20 t/ha SMC 18±3 101±0.2 355±0.4 184±2
Flat 30 t/ha SMC 26±1.3 169±0.6 303±0.7 224±3
Flat 20 t/ha CM 44.5±2.8 119±0.3 383±0.2 249±2
Flat 30 t/ha CM 30.5±0.2 129±0.1 313±0.9 277±2
Flat 40 t/ha CM 41±3 116±0.01 474±0.3 347±3
Flat 100 t/ha MSWC 23.8±1.7 147±3 320±0.7 225±3
Flat 200 t/ha MSWC 32.4±3 124±0.03 292±0.2 258±2
Flat 300 t/ha MSWC 26.9±2.8 106±0.03 294±0.4 258±2.3
Peto Pride Control 25.4±1.1 103±0.1 440±3 121±1.7
Peto Pride Chemical fertilizer 32.3±0.2 169±0.1 400±0.3 196±2.8
Peto Pride 10 t/ha SMC 36±2.3 97±0.01 353±2 123±1
Peto Pride 20 t/ha SMC 31±2.3 144±0.1 381±0.4 222±1.7
Peto Pride 30 t/ha SMC 43±0.9 139±0.5 458±2 217±3
Peto Pride 20 t/ha CM 29±0.2 94±3 246±0.2 178±3
Peto Pride 30 t/ha CM 31.3±2.3 126±0.02 386±0.8 162±1.3
Peto Pride 40 t/ha CM 52.6±1.7 152±1.5 563±0.2 192±0.3
Peto Pride 100 t/ha MSWC 37.7±2.8 140±0.1 382±3 121±2.3
Peto Pride 200 t/ha MSWC 53.3±0.5 126±0.01 504±0.1 177±1.7
Peto Pride 300 t/ha MSWC 39.3±1 106±0.02 475±0.7 205±1.5
Chief Control 22.9±1.7 102±0.1 293±0.3 143±1
Chief Chemical fertilizer 34.7±3 238±0.5 323±1 405±1.7
Chief 10 t/ha SMC 29.6±1.7 134±0.01 233±0.3 128±2.3
Chief 20 t/ha SMC 29.5±3 147±1.7 282±3 160±1.7
Chief 30 t/ha SMC 30.5±2.3 209±0.4 276±0.5 309±1
Chief 20 t/ha CM 39.6±0.6 76±0.03 464±0.4 156±1
Chief 30 t/ha CM 27±2.8 183±0.1 348±0.3 187±1.7
Chief 40 t/ha CM 32.3±1.7 229±0.4 318±0.3 189±2.8
Chief 100 t/ha MSWC 39.7±0.5 96±0.5 413±0.3 156±3
Chief 200 t/ha MSWC 31.2±2.8 96±0.01 379±0.3 176±1
Chief 300 t/ha MSWC 30.2±1 95±0.1 359±0.3 227±1
(SMC = Spent mushroom compost, CM = cow manure, MSWC = municipal solid waste compost)

22 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

Table 8. Influence of cultivars and fertilizers on tomato fruits and leaves Ca and Mg.
Ca Mg
(mg·100 g FW) (mg·100 g FW)
Cultivars Fertilizers Fruit Leaf Fruit Leaf
Redstone Control 33.3±1.7 44±0.3 27±0.4 12±0.1
Redstone Chemical fertilizer 36±1.3 55±0.1 32±0.6 11±0.1
Redstone 10 t/ha SMC 47±2.7 62±0.6 43±0.6 14±0.4
Redstone 20 t/ha SMC 46±0.3 41±0.3 38±0.2 14±0.2
Redstone 30 t/ha SMC 43±1.5 35±0.5 41±0.5 17±0.2
Redstone 20 t/ha CM 48±3 52±0.2 42±1 24±0.3
Redstone 30 t/ha CM 43±2.4 57±0.2 35±0.9 22±0.2
Redstone 40 t/ha CM 46±3 60±0.8 37±0.5 34±0.4
Redstone 100 t/ha MSWC 42±1.2 45±0.4 36±0.4 19±0.3
Redstone 200 t/ha MSWC 39±0.3 62±0.7 36±0.4 16±0.1
Redstone 300 t/ha MSWC 30±0.6 35±1.5 27±0.4 15±0.6
Flat Control 33±1.9 45±0.1 30±0.3 17±0.2
Flat Chemical fertilizer 31±1.7 66±0.4 28±0.7 20±0.1
Flat 10 t/ha SMC 41±3 44±0.1 37±0.1 11±0.4
Flat 20 t/ha SMC 31±1 46±0.3 28±0.8 11±0.3
Flat 30 t/ha SMC 33±1.7 53±0.2 34±3 17±0.4
Flat 20 t/ha CM 51±2.8 76±0.2 42±1.8 19±0.2
Flat 30 t/ha CM 33±0.3 46±0.1 32±0.1 20±0.2
Flat 40 t/ha CM 51±2.8 77±0.6 42±1.2 21±0.8
Flat 100 t/ha MSWC 33±3 72±0.8 25±0.6 11±1.5
Flat 200 t/ha MSWC 45±2.4 64±0.3 39±0.3 12±0.3
Flat 300 t/ha MSWC 38±3 42±0.2 29±0.01 12±0.1
Peto Pride Control 30±1.7 57±0.1 25±0.2 12±0.1
Peto Pride Chemical fertilizer 38±0.5 75±0.4 31±0.1 15±0.1
Peto Pride 10 t/ha SMC 42±3 56±0.2 36±0.9 12±0.4
Peto Pride 20 t/ha SMC 41±3 63±0.2 31±0.1 15±0.1
Peto Pride 30 t/ha SMC 52±0.9 63±3 45±0.6 13±0.6
Peto Pride 20 t/ha CM 32±3 62±2 29±1.9 17±1.4
Peto Pride 30 t/ha CM 38±0.4 70±0.1 31±0.02 11±0.4
Peto Pride 40 t/ha CM 61±3 74±1 44±1.8 15±0.1
Peto Pride 100 t/ha MSWC 48±2.8 46±0.4 38±1.2 21±0.1
Peto Pride 200 t/ha MSWC 57±0.1 65±0.4 49±0.7 13±0.1
Peto Pride 300 t/ha MSWC 43±3 60±0.4 38±0.1 17±0.1
Chief Control 27±0.7 56±0.1 24±0.01 12±0.1
Chief Chemical fertilizer 44±3 69±0.4 35±0.3 21±0.2
Chief 10 t/ha SMC 44±1.4 56±0.3 35±0.6 14±0.3
Chief 20 t/ha SMC 39±1.7 42±0.8 32±0.9 11±0.2
Chief 30 t/ha SMC 43±3 60±0.4 34±0.2 17±0.4
Chief 20 t/ha CM 60±3 53±0.2 42±0.1 11±0.1
Chief 30 t/ha CM 35±0.1 57±0.4 30±0.5 31±0.3
Chief 40 t/ha CM 44±1 58±0.9 35±0.2 30±0.4
Chief 100 t/ha MSWC 51±1.5 59±0.2 43±0.5 18±0.3
Chief 200 t/ha MSWC 43±1.9 58±0.2 38±0.3 18±0.2
Chief 300 t/ha MSWC 38±0.4 79±0.3 35±0.3 20±0.3
(SMC = Spent mushroom compost, CM = cow manure, MSWC = municipal solid waste compost)

ISSN 1177-425 23
Journal of Organic Systems, 7(2), 2012

Discussion and Conclusions

The present study found that different tomato cultivars respond differently to different
fertilizers. For each of the four cultivars tested, the highest yields were achieved with
chemical fertilizer, however, for each cultivar the difference between the yield under a
chemical fertilizer regime and the best performing organic fertilizer for each cultivar was
small. The yields achieved under the optimized organic fertilization were 99.5% of the
chemical fertilized crop for Flat, 98.4% for Redstone, 97.6% for Peto Pride, and 95.7% for
Chief.

The use of organic fertilizers can avoid or reduce the deleterious effects attributed to the
use of chemical fertilizer. Applying chemical fertilizer leads to the deterioration of soil
characteristics and fertility, and as well it leads to a reduction in fruit nutrition values and
edible qualities (Shimbo et al., 2001). It also reduces the dry matter content of tomatoes
(Marzouk and Kassem, 2011; Alvarez et al., 1988; Drinkwater et al., 1995; Reganold,
1988). The continuous use of chemical fertilizers may also lead to the accumulation of
heavy metals in plant tissues which compromises the nutrition value and fruit quality
(Shimbo et al., 2001). Although it is reported that the supply of plant-available N from
organic fertilizer, resulting from a slow rate of mineralization, makes crop yields in fields
treated with organic fertilizer lower than in those treated with chemical fertilizer (Blatt,
1991; Lee, 2010), the present study shows that the selection of a cultivar-appropriate
organic fertilizer can narrow that yield decrement to between 0.5% to 4.7% in the case of
the four cultivars that were the subject of the study.

Given the different response of cultivars to different types of fertilizer, we can recommend
a particular amount of a specific type of fertilizer for each cultivar to replace chemical
fertilizer. According to the results, where the criterion for fertiliser selection and its
application rate is based on the total yield, then the following organic fertilizer regimes
can be recommended: 20 t/ha of spent mushroom compost for Redstone, 30 t/ha of cow
manure for Flat, 300 t/ha of municipal solid waste compost for Peto Pride and Chief.

For commercial cropping, aspects other than environmental outcome and crop yield
come into play, and in the present study various other fruit attributes, besides gross yield,
were reported (Tables 1 to 8). Other considerations such as the availability of various
organic fertilizers, the security of supply, and the different supply costs of fertilizers, as
well as the different costs of the management and application of the various fertilizers, will
be further important considerations for commercial cropping and are worthy of further
research.

References
Alvarez, C.E., Garcia, C. & Carracedo A.E. 1988. Soil fertility and mineral nutrition of organic
banana plantation in Tenerife. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. 5: 313–323.

Blatt, C.R. 1991. Comparison of several organic amendments with a chemical fertilizer for
vegetable Production. Scientia Horticulturae. 47: 177–191.

Californian Tomato Commission. 2002. http://www.tomato.org/retail/color.html

Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C. & Scow, K.M. 1998. Changes in soil chemical properties
resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agronomy Journal. 90: 662–671.

24 ISSN 1177-4258
 Kochakinezhad, Peyvast, Kashi & Olfati

Dinesh, R., Dubey, R.P., Ganeshamurthy, A.N. & Prasad, G.S. 2000. Organic manuring in rice-
based cropping system: effects on soil microbial biomass and selected enzyme activities.
Current Science. 79: 1716–1720.

Drinkwater, L.E., Letourneau, D.K., Workneh, F., Bruggen, A.H.C. & Shennan, C. 1995.
Fundamental difference between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in
California. Ecological Applications. 5: 1098–1112.

Elliot, H.A., & Dempsey, B.A. 1991. Agronomic effects of land application of water treatment
sludges. Journal of American Waste Water Association. 83: 126.

Gbolagade, J., Ajayi, A., Oku, I. &. Wankasi, D. 2006. Nutritive value of common wild edible
mushrooms from southern Nigeria. Global Journal of Biotechnology. 1(1): 19-21.

Karungi, J., Ekbom, B. & Kyamanywa, S. 2006. Effects of organic versus conventional fertilizers on
insect pests, natural enemies and yield of Phaseolus vulgaris. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 115:51–55.

Latif, L.A., Daran, A.B.M. & Mohamed, A.B. 1996. Relative distribution of minerals and peleus and
stalk of some selected mushroom. Food Chemistry. 56: 115-121.

Lee, J. 2010. Effect of application methods of organic fertilizer on growth, soil chemical properties
and microbial densities in organic bulb onion production. Scientia Horticulturae. 124: 299–
305.

Marzouk, H.A., & Kassem, H.A. 2011. Improving fruit quality, nutritional value and yield of Zaghloul
dates by the application of organic and/or mineral fertilizers. Scientia Horticulturae. 127:
249–254.

Olfati, J.A., Peyvast, Gh., Nosrati-Rad, Z., Saliqedar, F. & Rezaie, F. 2009. Application of municipal
solid waste compost on lettuce yield. International Journal of Vegetable Science. 15(2):
168-172.

Peyvast, Gh., Sedghi Moghaddam, M. & Olfati, J.A . 2007. Effect of municipal solid waste compost
on weed control, yield and some quality indices of green pepper (Capsicum annuum L.).
Biosciences, Biotechnology Research Asia. 4(2): 449-456.

Peyvast, Gh., Ramezani Kharazi, P., Tahernia, S., Nosratierad, Z. &. Olfati, J.A. 2008. Municipal
solid waste compost increased yield and decreased nitrate amount of broccoli (Brassica
oleracea var. Italica). Journal of Applied Horticulture. 10(2): 129-132.

Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional
farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 3: 144–155.

Shabani, H., Peyvast, Gh., Olfati, J.A. & Ramezani Kharrazi, P. 2011. Effect of municipal solid
waste compost on yield and quality of eggplant. Comunicata Scientiae. 2(2): 85-90.

Shimbo, S., Watanabe, T., Zhang, Z.W. & Ikeda, M. 2001. Cadmium and lead contents in rice and
other cereal products in Japan in 1998–2000. Science of the Total Environment. 281: 165–
175.

Smil, V. (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food
Production. Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press.

Toor, R.K., Savage, G.P. & Heeb, A. 2006. Influence of different types of fertilizers on the major
antioxidant components of tomatoes. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 19: 20–27.

ISSN 1177-425 25