Effect of Bacterial Enzyme Preparation on Composting of Cow Manure Under Different C/N Conditions

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1090

Abstract

Abstract:

In this study, cow dung and wheat straw were used as composting raw materials, and different C/N treatment groups (25/1, 30/1 and 35/1) were set up. The effects of exogenous bacteria (Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger and Streptomyces flavus) and enzyme preparations (cellulase and protease) on temperature, organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total potassium in the process of aerobic composting were studied. The results showed that adding bacterial enzyme preparation under different C/N conditions could increase the average temperature in high temperature period, and the temperature of each group could meet the requirements of Hygienic Standard for Harmless Treatment of Feces (GB 7959—1987). The addition of bacterial enzyme preparation could effectively promote the degradation of organic matter, obviously improve the nitrogen content of the composting pile, and increase the relative content of total phosphorus and total potassium. Through the comprehensive analysis of the change characteristics of various indexes in the composting process, C8 group with C/N of 35/1 (adding Bacillus subtilis+ Aspergillus niger+ Streptomyces flavus) had the best composting effect.

Key words: cow dung, compound microbial inoculants, compound enzyme, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium

CLC Number:

S141.4

LIANG Tian, ZHANG Xiaodong, ZHANG Yu, ZHANG Zuozhong, SI Riguleng, SU Budenggerile, NA Renhua. Effect of Bacterial Enzyme Preparation on Composting of Cow Manure Under Different C/N Conditions[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(31): 77-82.

Figures/Tables 8

References 18

[1]	GERBER P J, STEINFELD H, HENDERSON B, et al. Tackling climate change through livestock A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities[M]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO), 2013.
[2]	HUANG R J, ZHANG Y, BOZZETTI C, et al. High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze events in China[J]. Nature, 2014, 514:218-222. doi: 10.1038/nature13774 URL
[3]	LECLERC Alexandra, LAURENT Alexis. Framework for estimating toxic releases from the application of manure on agricultural soil: National release inventories for heavy metals in 2000-2014[J]. The science of the total environment, 2017:590-591.
[4]	韦小庆. 玉米秸秆与畜禽粪便堆料发酵技术研究[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2012.
[5]	方亚曼. 复合微生物菌剂的研制及其在堆肥上的应用研究[D]. 上海: 上海师范大学, 2011.
[6]	程治良, 全学军, 代黎, 等. 羊粪好氧堆肥处理研究进展[J]. 重庆理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2013, 27(11):36-41.
[7]	刘瀚扬, 杨雪, 孙越鸿, 等. 羊粪无害化处理技术研究进展[J]. 当代畜牧, 2018, 437(33):50-52.
[8]	金香琴, 段丽杰, 马继力, 等. 不同微生物菌剂对畜禽粪便资源化堆肥效果的影响[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2015, 15(7):280-283.
[9]	万磊兵. 鸡粪堆肥快速腐熟专用复合菌剂的制备及效果评价[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2014
[10]	杨雨浛, 易建婷, 任小玉, 等. 生物质炭对城市污泥堆肥温室气体排放的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2018, 37(3):567-575.
[11]	张雪辰, 邓双, 王旭东. 快腐剂对畜禽粪便堆肥过程中腐熟度的影响[J]. 环境工程学报, 2015, 9(2):888-894.
[12]	粪便无害化卫生标准[J]. 卫生研究, 1986(4):1-2.
[13]	施宠, 张小娥, 沙依甫加玛丽, 等. 牛粪堆肥不同处理全 N 、P 、K 及有机质含量的动态变化[J]. 中国牛业科学, 2010, 36(4):26-29.
[14]	刘成琛, 袁蓉芳, 周北海. 碳氮比对猪粪-玉米秸秆混合堆肥的影响[J]. 中国资源综合利用, 2018, 36(9):23-26.
[15]	GOU C, WANG Y, ZHANG X, et al. Inoculation with a psychrotrophic-thermophilic complex microbial agent accelerates onset and promotes maturity of dairy manure-rice straw composting under cold climate conditions[J]. Bioresource technology, 2017, 243:339. doi: S0960-8524(17)31001-5 pmid: 28683387
[16]	刘凯, 郁继华, 颉建明, 等. 不同配比的牛粪与玉米秸秆对高温堆肥的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2011, 46(1):82-88.
[17]	WONG Jonathan W C, KARTHIKEYAN Obulisamy P, SELVAM Ammaiyappan. Biological nutrient transformation during composting of pig manure and paper waste[J]. Environmental technology, 2016, 38(5-8):754-761. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2016.1211747 URL
[18]	田智辉, 王亚妮, 邹超, 等. 牛粪和秸秆好氧发酵堆肥的初始条件研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(6):192-197.

堆肥原料	含水率/%	pH	有机质/%	全氮/%	全磷/%	全钾/%	C/N
牛粪	67.34	8.29	43.71	1.21	0.394	2.398	16.6
小麦秸秆	6.19	6.73	93.05	0.72	0.236	2.544	65.78

堆肥原料	含水率/%	pH	有机质/%	全氮/%	全磷/%	全钾/%	C/N
牛粪	67.34	8.29	43.71	1.21	0.394	2.398	16.6
小麦秸秆	6.19	6.73	93.05	0.72	0.236	2.544	65.78

C/N	处理组	物料配比
25/1	C1	87%牛粪+小麦秸秆13%
	C2	87%牛粪+小麦秸秆13%+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C3	87%牛粪+13%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）
30/1	C4	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸杆
	C5	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C6	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）
35/1	C7	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆
	C8	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C9	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）

C/N	处理组	物料配比
25/1	C1	87%牛粪+小麦秸秆13%
	C2	87%牛粪+小麦秸秆13%+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C3	87%牛粪+13%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）
30/1	C4	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸杆
	C5	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C6	80%牛粪+20%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）
35/1	C7	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆
	C8	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）
	C9	75%牛粪+25%小麦秸秆+3%复合菌剂（枯草芽孢杆菌+黑曲霉菌+细黄链霉菌）和1%复合酶（纤维素酶+蛋白酶）

处理组	到50℃以上所用天数/d	>50℃持续天数/d	达到的最高温度/℃	达到最高温度的时间/d	高温期平均温度/℃
C1	2	8	60.7	2	54.9
C2	2	8	60.0	4	57.0
C3	2	8	62.5	3	56.8
C4	2	8	61.8	2	54.2
C5	2	8	64.9	2	57.7
C6	2	8	64.9	3	57.1
C7	2	8	66.1	2	55.7
C8	2	8	66.3	2	58.6
C9	2	8	65.0	4	57.7