Effects of Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios on Quality of Lavender Straw Aerobic Compost

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0317

Abstract

Abstract:

To determine the optimal composting process parameters for lavender straw, based on 4 carbon-to-nitrogen ratio gradients of 20, 25, 30 and 35, 6 different raw material ratios were set according to the material. Lavender straw, dried flower straw and sheep manure were respectively composted at dry weight ratios of 0:1:9 (T1=20), 1:0:0 (T2=25), 0:1:1 (T3=25), 0:1:0 (T4=30), 2:18:1 (T5=30) and 1:1:0 (T6=35). The effects of different carbon-to-nitrogen ratio treatments on temperature, moisture content, pH, germination index, and quality during the composting process were investigated. The results showed that the T3 treatment had a faster temperature rise and a longer duration of high-temperature period compared to other treatments, and T1 treatment followed; T6 and T5 treatments had a shorter duration of high-temperature period, while T2 and T4 treatments did not reach the standard of high-temperature period. The moisture content during the composting process generally showed a downward trend; at the end of the composting process, the moisture content of T3 treatment was the lowest (28%), significantly lower than other treatments (P<0.05); T3 treatment had the lowest pH (pH 7.9), significantly lower than other treatments; T1 treatment had the highest electrical conductivity, with no significant difference comparing to other treatments; T3 treatment had the highest total nitrogen content and organic matter content; T5 treatment had significantly higher total phosphorus content than other treatments; T6 treatment had the highest total potassium content. The seed germination index of T2, T3 and T5 treatments was significantly higher than other treatments. According to the National Organic Fertilizer Maturity Standard, T3 and T6 treatments met the national standards. The comprehensive evaluation showed that the comprehensive evaluation value of T3 treatment was the highest, the maturity degree was the highest, and the maturity quality was the best.

Key words: aerobic composting, lavender straw, carbon to nitrogen ratio, maturity, resource utilization

A Yingge, HE Liangrong, FU Yanbo, BIAN Qingyong, MENG Ajing, DAI Yufang, JIAO Yunqi. Effects of Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios on Quality of Lavender Straw Aerobic Compost[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(25): 85-93.

Figures/Tables 9

References 45

[1]	阿力木江·麦麦提, 李静. 不同处理对薰衣草秸秆青贮pH值的影响[J]. 现代畜牧兽医, 2020(11):12-15.
[2]	王艳, 郝炜伟, 程轲, 等. 秸秆露天焚烧典型大气污染物排放因子[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018, 38(6):2055-2061.
[3]	BERNAL M P, ALBURQUERQUE J A, MORAL R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment: A review[J]. Bioresource technology, 2009, 100(22):5444-5453.
[4]	ONWOSI C O, IGBOKWE V C, ODIMBA J N, et al. Composting technology in waste stabilization: On the methods, challenges and future prospects[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2017,190:140-157.
[5]	王旭辉. 城镇污水处理厂污泥与水稻秸秆混合好氧堆肥研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳建筑大学, 2022.
[6]	张雪苗. 小麦秸秆和牛粪协同好氧堆肥实验研究[D]. 合肥: 安徽理工大学, 2024.
[7]	王家寅. 低温环境下玉米秸秆与鸡粪混合好氧堆肥技术研究[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2024.
[8]	刘明辉. 甘蔗基生物炭添加对猪粪好氧堆肥H₂S和NH₃排放的影响[D]. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2023.
[9]	ZHANG L, SUN X. Effects of rhamnolipid and initial compost particle size on the two-stage composting of green waste[J]. Bioresource technology, 2014,163:112-122.
[10]	LI R, WANG J J, ZHANG Z, et al. Nutrient transformations during composting of pig manure with bentonite[J]. Bioresource technology, 2012,121:362-368.
[11]	KUMAR A, GAIND S, NAIN L. Evaluation of thermophilic fungal consortium for paddy straw composting[J]. Biodegradation, 2008,19:395-402.
[12]	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.
[13]	魏彦红, 郁继华, 颉建明, 等. 不同添加剂对牛粪高温堆肥的影响[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2012, 47(3):52-56.
[14]	MILLER F C. Composting as a process based on the control of ecologically selective factors[M]. Victoria: La Trobe University,1992.
[15]	李振, 夏彬涵, 韩敏, 等. 重铬酸钾容量法测定地质样品中的有机碳[J]. 中国无机分析化学, 2024, 14(3):330-336.
[16]	王恕平, 齐帅, 陈彦龙, 等. 河西灌区不同青贮玉米品种生产性能与发酵品质的综合评价[J/OL]. 草地学报,1-16[2025-03-28].
[17]	欧雄波. 浅析种子发芽指数(GI)的测定[J]. 中国标准化, 2023(17):209-212.
[18]	王国英, 袁京, 孔艺霖, 等. 堆肥种子发芽指数测定方法与敏感性种子筛选[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(19):220-227.
[19]	荆红俊, 杨硕, 曹平, 等. 不同堆积高度对羊粪堆肥效果的影响[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2017, 38(11):41-46.
[20]	YUAN J, LI Y, CHEN S L, et al. Effects of phosphogypsum, superphosphate, and dicyandiamide on gaseous emission and compost quality during sewage sludge composting[J]. Bioresource technology, 2018,270:368-376.
[21]	CHAN M T, SELVAM A, WONG J W C. Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment[J]. Bioresource technology, 2016,200:838-844.
[22]	曹智, 王淑颖, 李双海, 等. 不同碳氮比对尖椒秸秆好氧堆肥效果的影响[J]. 福建技术师范学院学报, 2023, 41(2):187-193.
[23]	汤江武, 朱利中. 不同堆肥条件对种子发芽指数影响的研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2008(5):583-586.
[24]	中国疾病预防控制中心环境与健康相关产品安全所, 四川省疾病预防控制中心, 河南省疾病预防控制中心, 等. GB 7959—2012,粪便无害化卫生要求[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2012.
[25]	GUO R, LI G X, JIANG T, et al. Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content on thestability and maturity of compost[J]. Bioresource technology, 2012, 112(58):171-178.
[26]	张璐. 园林绿化废弃物堆肥化的过程控制及其产品改良与应用研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2015.
[27]	耿富卿, 苟剑渝, 何楷, 等. 不同碳氮比对有机肥发酵过程中微生物数量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2013, 27(S1):25-28.
[28]	耿冬梅, 宣世伟. 高温好氧菌群用于接种垃圾堆肥的实验研究[J]. 上海环境科学, 2003, 22(10):699-701.
[29]	陈柳, 胡海凤, 洪春来, 等. 羊粪堆肥腐熟度评价指标可行性分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2024, 65(12):3068-3074. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240228
[30]	李丹阳, 马若男, 亓传仁, 等. 含水率对羊粪堆肥腐熟度及污染气体排放的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(20):254-262.
[31]	雷大鹏, 黄为一, 王效华. 发酵基质含水率对牛粪好氧堆肥发酵产热的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2011, 27(5):54-57.
[32]	赵鹏博. 碳氮比和通气量对牛粪与烟梗混合堆肥过程的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2017.
[33]	樊迎春. 羊粪无害化处理技术[J]. 兽医导刊, 2020, 11(6):67.
[34]	RIBEIRO N D Q, SOUZA T P, COSTA L M A S, et al. Microbial additives in the composting process[J]. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 2017, 41(2):159-168.
[35]	李映廷. 低碳氮比下生物质炭对高温好氧堆肥的影响[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2012.
[36]	杨紫祎, 黄祎晨, 杨妞, 等. 复合菌剂提高青藏高原羊粪和尾菜混合堆肥微生物多样性并加快堆肥腐熟[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2024, 30(2):406-416.
[37]	黄华, 刘小艳, 单显莹, 等. 施加鸡粪水热炭液氮肥后土壤有机质、菌群和种子发芽指数的动态变化[J]. 延安大学学报(自然科学版),2024,43(4):36-45.
[38]	CHEN M, HUANG Y, LIU H, et al. Impact of different nitrogen source on the compost quality and greenhouse gas emissions during composting of garden waste[J]. Process safety and environmental protection, 2019,124:326-335.
[39]	中华人民共和国农业农村部. NY 525—2021,有机肥料[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2021.
[40]	付瑞敏, 蔺芳. 微生物复合接种剂对牛粪好氧堆肥的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(32):19828-19830.
[41]	蔡娟, 张应虎, 张昌勇, 等. 牛粪堆肥过程中的物质变化及腐熟度评价[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(10):72-75.
[42]	陈诺, 郑纯杰, 杨晓茵, 等. 粪便无害化卫生标准[J]. 山东化工, 2022, 51(12):100-102.
[43]	LYCUS P, LOVISE BOTHUN K, BERGAUST L, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic richness of denitrifiers revealed by a novel isolation strategy[J]. The ISME journal, 2017, 11(10):2219-2232.
[44]	秦莉, 沈玉君, 李国学, 等. 不同C/N比堆肥碳素物质变化规律研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2010, 29(7):1388-1393.
[45]	陈孟立. 蔬菜废弃物堆肥过程中有机氮转化的机理[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.

原料	总碳/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	碳氮比	有机质/(g/kg)
干花秸秆	425.87±18.74	10.05±1.63	37.31±2.46	734.2±32.3
精油秸秆	431.38±6.04	14.58±2.16	33.64±1.42	743.7±10.4
羊粪	306.18±15.72	14.87±1.07	20.66±1.8	527.9±27.1

原料	总碳/(g/kg)	总氮/(g/kg)	碳氮比	有机质/(g/kg)
干花秸秆	425.87±18.74	10.05±1.63	37.31±2.46	734.2±32.3
精油秸秆	431.38±6.04	14.58±2.16	33.64±1.42	743.7±10.4
羊粪	306.18±15.72	14.87±1.07	20.66±1.8	527.9±27.1

处理	温度	含水率/%	pH	电导率/(mS/cm)	种子发芽指数/%	有机质/%	C/N
国家标准	50℃以上且保持5~7 d	<30	7.5~8.5	<4.00	>70	20~80	<20
T1	50℃以上保持14 d	29	9.1	5.72	64	33	13
T2	50℃以上保持0 d	29	8.3	1.6	105	39	21
T3	50℃以上保持19 d	28	7.9	2.43	97	49	18
T4	50℃以上保持0 d	32	8.4	1.4	86	45	23
T5	50℃以上保持2 d	34	8.5	1.4	129	47	24
T6	50℃以上保持7 d	30	8.1	1.4	81	44	19

处理	温度	含水率/%	pH	电导率/(mS/cm)	种子发芽指数/%	有机质/%	C/N
国家标准	50℃以上且保持5~7 d	<30	7.5~8.5	<4.00	>70	20~80	<20
T1	50℃以上保持14 d	29	9.1	5.72	64	33	13
T2	50℃以上保持0 d	29	8.3	1.6	105	39	21
T3	50℃以上保持19 d	28	7.9	2.43	97	49	18
T4	50℃以上保持0 d	32	8.4	1.4	86	45	23
T5	50℃以上保持2 d	34	8.5	1.4	129	47	24
T6	50℃以上保持7 d	30	8.1	1.4	81	44	19

处理	0 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	28 d	35 d	综合评价值	排序
T3	0.595267873	0.498264331	0.436014067	0.678496352	0.792306954	0.881618233	0.646994635	1
T6	0.675912726	0.613831185	0.583083952	0.667019598	0.642480392	0.634705427	0.636172214	2
T5	0.523315419	0.445007493	0.525112911	0.465021074	0.455058239	0.488310703	0.48363764	3
T1	0.499300454	0.472269841	0.427722048	0.542092435	0.513776052	0.377018816	0.472029941	4
T4	0.630921337	0.583643453	0.452427021	0.386691856	0.240886896	0.361704282	0.442712474	5
T2	0.368464052	0.438666069	0.399604029	0.575143269	0.44431003	0.418785073	0.440828754	6