Effects of Different Excipients and Microbial Agents on Aerobic Composting of Sheep Manure

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0428

Abstract

Abstract:

Aerobic composting is currently the effective recycling way to use sheep manure. This research aims at exploring the effects of the excipients and microbial agents on the maturity of sheep manure aerobic composting. We used sheep manure, rice straw and fungus bran as raw materials, added exogenous inoculants, measured the physical and chemical indicators, biological indicators and heavy metal indicators in each treatment. The average temperature was Z4>Z3>Z2>Z1, the highest temperature was 68.1℃, 69.1℃, 69.3℃ and 71.1℃, respectively. pH increased first and then decreased. At the end of composting, pH was 8.53, 8.25, 8.43 and 8.35, respectively. C/N decreased gradually and was 15, 16, 15 and 14 respectively at the end of composting. The moisture content gradually decreased, and the moisture content of Z2 was the lowest among the four treatments at the end of composting, furthermore the loss rate was the largest which was 66.82%. The total potassium content gradually increased, and the total potassium content of Z4 increased by 196.58%. GI gradually increased, reaching 110% on day 50, Z4 reached it first. The content of NH₄⁺-N decreased with fluctuation. The heavy metal content did not exceed the national standards. The effect of composting sheep manure with rice straw was better than that with fungus bran, and the combination of mixed agents and fungus bran treatment entered the thermophilic stage in advance, reached the maturity rapidly in the sheep manure composting.

Key words: sheep manure, microbial agents, excipients, aerobic composting, maturity, recycling

CLC Number:

S141.4

Lu Jiawei, Wang Mingze, Wang Qi, Wei Zongyou, Zhang Yanli, Wang Feng. Effects of Different Excipients and Microbial Agents on Aerobic Composting of Sheep Manure[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(15): 39-46.

Figures/Tables 9

References 33

[1]	张鲁杰. 羊粪发酵生产有机肥料技术[J]. 山东畜牧兽医, 2018,39(1):87.
[2]	孙元烽. 羊粪有机肥的研制[D]. 贵阳:贵州大学, 2019.
[3]	成钢, 郭宝琼, 田娟, 等. 洞庭湖区羊粪新型生态堆肥模式及应用[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2019(4):11-13.
[4]	周江明, 王利通, 徐庆华, 等. 适宜猪粪与菌渣配比提高堆肥效率[J]. 农业工程学报, 2015,31(7):201-207.
[5]	邱珊莲, 张少平, 翁伯琦, 等. 鸡粪菌渣好氧堆肥过程中氨氧化古菌及氨氧化细菌群落的动态变化[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2016,35(3):573-583.
[6]	郭夏丽, 张静晓, 王静, 等. 菌渣和牛粪联合堆肥中的氮素转化研究[J]. 郑州大学学报:工学版, 2012,33(1):71-74.
[7]	黄绍文, 唐继伟, 李春花, 等. 我国商品有机肥和有机废弃物中重金属、养分和盐分状况[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(1):162-173.
[8]	王道泽, 谢国雄, 李丹, 等. 不同微生物菌剂在鸡粪堆肥中的应用效果[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2013,25(5):1074-1078.
[9]	王守红, 朱凌宇, 徐荣, 等. 菌剂添加对牛粪堆肥氮素变化及腐熟度影响[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2017,44(4):659-664.
[10]	陆艳, 蔡其刚, 王戈平, 等. 不同发酵剂对牛羊屠宰粪便发酵效果的比较[J]. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2010,40(2):17-19.
[11]	刘超, 王若斐, 操一凡, 等. 不同碳氮比下牛粪高温堆肥腐熟进程研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2017,48(3):662-668.
[12]	荆红俊. 不同堆积高度对羊粪堆肥效果的影响[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学, 2015.
[13]	王若斐, 刘超, 操一凡, 等. 不同碳氮比猪粪堆肥及其产品功效[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(6):127-134,154.
[14]	夏婕. 添加秸秆等物料生产优质有机肥技术探讨[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2018.
[15]	沈玉君, 李冉, 孟海波, 等. 国内外堆肥标准分析及其对中国的借鉴启示[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019,35(12):265-271.
[16]	于子旋. 畜禽粪便堆肥理化特征及腐熟度评价研究[D]. 合肥:安徽农业大学, 2016.
[17]	鲍艳宇, 周启星, 颜丽, 等. 畜禽粪便堆肥过程中各种氮化合物的动态变化及腐熟度评价指标[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008(2):374-380.
[18]	Jiménez E I, Garcia V P. Evaluation of city refuse compost maturity: a review[J]. Biological Wastes, 1989,27(2):115-142. doi: 10.1016/0269-7483(89)90039-6 URL
[19]	李红燕. 畜禽粪便堆肥过程中有机肥腐熟研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2019,47(12):70-72.
[20]	李承强, 魏源送, 樊耀波, 等. 不同填充料污泥好氧堆肥的性质变化及腐熟度[J]. 环境科学, 2001(3):60-65.
[21]	Jiménez E I, Garcia V P. Composting of domestic refuse and sewage sludge. II. evolution of carbon and some “humification” indexes[J]. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 1992,6(3):243-257. doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(92)90034-Y URL
[22]	翟红, 张衍林, 艾平, 等. 不同初始含水率对沼渣和秸秆混合堆肥过程的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2011,50(21):4357-4360.
[23]	易荣菲. 牛粪堆肥中理化性质及酶活性动态变化特征研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2015.
[24]	Zhao S, Schmidt S, Qin W, et al. Towards the circular nitrogen economy-A global meta-analysis of composting technologies reveals much potential for mitigating nitrogen losses[J]. The Science of the total environment, 2020,704.
[25]	Cai Y, He Y, He K, et al. Degradation mechanism of lignocellulose in dairy cattle manure with the addition of calcium oxide and superphosphate[J]. Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019,26(6):33683-33693. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06444-9 URL
[26]	田伟. 牛粪高温堆肥过程中的物质变化、微生物多样性以及腐熟度评价研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2012.
[27]	Murwira H K, Kirchmann H, Swift M J. The effect of moisture on the decomposition rate of cattle manure[J]. Plant & Soil, 1990,122(2):197-199.
[28]	Garcia C, Hernandez T, Costa F, et al. Evaluation of the maturity of municipal waste compost using simple chemical parameters[J]. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis, 1992,23(13-14):1501-1512.
[29]	黄懿梅, 曲东, 李学, 等. 两种外源微生物对鸡粪高温堆肥的影响[J]. 农业环境保护, 2002(3):208-210.
[30]	王卫平, 汪开英, 薛智勇, 等. 不同微生物菌剂处理对猪粪堆肥中氨挥发的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005(4):693-697.
[31]	龚建英, 田锁霞, 王智中, 等. 微生物菌剂和鸡粪对蔬菜废弃物堆肥化处理的影响[J]. 环境工程学报, 2012,6(8):2813-2817.
[32]	钱晓雍, 沈根祥, 黄丽华, 等. 畜禽粪便堆肥腐熟度评价指标体系研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009,28(3):549-554.
[33]	Ko H J, Kim K Y, Kim H T, et al. Evaluation of maturity parameters and heavy metal contents in composts made from animal manure[J]. Waste Management, 2008,28(5):813-20. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.010 URL

堆肥原料	含水率/%	pH	碳氮比	硝态氮/%	铵态氮/%	总磷/(g/kg)	总钾/(g/kg)
羊粪	71.95±2.45	8.43	20.3	0.08	0.06	0.39	0.22
水稻秸秆	11.18±0.66	6.72	48.0	0.13	0.02	0.20	0.17
菌糠	62.24±0.80	5.48	33.6	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.29

堆肥原料	含水率/%	pH	碳氮比	硝态氮/%	铵态氮/%	总磷/(g/kg)	总钾/(g/kg)
羊粪	71.95±2.45	8.43	20.3	0.08	0.06	0.39	0.22
水稻秸秆	11.18±0.66	6.72	48.0	0.13	0.02	0.20	0.17
菌糠	62.24±0.80	5.48	33.6	0.09	0.04	0.02	0.29

重金属/(mg/kg)	Z1处理	Z2处理	Z3处理	Z4处理	标准
铅	3.65	4.80	3.55	4.05	≤50
镉	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	≤3
汞	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	≤2
砷	1.80	1.90	1.45	1.20	≤15
铬	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	≤150

重金属/(mg/kg)	Z1处理	Z2处理	Z3处理	Z4处理	标准
铅	3.65	4.80	3.55	4.05	≤50
镉	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	未检出(<1)	≤3
汞	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	未检出（<0.1）	≤2
砷	1.80	1.90	1.45	1.20	≤15
铬	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	未检出（<7）	≤150