4.7 Article

Effect of sawdust addition on composting of separated raw and anaerobically digested pig manure

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 70-77

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.035

Keywords

Compost; Swine; Oxygen uptake rate; Germination test; Anaerobic digestion; Carbon:nitrogen ratio

Funding

  1. Irish Department of Agriculture Food and Fisheries's Research Stimulus Fund Programme (RSFP) under the National Development Plan
  2. Teagasc Walsh Fellowship scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Manures need the addition of carbon-rich bulking agents to conserve N during composting, which increases the cost of the composting process. The recommended proportion of manure/sawdust, based on a carbon (C):nitrogen (N) ratio, is approximately 3:2. Two composting experiments were conducted to determine the impact of varying the proportion of sawdust to either separated raw, or separated anaerobically digested pig manures. To determine stability and maturity of the final compost, oxygen uptake rate (OUR) and germination index (GI) tests were conducted. For both experiments, three treatments were employed: manure-only (Treatment A), manure/sawdust mixed 4:1, fresh weight (Treatment B), and manure/sawdust mixed 3:2, fresh weight (Treatment C). The mixtures were composted in tumblers for 56 days with regular turning. The composting material was tested over the study duration for temperature. pH, water content, organic matter, C:N ratio and bulk density. For both Treatments B and C, the GI indicated low levels of phytotoxicity, and OUR values were lower than the recommended Irish threshold of 13 mmol 02 kg OM-1 h(-1), indicating that a high quality compost was produced. The proportion of sawdust to separated manure used can be reduced to make a cost saving, while still producing a stable end-product: 60% less sawdust is required to compost at a manure-to-sawdust ratio of 4:1 compared to the previously recommended ratio of 3:2. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available