4.8 Article

Nitrogen loss in chicken litter compost as affected by carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning frequency

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 99, Issue 16, Pages 7495-7503

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.020

Keywords

composting; C : N ratio; turning frequency; total nitrogen loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study was undertaken to investigate the effects of carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio and turning frequency (TF) oil the loss of total nitrogen (TN) during composting of chicken litter (a mixture of chicken manure, waste feed, feathers and sawdust) with a view to producing good quality compost. Carbon to nitrogen ratios of 20:1, 25:1 and 30:1 and TF of 2, 4 and 6 days were experimented. The initial physico-chemical properties of the litter were determined. During the composting process, moisture level in the piles was periodically replenished to 55% and the temperature, pH and TN of the chicken litter were periodically monitored. Also, the dry matter (DM), total carbon (TC), total phosphorus (P) and total potassium (K) were examined at the end of composting. The results showed that both C:N ratio and TF had significant) (p <= 0.05) effect on pile temperature, pH changes, TN, TC, P and K losses while DM was only affected (p <= 0.05) by C:N ratio. All treatments reached maturation at about 87 days as indicated by the decline of pile temperatures to near ambient temperature. Losses of TN, which were largely attributed to volatilization of ammonia (NH3), were highest within the first 28 days when the pile temperatures and pH values were above 33 degrees C and 7.7, respectively. Moisture loss increased as C:N ratio and TF increased. In conclusion, the treatment with a combination of 4 days TF and C:N ratio 25:1 (T4R25) had the minimum TIN loss (70.73% of the initial TN) and this indicated the most efficient combination. (C) 2008 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available