4.4 Article

Effect of Alum Treatment on the Concentration of Total and Ureolytic Microorganisms in Poultry Litter

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 2360-2367

出版社

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2008.0024

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA-ARS
  2. USDA-ARS National Program 206: Manure and By-product Utilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbial mineralization Of Urea and uric acid in Poultry litter results in the production of ammonia, which can lead to decreased poultry performance, malodorous emissions, and loss of poultry litter value as a fertilizer. Despite the fact that this is a microbial process, little is known about how the microbial populations, especially ammonia-producing (ureolytic) organisms in poultry litter, respond to litter amendments such as aluminum sulfate (Al-2(SO4)(3)center dot 14H(2)O; alum). The goal of this study was to measure the temporal changes in total bacterial and fungal populations and urease-producing microorganisms in nontreated litter or litter treated with 10% alum. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to target the bacterial 16S rRNA gene, the fungal 18S rRNA gene, or the urease gene of bacterial and fungal ammonia producers in a poultry litter incubation study. Nontreated poultry litter had relatively high total (2.8 +/- 0.8 x 10(10) cells g(-1) litter) and ureolytic (2.8 +/- 1.3 x 10(8) cells g(-1) litter) bacterial populations. Alum treatment reduced the total bacterial population by 50% and bacterial urease producers by 90% within 4 wk. In contrast, at 16 wk after alum treatment, the fungal population was three orders of magnitude higher in alum-treated litter than in nontreated litter (3.5 +/- 0.8 x 10(7) cells g(-1) litter and 5.5 +/- 2.5 x 10(4) cells g(-1) litter, respectively). The decrease in pH produced by alum treatment is believed to inhibit bacterial populations and favor growth of fungi chat may be responsible for the mineralization of organic nitrogen in alum-treated litters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据