Advertisement

Effect of EM microbial agent on aerobic composting for dairy cattle manure

  • G. Qu
  • Y. Cai
  • P. Lv
  • X. Ma
  • R. Xie
  • Y. Xu
  • P. NingEmail author
Original Paper
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Basing to the controversy on the function of the effective microorganisms (EM) microbial agent in manure aerobic composting, the differences of physical and biomass indexes of the experimental group (EP) (manure with EM inoculant) and the control group (CK) (manure without the EM inoculant) were studied and compared during composting. The results showed that the differences of physical indexes variation between the EP and the CK were similar during the process of composting. The number of operational taxonomic units (OTU) in the EP was lower than that in the CK at the beginning, while it was on the contrary in the end. The current study suggested that the presence of the EM microbial agent did not improve the number of OTU at the initial stage and early warming stage of aerobic composting. And, it intensified the competition with indigenous microorganisms in the piles. Furthermore, no obvious difference effects were observed between the EP and the CK. Considering the composting cost, the addition of the EM bacteria was unnecessary.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Aerobic composting Dairy manure Diversity analysis Effective microorganisms (EM) microbial agent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was financially supported by the National Major Science and Technology projects (Grant No. 2014ZX07105-001); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21377048).

References

  1. Adams JDW, Frostick LE (2009) Analysis of bacterial activity, biomass and diversity during windrow composting. Waste Manag 29(2):598–605Google Scholar
  2. Alotaibi K, Rayward-Smith V, Iglesia BDL (2014) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a perturbation model for privacy-preserving data clustering. Stat Anal Data Min Asa Data Sci J 7(3):175–193Google Scholar
  3. Boldrin A, Christensen TH (2010) Seasonal generation and composition of garden waste in Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Manag 30(4):551–557Google Scholar
  4. Budzikiewicz H (2004) Siderophores of the Pseudomonadaceae sensu stricto (fluorescent and non-fluorescent Pseudomonas spp.). Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang H, An D, Wang P, Zuo X, Yi Q, Sun A, Qi Y (2013) Natural aerobic fermentation microorganism change regularity in cow dung. Chin J Environ Eng 7(1):333–339Google Scholar
  6. Gao Y, Gou C, Wang Y, Wang W, Zhao H, Lou Y (2014) Effects of the cold-adapted complex microbial agents on cattle manure composting. Environ Sci 34(12):3166–3170Google Scholar
  7. Gavilanesterán I, Jarasamaniego J, Idrovonovillo J, Bustamante MA, Moral R, Paredes C (2016) Windrow composting as horticultural waste management strategy—a case study in Ecuador. Waste Manag 48:127–134Google Scholar
  8. Gotaas HB (1956) Composting: Sanitary disposal and reclamation of organic wastes. Monograph 31(31):201–205Google Scholar
  9. Gu S, Cai H, Yan L, Nie Y, Cui K, Wang F, He X (2015) Study on different C/N ratio of aerobic composting between chicken manure and rice husk. J Northeast Agric Univ 46(4):51–58Google Scholar
  10. Inbar Y, Hadar Y, Chen Y (1993) Recycling of cattle manure: the composting process and characterization of maturity. J Environ Qual 22(4):31–46Google Scholar
  11. Iqbal MK, Shafiq T, Ahmed K (2010) Characterization of bulking agents and its effects on physical properties of compost. Biores Technol 101(6):1913–1919Google Scholar
  12. Jin Z, Wang S, Zou R, Liu K, Wang H, Yang J, Sun J (2010) Microbial agents and the optimum control parameters for pig manure composting. J Agro-Environ Sci 29(3):586–591Google Scholar
  13. Jishao J, Xueling L, Yimei H, Hua H (2015) Inoculation with nitrogen turnover bacterial agent appropriately increasing nitrogen and promoting maturity in pig manure composting. Waste Manag 39:78–85Google Scholar
  14. Li T, Hu S, Li C, Huang H, Yang H, Zhang F (2013) Preparation of complex microbial agent for pig manure and straw compost and application effect. Acat Agric Boreali Occident Sin 22(6):183–189Google Scholar
  15. Li J, Yu J, Feng Z, Xie J, Xie X, Jiang L, Zhang J (2014) Effect of different microbial inoculants on aerobic composting of cow manure. J Arid Land Resour Environ 28(2):109–113Google Scholar
  16. Palleroni NJ (1992) Introduction to the family Pseudomonadaceae. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Qian X, Shen G, Wang Z, Guo C, Liu Y, Lei Z, Zhang Z (2014) Co-composting of livestock manure with rice straw: characterization and establishment of maturity evaluation system. Waste Manag 34(2):530–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rasapoor M, Adl M, Pourazizi B (2016) Comparative evaluation of aeration methods for municipal solid waste composting from the perspective of resource management: a practical case study in Tehran, Iran. J Environ Manag 184(5):528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rynk R, Bertoldi M, Willson G, Singley MK, Richard TL, Kolega J et al (1992) On-farm composting handbook. In: Applied engineering in agriculture, no 6, pp 273–281Google Scholar
  20. Sánchez-Monedero MA, Roig A, Paredes C, Bernal MP (2001) Nitrogen transformation during organic waste composting by the Rutgers system and its effects on pH, EC and maturity of the composting mixtures. Biores Technol 78(3):301–308Google Scholar
  21. Sasaki H, Kitazume O, Nonaka J, Hikosaka K, Otawa K, Itoh K, Nakai Y (2006) Effect of a commercial microbiological additive on beef manure compost in the composting process. Anim Sci J 77(5):545–548Google Scholar
  22. Tiessen A, Cubedo-Ruiz EA, Winkler R (2017) Improved representation of biological information by using correlation as distance function for heatmap cluster analysis. Am J Plant Sci 08(3):502–516Google Scholar
  23. Tran TM, Luxhøi J, Jensen LS (2012) Turnover of manure N-labelled ammonium during composting and soil application as affected by lime and superphosphate addition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 77(1):190–201Google Scholar
  24. Tubail K, Chen L Jr, Michael FC, Keener HM, Rigot JF, Klingman M, Kost D, Dick WA (2008) Gypsum additions reduce ammonia nitrogen losses during composting of dairy manure and biosolids. Compost Sci Util 16(4):285–293Google Scholar
  25. Wang S, Liu K, Li R, Wang J, Jin Z, Yang J (2014) Enhanced technology of cattle manure compost by microbial inoculum with high lignocellulose degradation ability. Trans Chin Soc Agric Mach 45(4):201–207Google Scholar
  26. Yamada Y, Kawase Y (2006) Aerobic composting of waste activated sludge: kinetic analysis for microbiological reaction and oxygen consumption. Waste Manag 26(1):49–61Google Scholar
  27. Yamada T, Suzuki A, Ueda H, Ueda Y, Miyauchi K, Endo G (2008) Successions of bacterial community in composting cow dung wastes with or without hyperthermophilic pre-treatment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 81(4):771–781Google Scholar
  28. Yang H, Zhang G, Yang X, Wu F, Zhao W, Zhang H, Zhang X (2017) Microbial community structure and diversity in cellar water by 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing. Environm Sci 38(4):1704–1716Google Scholar
  29. Zhang H (2013) Effects of C/N ratio on the maturity during kitchen waste composting. Environ Eng 31(2):87–91Google Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Wang H, Shen L, Lei Q, Jian L, He J, Zhai L, Ren T, Liu H (2015) Identifying critical nitrogen application rate for maize yield and nitrate leaching in a Haplic Luvisol soil using the DNDC model. Sci Total Environ 514:388–398Google Scholar
  31. Zhang Y, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Lu Q, Li M, Wang X, Wei Y, Xie X, Wei Z (2016) A regulating method for reducing nitrogen loss based on enriched ammonia-oxidizing bacteria during composting. Biores Technol 221:276–283Google Scholar
  32. Zhu N (2006) Composting of high moisture content swine manure with corncob in a pilot-scale aerated static bin system. Biores Technol 97(15):1870–1875Google Scholar
  33. Zhu C, Yu J (2009) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling corrects for population structure in association mapping with different sample types. Genetics 182(3):875–888Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Qu
    • 1
  • Y. Cai
    • 1
  • P. Lv
    • 1
  • X. Ma
    • 1
  • R. Xie
    • 1
  • Y. Xu
    • 1
  • P. Ning
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental Science and EngineeringKunming University of Science and TechnologyKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations