Study of the Use of Chicken Manure Digestate as Organic Fertilizer in Comparison with Fresh Chicken Manure

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

1 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 61357-43311, Iran

2 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 61357-43311, Iran.

3 Department of Soil Science, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 61357-43311, Iran.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the fertilizer properties of anaerobic digestion residues (digestate) of chicken manure and fresh chicken manure with the aim of benefiting from the produced biogas and alleviating the environmental problems of fresh chicken manure. The study was conducted in a completely randomized design. In addition to the control treatment, experimental treatment groups were Fresh Chicken Manure (FCM), Chicken Manure Digestate (CMD) and Enriched Chicken manure (ECM), each at three levels and with 3 replications. A total of 30 experimental pots were used for soil treatments and wheat planting. At the end of the growing season, soil variables including nitrogen, organic carbon, absorbable phosphorus, and pH, and physical properties of wheat including dry weight of shoots, seeds and roots were measured. The results were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. CMD application relatively increased soil nitrogen, organic carbon and phosphorus, kept the soil pH neutral, and improved wheat yield components. Compared to FCM, not only has the quality of CMD as biofertilizer not decreased, but it has also improved in some respects. CMD is superior to ECM in all studied indicators. The results are also better or at least equal in comparison with FCM. Due to the environmental benefits of anaerobic digestion of chicken manure and also the production of biogas as a valuable product and proving that the quality of the resulting fertilizer is not reduced, the use of CMD as organic fertilizer has more advantages than the use of FCM and even ECM.

Keywords


Alfa MI, Adie DB, Igboro SB, Oranusi US, Dahunsi SO & Akali DM (2014). Assessment of biofertilizer quality and health implications of anaerobic digestion effluent of cow dung and chicken droppings. Renew Energy 63, 681–686.
ASTM (2001). Standard test method for pH of soil. D 4972. West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bremner JM & Mulvaney CS (1982). Nitrogen – total. In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison.
Busato CJ, Da Ros C, Pellay R, Barbierato P & Pavan P (2020). Anaerobic membrane reactor: Biomethane from chicken manure and high-quality effluent. Renew Energy 145, 1647–1657.
Carter MR & Gregorich EG (2007). Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. CRC Press. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTJsbXsikagC.
Chen Y, Cheng JJ & Creamer KS (2008). Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour Technol 99, 4044–4064.
Faroughi SA & Huber C (2016). A theoretical hydrodynamic modification on the soil texture analyses obtained from the hydrometer test. Geotechnique 66, 378–385.
Guštin S & Marinšek-Logar R (2011). Effect of pH, temperature and air flow rate on the continuous ammonia stripping of the anaerobic digestion effluent. Process Saf Environ Prot 89, 61–66.
Higashikawa FS, Silva CA & Bettiol W (2010). Chemical and physical properties of organic residues. Rev Bras Ciência do Solo 34, 1742–1752.
Iocoli GA, Zabaloy MC, Pasdevicelli G & Gómez MA (2019). Use of biogas digestates obtained by anaerobic digestion and co-digestion as fertilizers: Characterization, soil biological activity and growth dynamic of Lactuca sativa L. Sci Total Environ 647, 11–19.
Khandare RN, Chandra R, Pareek N & Raverkar KP (2020). Carrier-based and liquid bioinoculants of Azotobacter and PSB saved chemical fertilizers in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and enhanced soil biological properties in Mollisols. J Plant Nutr 43, 36–50.
Li B, Dinkler K, Zhao N, Sobhi M, Merkle W, Liu S, Dong R, Oechsner H & Guo J (2020). Influence of anaerobic digestion on the labile phosphorus in pig, chicken, and dairy manure. Sci Total Environ 737, 140234.
Liedl BE, Bombardiere J & Chatfield JM (2006). Fertilizer potential of liquid and solid effluent from thermophilic anaerobic digestion of poultry waste. Water Sci Technol 53, 69–79.
Mahato P, Goyette B, Rahaman MS & Rajagopal R (2020). Processing high-solid and high-ammonia rich manures in a two-stage (Liquid-solid) low-temperature anaerobic digestion process: Start-up and operating strategies. Bioengineering 7, 1–15.
Mortola N, Romaniuk R, Cosentino V, Eiza M, Carfagno P, Rizzzo P, Bres P, Riera N, Roba M, Butti M, Sainz D & Brutti L (2019). Potential Use of a Poultry Manure Digestate as a Biofertiliser: Evaluation of Soil Properties and Lactuca sativa Growth. Pedosphere 29, 60–69.
Nkoa R (2014). Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: A review. Agron Sustain Dev 34, 473–492.
Rajagopal R, Mousavi SE, Goyette B & Adhikary S (2021). Coupling of microalgae cultivation with anaerobic digestion of poultry wastes: Toward sustainable value added bioproducts. Bioengineering; DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering8050057.
Savci S (2012). Investigation of Effect of Chemical Fertilizers on Environment. APCBEE Procedia 1, 287–292.
Srivastav AL (2020). Chemical fertilizers and pesticides: role in groundwater contamination. LTD. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-103017-2.00006-4.
Sürmeli RÖ, Bayrakdar A & Çalli B (2018). Ammonia recovery from chicken manure digestate using polydimethylsiloxane membrane contactor. J Clean Prod 191, 99–104.
Walkley A & Black IA (1934). An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the cromic titration method. Soil Sci 34, 29–38.
Wedwitschka H, Ibanez DG, Schäfer F, Jenson E & Nelles M (2020). Material characterization and substrate suitability assessment of chicken manure for dry batch anaerobic digestion processes. Bioengineering 7, 1–16.