首页> 外文期刊>Journal of dairy science >Production of recycled manure solids for use as bedding in Canadian dairy farms: Ⅱ. Composting methods
【24h】

Production of recycled manure solids for use as bedding in Canadian dairy farms: Ⅱ. Composting methods

机译:加拿大乳制品农厂用作床上用品的再生粪便生产:Ⅱ。堆肥方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Recent technological advances in the dairy industryhave enabled Canadian farms with liquid manure systemsto use mechanical solid-liquid separation pairedwith composting of the separated solids for on-farmproduction of low-cost bedding material. However, becauseseveral approaches are available, it is difficult forfarmers to select the appropriate one to achieve highquality recycled manure solids (RMS). Whereas 3 solidliquidmanure separators were compared in part I ofthe series (companion paper in this issue), the presentstudy (part Ⅱ) aims to assess the performance of 4 compostingmethods (static or turned windrow and drumcomposter for 24 or 72 h) under laboratory conditions.Parameters evaluated included temperature, physicochemicalcharacteristics, and bacterial composition ofRMS, as well as airborne microorganisms, dust, andgases associated with composting RMS. Because eachtreatment attained the desired composting temperaturerange of 40 to 65°C (either in heaps or in the drumcomposter), reductions in bacteria were a better indicatorof the sanitation efficiency. The treatment offresh RMS in a drum composter for 24 h showed decreasedbacterial counts, especially for Escherichia coli(from 1.0 × 105 to 2.0 × 101 cfu/g of dry matter) andKlebsiella spp. (from 3.2 × 104 to 4.0 × 102 cfu/g ofdry matter). Increasing the time spent in the rotatingvessel to 72 h did not result in further decreasesof these pathogens. Composting in a static or turnedwindrow achieved similar E. coli and Klebsiella spp.reductions as the 24-h drum composting but in 5 or10 d, and generally showed the lowest occupationalexposure risk for dairy farmers regarding concentrationsof airborne mesophilic bacteria, mesophilic andthermotolerant fungi, and total dust. Drum-compostedRMS stored in piles exhibited intermediate to high risk.Composting approaches did not have a major influenceon the physico-chemical characteristics of RMS andgas emissions. Drum composting for 24 h was the bestcompromise in terms of product quality, temperaturereached, decreased bacterial numbers, and emitted airbornecontaminants. However, because levels of pathogenicagents rapidly increase once composted RMS arespread in stalls, bacteriological characteristics of RMSalong with milk quality and animal health and welfarefeatures should be monitored in Canadian dairy barnsapplying recommended separation (part Ⅰ) and composting(part Ⅱ) systems to evaluate health risk andoptimize management practices.
机译:最近乳业的技术进步使加拿大农场有液体粪便系统使用机械固液分离配对堆肥在农场的分离固体生产低成本床上用品材料。但是,因为有几种方法可用,很难农民选择合适的人来实现高质量再循环粪肥固体(RMS)。虽然3个固溶体在第一部分中比较粪便分离器该系列(本期伴随文件),目前研究(第二部分)旨在评估4个堆肥的性能方法(静态或转动卷发和鼓在实验室条件下堆积24或72小时。评估参数包括温度,物理化学特征和细菌组成RMS,以及空中微生物,灰尘和与堆肥率相关的气体。因为每个人治疗达到了所需的堆肥温度范围为40至65°C(无论是在堆中还是鼓复位剂,细菌的减少是一个更好的指标卫生效率。治疗鼓组件中的新鲜RMS 24小时显示下降细菌计数,尤其是大肠杆菌(从1.0×105到2.0×101 cfu / g的干物质)和Klebsiella spp。 (从3.2×104到4.0×102 cfu / g干物质)。增加在旋转中花费的时间船只到72小时没有导致进一步减少这些病原体。堆肥在静态或转动Windrow实现了类似的大肠杆菌和Klebsiella SPP。减少为24-H鼓堆肥但在5或10 d,并且通常显示出最低的职业乳制地对浓度的暴露风险空气中的嗜苯胺​​菌,嗜苯胺和热调节真菌,以及总灰尘。鼓堆肥储存在桩中的RMS表现出高风险。堆肥方法没有重大影响关于rms的物理化学特性气体排放。鼓堆肥24小时是最好的在产品质量,温度方面妥协达到,细菌数减少,并发出空气传播污染物。但是,因为致病水平一旦堆肥的RMS都是迅速增加的代理在摊位中传播,rms的细菌学特征随着牛奶质量和动物健康和福利在加拿大乳制品谷仓应该监控功能应用推荐分离(第Ⅰ部分)和堆肥(第二部分)系统评估健康风险和优化管理实践。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of dairy science》 |2019年第2期|1847-1865|共19页
  • 作者单位

    Departement des Sciences Animales Universite Laval Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 0A6;

    Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA) Quebec City Quebec Canada G1P 3W8;

    Centre de Recherche en Sciences Animales de Deschambault (CRSAD) Deschambault Quebec Canada G0A 1S0;

    Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA) Quebec City Quebec Canada G1P 3W8;

    Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 4G5;

    Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 4G5;

    Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA) Quebec City Quebec Canada G1P 3W8;

    Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 4G5;

    Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA) Quebec City Quebec Canada G1P 3W8;

    Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA) Quebec City Quebec Canada G1P 3W8;

    Centre de Recherche de l’Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 4G5;

    Departement des Sciences Animales Universite Laval Quebec City Quebec Canada G1V 0A6;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    cattle; compost characteristics; bacterial counts; air quality;

    机译:牛;堆肥特征;细菌计数;空气质量;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 22:29:34

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号