Proximate Analysis and Bio-Digestion of Cattle Abdominal Waste for the Production of Organic Fertilizer



Abstract Views
470

Downloads
302

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Nov 25, 2020
Published Dec 27, 2020
10.24018/ejgeo.2020.1.6.94

Abstract viewed = 470 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Biodigestion of cattle abdominal waste from a slaughterhouse in Owerri West Local Government Area Imo state was studied. It was stabilized in a mobile biodigester for the production of quality fertilizer through the activities of microorganisms. Clean plastic bags were used to collect influent and effluent samples in replicate, stored and transported in iced coolers to the laboratory for analyses. Standard laboratory methods were used for sample analyses which focused on Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, pH, Organic matter, Moisture content, Organic carbon, and Carbon/Nitrogen ratio from pre-digested and digested samples as parameters of interest. Periodic sampling from biodigester was carried out at interval of 0 week (pre-digested samples- PDS), 2 weeks (digested samples1- DS1) and 5 weeks (digested samples 2 -DS2) for parameters investigated. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM- SPSS(C)) version 19.0, statistical package for windows and MS Excel was used in the analysis of data. The test of homogeneity of variance in means of the variables was carried out using the one-way ANOVA. Further structure detection was made with means plot. Results obtained on pre-digested influent show that Nitrogen varied between 2.03-2.06% (2.01±0.05), Potassium varied between 1.25-1.32mg/kg (1.28± 0.02), and Phosphorus varied between 1.45-1.54mg/kg (1.50±0.02). Carbon/Nitrogen ratio was constant at 20, Moisture content varied between 73.50-80.50% (78.00±1.56), Organic matter varied between 67.42-70.86% (69.05±0.70), Total organic carbon varied between 39.20-41.20% (40.15 ±0.46), and pH varied between 6.30–6.50 (6.41±0.04) respectively. In the digested effluent, Nitrogen varied between 1.40-1.66% (1.53±0.04), Phosphorus varied between 1.20–1.26mg/kg (1.23±0.01), Potassium varied between 1.10-1.17 mg/kg (1.13±0.01), pH varied between 7.20–7.45 (7.32±0.04), Total organic carbon varied between 25.20-29.88% (27.60±0.66), Carbon/Nitrogen ratio was constant at 18, Organic matter 43.34-51.39% (47.48±1.14), and Moisture content varied between 86.10-95.36% (90.88±1.23) respectively. General results show that there was significant inequality among the variables examined [F(12.50) > Fcrit (4.03)] at P=0.05. Total organic carbon, Organic matter and Moisture content were most responsible for the observed heterogeneity.

Keywords: Biodegradation/stabilization of cattle waste, Food security, Mobile biodigester, Temporal variation

References

  1. National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria], “Population and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  2. United Nations, “World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision”, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat; 2012.
     Google Scholar
  3. Food and Agricultural Organization FAO, “The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW)-Managing systems at risk”, Rome, FAO, and London, Earthscan. pp. 285 2011a.http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2330e.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  4. Food and Agricultural Organization FAO, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 High food prices and food security – threats and opportunities”, Rome, p. 7.2008.
     Google Scholar
  5. P. A. Matson, R. Naylor, and I. Ortiz-Monasterio, “Integration of environmental, agronomic, and economic aspects of fertilizer management”, Science vol. 280, pp. 112-115, 1998.
     Google Scholar
  6. J. N. Galloway, J. D. Aber, J. W. Erisman, S. P. Seitzinger, R. W. Howarth, E. B. Cowling, and B. J. Cosby, “The nitrogen Cascade”, Bio Science, vol. 53, pp. 341-356 2003.
     Google Scholar
  7. A. Jones, P. Panagos, S. Barcelo, F. Bouraoui, C. Bosco, O. Dewitte, et al., “The state of soil in Europe -a contribution of the jrc to the European environment agency’s environment state and outlook report–soer 2010”, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  8. R. Lal, “Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands”, Land Degradation & Development, vol. 17pp. 197-209 2006.
     Google Scholar
  9. E.J. Udo and F.O. Uzu Characteristics of Phosphorus Adsorption by some Nigerian Soils. Soil Science Society, America Proc. 36 pp. 883-897, 1972.
     Google Scholar
  10. The World Bank, Defining an Environmental Development Strategy for the Niger Delta Area of Nigeria, vol. 1 pp. 59.1995.
     Google Scholar
  11. H. Zhang, D.W. Hamilton, and J.G. Britton, Sampling Animal Manure, 1st Edn., Oklahoma, USA: University Press, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  12. D.W. Nelson and L.E. Sommer, Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological properties Madison, Wisconsin pp. 539-579, 1982.
     Google Scholar
  13. E. A. Casman, “Chemical and Microbiological Consequences of Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure: A Literature Review”, Insterstate Commission on the Potomac River basin prepared for EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 1996.
     Google Scholar
  14. Henderson, J.P (2001). Anaerobic digestion in rural China. City farmer publishers, Canada.
     Google Scholar
  15. S. A. Hart, “Digestion tests of livestock wastes”, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 35 pp. 748-757 1963.
     Google Scholar
  16. W.J. Jewell, H.R. Davis, W.W. Gunkel, D.J. Lathwell, J.H. Martin, T.R. McCarty, et al., “Report prepared for the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration”, Report No. TIB 27164, 1976.
     Google Scholar
  17. P. Rajabapaiah, K.V. Ramanayya, S.R. Mohan, and A.K.N. Reddy, “Studies in biogas technology: Part I, performance of a conventional biogas plant”, Proc. Indian Academy Sci., pp. 357-563, vol. C2 no.3, India, 1979.
     Google Scholar
  18. F. Harris, “Management of manure in farming systems in semi-arid west Africa”, Experimental Agriculture vol. 38 pp. 131-148, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  19. S. Paul, D. Onduru, B. Wouters, L. Gachimbi, J. Zake, and P. Ebanyat, “Cattle manure management in East Africa” Assessment, vol. 94, pp. 289-298 2009.
     Google Scholar
  20. H. Vetterand G. Steffens, eds., “Joint Meeting of Food and Organization Bodies”, Liebefeld, Switzerland, 1988.
     Google Scholar
  21. B. Magette and O. Carton, Agricultural pollution Control In: Kiely, G., Environmental Engineering, London: McGraw-Hill, 1996, pp. 420-434.
     Google Scholar
  22. N. Ewusi–Mensah, “Optimizing manure quality for increased food production on small holder farms in the upper east region of Ghana”, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi Ghana, 2009.
     Google Scholar
  23. M. Waqas, A. Nizami, S. Aburiazaiza, M. A. Barakat, I. M. I. Ismail and M. I. Rashid, Optimization of food waste compost with the use of biochar, Jour of Envir. Manage., Vol. 216 pp. 1-2 2017.
     Google Scholar
  24. C. G. Golueke, Principles of biological resources recovery, Bio Cycle. Vol. 22, pp. 36-40 1981.
     Google Scholar
  25. S. Jones Ulysses, Fertilizer and Soil Fertility, 2nd ed. New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall, 1982, pp. 304-305.
     Google Scholar
  26. K. Nanda Fageria and S. Adriano Nascente, “Management of Soil Acidity of South American Soils for Sustainable Crop Production”, Advances in Agronomy, vol. 128 pp. 1-2842014.
     Google Scholar
  27. B.A. Balogun, C.O. Owuama, and O.A. Onukogu. (October 2019). The Effects of an Industrial Wastewater Effluent on the Seasonal Variations of Ekerekana Creek, Rivers State Nigeria. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change [Online]. 9(11). pp. 671-681.Available: https://www.journalijecc.com/index.php/IJECC/article/view/30148.
     Google Scholar
  28. L. Hao, A. Bize, D. Conteau, O. Chapleur, S. Courtois, P. Kroff, et al “New insights into the key microbial phylotypes of anaerobic sludge digesters under different operational conditions”, Water Res, vol. 102, pp. 158-169 2016.
     Google Scholar