Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Water and Nitrogen Management for Green Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) under Drip Irrigation in Sub-Tropical Monsoon Climate Regions
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploration of Compost Soil for the Production of Thermo-Stable Bacillus Protease to Synthesize Bioactive Compounds through Soy Protein Hydrolysis
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Regulated Deficit Irrigation on Arbequina’s Crop Yield and EVOOs Quality and Sensory Profile
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characterization of Antagonist Potential of Selected Compost Bacterial Isolates (CBI) against Plant and Human Pathogens
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy13010035
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Effect of Biochar Amendments on the Co-Composting of Food Waste and Livestock Manure

by
Woojin Chung
1,†,
Jaehong Shim
2,†,
Soon Woong Chang
1 and
Balasubramani Ravindran
1,*
1
Department of Environmental Energy Engineering, Kyonggi University, 154-42 Gwanggyosan-ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon-Si 16227, Republic of Korea
2
Soil and Fertilizer Management Division, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, Wanju-Gun 55365, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to the work.
Agronomy 2023, 13(1), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010035
Submission received: 11 November 2022 / Revised: 10 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion of Agro-Industrial and Livestock Wastes: A Green and Sustainable Way toward the Future)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The global increase in population will result in increased global food production which can, in turn, lead to excessive food waste. Although composting is widely adopted for the conversion of organic waste into value-added products, there are several limitations, such as its lower efficiency in composting food waste without co-composting, the loss of nutrients, and the emission of greenhouse gases. Due to its renowned characteristics, biochar amendments are used during composting to overcome these issues; each waste should be at an appropriate level to yield good quality compost with high nutrient levels. In this study, we co-composted food waste with chicken and swine manure with varying proportions in the presence and absence of biochar to identify the ideal proportion of each raw material and the biochar. Physicochemical parameters such as pH, EC, temperature, bulk density, porosity, C:N ratio, and gaseous emissions were analyzed. The results showed that the desired quality of compost was obtained in the treatment with 5% biochar with 40%, 20%, and 20% of food waste, chicken manure, and swine manure, respectively, and 15% sawdust.

1. Introduction

The increasing global population has resulted in high demand for food and livestock production. It is predicted that the global demand for producing food [1], chicken meat, and pig meat will increase by 35%, 39%, and 32%, respectively, by 2030 [2]. According to Korean Statistical Information Service estimates, South Korea has 2786 poultry farms and 5951 pig farms with 11 million head of pigs and 171 million head of chicken [3]. This intensive livestock production has produced large amounts of manure containing considerable amounts of nutrients, heavy metals, and pathogens [4,5,6]. Recent studies have shown that food waste of about 1.3 billion tons is generated worldwide annually; this is expected to rise more in the next two decades [7,8]. The increasing population will lead to the depletion of resources, in addition to harmful impacts on the environment and health. The resource depletion can be minimized by a circular economy approach, where the material flow is continuous and ensures the material usage is at its optimal level of consumption [9,10]. The circular economy is a cost-effective approach and is preferable over other approaches such as landfills and incineration [11].
Composting is one of the most widely accepted circular economy approach for recycling organic waste and represents a cost-effective method for recycling nutrients. Although composting is considered to have a low environmental impact [12], it is inevitable that the composting of manure will release anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other gases such as ammonia, VOCs, etc. [13]. The release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) causes a loss of carbon, while ammonia (NH3) volatilization results in a loss of nitrogen, which reduces the nutritional content of the final compost. The composting efficiency of food waste is also very low due to disadvantages such as its low porosity, high bulk density, poor C:N ratio, easy acidification, etc. [14,15,16]. The final product or the compost produced is used in agricultural lands for increasing crop yields by improving the quality of the soil [16]; the product produced should be of good quality, which increases the concentration and solubility of plant nutrients such as potassium and phosphorus with high water-retaining capacity and aeration. Hence, it is necessary to overcome the abovementioned difficulties. Several studies suggested that the co-composting of food waste in combination with manure that has high nitrogen and low moisture contents minimizes the potential environmental impacts [17,18,19,20]. Co-composting enables the aerobic degradation of organic waste mixtures, to obtain compost that can be used as fertilizer. Co-composting also reduces the time and effort associated with composting and can have economic benefits [21]. In order to minimize nutrient loss, the addition of carbonaceous material is highly preferred. Sawdust is a preferred amendment which is used to increase the carbon content and maintain the nitrogen from food waste and manure.
The usage of raw materials such as food waste and manures increases bulk density and decreases porosity. Hence, bulking agents must be used while co-composting food waste and manure to enhance the structure and oxygen diffusion [22]. Several studies have used biochar of different origin such as bamboo [23], rice-straw [24], willow woodchips [25], etc., and have suggested biochar as the best agent due to its high porosity and sorption capacity which enhance aeration during composting [26]. However, to achieve the best output, i.e., compost of high quality, the raw materials used for composting should be in appropriate proportions. Very limited research has focused on the proportions of raw materials to be used during the co-composting of food waste with one or more manure types. The present study concentrates on the effect of biochar amendment during the co-composting of food waste with chicken and swine manure, and attempts to identify the effect of different proportions of the raw material and amendments such as sawdust and biochar by exploring the changes in the physico-chemical parameters, gaseous emissions, and nutrient indicators during composting. This will help develop a clear understanding of the effect of biochar amendment and the relationship between the gaseous emissions and the quality of the obtained compost.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Feedstock Preparation and Experimental Design

The raw materials containing residential food waste was collected from the Suwon city food resource recycling facility; chicken and swine manure were collected from local farms. Sawdust was obtained from the local wood industry and was used for regulating the initial moisture content. The biochar of rice husk prepared by pyrolysis was obtained from a commercial company and was substituted with sawdust at different proportions. All the feedstock was mixed manually in different weight proportions to obtain a homogenous mixture. Nine different treatments were utilized, and their initial moisture contents were adjusted to 65%. Treatments without biochar served as controls. The physicochemical properties of the raw materials were reported in our previous findings [21,27]. The proportion details of the raw materials are tabulated in Table 1. The composting experiment was carried out for 50 days in a reactor at a temperature of 21 ± 2 °C, as described in [21]. Periodically, the raw materials were thoroughly mixed to distribute evenly.

2.2. Physicochemical Analysis

The pH, electrical conductivity, bulk density, and porosity of the composting mixtures were measured on the first day and the last day of the experiment. The pH and EC were determined as described in [21] by mixing the sample in distilled water at a 1:10 ratio (w/v). The bulk density and porosity were measured according to [28]. The C:N ratio was measured on days 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 50 of the composting process. The C:N ratio was estimated by determining total carbon and nitrogen contents according to [29] by Truspec CN carbon/nitrogen determination (LECO Corporation). The temperature, ammonia, and carbon dioxide emissions were monitored daily. The NH3 emissions (g/day) were measured using the detector tubes method [30] and the CO2 (%) was evaluated using a biogas analyzer (GA5000, Geotech, UK).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The results obtained in the study on the changes in various parameters were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) using SPSS computer software by fixing the significance level at p < 0.05. Here, the duration of composting (days) was considered as the dependent variable, while the treatment groups and parameters were considered as factors. All data are presented as the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation. For computing the values of pH, EC, bulk density, and porosity, initial and final values were compared with respective treatment’s replicate values.

3. Results and Discussion

In this experiment, significant changes in the overall characteristics between the biochar-amended treatment and control treatment were observed, which indicated that the treatment had achieved maturity.

3.1. Changes in the Temperature, pH, and EC

One important characteristic that influences the successful maturity of compost is the temperature. The optimal temperature has to be maintained throughout the composting process to support microbial growth for the biodegradation of substrates followed by biogas production [31,32]. During the first week of composting, the temperature reached its maximum (between 40 and 60 °C) on the fifth day and gradually decreased, with some fluctuations until the third week. After the third week, the temperature continued to decrease until the final day of composting (Figure 1). The substrate mixtures were periodically turned to evenly distribute heat and aeration, which led to the observed fluctuations. Several studies have reported that biochar amendments increase the temperature; similarly, in our study, it can be observed that the temperature of the treatments in the absence of biochar (T1–T3) is comparatively low, especially in T3. The low temperature in T3 could be because of the high proportion (60%) of food waste used in the treatment mixture. Although food waste constitutes biodegradable materials that will produce heat during microbial degradation [33], high proportions will increase the moisture which will affect the temperature. The maintenance of optimal temperature was observed in the 5% biochar treatments (T8 and T7) and 3% biochar treatments (T5 and T4), but not in T9 and T6, which was also due to the high proportion of food waste in those treatments. The increased temperatures increase the rate of acidification, which will decrease microbial growth, ultimately affecting biodegradation. An ambient temperature supporting microbial growth and biodegradation is required. The temperatures achieved in our study were in accordance with the compost hygiene standard [34].
The initial pH of the treatment mixtures ranged between 5.70 and 7.18, and increased (ranging between 6.80 and 7.98) by the end of the composting process. The ammonization and volatilization reaction during the biodegradation followed by the emission of greenhouse gases led to this increased pH [25,35,36]. From Figure 2, it can be observed that in the treatments without biochar, the pH is slightly acidic, which is not favorable to the composting process and can result in poor-quality compost. The initial pH of the treatments without biochar is inversely proportional to the concentration of food waste and directly proportional to the concentration of manures. This could be because of the alkaline nature of the chicken manure and swine manure. However, the addition of biochar to the composting mixture increased the initial pH. This shows that biochar used as a bulking agent assisted in attaining an alkaline pH in the reaction at the initial stages itself. Previous studies have reported that a pH ranging from 7.0 to 8.5 with 12% biochar provides ideal conditions for biodegradation by microbes [24]. We attained favorable pH values with 5% biochar, which was likely due to the selection of feedstock proportions.
The toxicity of salts and the suitability of compost for agricultural purposes can be evaluated by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) [37,38,39]. In our study, the initial EC was found to be very high in treatments without biochar amendment, whereas the EC of the treatments with biochar was comparatively low (Figure 3). During the final stage of composting, the EC of all the treatments decreased and was in the range of 2.11–2.65. The decrease in the EC value was due to the precipitation and volatilization of salts and ammonia, respectively [40]. The EC observed in our results was in the permissible ranges of agricultural applications and in agreement with previous reports [30,41].

3.2. Changes in Bulk Density and Porosity

Previous studies have reported the importance of bulk density and total porosity in regulating the composting process [42]. Bulk density is an important parameter to be monitored in composting experiments; it should decrease over the period of composting as it reaches maturity [43]. In Figure 4, it can be observed that the initial bulk density of the treatments without biochar decreases with the increase in the proportion of food waste. In biochar-amended treatment groups, however, the initial bulk density was comparatively higher than those without biochar. At the final stage of composting, as the compost matured, in the treatments without biochar, the BD significantly increased p < 0.05, whereas the BD of the biochar-amended groups, T8, T7, T5, and T4, decreased significantly (53.05%, 39.25%, 21.71%, and 18.47%, respectively, data not shown) p < 0.05. In T9, where the composting mixture carried 5% biochar, the percentage reduction in BD was 4.68%, which was not observed in T6 (with 3% biochar amendment), indicating that the biochar percentage was not sufficient in T6. The final BDs of treatments with the biochar amendment were found to be 0.331, 0.321, 0.392, 0.274, 0.231 and 0.367 g/cm3, which are within the optimal conditions of <0.4 g/cm3. However, in the treatments without biochar (T1–T3), the BD was not in the optimal range indicating that the compost is not suitable. The increase in BD in treatments without biochar was because of the short thermophilic phase followed by a decline in the temperature (as observed in the temperature trends). Prior studies have mentioned that amendments such as the addition of bulking agents to the compost feedstock help to maintain the BD by augmenting the gaseous exchanges and aeration. This retains the nutrients and enhances the quality of the compost [44,45]. The compost product with a low BD indicates high porosity, which is in agreement with our results of total porosity.
The total porosity percentage of the composting mixtures was found to be inversely proportional to their BD. As observed in other parameters, the porosity was also affected by the concentration of food waste used in a composting mixture. Similarly, the biochar amendment influenced the composting process in a desirable way by increasing the final total porosity. The porosity percentages were 71.52%, 72.64%, 65.39%, 75.42%, 78.96%, and 67.36% for treatments T4–T9, respectively (Figure 5). The acceptable range of the porosity percentage was >70 [46], and it was achieved in the T4, T5, T7, and T8 treatments but not in T6 and T9. The porosity percentages of the T6 and T9 treatments were not in acceptable ranges, which was due to the high moisture content of the food waste which decreased the porosity [47,48]. This indicates that the moisture content was preserved [49], leachate loss was prevented [50], and the biodegradation of compost feedstock was promoted [51] in the treatments T4, T5, T7, and T8.

3.3. Changes in the C:N Ratio

The microbial degradation of OM requires macronutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, of which carbon and nitrogen are most widely required for microbial growth [52]. This results in significant changes in the C:N ratio (p < 0.05). C:N ratio is the chief indicator of stability in the composting process and the maturity of the final product [53]. Figure 6 represents the C:N ratio of the treatment mixtures sampled at weekly intervals. At the initial stages, the C:N ratio was higher in biochar-amended treatments than in the treatments without biochar. Biochar amendments in organic feedstock increased the carbon content, which is the underlying reason for the increased C:N ratio [49,54]. As the composting process progressed, the C:N ratio eventually decreased in all the treatments, irrespective of the biochar amendments, with the maximum decrease in T8 (where the C:N ratio is 16.52). During the biodegradation of OM, a portion of the carbon is released, especially in the form of CO2, and another portion along with nitrogen serves as a source of energy for microbes. This will decrease the carbon content while the nitrogen is simultaneously recycled by the microorganisms, leading to a decrease in the C:N ratio, as observed in our study. The maximum C:N ratio decrease observed in our biochar-amended treatments is an indication of OM biodegradation [55]. A C:N ratio < 20 indicates the maturation of the compost, which was observed in all our treatments and is in agreement with reports in the literature [56,57,58,59]. However, the maximum reduction was observed in T8 with 16.52.

3.4. Variations in CO2 Emission

The reflection of microbial growth and mineralization of OM can be observed through CO2 emissions. During the composting process, as the microbes degrade the OM, the CO2 emissions reach it maximum, and as the treatment attains maturity, microbial activity, in addition to the decreased CO2 emission [60]. Similarly, in our study, CO2 emissions were high during the initial stages and reached the maximum peaks between the 5th and 10th days of composting, after which CO2 emissions gradually decreased with slight fluctuations and completely stopped by the end of the experiment (Figure 7). However, the increase in CO2 emissions followed by its decrease was comparatively high in the treatments with biochar amendments than in the treatments without biochar. This indicates the accelerated biodegradation due to the carbon-rich biochar [61]. The trendline of CO2 emissions corresponds with the trendline of temperature, where the CO2 emissions decrease after the end of the thermophilic phase where the microbial activity also decreases. In our study, due to the large surface area ratio of biochar, the biochar amendment improved the aeration in the treatment mixtures, especially in T4, T5, T7, and T8, thereby supporting microbial growth and OM mineralization. Our results are in agreement with the previous reports of [62] and [63].

3.5. Effect on Nitrogen Conservation

During the composting of OM such as livestock manure, nitrogen is lost at the thermophilic phase in the form of ammonia emissions, which decreases the quality of the final product [64]. Ammonia emissions not only reduce the nitrogen content in the final product; it is also an environmental pollutant which creates malodors. Biochar amendment is an effective strategy to address these issues. In our study, significant (p < 0.05) ammonia emissions were observed in all the treatment groups until the fourth week of composting, after which they continuously decreased (Figure 8). The ammonia emissions patterns observed in our study were in accordance with previous reports [65,66]. However, throughout the composting process, the ammonia emissions were kept low in the biochar-amended treatments. This clearly indicates that the biochar has reduced the volatilization and suppressed the ammonia emissions, preventing nitrogen loss and environmental degradation. Furthermore, the reason for the decrease in ammonia emission in the biochar amendment treatments is because the biochar provides a favorable environment to the nitrifying microbes and, to a certain extent, biochar itself acts as a habitat [67,68,69].

4. Conclusions

In this study, a novel approach for composting food waste along with chicken and swine manure in the presence of biochar was successfully carried out. Moreover, this study emphasizes the selection of a combination of raw materials and amendments in the correct proportions to obtain good-quality compost. Biochar amendments positively influenced the co-composting of food waste with manures, by maintaining optimum physico-chemical parameters such as temperature, pH, and EC to favor the microbial degradation of organic matter. Furthermore, biochar amendments reduced the bulk density caused by the addition of food waste and increased the porosity to provide aeration in the feedstock mixture. These changes maintained the C:N ratio at the desired levels and preserved the nutritional value of the final compost product by reducing nitrogen loss through ammonia emission. Thus, all the parameters of the final product were in alignment with the regulations, thereby providing assurances on the quality of the compost, favoring its acceptability in agricultural purposes and also inflating the local circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, and investigation—W.C., J.S. and B.R.; data curation—W.C. and B.R.; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing—W.C., J.S., S.W.C. and B.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out with the support of ‘Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ015293)’ Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Rural Development Administration and Kyonggi University for supporting the successful completion of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exist in the submission of this manuscript.

References

  1. van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010-2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 9789251. [Google Scholar]
  3. KOSIS Number of Pig and Pig Farms by City and Province/Herd Size. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1EO311&conn_path=I2&language=en (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  4. Nyamangara, J.; Gotosa, J.; Mpofu, S.E. Cattle Manure Effects on Structural Stability and Water Retention Capacity of a Granitic Sandy Soil in Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 62, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hepperly, P.; Lotter, D.; Ulsh, C.Z.; Seidel, R.; Reider, C. Compost, Manure and Synthetic Fertilizer Influences Crop Yields, Soil Properties, Nitrate Leaching and Crop Nutrient Content. Compost Sci. Util. 2013, 17, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Salazar, F.J.; Chadwick, D.; Pain, B.F.; Hatch, D.; Owen, E. Nitrogen Budgets for Three Cropping Systems Fertilised with Cattle Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, H.; Jiang, W.; Yang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Man, X. State of the Art on Food Waste Research: A Bibliometrics Study from 1997 to 2014. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 840–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Petracchini, F.; Liotta, F.; Paolini, V.; Perilli, M.; Cerioni, D.; Gallucci, F.; Carnevale, M.; Bencini, A. A Novel Pilot Scale Multistage Semidry Anaerobic Digestion Reactor to Treat Food Waste and Cow Manure. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 15, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dowlath, M.J.H.; Karuppannan, S.K.; Rajan, P.; Mohamed Khalith, S.B.; Rajadesingu, S.; Arunachalam, K.D. Application of Advanced Technologies in Managing Wastes Produced by Leather Industries—An Approach toward Zero Waste Technology. In Concepts of Advanced Zero Waste Tools; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 143–179. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yeo, J.; Chopra, S.S.; Zhang, L.; An, A.K. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Food Waste Treatment in Hong Kong: On-Site Fermentation Methodology. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 240, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sánchez, A.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Gea, T.; Barrena, R.; Gabriel, D.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Roig, A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Mondini, C. CO2 Sequestration, Biofuels and Depollution. Environ. Chem. Sustain. World 2015, 5, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kawai, M.; Nagao, N.; Tajima, N.; Niwa, C.; Matsuyama, T.; Toda, T. The Effect of the Labile Organic Fraction in Food Waste and the Substrate/Inoculum Ratio on Anaerobic Digestion for a Reliable Methane Yield. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 157, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Awasthi, M.K.; Selvam, A.; Lai, K.M.; Wong, J.W.C. Critical Evaluation of Post-Consumption Food Waste Composting Employing Thermophilic Bacterial Consortium. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 665–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Voběrková, S.; Maxianová, A.; Schlosserová, N.; Adamcová, D.; Vršanská, M.; Richtera, L.; Gagić, M.; Zloch, J.; Vaverková, M.D. Food Waste Composting—Is It Really so Simple as Stated in Scientific Literature?—A Case Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zhu-Barker, X.; Bailey, S.K.; Paw, K.T.U.; Burger, M.; Horwath, W.R. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Green Waste Composting Windrow. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Arriaga, H.; Viguria, M.; López, D.M.; Merino, P. Ammonia and Greenhouse Gases Losses from Mechanically Turned Cattle Manure Windrows: A Regional Composting Network. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jiang, T.; Schuchardt, F.; Li, G.; Guo, R.; Zhao, Y. Effect of C/N Ratio, Aeration Rate and Moisture Content on Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emission during the Composting. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fillingham, M.A.; VanderZaag, A.C.; Burtt, S.; Baldé, H.; Ngwabie, N.M.; Smith, W.; Hakami, A.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; Bittman, S.; MacDonald, D. Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Production of Compost Bedding on a Dairy Farm. Waste Manag. 2017, 70, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ravindran, B.; Karmegam, N.; Awasthi, M.K.; Chang, S.W.; Selvi, P.K.; Balachandar, R.; Chinnappan, S.; Azelee, N.I.W.; Munuswamy-Ramanujam, G. Valorization of Food Waste and Poultry Manure through Co-Composting Amending Saw Dust, Biochar and Mineral Salts for Value-Added Compost Production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Young, B.J.; Rizzo, P.F.; Riera, N.I.; Della Torre, V.; López, V.A.; Molina, C.D.; Fernández, F.E.; Crespo, D.C.; Barrena, R.; Komilis, D.; et al. Development of Phytotoxicity Indexes and Their Correlation with Ecotoxicological, Stability and Physicochemical Parameters during Passive Composting of Poultry Manure. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mao, H.; Lv, Z.; Sun, H.; Li, R.; Zhai, B.; Wang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, L. Improvement of Biochar and Bacterial Powder Addition on Gaseous Emission and Bacterial Community in Pig Manure Compost. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 258, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, M.; Chen, H.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, J.; Ren, X.; Li, D.S.; Awasthi, S.K.; Shen, F.; Li, R.; et al. Heterogeneity of Biochar Amendment to Improve the Carbon and Nitrogen Sequestration through Reduce the Greenhouse Gases Emissions during Sewage Sludge Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Janczak, D.; Malińska, K.; Czekała, W.; Cáceres, R.; Lewicki, A.; Dach, J. Biochar to Reduce Ammonia Emissions in Gaseous and Liquid Phase during Composting of Poultry Manure with Wheat Straw. Waste Manag. 2017, 66, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Guo, X.X.; Liu, H.T.; Zhang, J. The Role of Biochar in Organic Waste Composting and Soil Improvement: A Review. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 884–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ravindran, B.; Awasthi, M.K.; Karmegam, N.; Chang, S.W.; Chaudhary, D.K.; Selvam, A.; Nguyen, D.D.; Rahman Milon, A.; Munuswamy-Ramanujam, G. Co-Composting of Food Waste and Swine Manure Augmenting Biochar and Salts: Nutrient Dynamics, Gaseous Emissions and Microbial Activity. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Inbar, Y.; Hadar, Y.; Chen, Y. Recycling of Cattle Manure: The Composting Process and Characterization of Maturity. J. Environ. Qual. 1993, 22, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Milon, A.R.; Chang, S.W.; Ravindran, B. Biochar Amended Compost Maturity Evaluation Using Commercial Vegetable Crops Seedlings through Phytotoxicity Germination Bioassay. J. King Saud Univ.-Sci. 2022, 34, 101770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ravindran, B.; Nguyen, D.D.; Chaudhary, D.K.; Chang, S.W.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.R.; Shin, J.D.; Jeon, B.H.; Chung, S.J.; Lee, J.J. Influence of Biochar on Physico-Chemical and Microbial Community during Swine Manure Composting Process. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on Research Achievements of Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McKennedy, J.; Sherlock, O. Anaerobic Digestion of Marine Macroalgae: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1781–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cheung, H.N.B.; Huang, G.H.; Yu, H. Microbial-Growth Inhibition during Composting of Food Waste: Effects of Organic Acids. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5925–5934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brinton, W.F. Compost Quality Standards and Guidelines: An International View; Final report by woods end research laboratories for the New York State Association of Recyclers; Woods End Research Laboratory Inc.: Mount Vernon, WA, USA, 2000; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wong, J.W.C.; Wang, X.; Selvam, A. Improving Compost Quality by Controlling Nitrogen Loss During Composting. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering: Solid Waste Management; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 59–82. ISBN 9780444636751. [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, Y.; Luo, W.; Li, G.; Wang, K.; Gong, X. Performance of Phosphogypsum and Calcium Magnesium Phosphate Fertilizer for Nitrogen Conservation in Pig Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 250, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rynk, R. On-Farm Composting Handbook (NRAES 54); Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1992; 186p. [Google Scholar]
  38. OCQS Ontario Compost Quality Standards. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-compost-quality-standards (accessed on 25 May 2021).
  39. Zhao, J.; Sun, X.; Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Ren, X.; Li, R.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Liu, T.; Zhang, Z. Performance Evaluation of Gaseous Emissions and Zn Speciation during Zn-Rich Antibiotic Manufacturing Wastes and Pig Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 267, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Waqas, M.; Nizami, A.S.; Aburiazaiza, A.S.; Barakat, M.A.; Ismail, I.M.I.; Rashid, M.I. Optimization of Food Waste Compost with the Use of Biochar. J. Environ. Manage. 2018, 216, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jain, M.S.; Jambhulkar, R.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Biochar Amendment for Batch Composting of Nitrogen Rich Organic Waste: Effect on Degradation Kinetics, Composting Physics and Nutritional Properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 253, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lee, D.; Kim, J.K.; Jeong, K.-H.; Kwag, J.H.; Balasubramani, R. Effect of Moisture Content on Composting of Swine Manure with Sawdust. Korean Biol. Eng. Conf. 2017, 262. [Google Scholar]
  43. USDA-NRCS. National Engineering Handbook, Part 637, Environmental Engineering, Chapter 2, Agricultural Waste Characteristics; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. Available online: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_022229.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  44. Zainudin, M.H.; Mustapha, N.A.; Maeda, T.; Ramli, N.; Sakai, K.; Hassan, M. Biochar Enhanced the Nitrifying and Denitrifying Bacterial Communities during the Composting of Poultry Manure and Rice Straw. Waste Manag. 2020, 106, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Biochar as an Additive to Compost and Growing Media. In Biochar for Environmental Management; Routledge: Taylor and Francis group, London, England, 2019; pp. 749–768.
  46. Zhang, L.; Sun, X. Influence of Bulking Agents on Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Properties during the Two-Stage Composting of Green Waste. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jain, M.S.; Paul, S.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Utilization of Biochar as an Amendment during Lignocellulose Waste Composting: Impact on Composting Physics and Realization (Probability) amongst Physical Properties. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 121, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jain, M.S.; Daga, M.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Variation in the Key Indicators during Composting of Municipal Solid Organic Wastes. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2019, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sánchez-García, M.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Roig, A.; Cayuela, M.L. Biochar Accelerates Organic Matter Degradation and Enhances N Mineralisation during Composting of Poultry Manure without a Relevant Impact on Gas Emissions. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 192, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, L.; Sun, X. Changes in Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Properties during the Two-Stage Co-Composting of Green Waste with Spent Mushroom Compost and Biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 171, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Jindo, K.; Sonoki, T.; Matsumoto, K.; Canellas, L.; Roig, A.; Sanchez-Monedero, M.A. Influence of Biochar Addition on the Humic Substances of Composting Manures. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Meng, X.; Liu, B.; Xi, C.; Luo, X.; Yuan, X.; Wang, X.; Zhu, W.; Wang, H.; Cui, Z. Effect of Pig Manure on the Chemical Composition and Microbial Diversity during Co-Composting with Spent Mushroom Substrate and Rice Husks. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 251, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Chan, M.T.; Selvam, A.; Wong, J.W.C. Reducing Nitrogen Loss and Salinity during ‘Struvite’ Food Waste Composting by Zeolite Amendment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Czekała, W.; Malińska, K.; Cáceres, R.; Janczak, D.; Dach, J.; Lewicki, A. Co-Composting of Poultry Manure Mixtures Amended with Biochar—The Effect of Biochar on Temperature and C-CO2 Emission. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 921–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Goyal, S.; Dhull, S.K.; Kapoor, K.K. Chemical and Biological Changes during Composting of Different Organic Wastes and Assessment of Compost Maturity. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1584–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yang, Y.; Kumar Awasthi, M.; Du, W.; Ren, X.; Lei, T.; Lv, J. Compost Supplementation with Nitrogen Loss and Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Pig Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 297, 122435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hachicha, R.; Rekik, O.; Hachicha, S.; Ferchichi, M.; Woodward, S.; Moncef, N.; Cegarra, J.; Mechichi, T. Co-Composting of Spent Coffee Ground with Olive Mill Wastewater Sludge and Poultry Manure and Effect of Trametes Versicolor Inoculation on the Compost Maturity. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 677–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, J.; Zeng, G.; Chen, Y.; Yu, M.; Yu, Z.; Li, H.; Yu, Y.; Huang, H. Effects of Physico-Chemical Parameters on the Bacterial and Fungal Communities during Agricultural Waste Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2950–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wei, L.; Shutao, W.; Jin, Z.; Tong, X. Biochar Influences the Microbial Community Structure during Tomato Stalk Composting with Chicken Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 154, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jeong, S.T.; Cho, S.R.; Lee, J.G.; Kim, P.J.; Kim, G.W. Composting and Compost Application: Trade-off between Greenhouse Gas Emission and Soil Carbon Sequestration in Whole Rice Cropping System. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1132–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ortiz-Cornejo, N.L.; Romero-Salas, E.A.; Navarro-Noya, Y.E.; González-Zúñiga, J.C.; Ramirez-Villanueva, D.A.; Vásquez-Murrieta, M.S.; Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B.; Dendooven, L.; Luna-Guido, M. Incorporation of Bean Plant Residue in Soil with Different Agricultural Practices and Its Effect on the Soil Bacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 119, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K.; Jiang, Y.; Li, R.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.; Shen, F.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z. Evaluation of Medical Stone Amendment for the Reduction of Nitrogen Loss and Bioavailability of Heavy Metals during Pig Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 220, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Duan, Y.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Zhang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K. Evaluation of Integrated Biochar with Bacterial Consortium on Gaseous Emissions Mitigation and Nutrients Sequestration during Pig Manure Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kim, J.K.; Lee, D.J.; Ravindran, B.; Jeong, K.H.; Wong, J.W.C.; Selvam, A.; Karthikeyan, O.P.; Kwag, J.H. Evaluation of Integrated Ammonia Recovery Technology and Nutrient Status with an In-Vessel Composting Process for Swine Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ahn, H.K.; Mulbry, W.; White, J.W.; Kondrad, S.L. Pile Mixing Increases Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Composting of Dairy Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2904–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, S.; Zeng, Y. Ammonia Emission Mitigation in Food Waste Composting: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khan, N.; Clark, I.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Shea, S.; Meier, S.; Bolan, N. Maturity Indices in Co-Composting of Chicken Manure and Sawdust with Biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 168, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. López-Cano, I.; Roig, A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A. Biochar Improves N Cycling during Composting of Olive Mill Wastes and Sheep Manure. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Godlewska, P.; Schmidt, H.P.; Ok, Y.S.; Oleszczuk, P. Biochar for Composting Improvement and Contaminants Reduction. A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 246, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 00035 g001 550
Figure 1. Dynamics of temperature among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 1. Dynamics of temperature among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g001
Agronomy 13 00035 g002 550
Figure 2. Dynamics of pH among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 2. Dynamics of pH among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g002
Agronomy 13 00035 g003 550
Figure 3. Dynamics of electrical conductivity among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates significance of difference and ‘NS’ indicates ‘non-significant difference’ at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 3. Dynamics of electrical conductivity among various composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates significance of difference and ‘NS’ indicates ‘non-significant difference’ at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g003
Agronomy 13 00035 g004 550
Figure 4. Profile of bulk density variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates significance of difference and ‘NS’ indicates ‘non-significant difference’ at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 4. Profile of bulk density variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates significance of difference and ‘NS’ indicates ‘non-significant difference’ at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g004
Agronomy 13 00035 g005 550
Figure 5. Profile of total porosity variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 5. Profile of total porosity variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g005
Agronomy 13 00035 g006 550
Figure 6. Profile of C/N ratio variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 6. Profile of C/N ratio variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g006
Agronomy 13 00035 g007 550
Figure 7. Profile of CO2 emission (g/day) variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 7. Profile of CO2 emission (g/day) variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g007
Agronomy 13 00035 g008 550
Figure 8. Profile of NH3 emission (g/day) variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference, and ‘NS’ indicates a non-significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Figure 8. Profile of NH3 emission (g/day) variations among different composting treatment groups. ‘*’ indicates a significant difference, and ‘NS’ indicates a non-significant difference at p < 0.05 by ANOVA.
Agronomy 13 00035 g008
Table
Table 1. Weight proportions of feedstock.
Table 1. Weight proportions of feedstock.
TreatmentsFWCMSMSawdustBiochar
T120% (1.6 kg)30% (2.4 kg)30% (2.4 kg)20% (1.6 kg)Control
T240% (3.2 kg)20% (1.6 kg)20% (1.6 kg)20% (1.6 kg)Control
T360% (4.8 kg)10% (0.8 kg)10% (0.8 Kg)20% (1.6 kg)Control
T420% (1.6 kg)30% (2.4 kg)30% (2.4 kg)17% (1.36 kg)3% (0.24 kg)
T540% (3.2 kg)20% (1.6 kg)20% (1.6 kg)17% (1.36 kg)3% (0.24 kg)
T660% (4.8 kg)10% (0.8 kg)10% (0.8 Kg)17% (1.36 kg)3% (0.24 kg)
T720% (1.6 kg)30% (2.4 kg)30% (2.4 kg)15% (1.2 kg)5% (0.40 Kg)
T840% (3.2 kg)20% (1.6 kg)20% (1.6 kg)15% (1.2 kg)5% (0.40 Kg)
T960% (4.8 kg)10% (0.8 kg)10% (0.8 Kg)15% (1.2 kg)5% (0.40 Kg)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chung, W.; Shim, J.; Chang, S.W.; Ravindran, B. Effect of Biochar Amendments on the Co-Composting of Food Waste and Livestock Manure. Agronomy 2023, 13, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010035

AMA Style

Chung W, Shim J, Chang SW, Ravindran B. Effect of Biochar Amendments on the Co-Composting of Food Waste and Livestock Manure. Agronomy. 2023; 13(1):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chung, Woojin, Jaehong Shim, Soon Woong Chang, and Balasubramani Ravindran. 2023. "Effect of Biochar Amendments on the Co-Composting of Food Waste and Livestock Manure" Agronomy 13, no. 1: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010035

APA Style

Chung, W., Shim, J., Chang, S. W., & Ravindran, B. (2023). Effect of Biochar Amendments on the Co-Composting of Food Waste and Livestock Manure. Agronomy, 13(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010035

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop