畜禽粪便有机肥制备及其对土壤营养和西红柿品质的影响

doi:10.3976/j.issn.1002-4026.20230092

Abstract

Abstract:

Using livestock and poultry manure as the main raw material and corn straw bran as the conditioner, organic fertilizer (OF) and bio-organic fertilizer (BOF) products were produced by biological nano-composite molecular film static composting, and all products were in line with standards of NY 884—2021. Five parallel tomato cultivation experiments were designed, namely, CK (no fertilizer), CF(100% potassium sulfate compound fertilizer, 400 kg/hm²), COF(80% potassium sulfate compound fertilizer+20%OF 3 000 kg/hm²), CBO(80% potassium sulfate compound fertilizer+20%BOF 3 000 kg/hm²), and COB (70% potassium sulfate compound fertilizer+20%OF 2 000 kg/hm²+10%BOF 1 000 kg/hm²). After the experiment, the nutrient contents of soil, organic matter, total nitrogen, and available potassium, as well as fruit quality indicators such as soluble sugar and vitamin C content were measured. The results showed that the application of organic fertilizer could relatively increase the available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the soil, and reducing chemical fertilizer application by 20% to 30% had little effect on tomato yield. Compared to the single application of chemical fertilizer, the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers could significantly improve fruit quality, such as increasing soluble sugar and vitamin C content while effectively reducing the content of titratable acid and nitrate (p<0.05). Through the analysis of the main component of the impact of soil physicochemical indicators on the soil layer, it was found that the impact of each fertilization method on the soil physicochemical indicators was ranked as follows: CBO, COB, COF, CK, and CF. The correlation between six physicochemical indicators in the soil layer and tomato quality was analyzed by redundancy analysis and it was found that all six physicochemical indicators in the soil layer were significantly correlated with tomato quality (p<0.05).

Key words: organic fertilizer, biological organic fertilizer, physicochemical indicators, principal component analysis, redundancy analysis

CLC Number:

LI Tao, ZHONG Wei, ZHAO Jun, LIU Huanlong, LI Lijun. Preparation of organic fertilizer from livestock manure and its effects on soil nutrition and tomato quality[J].Shandong Science, 2024, 37(3): 48-54.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.2

Table 5

References 15

[1]	PAHALVI H N, RAFIYA L, RASHID S, et al. Chemical fertilizers and their impact on soil health[M]// DAR G H, BHAT R A, MEHMOOD M A, et al. Microbiota and Biofertilizers:Vol 2. Cham: Springer, 2021: 1-20.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61010-4_1.
[2]	SINGH K, GERA R, SHARMA R, et al. Mechanism and application of Sesbania root-nodulating bacteria: an alternative for chemical fertilizers and sustainable development[J]. Archives of Microbiology, 2021, 203(4): 1259-1270. DOI: 10.1007/s00203-020-02137-x.
[3]	WAN L J, TIAN Y, HE M, et al. Effects of chemical fertilizer combined with organic fertilizer application on soil properties,Citrus growth physiology, and yield[J]. Agriculture, 2021, 11(12): 1207. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11121207.
[4]	崔永增, 姚海坡, 李谦, 等. 有机肥部分替代氮肥对优质麦生长、品质和氮效率的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2023, 38(3): 158-166. DOI: 10.7668/hbnxb.20194150.
[5]	缪玉琳, 梁丰, 谢军, 等. 长期有机肥替代化肥对水稻土有机碳稳定性的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2023, 60(2): 512-522. DOI: 10.11766/trxb202105260276.
[6]	WANG H X, XU J L, LIU X J, et al. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer on improving organic matter content and retarding acidity in red soil from China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2019, 195: 104382. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104382.
[7]	SÁEZ J A, CLEMENTE R, BUSTAMANTE M Á, et al. Evaluation of the slurry management strategy and the integration of the composting technology in a pig farm-agronomical and environmental implications[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 192: 57-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.040.
[8]	HUANG G F, WU Q T, WONG J W C, et al. Transformation of organic matter during co-composting of pig manure with sawdust[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2006, 97(15): 1834-1842. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.08.024. pmid: 16289790
[9]	刘世亮, 刘晨旭, 刘红恩, 等. 畜禽粪便有机肥与氮肥配施对小麦土壤理化性状及酶活性影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2014, 23(8): 45-51. DOI: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2014.08.008.
[10]	王玉军, 窦森, 崔俊涛, 等. 复合菌剂对农业废弃物堆肥过程中理化指标变化的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2006, 25(5): 1354-1358. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1672-2043.2006.05.051.
[11]	WANG L F, LU X P, YUAN H Y, et al. Application of bio-organic fertilizer to control tomato Fusarium wilting by manipulating soil microbial communities and development[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2015, 46(18): 2311-2322. DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1081694.
[12]	中华人民共和国农业农村部. 有机肥料:NY/T 525—2021[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2021.
[13]	中华人民共和国农业部. 农用微生物菌剂: GB 20287—2006[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.
[14]	中华人民共和国农业部. 生物有机肥: NY 884—2021[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2021.
[15]	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 土壤环境质量农用地土壤污染风险管控标准: GB 15618—2018[S]. 北京: 中国环境出版集团, 2019.

含水率/%	pH	w(有机碳)/(g·kg^-1)	w(氮)/(g·kg^-1)	w(磷)/(g·kg^-1)	w(钾)/(g·kg^-1)
68.4	7.62	426.31	23.78	18.20	15.36
w(汞)/(mg·kg^-1)	w(砷)/(mg·kg^-1)	w(铅)/(mg·kg^-1)	w(铬)/(mg·kg^-1)	w(铜)/(mg·kg¹)
0.03	12.34	3.51	56.4	10.65

不同施肥方式	pH	w(有机质)/ (g·kg^-1)	w(速效钾)/ (g·kg^-1)	w(有效磷)/ (g·kg^-1)	w(全氮)/ (g·kg^-1)	w(碱解氮)/ (g·kg^-1)
CK	7.62±0.08^a	10.61±0.18^c	129.69±4.80^b	13.39±0.67^d	0.99±0.06^c	93.50±4.84^d
CF	7.18±0.04^b	10.23±0.17^d	118.81±3.29^c	21.12±0.86^c	1.37±0.03^b	132.05±3.11^c
COF	7.52±0.03^b	13.54±0.14^a	135.54±4.77^ab	27.38±2.12^b	1.63±0.05^a	153.56±3.29^ab
CBO	7.58±0.08^b	13.25±0.29^ab	139.16±3.36^a	30.18±0.64^b	1.39±0.03^b	158.39±2.09^a
COB	7.54±0.03^b	13.06±0.10^b	130.95±2.87^b	34.74±2.40^a	1.57±0.11^a	148.45±1.99^b

不同施肥方式	w(可溶性糖)/%	w(可滴定酸)/%	w(维生素C)/(mg·kg^-1)	w(硝酸盐) /(mg·kg^-1)	糖酸质量分数比
CK	4.26±0.17^b	0.85±0.08^a	14.57±1.22^b	232.88±7.91^bc	5.01
CF	2.54±0.05^c	0.50±0.09^b	10.57±1.35^c	316.73±3.77^a	5.08
COF	4.60±0.03^ab	0.46±0.04^bc	15.23±0.92^b	242.66±3.25^b	10.00
CBO	4.66±0.35^a	0.37±0.03^c	17.65±0.76^a	219.65±9.78^c	12.59
COB	4.36±0.17^ab	0.40±0.05^bc	18.59±0.44^a	254.87±22.32^b	10.90

编号	总变异统计		理化指标	主成分矩阵
编号	起始特征值	累积变异率累积%	理化指标	PC1	PC2
1	3.925	65.411	pH	0.976	0.193
2	1.781	95.102	OM	0.914	-0.253
3	0.17	97.94	AK	0.902	-0.370
4	0.124	100	AP	0.822	-0.513
5	3.99×10^-16	100	TN	0.724	0.658
6	1.28×10^-16	100	AHN	0.350	0.920

Preparation of organic fertilizer from livestock manure and its effects on soil nutrition and tomato quality

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 15

Related Articles 8

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	XIONG Wenlei, ZHUANG Jiafeng, MA Tianyi. Conditions applicable for ten-lane expressway lane management based on passenger and freight separation [J]. Shandong Science, 2023, 36(1): 107-114.
[2]	HU Jindong, LI Hongmei, WU Yuanzheng, WEI Yanli, LI Jishun. Composition and diversity of fungal communities of four vegetable soils [J]. Shandong Science, 2023, 36(1): 58-65.
[3]	YANG Qian,YANG Bao-shan,QIN Guang-hua,WANG Hui,SHI Jia-xing,LIU Xue-ting. Salt tolerance evaluation and selection of salt tolerance indexes for new varieties of willow seedlings [J]. Shandong Science, 2022, 35(3): 107-114.
[4]	SUN Xi-quan, HOU En-guang. Analysis of factors affecting the remaining service life of power lithium battery [J]. Shandong Science, 2021, 34(3): 49-53.
[5]	TAI Xiu-guo, YANG Zhen-ya, LI Bo, CAO Zhen-yu, CAO Bang-hua. Ecophysiological adaptation of four Salix clones under persistent drought stress [J]. SHANDONG SCIENCE, 2016, 29(3): 97-104.
[6]	GAO Weidong，JIA Yuanhua，ZHANG Liangliang，JI Yapeng. Evaluation of operation scheme for passenger dedicated line train [J]. SHANDONG SCIENCE, 2015, 28(4): 52-57.
[7]	CHENG Wei, HOU En-Guang, LI Ke, LI Shu-Bin, ZHAO Bo-Nian, XU Zong-Yuan. Research on principle component analysis based pharmacological effect evaluation method for a kind of Chinese herbal medicine, Baikal skullcap root [J]. J4, 2012, 25(1): 47-50.
[8]	LI Xiu-Li, DONG Ji-Wen, WU Rui-Hai. Research on KICA and Relief algorithms combined face recognition [J]. J4, 2011, 24(5): 85-88.