A comparison of composting and vermicomposting for the disposal of poultry waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Poultry products, mostly meat and eggs, provide affordable quality foodstuffs to human populations in Nepal. However, the poultry industry’s by-products, such as litter and offal, also generate potential environmental and human health issues and need a sustainable method of management. Aims The present study compared the effectiveness of vermicomposting by using an exotic earthworm species Eisenia fetida, or effective microorganism-based (EM) composting, of poultry litters in the Terai region of Nepal. Methods Four types of poultry litter, namely, broiler cage litter (parent stock litter), broiler deep litter, commercial layer cage litter and layer deep litter, each combined with earthworms (vermicompost) or effective microorganisms, were subjected to decomposition in beds. A completely randomised design in a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement (poultry litters by Eisenia fetida or effective microorganism) with three replicates per treatment was applied. Key results Macronutrient concentrations, and reduction of the carbon : nitrogen ratio were significantly greater in vermicompost than EM compost. In addition, reduction of the carbon : nitrogen ratio was more significant following vermicomposting for broiler and layer cage litter than in other treatments. The highest initial concentration of N was found in layer cage litter (2.1%) and the lowest in layer deep litter (1.3%) and these increased to 1.5–3.4% and 1.7–1.8% in vermicompost and EM compost respectively. Available phosphorus increased by two- to three-fold in most vermicomposted poultry litters in comparison to initial poultry litters, and a two-fold increase in potassium was likewise achieved. Consistent with these results, worm biomass was significantly higher in layer cage litter and broiler cage litter than in deep litter. More cocoons were evident in layer cage litter, and lowest numbers of cocoon formation were observed in broiler deep litter. Conclusions This comparative study showed that vermicomposting is superior to EM composting for bioconversion of poultry litters into value-added compost. Implications With the adoption of this result, the poultry industry in Nepal could become more sustainable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".