MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015892540 · doi:10.1071/an17177

A comparison of composting and vermicomposting for the disposal of poultry waste

2020· article· en· W3015892540 on OpenAlexaff
Toya Nath Joshi, Dainik Bahadur Nepali, Ranjana Sah, Tilchandra Bhattarai, David J. Midmore

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVermicompostEisenia fetidaCompostBroilerPoultry litterEarthwormDeep litterLitterPoultry farmingContext (archaeology)PhosphorusAgronomyAnimal scienceBiologyEnvironmental scienceToxicologyChemistryNutrientEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Production ScienceSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207