Département des Sciences Animales, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada G1V 0A6.
Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA), Québec City, Québec, Canada G1P 3W8.
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Feb;102(2):1832-1846. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14966. Epub 2018 Dec 20.
Canadian dairy producers have an increasing interest in recycled manure solids (RMS) as bedding material because of reduced availability of traditional bedding resources. Information regarding methods to obtain RMS and composition of RMS is very limited. Hence, a 2-part investigation was developed to compare the performances of 3 mechanical solid-liquid manure separators (part I) and 4 composting methods (part II; companion paper in this issue) for the production of high quality RMS. In this first study, a roller press, a screw press, and a decanter centrifuge were tested for the separation of slurry manure from a commercial dairy farm. During the experiment, the quantity of slurry manure processed and the volume and mass of the liquid and solid fractions were measured. The energy consumption of each separator was recorded, and samples of the slurry, liquid, and solid effluents were collected for analysis. The type of separator did not significantly influence the chemical and bacteriological composition of RMS produced. The choice of a separator for Canadian dairy producers should thus be based on the equipment cost and its capacity, targeted solids dry matter (DM) content and structure, and fertilizing quality of the separated liquid. The decanter centrifuge produced the solid phase with the highest DM and best separation efficiencies for DM, N, and P. However, its low production capacity (1.5 m/h vs. 9.1-20.3 m/h) combined with its high acquisition cost (Can$145,000 vs. Can$75,000) and energy consumption (4.99 kWh/m vs. 0.10-0.35 kWh/m) reduce its technical and profitability values. Besides, the centrifuge produced fine structured RMS and a low-quality liquid fraction, not suitable as dairy cow bedding and fertilizer, respectively. Both presses reached acceptable production capacity at a minimal operation cost. However, the poor performance in terms of DM (25%) of the model of screw press used in this study produced RMS unsuitable for immediate use without further processing. The model of roller press used in this study had the advantages of almost reaching the recommended DM content in RMS (>34%), being flexible in terms of inputs, and producing fluffy RMS. Nevertheless, its compression process seemed to allow greater passage of solids into the liquid fraction compared with the screw press. Part II of this work explores different composting methods to reduce the health risks associated with screw-pressed RMS before their use as bedding.
加拿大奶制品生产商对再生粪肥固体(RMS)作为垫料的兴趣日益浓厚,因为传统垫料资源的供应减少。关于获得 RMS 的方法和 RMS 组成的信息非常有限。因此,开展了一项两部分的研究,以比较 3 种机械固液粪便分离器(第 I 部分)和 4 种堆肥方法(第 II 部分;本期的配套论文)在生产高质量 RMS 方面的性能。在这项研究中,首先对来自商业奶牛场的浆液粪便进行了滚轮压榨机、螺旋压榨机和碟式离心机的分离试验。在实验过程中,测量了处理的浆液粪便量、液体和固体部分的体积和质量。记录了每种分离器的能耗,并收集了浆液、液体和固体流出物的样本进行分析。分离器的类型对所生产的 RMS 的化学和细菌组成没有显著影响。因此,加拿大奶制品生产商选择分离器时应基于设备成本及其容量、目标固体干物质(DM)含量和结构以及分离液体的施肥质量。碟式离心机产生的固体相具有最高的 DM 和最好的 DM、N 和 P 分离效率。然而,其低生产能力(1.5m/h 与 9.1-20.3m/h 相比)和高购置成本(145000 加元与 75000 加元相比)以及能耗(4.99kWh/m 与 0.10-0.35kWh/m 相比)降低了其技术和盈利价值。此外,离心机产生的 RMS 结构精细,液体部分质量差,分别不适合作为奶牛卧床和肥料。两种压榨机的运行成本都很低,但在 DM(25%)方面的性能不佳,未经进一步处理就不适合直接使用。本研究中使用的螺旋压榨机模型的 DM(34%以上)含量接近推荐值,输入灵活,产生蓬松的 RMS,具有优势。然而,其压缩过程似乎允许更多的固体进入液体部分,与螺旋压榨机相比。本工作的第二部分探讨了不同的堆肥方法,以降低在将螺旋压榨 RMS 用作卧床材料之前与健康相关的风险。