Microbial Carbonisation and its potential for on-farm composting
The search for agronomic solutions to the decline of soil health, open-ended nutrient cycles and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, against the background of impending climate change, were motivations for this thesis. A composting trial on a Swedish farm was designed to find answers...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Second cycle, A2E |
| Language: | Swedish Inglés |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/17641/ |
| Summary: | The search for agronomic solutions to the decline of soil health, open-ended
nutrient cycles and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, against
the background of impending climate change, were motivations for this thesis.
A composting trial on a Swedish farm was designed to find answers to the
overarching research question of how feasible and climate-friendly on-farm
composting using Microbial Carbonisation (MC) is, compared to conventional
windrow composting (CC). MC can be understood as the biological
transformation of biomass under mesophilic and anoxic conditions, in contrast
to CC, which is an aerobic and partly thermophilic decomposition process.
The investigation of the MC method was approached using natural and
social science methodologies. Field trials were carried out, accompanied by
substrate, soil, emission and pore-gas measurements, as well as records of
machinery use. In addition, interviews were conducted with farmers already
using MC in Germany, to gain a better insight into its practical application and
farmers’ needs.
The results suggest that MC substrates can be richer in nitrogen (N) and
carbon (C) after composting than CC. The machinery requirement of MC was
only one tenth of the more labour-intensive CC process, which is associated
with lower fossil emissions. A novelty of the present research was that nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions were measured for the first time on a MC compost.
Overall, on a weight basis, MC showed 30 – 40 % lower GHG emissions
during composting, compared to CC. This advantage, however, was offset by
28 – 40 % higher emissions in the field on an area basis. In addition, GHG
balances are highly dependent on the appropriateness of the measurementmethodology,
the period under consideration and the reference unit in which
the emissions are expressed. As CC showed higher N-losses during the
composting process, MC overall emitted 5 – 29 % less GHG per kg N applied
to the field. It was therefore not entirely clear whether MC or CC performed
better in terms of GHG emissions.
As MC can provide N- and C-rich substrates in a cost-efficient way, it
appears promising for the use in regenerative agriculture. The farmers’
interviews supported the results of MC being cost-efficient and practicable for
on-farm composting. Nevertheless, the field application of compost can
substantially increase the GHG balance of what at first sight appears to be a
climate friendly composting process. Future studies need to further address
this issue, as well as the impact of MC substrates on soil health. |
|---|