添加菌剂和石灰对剑麻渣腐解及养分含量的影响

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0230

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (9): 204-214.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2024.0230

添加菌剂和石灰对剑麻渣腐解及养分含量的影响

谭施北¹(), MKAPA Dietram Samson¹^,², 李升林³, 习金根¹, 吴伟怀¹, 陈河龙¹, 黄兴¹, 梁艳琼¹, 易克贤¹^,⁴, 郑金龙¹()

^1.中国热带农业科学院环境与植物保护研究所，农业农村部热带农业绿色低碳重点实验室，海口 571101
^2.华中农业大学植物科学技术学院，武汉 430070
^3.齐齐哈尔大学生命科学与农林学院，黑龙江齐齐哈尔 161006
^4.中国热带农业科学院三亚研究院，海南三亚 572025

收稿日期:2024-03-25 接受日期:2024-08-02 出版日期:2025-09-15 发布日期:2025-09-24
通讯作者: 郑金龙
作者简介:谭施北E-mail： tanshibei915@163.com；
基金资助:
海南省自然科学基金面上项目(321MS073);海南省自然科学基金青年基金项目(322QN367);国家麻类产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-16-E16);黑龙江省高校基本科研业务费项目(145109310)

Effects of Adding Microbial Inoculants and Lime on Fermentation and Nutrient Content of Sisal Waste

Shibei TAN¹(), Dietram Samson MKAPA¹^,², Shenglin LI³, Jingen XI¹, Weihuai WU¹, Helong CHEN¹, Xing HUANG¹, Yanqiong LIANG¹, Kexian YI¹^,⁴, Jinlong ZHENG¹()

^1.Key Laboratory of Low Carbon Green Agriculture in Tropical China，Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs，P. R. China，Environment and Plant Protection Institute，Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences，Haikou 571101，China
^2.College of Plant Science and Technology，Huazhong Agricultural University，Wuhan 430070，China
^3.School of Life Science and Agriculture Forestry，Qiqihar University，Heilongjiang Qiqihar 161006，China
^4.Sanya Research Institute，Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences，Hainan Sanya 572025，China

Received:2024-03-25 Accepted:2024-08-02 Online:2025-09-15 Published:2025-09-24
Contact: Jinlong ZHENG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探索剑麻渣最佳发酵条件及添加剂使用效果，提高剑麻渣堆肥品质，以剑麻渣为供试材料，设置好氧、厌氧2种发酵条件和无添加剂、单独添加菌剂、单独添加石灰、添加菌剂+石灰4个添加剂处理，测定剑麻渣发酵产物颜色、气味及养分含量等指标。结果表明，好氧条件下，各处理发酵产物颜色总体由黄色向褐色转变，而厌氧条件下变化趋势相反。厌氧条件下剑麻渣发酵产物臭味比好氧条件下浓烈。好氧条件下，添加微生物菌剂可减轻产物臭味；添加石灰不论在好氧还是厌氧条件下均可减轻产物臭味。厌氧条件下，发酵液pH（5.0~8.3）普遍低于好氧条件（7.4~8.9）。不同处理剑麻渣发酵固态产物全氮、全磷、全钾含量分别为11.3~19.5、1.8~3.8、0.9~4.3 g·kg^-1，发酵液全氮、全磷、全钾含量分别为39.9~233.3、5.0~153.5、0.58~0.85 mg·kg^-1。好氧条件下，添加菌剂处理固态产物全氮、全磷含量均最高，平均分别达17.6、3.5 g·kg^-1。2种发酵条件相比，厌氧条件下发酵液全磷含量普遍高于好氧条件，特别是添加菌剂处理发酵液全磷含量显著提高，平均达84.5 mg·kg^-1。在相同添加剂处理下，厌氧条件下剑麻渣质量损失率均低于好氧条件。添加石灰处理剑麻渣质量及氮、磷、钾损失率均显著降低，剑麻渣钾损失率较大，高达75.9%~82.2%。综上，剑麻渣在好氧条件下发酵效果较好，添加微生物菌剂有助于剑麻渣腐熟，添加石灰可减轻剑麻渣发酵产物臭味，菌剂与石灰混合添加时菌剂效果有所下降。建议生产上采用好氧条件下添加微生物菌剂和少量石灰对剑麻渣进行发酵处理。

关键词: 剑麻渣, 好氧, 厌氧, 微生物菌剂, 石灰, 腐解

Abstract:

To explore the optimal fermentation conditions and the effects of additives for sisal waste， and to improve the quality of sisal waste compost， a fermentation experiment was conducted using sisal waste as the test material. The experiment was set up with 2 fermentation conditions （aerobic and anaerobic） and 4 additive treatments （no additives， microbial inoculants alone， lime alone and a combination of microbial inoculants and lime）. The color， smell and nutrient content of the sisal waste fermentation products were measured. The results showed that， under aerobic condition， the color of the fermentation products generally changed from yellow to brown， while under anaerobic condition， the trend was the opposite. The rancidness smell of sisal waste fermentation products was stronger under anaerobic condition compared to aerobic condition. Adding microbial inoculants under aerobic condition reduced the rancidness smell of the products， while adding lime reduced the rancidness smell under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The pH of the fermentation liquid under anaerobic condition （5.0~8.3） was generally lower than that under aerobic condition （7.4~8.9）. The total nitrogen， phosphorus and potassium contents of the solid-state fermentation products of sisal waste treated with different methods were 11.3~19.5， 1.8~3.8 and 0.9~4.3 g·kg^-1， respectively， while the fermentation liquid had total nitrogen， phosphorus and potassium contents of 39.9~233.3， 5.0~153.5 and 0.58~0.85 mg·kg^-1， respectively. The addition of inoculants resulted in the highest total nitrogen and phosphorus contents in solid-state fermentation products， averaging 17.6 and 3.5 g·kg^-1， respectively， under aerobic condition. Compared to the 2 fermentation conditions， the phosphorus content of the fermentation liquid under anaerobic condition was generally higher than those under aerobic condition， especially with the addition of inoculants， where it significantly increased， averaging 84.5 mg·kg^-1. Under the same additive treatments， the overall mass loss rate of sisal waste under anaerobic condition was lower than that under aerobic condition. The addition of lime significantly reduced the mass loss rate of sisal waste. The potassium loss rate of sisal waste was relatively high， reaching 75.9%~82.2%. In conclusion， sisal waste performed better under aerobic condition for fermentation， microbial inoculants facilitated the decomposition of sisal waste， and lime could reduce the smell of sisal waste fermentation products. However， the effectiveness of inoculants decreased when mixed with lime. It was recommended to use aerobic condition with the addition of microbial inoculants and a small amount of lime for the fermentation treatment of sisal waste in production.

Key words: sisal waste, aerobic, anaerobic, microbial inoculants, lime, decomposition

中图分类号:

S563.8

谭施北, MKAPA Dietram Samson, 李升林, 习金根, 吴伟怀, 陈河龙, 黄兴, 梁艳琼, 易克贤, 郑金龙. 添加菌剂和石灰对剑麻渣腐解及养分含量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(9): 204-214.

Shibei TAN, Dietram Samson MKAPA, Shenglin LI, Jingen XI, Weihuai WU, Helong CHEN, Xing HUANG, Yanqiong LIANG, Kexian YI, Jinlong ZHENG. Effects of Adding Microbial Inoculants and Lime on Fermentation and Nutrient Content of Sisal Waste[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2025, 27(9): 204-214.

图/表 7

参考文献 36

[1]	孙娟,钟鑫,郑红裕,等.我国剑麻产业概况及对策研究[J].中国热带农业,2020(5):27-32.
	SUN J, ZHONG X, ZHENG H Y, et al.. Overview and strategy research of sisal industry in China [J].China Trop. Agric.,2020(5):27-32.
[2]	VUORINNE I, HEISKANEN J, PELLIKKA P K E. Assessing leaf biomass of agave sisalana using sentinel-2 vegetation indices [J/OL]. Remote Sens., 2021, 13(2): 233 [2024-02-26]. .
[3]	REN G S, YAO B, REN M, et al.. Utilization of natural sisal fibers to manufacture eco-friendly ultra-high performance concrete with low autogenous shrinkage [J/OL]. J. Clean. Prod., 2022(15): 332 [2024-02-26]. .
[4]	冯伟丽, 康兴隆, 柳妍, 等. 层层自组装改性剑麻纤维填充聚丙烯复合材料性能研究[J]. 材料导报, 2021, 35 (10): 10211-10215.
	FENG W L, KANG X L, LIU Y, et al.. Properties of polypropylene composites filled with layer-by-layer assembly modified sisal fiber [J]. Materials Rep., 2021, 35 (10): 10211-10215.
[5]	李雯倩.剑麻渣中纤维素的分离与纤维素纳米纤丝的制备[D]. 广州: 华南理工大学, 2021.
	LI W Q. Isolation of cellulose from sisal waste and preparation of cellulose nanofibrils [D]. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology, 2021.
[6]	吴永和. 剑麻中低产田改造措施与效果[J]. 广西热作科技, 1989(4): 36-39.
[7]	姜繁昌.剑麻纤维的性能研究[J].中国麻业,2003,25(5):228-234.
	JIANG F C.A study on properties of sisal fibre [J].Plant Fiber Sci. China, 2003,25(5):228-234.
[8]	王俊,覃佑康,曹志恒,等.剑麻皂素工业化制备技术研究进展[J].广西科学,2020,27(2):182-187.
	WANG J, QIN Y K, CAO Z H, et al.. Research progress on industrial preparation technology of tigo-genin [J]. Guangxi Sci., 2020,27(2):182-187.
[9]	吴希锴.大型湿地植物和茶皂素对剩余污泥好氧堆肥的影响研究 [D]. 长沙: 长沙理工大学, 2022.
	WU X K. Efect of large wetl and plants and tea saponin on excess sludge aerobic composting [D]. Changsha: Changsha University of Science and Technology, 2022.
[10]	高凤磊, 黄标, 黎陛成, 等. 发酵剑麻渣对黄花鸡生长性能、屠宰性能和肉品质的影响[J]. 饲料研究,2022, 45(1): 44-47.
	GAO F L, HUANG B, LI B C, et al.. Effect of fermented sisal residue on growth performance,slaughter and meat quality of Huanghua chicken [J]. Feed Res., 2022, 45(1): 44-47.
[11]	覃旭, 黄显雅, 杨祥燕, 等. 剑麻麻渣腐熟剂筛选及其腐熟效应研究 [J].农业研究与应用, 2021, 34(3): 48-53.
	QIN X, HUANG X Y, YANG X Y, et al.. Selection and effects of different decomposing agent of sisal residue [J]. Agric. Res. Appl., 2021, 34(3): 48-53.
[12]	陈德荣, 卢玉文, 陈雪凤, 等. 利用工业废弃料剑麻渣栽培食用菌夏秀玲技术研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2013(15):88-89.
[13]	张小芳,陈莉莎,陈伟南.剑麻皂苷元的研究现状[J].当代化工研究,2021(14):34-35.
	ZHANG X F, CHEN L S, CHEN W N. Research status of sisal sapogenin [J]. Mod. Chem. Res., 2021(14):34-35.
[14]	黄富宇.广西农垦剑麻产业发展现状及对策[J].热带农业工程,2010,34(4):105-106.
	HUANG F Y. Production and developmental measures for sisal in Guangxi [J]. Trop. Agric. Eng., 2010,34(4):105-106.
[15]	付程, 郭占斌, 付义琦, 等. 好氧堆肥技术与厌氧发酵技术研究进展[J]. 热带农业工程, 2023, 47 (5):165-169.
	FU C, GUO Z B, FU Y Q, et al.. Research progress on aerobic composting technology and anaerobic fermentation technology [J].Trop. Agric. Eng., 2023, 47(5):165-169.
[16]	MENG Q X, YANG W, MEN M Q, et al.. Microbial community succession and response to environmental variables during cow manure and corn straw composting [J/OL]. Front. Microbiol., 2019, 10 :529 [2024-02-26]. .
[17]	蔡瑞,徐春城.堆肥用微生物及其效果研究进展[J].中国土壤与肥料,2019(5):1-7.
	CAI R, XU C C. Research progress on microorganisms commonly used in composting and their effects [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2019(5):1-7.
[18]	高贵明. 剑麻施用石灰效果简报[J].中国麻作, 1989 (2): 49.
[19]	翟修彩.不同化学添加剂对秸秆腐解产物的影响及其应用研究[D].南京:南京农业大学,2012.
	ZHAI X C. Study of chemical additives on straw decomposition and the application in red soil [D]. Nanjing:Nanjing Agricultural University, 2012.
[20]	徐鹏翔, 沈玉君, 周海宾, 等. 原料含水率对筒仓式反应器堆肥氮素转化的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2021, 26(11): 180-188.
	XU P X, SHEN Y J, ZHOU H B, et al.. Effects of the moisture content of raw material on nitrogen transformation during composting in silo reactor [J]. J. Chin. Agric. Univ., 2021, 26(11): 180-188.
[21]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 1999: 302-315.
[22]	邹雨坤, 李光义, 李勤奋, 等. 不同还田方式下香蕉茎秆的腐解及养分释放特征[J]. 天津农业科学, 2014, 20(10): 60-64.
	ZOU Y K, LI G Y, LI Q F, et al.. Characteristics of decomposing and nutrients releasing of banana stalk under different ways returned to field [J]. Tianjin Agric. Sci., 2014, 20(10): 60-64.
[23]	罗鑫源. 鸡粪好氧/厌氧发酵过程对腐植酸类物质组成与结构的影响[D]. 济南: 齐鲁工业大学, 2024.
	LUO X Y. Effects of aerobic/anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure on the composition and structure of humic acids [D]. Jinan: Qilu University of Technology, 2024.
[24]	李丹阳, 马若男, 刘燕, 等. 含水率对羊粪堆肥腐熟度及污染气体排放的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(20): 254-262.
	LI D Y, MA R N, LIU Y, et al.. Effects of moisture content on maturity and pollution gas emissions during sheep manure composting [J]. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2020, 36(20): 254-262.
[25]	周亚文, 张宇航, 沈玉君, 等. 初始含水率对人粪污好氧堆肥腐熟及微生物群落结构变化的影响[J]. 环境工程学报, 2022, 16(12): 4108-4120.
	ZHOU Y W, ZHANG Y H, SHEN Y J, et al.. Effect of the initial moisture content on the maturity extent and the microbial community structure of the aerobic compost with human excrement [J]. Chin. J. Environ. Eng., 2022, 16(12): 4108-4120.
[26]	吴伟霞, 席北斗, 黄彩红, 等. 有机固废堆肥中产臭及除臭技术的微生物作用机制研究进展[J]. 环境科学研究, 2021, 34(10): 2486-2496.
	WU W X, XI B D, HUANG C H, et al.. Review on microbial mechanism of odor generation and deodorization technology during organic solid waste composting [J]. Res. Environ. Sci., 2021, 34 (10): 2486-2496.
[27]	胖是,王燕,廖新俤,等.通风量对蛋鸡粪堆肥氨气排放的影响[J].中国家禽,2015,37(15):23-30.
	PANG S, WANG Y, LIAO X D,et al.. Effect of ventilation on ammonia emission in layer manure composting [J].China Poult., 2015,37(15):23-30.
[28]	赵旭, 王文丽, 李娟. 玉米秸秆调节牛粪含水率对其腐熟进程及氨气释放量的影响[J].生态科学, 2020, 39(5):179-186.
	ZHAO X, WANG W L, LI J, et al.. Effect of corn stalk regulating moisture content on cow manure compost and ammonia release [J]. Ecol. Sci., 2020, 39(5):179-186.
[29]	魏启航, 冯瑶, 王晓醒, 等. 除臭菌的筛选及其在堆肥中的应用效果[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(13): 2623-2634.
	WEI Q H, FENG Y, WANG X X, et al.. Screening of deodorizing bacteria and tts application in composting [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2024, 57(13): 2623-2634.
[30]	GU W J, SUN W, LU Y S, et al.. Effect of Thiobacillus thioparus 1904 and sulphur addition on odour emission during aerobic composting [J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2018,249:254-260.
[31]	蒋建国,杜伟,殷闽,等.石灰稳定化污泥恶臭物质释放特征研究[J].中国环境科学,2012,32(9):1620-1624.
	JIANG J G, DU W, YIN M, et al.. Release character of offensive odorants produced from lime stabilizing sludge [J].China Environ. Sci., 2012,32(9):1620-1624.
[32]	曹永森. 金霉素和重金属对堆肥过程的影响及添加石灰效果研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学, 2017.
	CAO Y S. Effect of chlortetracycline and heavy metals on swine manure composting process and the impact of lime [D]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2017.
[33]	赵彬涵,孙宪昀,黄俊,等.微生物在有机固废堆肥中的作用与应用[J].微生物学通报,2021,48(1):223-240.
	ZHAO B H, SUN X Y, HUANG J, et al.. Application and effects of microbial additives in aerobic composting of organic solid wastes: a review [J]. Microbiol. China, 2021,48(1):223-240.
[34]	陈芙蓉, 熊伟仡, 尹娇, 等.微生物菌剂对叶菜废弃物堆肥过程的影响 [J].中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 146-154.
	CHEN F R, XIONG W Y, YIN J, et al.. Effects of microbial agents on leaf vegetable wastes during composting [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2024, 26(3): 146-154.
[35]	薛晶晶,李彦明,常瑞雪,等.厨余与园林废物共堆肥过程氮素转化及损失[J].农业工程学报,2021,37(10):192-197.
	XUE J J, LI Y M, CHANG R X,et al.. Nitrogen transformation and loss during co-composting of kitchen and garden wastes [J].Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2021,37(10):192-197.
[36]	郜斌斌, 王选, 王珏, 等. 化学和黏土矿物钝化剂对牛粪秸秆堆肥磷形态转化的影响[J].农业工程学报, 2019, 35(2): 242-249.
	GAO B B, WANG X, WANG Y, et al.. Effects of chemical and clay mineral additives on phosphorus transformation during cow manure and corn stover composting [J]. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng., 2019, 35(2): 242-249.

处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time
	25 d		50 d		75 d		100 d		125 d
	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell
NCK	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy
NB	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	黄 Yellow	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant
NL	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy
NBL	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy
WCK	褐 Brown	清香 Fragrant	褐 Brown	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WB	黄 Yellow	腐臭 Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WL	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WBL	黄褐Tawny	腐臭 Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness

处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time
	25 d		50 d		75 d		100 d		125 d
	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell	颜色 Color	气味 Smell
NCK	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy
NB	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	黄 Yellow	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant
NL	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy
NBL	黄 Yellow	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	清香 Fragrant	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy
WCK	褐 Brown	清香 Fragrant	褐 Brown	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WB	黄 Yellow	腐臭 Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WL	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	褐 Brown	泥腥 Earthy	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness
WBL	黄褐Tawny	腐臭 Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	腐臭Rancidness	黄褐Tawny	泥腥 Earthy	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness	黄 Yellow	腐臭Rancidness

处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time					平均 Average
处理 Treatment	25 d	50 d	75 d	100 d	125 d	平均 Average
NCK	17.6±8.7 ab	17.3±14.9 ab	2.7±2.5 bc	0.0±0.0 b	0.0±0.0 b	7.5±5.0 b
NB	13.3±3.8 b	13.1±0.8 ab	23.1±9.2 a	23.9±10.6 a	30.6±7.3 a	21.1±1.5 a
NL	18.9±4.0 ab	14.3±9.7 ab	1.0±0.7 bc	3.2±0.2 b	0.0±0.0 b	7.7±2.9 bc
NBL	22.6±10.0 a	33.1±27.2 a	6.9±6.2 b	22.3±6.8 a	0.0±0.0 b	17.0±7.8 a
WCK	0.0±0.0 c	4.1±3.8 b	0.0±0.0c	0.3±0.1 b	7.0±2.6 b	2.3±1.1 cd
WB	0.0±0.0 c	0.0±0.0 b	0.0±0.0 c	0.0±0.0 b	1.8±1.3 b	0.4±0.3 d
WL	0.0±0.0 c	0.6±0.1 b	0.4±0.2 bc	0.3±0.1b	2.0±0.7 b	0.6±0.2 d
WBL	0.0±0.0 c	2.4±1.4 b	0.4±0.1 bc	0.1±0.0 b	3.6±1.6 b	1.3±0.3 cd

处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time					平均 Average
处理 Treatment	25 d	50 d	75 d	100 d	125 d	平均 Average
NCK	17.6±8.7 ab	17.3±14.9 ab	2.7±2.5 bc	0.0±0.0 b	0.0±0.0 b	7.5±5.0 b
NB	13.3±3.8 b	13.1±0.8 ab	23.1±9.2 a	23.9±10.6 a	30.6±7.3 a	21.1±1.5 a
NL	18.9±4.0 ab	14.3±9.7 ab	1.0±0.7 bc	3.2±0.2 b	0.0±0.0 b	7.7±2.9 bc
NBL	22.6±10.0 a	33.1±27.2 a	6.9±6.2 b	22.3±6.8 a	0.0±0.0 b	17.0±7.8 a
WCK	0.0±0.0 c	4.1±3.8 b	0.0±0.0c	0.3±0.1 b	7.0±2.6 b	2.3±1.1 cd
WB	0.0±0.0 c	0.0±0.0 b	0.0±0.0 c	0.0±0.0 b	1.8±1.3 b	0.4±0.3 d
WL	0.0±0.0 c	0.6±0.1 b	0.4±0.2 bc	0.3±0.1b	2.0±0.7 b	0.6±0.2 d
WBL	0.0±0.0 c	2.4±1.4 b	0.4±0.1 bc	0.1±0.0 b	3.6±1.6 b	1.3±0.3 cd

处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time					平均 Average
处理 Treatment	25 d	50 d	75 d	100 d	125 d	平均 Average
NCK	7.8±0.6 a	7.4±0.0 b	8.3±0.2 a	8.5±0.1 a	8.9±0.1 a	8.2±0.6 a
NB	7.4±0.2 a	7.7±0.1 a	7.9±0.1 a	8.1±0.2 a	8.8±0.1 ab	8.0±0.5 ab
NL	8.0±0.1 a	7.4±0.3 b	8.1±0.1 a	8.5±0.3 a	8.8±0.2 ab	8.1±0.5 a
NBL	7.7±0.0 a	7.4±0.0 b	8.2±0.1 a	8.4±0.1 a	8.9±0.0 a	8.1±0.5 a
WCK	5.5±0.1 b	7.1±0.1 d	6.6±1.2 b	7.6±0.0 b	8.3±0.3 bc	7.0±1.1 cd
WB	5.2±0.1 b	5.0±0.1 e	7.3±0.0 ab	5.4±0.1 c	7.9±0.1 c	6.1±1.3 d
WL	5.8±0.2 b	7.2±0.0 cd	7.4±0.1 ab	7.5±0.1 b	8.0±0.1 c	7.2±0.7 bc
WBL	5.6±0.0 b	7.3±0.1 bc	7.2±0.1 ab	7.6±0.1 b	8.0±0.1 c	7.1±0.8 bc

添加菌剂和石灰对剑麻渣腐解及养分含量的影响

Effects of Adding Microbial Inoculants and Lime on Fermentation and Nutrient Content of Sisal Waste

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 36

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

养分指标 Nutrient index	处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time					平均 Average
养分指标 Nutrient index	处理 Treatment	25 d	50 d	75 d	100 d	125 d	平均 Average
全氮 Total nitrogen	NCK	18.7±3.7 a	18.5±1.7 a	16.9±1.1 ab	18.2±1.2 abc	15.4±0.9 bc	17.5±2.1 a
	NB	18.0±2.9 a	18.0±1.8 ab	18.4±0.4 ab	18.7±0.4 abc	14.7±1.0 cd	17.6±2.0 a
	NL	16.5±2.7 a	17.7±0.8 abc	17.6±3.2 ab	16.6±0.5 c	14.2±0.1 cd	16.7±2.1 ab
	NBL	15.7±0.3 ab	18.8±0.8 a	18.1±1.5 a	17.8±0.7 abc	13.5±0.0 d	16.8±2.2 ab
	WCK	14.4±0.2 ab	18.0±0.8 ab	18.9±1.5 a	19.5±1.4 a	16.3±1.4 ab	17.4±2.2 a
	WB	11.3±0.6 b	17.1±0.2 abc	15.1±1.1 b	17.3±1.9 bc	17.5±0.9 a	15.7±2.6 b
	WL	14.0±0.7 ab	15.7±1.4 c	17.3±1.1 ab	18.4±0.5 abc	17.5±0.2 a	16.6±1.8 ab
	WBL	13.1±0.2 ab	16.1±0.1 bc	17.7±1.5 ab	18.4±1.4 ab	15.9±1.6 ab	16.3±2.2 ab
全磷 Total phosphorus	NCK	2.9±0.3 ab	3.1±0.1 ab	3.5±0.0 a	3.8±0.3 a	3.6±0.2 a	3.4±0.4 a
	NB	3.7±1.6 a	3.3±0.4 a	3.3±0.2 ab	3.8±0.1 a	3.3±0.3 abc	3.5±0.7 a
	NL	2.8±0.3 ab	2.9±0.2 bc	3.2±0.1 ab	3.6±0.2 ab	3.6±0.0 a	3.2±0.4 ab
	NBL	2.8±0.2 ab	3.1±0.2 ab	3.2±0.1 ab	3.7±0.1 a	3.4±0.0 ab	3.2±0.3 a
	WCK	2.1±0.1 b	2.4±0.2 d	2.6±0.6 c	3.4±0.1 b	3.0±0.1 cd	2.7±0.5 c
	WB	1.8±0.2 b	2.0±0.1 e	2.0±0.2 d	2.5±0.3 c	3.1±0.2 bcd	2.3±0.5 d
	WL	2.2±0.3 b	2.5±0.1 cd	3.0±0.1 abc	3.3±0.1 b	3.1±0.3 cd	2.8±0.5 c
	WBL	2.1±0.3 b	2.6±0.2 cd	2.8±0.4 bc	3.5±0.1 ab	2.9±0.2 d	2.9±0.5 bc
全钾 Total potassium	NCK	1.5±0.1 bc	4.1±0.5 ab	2.6±0.1 a	3.4±0.1 a	3.0±0.2 b	2.9±0.9 ab
	NB	1.6±0.4 bc	3.7±0.2 bc	2.9±0.4 a	3.3±0.3 ab	3.0±0.0 b	2.9±0.8 a
	NL	2.6±0.2 ab	4.3±0.1 a	2.9±0.1 a	3.5±0.2 a	3.3±0.3 a	3.3±0.7 a
	NBL	2.3±0.8 abc	3.7±0.2 bc	2.7±0.3 a	3.2±0.3 ab	3.1±0.0 ab	3.0±0.6 ab
	WCK	3.3±1.9 a	3.1±0.3 d	2.9±0.3 a	2.8±0.0 b	2.5±0.1 c	2.9±0.8 a
	WB	2.5±1.7 abc	3.2±0.5 cd	2.8±0.1 a	3.1±0.1 ab	2.6±0.0 c	2.8±0.7 ab
	WL	4.0±0.4 a	3.1±0.2 d	2.9±0.1 a	2.9±0.3 ab	2.7±0.1 c	3.1±0.5 ab
	WBL	0.9±0.2 c	3.7±0.1 bc	2.8±0.2 a	2.7±0.2 b	2.6±0.1 c	2.5±1.0 b

养分指标 Nutrient content	处理 Treatment	发酵时间Fermentation time					平均 Average
养分指标 Nutrient content	处理 Treatment	25 d	50 d	75 d	100 d	125 d	平均 Average
全氮 Total nitrogen	NCK	67.5±6.8 bc	45.5±34.6 b	114.9±18.4 a	172.1±94.5 ab	233.3±82.9 a	132.5±29.6 a
	NB	100.0±27.2 a	215.4±93.5 a	39.9±3.8 c	101.9±51.2 b	122.5±8.8 de	115.9±23.7 a
	NL	48.2±6.1 c	92.5±47.2 b	110.5±22.0 ab	186.0±78.4 ab	80.2±48.5 e	105.2±25.1 a
	NBL	64.5±3.7 bc	59.2±11.6 b	82.4±9.2 abc	115.0±91.8 b	311.2±0.0 a	130.9±31.0 a
	WCK	72.9±8.7 abc	69.0±1.4 b	52.5±24.1 bc	157.9±46.9 ab	146.8±7.5 cd	96.5±24.5 a
	WB	84.1±6.9 ab	97.0±24.5 b	83.4±56.1 abc	228.2±33.5 a	211.5±31.4 b	140.8±23.9 a
	WL	74.4±8.7 bc	98.1±17.9 b	43.2±12.6 c	136.2±14.5 ab	180.0±32.8 bc	106.4±3.2 a
	WBL	61.4±5.0 c	93.6±6.8 b	69.7±16.1 bc	105.3±52.0 b	180.8±24.1 bc	102.1±6.2 a
全磷 Total phosphorus	NCK	8.2±5.6 b	19.9±6.7 bc	14.6±1.4 b	12.4±4.1 b	6.5±0.6 b	12.4±1.4 b
	NB	9.1±2.1 b	15.4±3.3 c	16.0±2.5 b	17.4±8.6 b	5.0±0.8 b	12.6±1.2 b
	NL	6.9±1.8 b	18.1±3.9 bc	15.2±1.1 b	8.7±2.7 b	6.8±3.5 ab	11.4±1.0 b
	NBL	5.9±1.5 b	17.4±0.9 c	14.5±1.7 b	8.7±5.3 b	7.0±3.8 ab	11.2±1.0 b
	WCK	16.7±0.7 b	30.3±6.6 b	17.9±3.2 b	12.0±4.3 b	6.5±0.8 b	16.6±2.2 b
	WB	52.8±24.4 a	153.5±5.1 a	60.1±24.8 a	136.3±11.2 a	11.6±3.3 a	84.5±7.3 a
	WL	12.8±4.8 b	23.7±2.7 bc	14.8±1.7 b	10.1±4.4 b	8.5±0.8 ab	14±1.1 b
	WBL	17.6±4.0 b	18.5±2.0 bc	16.1±1.5 b	15.5±16.4 b	8.3±1.7 ab	15.2±3.6 b
全钾 Total potassium	NCK	0.59±0.01 c	0.69±0.05 bc	0.71±0.05 b	0.74±0.03 ab	0.80±0.09 ab	0.71±0.08 a
	NB	0.58±0.03 c	0.84±0.01 a	0.66±0.08 b	0.78±0.03 ab	0.85±0.06 a	0.74±0.12 a
	NL	0.65±0.02 bc	0.74±0.04 bc	0.83±0.02 a	0.85±0.11 a	0.74±0.05 b	0.76±0.09 a
	NBL	0.61±0.04 bc	0.69±0.04 bc	0.73±0.04 ab	0.78±0.08 ab	0.77±0.01 b	0.71±0.07 a
	WCK	0.69±0.02 ab	0.65±0.04 c	0.66±0.01 b	0.70±0.02 ab	0.76±0.00 b	0.68±0.04 a
	WB	0.67±0.01 ab	0.67±0.02 bc	0.67±0.01 b	0.67±0.03 ab	0.73±0.04 b	0.68±0.03 a
	WL	0.75±0.00 a	0.75±0.01 ab	0.73±0.03 ab	0.71±0.01 ab	0.73±0.04 b	0.74±0.02 a
	WBL	0.68±0.05 ab	0.72±0.02 bc	0.66±0.02 b	0.60±0.13 b	0.73±0.04 b	0.68±0.07 a

处理 Treatment	质量损失率 Mass loss rate	氮损失率 N loss rate	磷损失率 P loss rate	钾损失率 K loss rate
NCK	43.1±1.7 a	42.2±4.7 ab	25.2±3.0 ab	80.0±1.6 ab
NB	41.8±0.6 a	43.6±3.7 ab	28.4±5.1 ab	79.6±0.4 abc
NL	37.8±1.4 ab	42.1±0.9 abc	17.3±1.7 b	75.9±2.7 c
NBL	39.1±0.0 ab	46.0±0.0 a	23.4±0.0 ab	78.1±0.0 bc
WCK	40.2±4.5 ab	34.2±11.5 abc	32.5±1.1 ab	82.2±2.0 a
WB	39.5±1.2 ab	30.4±2.4 bc	29.5±2.7 ab	82.0±0.7 a
WL	35.0±2.9 b	25.1±4.2 c	25.8±9.1 ab	79.3±1.7 abc
WBL	37.2±2.3 ab	34.1±8.9 abc	32.9±5.1 a	81.1±0.2 ab

处理 Treatment		叶数 Leaf number	叶长 Leaf length/cm	叶宽 Leaf width/cm	茎叶鲜重 Fresh weight of stems and leaves/g	根鲜重 Fresh weight of roots/g
对照	CK1	11±2 ab	24.4±1.4 bcd	2.2±0.1 b	63.0±4.3 abc	2.6±1.2 ab
发酵液浇灌 Irrigating hydrolysat	NB	10±3 ab	26.2±0.7 bc	2.2±0.1 b	49.4±16.8 c	1.7±0.6 ab
	NBL	9±2 ab	22.3±1.8 d	2.2±0.3 b	45.2±6.0 c	1.4±0.2 b
	WB	8±3 b	27.4±2.6 ab	2.4±0.1 ab	54.3±13.8 c	2.2±1.0 ab
	WBL	11±2 ab	23.5±2.4 cd	2.2±0.2 b	56.5±7.4 bc	1.6±0.2 ab
固态产物基施 Solid product base application	NB	12±2 a	25.8±2.1 bc	2.5±0.2 ab	73.0±3.5 ab	2.0±0.8 ab
	NBL	10±1 ab	26.2±1.9 bc	2.4±0.4 b	60.2±11.6 abc	1.6±0.2 ab
	WB	10±1 ab	26.7±1.3 b	2.5±0.3 ab	75.6±14.0 a	1.8±0.1 ab
	WBL	9±1 ab	29.8±1.3 a	2.8±0.2 a	73.1±4.5 ab	2.7±0.8 a

[1]	吴疆, 程红胜, 丁京涛, 沈玉君, 周海宾, 郭文袖, 张迎. 不同填充率与曝气工艺对滚筒堆肥效果的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(9): 172-180.
[2]	王璨, 崔强, 时倩茹, 唐浩, 宁欣杰, 张静静, 杨素勤, 张彪. 3种调理剂对不同镉污染土壤钝化效果及微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2025, 27(8): 215-226.
[3]	王吉平, 卢铁东, 梁芷姮, 张野, 苏天明, 何铁光. 不同来源微生物对葡萄枝条猪粪共堆肥过程的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(9): 224-233.
[4]	姜坤宏, 许祯莹, 郭真真, 白林, 郝晓霞, 姜冬梅, 邱时秀. 微生物电化学技术原理及其在畜禽废弃物资源化领域的应用研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(7): 210-222.
[5]	王子凡, 李燕, 张庆银, 王丹丹, 师建华, 耿晓彬, 田东良, 钟增明, 赵晓明, 齐连芬. 微生物菌剂对设施番茄主要病害及土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6): 102-112.
[6]	强敬雯, 王晚晴, 唐曼玉, 张娜, 武双, 华威, 邵恒煊, 程艳玲. 厨余垃圾厌氧消化对沼气微生物及环境的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6): 159-169.
[7]	张昱, 张洪波, 张瑜瑜, 陈丽娟, 赵明方, 夏云. 玫瑰秸秆与牲畜粪污厌氧消化特性及微生物群落研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(5): 201-211.
[8]	陈芙蓉, 熊伟仡, 尹娇, 张小卓, 韩宇, 邓毅书. 微生物菌剂对叶菜废弃物堆肥过程的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(3): 146-154.
[9]	孟璐, 范敬文, 赛欣娱, 曾路生, 宋祥云, 崔德杰. 石灰对苹果园土壤改良和植株生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 197-204.
[10]	安柯萌, 赵立欣, 姚宗路, 于佳动, 李再兴, 黄亚丽, 梁依, 申瑞霞. 秸秆高值利用合成中链脂肪酸研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 198-211.
[11]	郭娟娟, 王珊, 栾好安, 李寒, 郭素萍, 齐国辉, 张雪梅. 微生物菌剂对红树莓生长、果实品质及土壤磷钾的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(10): 198-209.
[12]	孟艳, 汪微, 葸全财, 李屹, 陈来生, 杜中平, 韩睿. 沼液预处理对蔬菜秸秆厌氧消化性能的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 188-196.
[13]	柳丽, 杜中平, 李屹, 陈来生, 韩睿. NaOH预处理对青稞秸秆厌氧发酵特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 192-200.
[14]	肖雨沁, 雷晓, 张明金, 张远盖, 唐珊, 姬鸿飞, 王川, 马翠玲, 景延秋. 三种芽孢杆菌菌剂对烤烟育苗效果的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(5): 85-92.
[15]	焦静, 郑勇, 李尊香, 黄小红, 杜嵇华, 郑金. 厌氧发酵在线监控技术研究进展[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(9): 87-95.