Cited by 62Composting and Vermicomposting TechniquesSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgriculture, Plant Science, Crop Management

The Effects of Goat Manure, Sewage Sludge And Effective Microorganisms on the Composting of Pine Bark

Mupondi, L.T., Mnkeni, P. N. S., Brutsch, M.O.·2006·Compost Science & Utilization

Abstract

This study investigated the cocomposting of pine bark with goat manure or sewage sludge, with or without inoculated effective microorganisms (EM). Composting was done for 90 days and parameters monitored over this period included temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), C/N ratio, inorganic N, as well as tannin content. Changes in temperature, pH and EC during composting were consistent with those generally observed with other composting systems. The parameters were influenced by the feedstock materials used but were not affected by inoculation with effective microorganisms. The highest temperature measured from pine bark-goat manure composts was 60°C but much lower maximum temperatures of 40°C and 30°C were observed for pine bark sewage sludge and pine bark alone composts, respectively. The C/N ratios of the composts decreased with composting time. Ammonium levels decreased while nitrate levels increased with composting time. Tannin levels generally decreased with composting time but the extent of decrease depended on the contents of the composting mixtures. The trends observed showed that temperature, pH, EC, C/N ratio, tannin levels, and inorganic NH4-N and NO3-N were reliable parameters for monitoring the co-composting of pine bark with goat manure or sewage sludge. The pine bark-goat manure compost had more desirable nutritional properties than the pine bark and pine bark-sewage sludge composts. It had high CEC, near neutral pH, low C/N ratio, and high amounts of inorganic N and bases (K, Ca, and Mg) while pine bark compost had the least amounts of nutrients, was acidic, and had high C/N ratio and low CEC. The final tannin content of the pine bark-goat manure compost was below the 20 g/kg upper threshold level for horticultural potting media, implying that its use as a growing medium would not cause toxicity to plants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1065657x.2006.10702284

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mupondi, L. T., Mnkeni, P. N. S., & Brutsch, M. O.
Affiliations
University of Fort Hare (ZA)
Venue
Compost Science & Utilization
Published
2006-06
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
201-210
ISSN
  • 1065-657X (ISSN-L)
  • 2326-2397
OpenAlex
W2078043954
Cited by
62
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Compost Science & Utilization (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Composting and Vermicomposting Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture, Plant Science, Crop Management
Keywords
pine bark, goat manure, sewage sludge, co-composting, effective microorganisms, composting temperature, C/N ratio, tannin content, cation exchange capacity, compost quality, potting media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review