Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 40 issue 3 (september 2020) : 317-322

Effect of Various Farm Manures and Straw Containing Cattle Manure on Worm and Worm Manure Production

İbrahim Halil Çerçi, Murat Kalkan, Fatma Terlemez
1Bingöl University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Nutrition and Nutritional Diseases, Bingöl, Turkey.
Cite article:- Çerçi Halil İbrahim, Kalkan Murat, Terlemez Fatma (2020). Effect of Various Farm Manures and Straw Containing Cattle Manure on Worm and Worm Manure Production. Agricultural Science Digest. 40(3): 317-322. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-217.

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of different combinations of farm manure and farm manure on earthworm proliferation and earthworm manure production quantity and property. Accordingly, 100% horse manure (H), 100% cattle manure (C), 100% straw cattle manure  (SC), 90% horse manure + 10% hen manure (H/H), 90% cattle + 10% hen manure (C/H) and 90% straw cattle manure + 10% hen manure (SC/H ) six research groups were designed. The highest level of worm growth in the experimental period was in group H, followed by SC group. The lowest values were found in C/H group and C group. In the amount of worm manure produced, the highest value was found in H/H group and the lowest value was found in SC group. As a result, it was found that 100% H and 100% SC groups made a better contribution to the increase in worm growth. 

REFERENCES

  1. Agarwal, S., Arora, L. (2011). Vermýculture býotechnology for waste management ýn dýfferent seasons : a case study. J. Dairying, Foods and H.S. 30(3): 209- 214.
  2. Anonymous. (2019a). Tarýmda kullanýlan organik, mineral ve mikrobiyal kaynaklý gübrelere Dair Yönetmelik Ek-19 analiz metodlarý (OGY) GPGDY (Gübrelerin piyasa gözetimi ve denetimi yönetmeliði) TS 5869 ISO 5073.
  3. Anonymous. (2019b). Toprakta makro besin elementi analizleri–1. 524lt0108 2011http://megep.meb.gov.tr/mte_program_ modul/moduller_pdf/Toprakta%20Makro%20Besin%20Elementi%20Analizleri%201.pdf.
  4. AOAC. (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis. 15th.ed. Washington, DC. USA. 
  5. Arýman Karabulut, H., Kurtoðlu, Ý.Z., Yüksek, T., Osmanoðlu, M.Ý. (2016). Balýk yemlerinde hayvansal protein kaynaðý olarak solucan ununun kullanýmý. Anadolu Çevre ve Hayvancýlýk Bilimleri Dergisi. 1(2): 64-69.
  6. Atiyeh, R.M., Subler, S., Edwards, C.A., Bachman, G., Metzger, J.D., Shuster, W. (2000). Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedo Biologia. 44: 579–590.
  7. Bal, Y. (2011). Organik süt ineði iþletmelerinde mastitis sorununa yaklaþýmlar. Veteriner Hekimler Derneði Dergisi. 82(2): 7-14. 
  8. Barik, T., Gulati, J.M.L., Gar Barik L.M., Gulati, J.M.L., Garnayak, L.M., Bastia. D.K. (2011). Productýon of vermýcompost from agrýcultural wastes- a revýew. Agricultural Reviews. 31(3): 172 -183.
  9. Chaoui, H. (2019). Vermicasting (or vermicomposting): processing organic wastes through earthworms.http://www.omafra. gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/10-009.htm. 
  10. Çakmak, C. and Çerçi, Ý.H. (1995). Ankara keçilerinde farklý kimyasal maddelerle iþlenen buðday samanýnýn ruminal fermenta syonuna etkisi. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 20: 55-61.
  11. Çerçi, Ý.H. and Sarý, M. (1994). Farklý kimyasal maddelerle muamele edilen buðday samanýnýn in vitro sindirilme derecesi. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 18: 27-32.
  12. Ýnal, A., Sözüdoðru, S., Erden, D. (1996). Tavuk gübresinin içeriði ve gübre deðeri. Tarým Bilimleri Dergisi. 2(3): 45-50.
  13. Munroe, G. (2007). Manual of On-farm Vermicomposting and Vermiculture. Publication of Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, Nova Scotia.
  14. Namlý, A., Akça, O., Perçimli, C., Beþe, S., Gür, Þ., Arýkan, H., Eser, Ý., Ýzci, E., et al (2014). Evsel ve endüstriyel arýtma çamurlarýnýn solucanlar (Eisenia fetida) ile kompostlanmasý. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi. 2(2): 46 – 56.
  15. Sarý, M., Bolat, D., Çerçi, Ý.H., Önal A.G., Deniz, S., Azman, M.A., Þahin, K., Güler, T., et al (2008). Hayvan Besleme ve Beslenme Hastalýklarý, Medipires, Malatya. 
  16. Sözcü, A. and Ýpek, A. (2016). Kanatlý yetiþtiriciliðinde serbest dolaþýmlý sistemde (free range) besleme teknikleri. Hayvansal Üretim. 57(2): 68-74.
  17. SPSS. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  18. Venter, J.M. and Reinecke, A.J. (1988). The life-cycle of the compost worm eisenia fetida (oligochaeta). South African Journal of Zoology. 23(3): 161-165.
  19. Venugopal, A., Chandrasekhar, M., Naidu B.V., Raju S. (2010). Vermýcompostýng ýn serýculture usýng mýxed culture of earthworms (eudrýllus eugýneae, eýsenýa foetýda and perýonyx excavatus)-a revýew. Agricultural Reviews. 31(2): 150-154.
  20. Yüksek, T. (2019). Farklý tip yemle beslemenin kýrmýzý kaliforniya solucanýnda solucan sayýsý ve aðýrlýðýna etkisi. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences. 4(1):1-6. 
  21. Yüksek, T., Atamov, V., Türüt, K. (2019). Demlenmiþ çay atýðý ve evsel yemek atýklarý ile beslenen kýrmýzý kaliforniya solucanýndan elde edilen katý solucan gübresindeki bazý besin elementlerinin belirlenmesi. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences. 4(2): 263-271.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)