Nutrients Dynamics of co-composting poultry litter with fast- food waste for
agriculture sector
Asim Hayat1*, Arshad Nawaz2, Fayyaz Hussain1, Vishandas Suthar1, Sana Ullah Jalil3 and
Muhammad Arshad Ullah1
1
Land Resource Research Institute, National Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, Pakistan
Department of Soil Science & SWC Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan
3
Rice Research Program, National Agricultural Research Center, Islamabad, Pakistan
2
*Corresponding Author: asimsatti94@gmail.com
Abstract:
An experiment was conducted to study the nutrients dynamics in the co-composting of poultry
litter (PL) with fast food waste (FFW). The PL and FFW were co-composted in pits of dimension
2m× 2m × 1.5m (L× W× D) using ratios of 100: 0, 75:25, 50: 50, 25: 75 and 0: 100 for a period
of 105 days. At initially stage the total nitrogen content in both materials i.e., FFW (1.42%) and
PL (3.22%) was found low concentration and that was increased with the passage of time
towards maturity. After maturity the maximum total nitrogen (3.63%), phosphorus (0.81%) and
potassium(3.40%) concentrations were in treatment of PL and FFS (50:50 ratio) followed by the
treatment of PL and FFW (0:100 ratio).Compost prepared from only PL have the minimum C:N
ratio at 105 day, while the C:N ratio in FFW was the maximum (26.38). The C:N ratio of
treatment have equal PL and FFW was18.33. Composting of PL and FFW in equal ratio
enhanced the NPK content than all other treated ratios.
Key words: Co-Composting, poultry litter compost, fast food waste compost, C:N
Ratio
Introduction
In modern society there is a huge generation of poultry litter and fast-food wastes, but its
improper disposal and unjustified application to crop plants caused a serious environmental,
social and economic problem. In Pakistan both poultry and food industry is growing with a rapid
speed. According to economic survey of Pakistan 2009-10, the poultry sector is growing at the
rate of 15 to 20 percent per annum, which also reveals the production of poultry litter in the
country. On other hand the number of hotels, motels and fast food restaurants like KFC,
McDonalds and Pizza hut has increased many folds in last decade. These restaurants, hotels and
vegetable markets are producing tones of solid food waste every year whose proper disposal and
usage is one of the biggest challenges not only for local management but also for researcher.
According to Khan et al. (2003) and Chaudhry et al. (2013) this litter is being used as fertilizer
by the farmers and is considered as a better organic fertilizer than the farmyard manure. Food
wastes can be converted into stuff used as feedstock of compost (Haug et al.1993; Kumar et al.
2010).
Composting, which biologically decomposes and stabilizes organic substances under
thermophilic conditions as a result of biologically produced heat (Barrington et al. 2003; Iyengar
and Bhave 2006), is a proven method for treatment of green waste and food waste (Lemus and
Lau 2002;Nakasaki and Ohtaki 2002).Composting is increasingly considered a good way for
recycling the surplus of manure as a stabilized and sanitized end-product for agriculture(Khan et
al. 2003;Bernal et al. 2009; Chaudhry et al. 2013). The advantages of composted organic wastes
to soil structure, fertility as well as plant growth have been increasingly accentuated (Murwira et
al. 1995; Esse et al. 2001; Goyal et al. 2005). Addition of un-decomposed wastes or nonstabilized compost to agricultural land may lead to immobilization of plant nutrients and cause
phytotoxicity (Butler et al. 2001; Fuchs 2002; Cambardella et al. 2003). Moreover, the waste
physico-chemical characteristics may not always be appropriate for composting. For instance,
high moisture content in food waste, inappropriate C:N ratio, imbalanced amount of plant
nutrients, pathogens and nuisance odors may result in long treatment time or low degradation
efficiency (Kumar et al. 2010; Chaudhry et al. 2013). Co-composting of different types of
organic products is feasible to overcome the drawbacks of composting a single material (Goyal
et al. 2005). Co-composting is extensively practiced method for solid waste management, which
recovers organic matter from organic wastes (Bernal et al. 1998; Goyal et al. 2005; Castaldi et
al. 2008; Kumar et al. 2010). The composted from different organic wastes vary in their quality
and stability, which further depends upon the composition of raw material used for the compost
production (Gaur and Singh 1995;Ranalli et al. 2001; Raj and Antil 2011).Compost quality is
closely associated to its stability and maturity. A number of criteria and factors have been
suggested for testing compost maturity such as colour, temperature and odour which gives a
general idea of the decomposition stage and the degree of maturation (Bernal et al. 1998). For
complete picture of compost, chemical methods are extensively applied, including measurement
of the C:N ratio in the solid phase and in water extract, inorganic nitrogen, as well as the degree
of organic matter humification (Huang et al. 2001; Wu and Ma 2002; Zhu 2007; Chang and Hsu
2008; Kumar et al. 2010).The C:N ratio is one of the crucial factors for preparation of compost
(Zhu 2007; Ogunwande et al. 2008; Chang and Hsu 2008). The optimum C:N ratio for
composting is usually consider between 25-30. Although, recent research have revealed that
composting can be carried out effectively at a lower C:N of 15 (Huang et al. 2004; Zhu 2007).
Composting at low C:N ratios will decrease the requirement of bulking agent for adjusting the
initial C:N ratio of a food waste composting mixture (Kumar et al. 2010). So proper composting
of waste material will improve compost quality and reduce environmental risks for land
application (Mathur et al. 1993; Ranalli et al. 2001). For this purpose, the studies were
conducted to find out the best ratio of poultry litter and fast-food restaurant waste for making
compost, and to determine the plant nutrient dynamics.
Material and Methods
Composting process, sampling and preparation:
The experiment was processed at research farm of PirMehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Compost consisted of poultry litter and fast food waste at
100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100 v/v ratios. Fresh Poultry litter was collected from poultry
sheds of private farm and fast food waste from the different fast food chains and restaurants in
Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
Fresh Poultry litter was collected from poultry sheds of private farm and fast food waste from the
different fast food chains and restaurants. The experiment was processed at research farm of Pir
Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Following five combinations
ratios used for co-composting. T1 = Poultry litter +Fast food waste (100: 0), T2 = Poultry litter +
Fast-food waste (75: 25), T3 = Poultry litter + Fast-food waste (50: 50), T4 = Poultry litter + Fastfood waste (25: 75) and T5 = Poultry litter +Fast-food waste (0:100).
Composting was carried out in pits having dimensions 2×2×1.5 meter (L×W×D) for 105 days.
The raw material of poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste was placed in pits for
composting under natural conditions. To provide aerobic conditions, the material was turned and
remixed after every 15 days during the dynamic and aerated process. For analyzed physical and
chemical characterization, homogeneous replicated samples of approximately 1 kg were taken by
mixing subsamples randomly collected from top, center and bottom within the pit at 15 days
interval of the process (at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 and 105 days) (Castaldi et al. 2008 and
Chaudhry et al. 2013). During composting the moisture content and temperature were measured
after every 15 days interval. Moisture content (60-70%) was adjusted by adding water to
maintain optimum process conditions for composting. Temperatures were measured immediately
after turning at the central part of the top, middle and bottom locations of the compost pit.
Samples were dried at 65 0C in forced air oven for 48hrsthen ground by Willey mill and passed
through a 1 mm sieve. These samples were stored in labeled plastic bottles at room temperature
till their chemical analysis.
Chemical properties of composts:
Total N in the compost sample was determined by the regular Kjeldahl method as described by
Bremner (1996). For other elements, the compost samples were digested using the per chloric
acid-nitric acid digestion procedure as described by Kuo (1996). Phosphorus in the digest was
read on spectrophotometer in 880 nm after proper color development. Potash was read on flame
photometer while total organic carbon content was determined by using K2Cr2O7 as an oxidizing
agent as described by Nelson and Sommer (1982).
Statistical analysis:
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the measured parameters was performed using statistics-8.1
software and the means were compared using Duncan's multiple range test at 5% probability
level.
Results and Discussions
Temperature and Moisture Regime:
Changes in temperature at various stages of decomposition of poultry litter with fast food wastes
is shown in Fig 1.During composting, the internal temperature of the compost pits sustained
below 50 0Cfor period of 45 days that peaked to 60 0C at 60 – 75 days of composting in all
treatments. After attaining peak temperature of 60 0C during the co- composting of poultry litter
and fast food restaurant waste, began to decline to ambient level (35oC)in all the treatments.
However, the temperature of all treatment pits took much longer (105 days) to reach ambient
level.
The comparison between alone or various ratio of PL and FFW co-compost revealed a very
small difference of temperature in the beginning and at the end of the experiment except 50:50
ratio of PL and FFW co-compost. However, the temperature in the equal ratio of PL and FFW
co-composted pits took 6-16 oC higher as compared to other treatments. The results were in line
with Zhang et al. (2003) and Chaudhry et al. (2013) who observed the highest temperature of6873 0C and found that increasing temperature is due to microbial activity at thermophilic stage
that helped to kill the pathogen in the composting material. According to Tiquia et al. (2001) the
changes included self-heating of the compost mass, relative increases in enzyme activities,
decreases in water-soluble components (i.e. water-extractable C, inorganic N, and heavy metal
contents), and elimination of phytotoxicity.
C: N Ratio:
The data regarding to carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio values in the co-composting of poultry litter
and fast food restaurant waste are shown in Table 1. The C:N ratio narrow with the passage of
time due to the decomposition of carbohydrates which are the rich source of carbon. As
microorganism during the decomposition process of composting need carbon, therefore the
carbon concentration decreased with the passage of time, whereas on the other side the
availability of nitrogen decreased with the increasing process of decomposition in the
composting process (Benito et al. 2006; Adhikari et al. 2008; Chaudhry et al. 2013). At the start
of composting process maximum C:N (38) were observed in the treatments T3. Similarly, it was
higher in all other treatments at the initial stages of composting. The C:N ratio showed
decreasing trend with the passage of time up to 105 days of composting. Best C:N ratio (14) was
observed in the treatment T1 with 100 percent poultry litter. Maximum decreasing trend of C:N
ratio i.e. from 38 to 16 was observed in the treatment T3 which was the combination of 50
percent poultry litter and 50 percent fast food restaurant waste. These results were similar with
the findings of Benito et al. (2006) and according to them there was a gradual decrease in the
C:N ratio throughout composting. Nitrogen concentration showed and increase resulting from the
loss of dry weight as carbon dioxide and water evaporation during the mineralization of the
organic matter. This correlates with the previous observations about composting experiments
(Bernal et al. 1998; Alburquerque et al. 2006). They concluded that due to the variation in
carbon and nitrogen, the C:N ratio decreased during the composting process. They attained the
final C:N ratio of 14 after composting. Therefore it was the best combination of material which
gave an ideal compost to apply in the field for better crop production. Similar findings were
observed by Sellami et al. (2007) who determined the C:N ratio of 17 compost by the cocomposting of oil exhausted olive- cake, poultry manure and industrial residues of agro food
activity for soil amendment. The results were also similar to the finding of Zhang and Yong
(2006).
Total nitrogen concentration:
The data regarding nitrogen concentration of co-composting of poultry litter and fast food
restaurant waste is depicted in the Table 2. It has been observed that the total nitrogen
concentration increased with the passage of time. Maximum nitrogen concentrations were found
at 105 days of composting in all the treatments as compare to other days of composting. The
maximum total nitrogen concentration (3.83%) was measured in treatment T3 having 50:50
percent poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste, while the minimum concentration (1.70%)
observed in the treatment T5 having 100 percent fast food restaurant waste. This might be due to
highly mineralization of co-composting of poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste through
microbial decomposition process. While the lowest nitrogen concentrations were obtained in T5
was due to weakest activities of microbes for the decomposition of fast food restaurant waste but
these are not rich source of nitrogen. These results are in line with the findings of Rodriguez et
al. (2003) who studied the co-composting of barley wastes and solid poultry with N
concentrations (3.56 %) in the solid poultry manure and found increased trend of total nitrogen at
compost maturity. The results for low nitrogen concentrations in the treatment T5 with 100
percent fast food restaurant waste were also similar with those found by Zhang et al. (2003) who
characterized the food waste composting under anaerobic condition.
Total phosphorus concentration:
The data pertaining to concentration of total phosphorus is illustrated in the Table 3. The results
showed that all the treatments have heterogenic impact in respect of total phosphorus. Overall
results reflected that total phosphorus increased linearly from 0 to 105 days respectively. Higher
concentration of total phosphorus was found at 105 day of composting as compared to 0 to 90
days. Lowest quantity was available at the start of composting process. Further results indicates
that maximum total phosphorus concentration (0.81%) was available in the treatment T3
containing both equal quantity of poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste, while the
minimum concentration (0.51%) was measured in the treatment T5 where contacting 100
percent fast food restaurant waste.
Similar increasing trend of phosphorus concentration was observed by Rodriguez et al. (2000).
They studied the co-composting of barley waste and solid poultry manure. According to them
phosphorus showed increasing trend (0.98 % to 1.96 %). An increase in the phosphorus
concentration had also been observed in the vermin-composting of poultry manure. These results
were similar to the findings of Cooperband et al. (1996) who did experiments on the composting
of poultry litter with different wastes and found maximum P values in the poultry litter at the end
of the composting process. These findings were however not similar with that obtained from cocomposting of chestnut burr and leaf litter with solid poultry manure which showed and inverse
behavior. A decrease in phosphorus during co-composting (0.71 % to 0.12%) was observed by
Rodriguez et al. (2001).Results were also similar with the findings of Preusch et al. (2004).
Total potassium concentration:
The results pertaining to total potassium in co-composting of poultry litter and fast food
restaurant waste is depicted in the Table 4. The results reveled that all the treatments differed
significantly from one another with the increasing days of composting. Increase in the potassium
concentration was observed from 0 to 105 days of decomposition process of co-composting of
poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste. In 105 day, the maximum concentration of total K
(3.4%) was available in T3 while the minimum was found in T5. Maximum availability of total K
in T3 was due to higher activity of microbes for decomposition of compost material. Lowest
concentration of total K in T5 was due to presence of high carbohydrate and low nutrients in the
fast food restaurant because these are low in nutrient concentration.
An increase in the value of K concentration was observed after 15 days of composting and up to
105 days of composting. These results are in line with the findings of Rodriguez et al. (2001) and
according to them an increase in the K concentration (2.82 % to 3.26 %) was observed in cocompost. The increase of potassium in the co- compost could be explained by the mineralization
process and decrease in the potassium concentration was due to the fixation process. Clark
(2000) found the similar value of K in the food waste composting and observed that K release
increased from the initial to final day of composting by the action of microbes.
Conclusion
Among different compost prepared from mixing poultry litter and fast food
restaurant waste, the maximum concentration of total nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium were found in the compost containing equal proportion of poultry litter
and fast food restaurant waste.
Literature Cited
Adhikari, B.K., S.Barrington, J. Martinez, and S. King. 2008. “Characterization of food waste
and bulking agents for composting”. Waste Management 28:795-804.
Alburquerque, J.A., J. Gonzalvez, D. Grcia, and J. Cegarra. 2006. “Composting of solid olivemill product and the potential of the resulting compost for cultivating pepper under
compercial conditions”. J. Waste Mngt. 26:620-626.
Barrington, S., D. Choiniere, M. Trigui, and W. Knight. 2003. “Compost convective airflow
under passive aeration. Bioresour”. Technol. 86:259-266.
Benito, M., A. Masaguer. A Moliner, and R. Antonio. 2006. “Chemical and physical properties
of pruning waste compost and their seasonal variability”. J. Biores. Technol. 97:20712076.
Bremner, J.M. 1996. “Nitrogen and TotalPhosphorus”. InMethods of Soil Analysis. Part 3Chemical methods,edited by D.I. Sparks, 1085-1122. SSSA and ASA, Madison. WI.
USA.
Bernal, M.P., C. Paredes, M. Sanchez, and M.A Cegerra. 1998. “Majurity and stability
parameters of composts prepared with a wide range of organic wastes”. J. Biores.
Technol. 63:91-99.
Bernal, M.P., J.A. Alburquerque, and R. Moral. 2009. “Composting of animal manures and
chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment”. A review. Bioreso. Technol.
100:5444-5453.
Butler, T.A., L.J.Sikora, P.M.Steinhilber, and L.W.Douglass. 2001. “Compost age and sample
storage effects on maturity indicators of biosolids compost”. J. Environ. Qual. 30:21412148.
Cambardella, C.A., T.L.Richard, and A.Russell. 2003. “Compost mineralization in soil as a
function of composting process conditions”. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 39:117-127.
Castaldi, P., G. Garau, and P. Melis. 2008. “Maturity assessment of compost from municipal
solid waste through the study of enzyme activities and water-soluble fractions”. Waste
Management 28:534-540.
Chang, J.I. and T. Hsu. 2008. “Effects of compositions on food waste composting”. Bioreso.
Technol. 99:8068-8074.
Chaudhry, A.N., M.A. Naeem, G. Jilani; A. Razzaq, D. Zhang, M. Azeem, and M. Ahmed. 2013.
“Influence of composting and poultry litter storage methods on mineralization and
nutrient dynamics”. J. Animal & Plant Sci. 23:500-506.
Clark, S., 2000. Development of a Biologically Integrated Food Waste Composting System.
Berea College, Kentucky, USA.
Cooperband, L., R. Middleton, and H. June. 1996. “Changes in chemical, physical and biological
properties of passively aerated co-composted poultry litter and municipal solid waste
compost”. J. Compost Sci. and Util. 4:24-34.
Esse, P.C., A.Buerkert, P.Hiernaux, andA. Assa. 2001. “Decomposition of and nutrient release
from ruminant manure on acid sandy soils in the Sahelian zone of Niger, West Africa”.
Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 83:55-63.
Fuchs, J.G. 2002. “Practical use of quality compost for plant health and vitality improvement”.
InMicrobiology of Composting,435–444, edited byH. Insam, N. Riddech, S. Klammer.
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Gaur, A.C.and G. Singh. 1995. “Recycling of rural and urban wastes through conventional and
vermicomposting”. In Recycling of Crop, Animal, Human and Industrial Wastes in
Agriculture, 31-49, edited by H.L.S.Tandon. Fertilizer Development and Consultation
Organisation, New Delhi.
Goyal, S., S.K. Dhull, and K.K. Kapoor. 2005. “Chemical and biological changes during
composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity”. Bioreso.
Technol. 96:1584-1591.
Haug, T.M., T. Bramryd, and M. Marques. 1993. “Characterization of food waste composting as
feed stock”. J. Buores. Technol. 4:330-336.
Huang, G.F., M.Fang, Q.T.Wu, L.X.Zhou, X.D.Liao, and J.W.C.Wong. 2001. “Co-composting
of pig manure with leaves”. Environ. Technol. 22:1203-1212.
Huang, G.F., J.W.C.Wong, Q.T. Wu, and B.B.Nagar. 2004. “Effect of C/N on composting of pig
manure with sawdust”. Waste Manage. 24:805-813.
Iyengar, S.R. andP.P.Bhave. 2006. “In-vessel composting of household wastes”. Waste Manage.
26:1070-1080.
Khan, M.A., M. Rahim, and S. Ali. 2003. “Sewage sludge effect on soil fertility of maize as
compared to poultry litter, farmyard manure, and chemical fertilizer”. Pak. J. Agri. 6:6977.
Kumar, M., Y. Ou, and J. Lin. 2010. “Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N
ratio”. Waste Manage. 30:602–609.
Kuo, S. 1996. “Phosphorus”. InMethods of Soil Analysis. Part 3-Chemical methods, 869919,edited by D.I. Sparks. SSSA and ASA. Madison, WI. USA.
Lemus, G.R. and A.K. Lau. 2002. “Biodegradation of lipidic compounds in synthetic food
wastes during composting”. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 44:33-39.
Mathur, G., O.H. Dinel and M. Schnitzer. 1993. “Determination of compost biomaturity”. J.
Biol. Agric. Horti, 10:65-85.
Murwira, K.H., M.J.Swift, P.G.H.Frost. 1995. “Manure as a keyresource in sustainable
agriculture”. In Livestock and Sustainable Nutrient Cycling in Mixed Farming of SubSaharan Africa,131–148, edited by J.M.Powell, S.Fernandez-Rivera, T.O.Williams,
C.Renard. International Livestock Centre for Africa (II C.A.) AddisAbaba, Ethiopia.
Nakasaki, H., and A. Ohtaki. 2002. “A simple numerical model for predicting organic matter
decomposition in a fed-batch composting operation”. J. Environ. Qual. 31:997-1003.
Nelson, D.W., and L.E.Sommers. 1982. “Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter”.
InMethods of Soil Analysis Part II,539–579, edited by A.L.Page. American Society of
Agronomers, Madison.
Ogunwande, G.A., J.A. Osunade, K.O. Adekalu, and L.A.O. Ogunjimi. 2008. “Nitrogen loss in
chicken litter compost as affected by carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning frequency”. J.
Biores. Technol. 99:7495-7503.
Preusch, P.L., F. Takeda, and T.J. Tworkoski. 2004. “N and P uptake by strawberry plants grown
with composted poultry litter”. J. Sci. Horti. 102:91-103.
Raj, D. and R.S. Antil. 2011. “Evaluation of maturity and stability parameters of composts
prepared from agro-industrial wastes”. Bioreso. Technol. 102:2868-2873.
Ranalli, G., B.P. Taddei, M. Garavani, P. Marchetti and C. Sorlini. 2001. “Composting of solid
and sludge residues from agricultural and food industries”. J. Agric. Food Chem. 13:874879.
Rodrıguez, G. and M. Dı´az-Ravina. 2003. “Dynamics of the co-composting of barley waste with
liquid poultry manure”.J .Sci. Food Agric. 83:166-172.
Rodriguez, G.E., M. Vazquez, and M.D. Ravina. 2000. “Co-composting of barley wastes and
solid poultry manure”. J. Biores. Technol. 75: 223-225.
Rodriguez, G.E., M. Vazquez, and M.D. Ravina. 2001. “Co-composting of Chestnut burr and
leaf litter with solid poultry manure”. J. Biores. Tech. 78:107-109.
Sellami, F., R. Jarboui, S. Hachicha, K. Medhioub, and E. Ammar. 2007. “Co-composting of oil
exhausted olive-cake, poultry manure and industrial residues of agro-food activity for soil
amendment”. J. Biores. Tech. 24:322-327.
Tiquia, S.M., J.H.C. Wan, and N.F.Y. Tam. 2001. “Extracellular enzyme profiles during cocomposting of poultry manure and yard trimmings”. Process Biochemistry 36:813-820.
Wu, L.K., and L.Q.Ma. 2002. “Relationship between compost stability and extractable organic
carbon”. J. Environ. Qual. 31:1323-1328.
Zhang, X.W., H.Y. Nie, and X. Qiu. 2003. “Co-composting of high moisture vegetable waste,
flower waste and chicken litter in pilot scale”. J. Pub. Med. 24:32-37.
Zhang, Y. and H. Yong. 2006. “Composting of solid swine manure with pine sawdust as organic
substrate”. J. Biore. Technol. 97:2024-2031.
Zhu, N. 2007. “Effect of low initial C/N ratio on aerobic composting of swine manure with rice
straw”. Bioresource Technol. 98:9-13.
Table 1. Comparative effect of Co-composting of poultry litter (PL) and fast food restaurant waste
(FFRW) on C: N
Treatments
C:N Ratio (Days)
(PL: FFRW
Average
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
Ratio)
T1 (100: 0)
25.36
25.13
20.35
16.95
16.1
15.26
15.34
14.76
18.66 e
T2 (75: 25)
35.44
34.15
25.59
26.05
19.73
17.76
17.15
16.47
24.04 d
T3 (50: 50)
38.78
35.61
28.42
27.84
19.42
18.96
18.67
18.33
25.75 c
T4 (25: 75)
36.31
33.61
29.89
25.65
24.42
23.6
22.63
22.48
27.32 b
T5 (0 : 100)
39.81
37.21
36.57
30.84
27.61
27.29
26.43
26.38
31.52 a
Day Avg.
35.14 a 33.146 b 28.16 c 25.47 d 21.47 e 20.57 ef 20.04 f 19.68 f
LSD value (p. 0.05): Day*Treatment =2.741; Treatment=0.969; Day =1.226
Table 2. Comparative effect of Co-composting of poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste on
concentration of Total Nitrogen (%)
Treatments
Total N concentration (Days)
(PL: FFRW
Average
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
Ratio)
3.22
3.26
3.33
3.36
3.36
3.43
3.45
3.46
3.37a
T1 (100: 0)
2.83
2.84
2.96
3.23
3.22
3.27
3.37
3.38
3.167b
T2 (75: 25)
3.23
3.26
3.27
3.34
3.42
3.46
3.47
3.63
3.38a
T3 (50: 50)
2.72
2.73
2.76
2.82
2.85
2.92
2.94
2.95
2.84c
T4 (25: 75)
1.42
1.46
1.51
1.53
1.56
1.61
1.67
1.7
1.56d
T5 (0 : 100)
Day Avg.
2.68c
2.71c
2.77bc
2.86abc
2.88abc
2.94ab
2.98a
3.02a
LSD value (p. 0.05): Day*Treatment =0.449; Treatment=0.159; Day =0.201
Table 3. Comparative effect of Co-composting of poultry litter and fast food restaurant
concentration of total phosphorus (%)
Treatments
Total P concentration (Days)
(PL: FFRW
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
Ratio)
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.70
T1 (100: 0)
0.51
0.55
0.60
0.67
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.73
T2 (75: 25)
0.55
0.58
0.65
0.66
0.73
0.76
0.78
0.81
T3 (50: 50)
0.43
0.48
0.54
0.52
0.57
0.63
0.65
0.70
T4 (25: 75)
0.39
0.42
0.43
0.48
0.47
0.50
0.51
T5 (0 : 100) 0.37
0.49 d
0.52 d
0.57 c
0.59 c
0.63 b
0.65 b
0.67 ab 0.69 a
Day Avg.
waste on
Average
0.66 b
0.65 b
0.69 a
0.56 c
0.45 d
LSD value (p. 0.05): Day*Treatment=0.086; Treatment=0.030; Day = 0.0385
Table 4. Comparative effect of Co-composting of poultry litter and fast food restaurant waste on
concentration of total Potassium (%)
Treatments
Total K concentration (Days)
(PL: FFRW
Average
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
Ratio)
2.81
3.00
3.12
3.17
3.21
3.26
3.29
3.28
3.41 a
T1 (100: 0)
2.27
2.37
2.62
2.74
2.79
2.88
2.93
2.96
2.69 b
T2 (75: 25)
1.34
1.37
1.85
2.50
2.75
2.90
3.33
3.40
2.43 c
T3 (50: 50)
1.16
1.22
2.03
1.72
2.03
2.14
2.20
2.22
1.77 d
T4 (25: 75)
0.82
0.86
1.00
1.29
1.42
1.58
1.60
1.67
1.28 e
T5 (0 : 100)
1.68 f 1.76 cf 2.01 e 2.30 e 2.44 c 2.55 b 2.67 a 2.71 a
Day Avg.
LSD value (p. 0.05): Day*Treatment = 0.194; Treatment = 0.069; Day = 0.087