Influência de aditivos na digestão anaeróbia de dejetos bovinos leiteiros
Carregando...
Data
2021-09-03
Autores
Sousa, João Antônio Silva
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O uso de aditivos, como promotores de crescimento, na dieta de bovinos, pode interferir na digestão anaeróbia (DA) dos dejetos desses animais. Desta forma, o objetivo com este trabalho foi avaliar a influência de aditivos sintéticos e naturais, na DA de dejetos de bovinos (DB) leiteiros, avaliando a produção e qualidade do biogás em ensaios batelada e semi-contínuo. O ensaio batelada, com tempo de retenção hidráulica (TRH) de 135 dias, foi conduzido em delineamento inteiramente casualizado, em esquema fatorial (6x3), correspondendo a seis inserções de aditivos (sem aditivo; natural 1 (Fator P Premix); natural 2 (Fator P Premix); monensina (MON); virginiamicina (VM) e MON + VM), dosados diretamente ao dejeto, e três tipos de diluições (água; ½ água e ½ biofertilizante e biofertilizante), com 4 repetições por tratamento. O ensaio semi-contínuo (TRH de 30 dias) foi conduzido em delineamento inteiramente casualizado, com 3 tratamentos (sem aditivo; natural 1 e MON + VM) e 4 repetições. No ensaio batelada, a diluição não afetou os rendimentos de biogás e metano (277,2 e 190,4 L kgSVadic-1, respectivamente), do tratamento sem aditivo. Para a diluição com água, as adições de MON e de VM apresentaram maior influência no processo, acarretando menores rendimentos de metano (114,4 e 119,4 L kgSVadic-1, respectivamente), comparados aos tratamentos controle e natural 1 (175,6 e 174,0 L kgSVadic-1, respectivamente). As diluições com ½ água e ½ biofertilizante e com biofertilizante elevaram os rendimentos de biogás e metano dos demais tratamentos que receberam algum dos aditivos, que foram acompanhados das maiores taxas de remoções de sólidos. O biofertilizante, independente da proporção adicionada na diluição, reduziu os tempos de partida para todos os tratamentos. No ensaio semi-contínuo não houve influência do aditivo N1 e da MON+VM sobre a DA do DB, para todas os parâmetros avaliados. Portanto, o uso do aditivo natural 1 se mostrou como um possível substituto promissor aos aditivos sintéticos, uma vez que se pode evitar a ocorrência de resíduos de antibióticos excretados nos dejetos, e dessa forma permite a aplicação do biofertilizante de forma segura nas culturas, e a comercialização global de produtos de origem animal.
The use of additives, such as growth promoters, in the diet of cattle, can interfere with the anaerobic digestion (AD) of these animals' waste. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the influence of synthetic and natural additives on the DA of dairy cattle manure (CM), evaluating the production and quality of biogas in batch and semi-continuous essays. The batch essay, with hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 135 days, was carried out in a completely randomized design, in a factorial scheme (6x3), corresponding to six insertions of additives (no additive; natural 1 (Factor P Premix); natural 2 (Factor P Premix); monensin (MON); virginiamycin (VM) and MON+VM), directly dosed to the manure, and three types of dilutions (water; ½ water and ½ biofertilizer and biofertilizer), with 4 replications per treatment. The semi-continuous trial (30 days HRT) was carried out in a completely randomized design, with 3 treatments (no additive; natural 1 and MON+VM) and 4 replications. In the batch trial, the dilution did not affect the biogas and methane yields (277.2 and 190.4 L kgVSadded-1, respectively) of the treatment without additives. For dilution with water, the additions of MON and VM had a larger influence on the process, resulting in lower methane yields (114.4 and 119.4 L kgVSadded-1, respectively), compared to the control and natural 1 treatments (175.6 and 174.0 L kgVSadded-1, respectively). Dilutions with ½ water and ½ biofertilizer and with biofertilizer increased the yields of biogas and methane in the other treatments that received some of the additives, which were accompanied by higher rates of solids removal. The biofertilizer, regardless of the proportion added in the dilution, reduced the starting times for all treatments. In the semi-continuous test, there was no influence of the additive N1 and MON+VM on the DA of the CM, for all parameters evaluated. Therefore, the use of natural 1 additive proved to be a promising possible substitute for synthetic additives, as it can prevent the occurrence of antibiotic residues excreted in manure, and thus allows the application of biofertilizer safely in crops, and the global marketing of animal products.
The use of additives, such as growth promoters, in the diet of cattle, can interfere with the anaerobic digestion (AD) of these animals' waste. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the influence of synthetic and natural additives on the DA of dairy cattle manure (CM), evaluating the production and quality of biogas in batch and semi-continuous essays. The batch essay, with hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 135 days, was carried out in a completely randomized design, in a factorial scheme (6x3), corresponding to six insertions of additives (no additive; natural 1 (Factor P Premix); natural 2 (Factor P Premix); monensin (MON); virginiamycin (VM) and MON+VM), directly dosed to the manure, and three types of dilutions (water; ½ water and ½ biofertilizer and biofertilizer), with 4 replications per treatment. The semi-continuous trial (30 days HRT) was carried out in a completely randomized design, with 3 treatments (no additive; natural 1 and MON+VM) and 4 replications. In the batch trial, the dilution did not affect the biogas and methane yields (277.2 and 190.4 L kgVSadded-1, respectively) of the treatment without additives. For dilution with water, the additions of MON and VM had a larger influence on the process, resulting in lower methane yields (114.4 and 119.4 L kgVSadded-1, respectively), compared to the control and natural 1 treatments (175.6 and 174.0 L kgVSadded-1, respectively). Dilutions with ½ water and ½ biofertilizer and with biofertilizer increased the yields of biogas and methane in the other treatments that received some of the additives, which were accompanied by higher rates of solids removal. The biofertilizer, regardless of the proportion added in the dilution, reduced the starting times for all treatments. In the semi-continuous test, there was no influence of the additive N1 and MON+VM on the DA of the CM, for all parameters evaluated. Therefore, the use of natural 1 additive proved to be a promising possible substitute for synthetic additives, as it can prevent the occurrence of antibiotic residues excreted in manure, and thus allows the application of biofertilizer safely in crops, and the global marketing of animal products.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Biodigestor, Energia renovável, Inóculo, Ionóforo, Biodigester, Ionophore, Inoculum, Renewable energy