VIJAYA GOPAL, AKAVYA, YERASI2016-09-082016-09-082014http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/75954The experiment was conducted during 2013-14 at Department of Agricultural Microbiology and Bioenergy, and Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, ANGRAU, Hyderabad. Cow dung along with other agricultural wastes (press mud, poultry litter, kitchen wastes, maize stalks and fruit wastes) were used for the biogas production in lab scale. Along with the estimation of biogas production different parameters like Total Solids (TS) per cent, Total Volatile Solids (TVS) per cent, Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA), pH, Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P), Potassium (K), Organic carbon per cent, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Electrical Conductivity (EC) and methane percentage was estimated. For each treatment 750 g of substrate and 1500 ml of water was used as inoculum mixture in 3 liters glass bottles. In T1 250 g cow dung + 500 g press mud + 1500 ml water, T2 250 g cow dung + 500g poultry litter + 1500 ml water, T3 250 g cow dung + 500 g kitchen wastes + 1500 ml water, T4 250 g cow dung + 500 g maize stalks + 1500 ml water, T5 250 g cow dung + 500 g fruit wastes + 1500 ml water and T6 750 g cow dung + 1500 ml water were used. The experiment was run for ten weeks and all the parameters were observed in the initial, 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, 42nd, 56th day of gas production. At the end of tenth week the gas production was significantly more in T1 (Cow dung + Press mud) 9903.31 ml, compared toT6 (Cow dung alone) 8103.31ml, T2 (Cow dung + Poultry litter) 6079.98 ml, T3 (Cow dung + Kitchen waste) 4066.63 ml, T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste) 3373.32 ml and less in T4 (Cow dung + Maize stalks) 3099.97 ml. By the end of the process the degradation of total solids (TS) per cent was significantly more in T6 (Cow dung alone) 57.16 per cent and less in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste) 32.55 per cent. The degradation of total volatile solids (TVS) per cent was significantly more in T6 (Cow dung alone) 37.41 per cent and less in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste) 14.32 per cent. pH in the substrate was estimated and it was significantly more in T1 (Cow dung + Press mud) 7.66 and less in T3 (Cow dung + Kitchen waste) 5.77. By the end of the process pH was more in T6 (Cow dung alone) 6.82 and less in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste) 3.67. The N per cent and P per cent in the process of anaerobic digestion was reduced while K per cent was increased. At the end of the process the reduction in BOD was observed and significantly more reduction was observed in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste) 58.74 per cent and less reduction in T4 (Cow dung + Maize stalks) 27.68 per cent. At the end of the process, decrease in COD was observed and was more in T6 (Cow dung alone) 52.15 per cent and less reduction in T4 (Cow dung + Maize stalks) 18.77 per cent. The second experiment on feasibility to enrich the biogas manures with beneficial microorganisms was carried at Department of Agricultural Microbiology and Bioenergy, College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar, ANGRAU, Hyderabad. The slurry samples from all the six treatments and three replications were collected dried in trays under the sun until the moisture was 50 per cent. The dried manure samples were divided into two and one part was sterilized and the other was used as the same i.e. unsterilized. The population of beneficial microorganisms in the dried manures was estimated and the population of Pseudomonas (46.0×103CFU g-1) and Azospirillum (24.0×103CFU g-1) was more in T6 (Cow dung alone), the population of Rhizobium was more in T1 (Cow dung+ press mud) 46.0×103CFU g-1 and the population of Azotobacter was more in T2 (Cow dung + Poultry litter) and T6 (Cow dung alone) 42.0×103CFU g-1. The beneficial microorganisms used in the study for enrichment were Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, Azotobacter and Azospirillum. The organisms were inoculated individually and also as consortia in to the manure samples of all the six treatments and the viability was monitored. In the unsterilized manure samples enriched individually with beneficial microorganisms the viability of Rhizobium was significantly more in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste), for Pseudomonas viability was significantly more in T3 (Cow dung + Kitchen waste), for Azotobacter viability was significantly more in T6 (Cow dung alone) and for Azospirillum viability was significantly more in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste). In the sterilized manure samples the viability of Rhizobium was significantly more in T3 (Cow dung + Kitchen waste), for Pseudomonas viability was significantly more in T3 (Cow dung + Kitchen waste), for Azotobacter viability was significantly more in T2 (Cow dung + Poultry litter) and for Azospirillum viability was significantly more in T1 (Cow dung + Press mud). The viability appears to be good upto the end of fourth week irrespective of treatments and also in unsterilized and sterilized biogas manure samples for Rhizobium, Pseudomonas and Azospirillum whereas for Azotobacter the viability appears to be good only upto the end of third week irrespective of treatments and also in unsterilized and sterilized biogas manures. In the unsterilized manure samples enriched with consortia of beneficial microorganisms the viability of Rhizobium was significantly more in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste), for Pseudomonas the viability was significantly more in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste), for Azotobacter viability was significantly more in T6 (Cow dung alone) and for Azospirillum viability was significantly more in T6 (Cow dung alone). In the sterilized manure samples the viability of Rhizobium was significantly more in T1 (Cow dung + Press mud) for Pseudomonas viability was significantly more in T5 (Cow dung + Fruit waste), for Azotobacter viability was significantly more in T1 (Cow dung + Press mud) and for Azospirillum viability was significantly more in T2 (Cow dung + Poultry litter). The viability appears to be good upto the end of third week irrespective of treatments and also in unsterilized and sterilized biogas manure samples for Rhizobium and Azospirillum whereas for Pseudomonas, the viability was good upto the end of fourth week irrespective of treatments in unsterilized biogas manures and upto the end of third week in sterilized manure samples. For Azotobacter, the viability appears to be good only upto the end of third week irrespective of treatments in unsterilized biogas manures and upto the end of fourth week in sterilized biogas manures.enBIOGAS, PRODUCTION, AGRICULTURAL, WASTES, FEASIBILITY, ENRICH, BIOGAS, MANURESThesis