Abstract
The conversion of livestock manure and peat into value-added fertilizers provides an environmentally sustainable approach to nutrient recycling and waste management. In this study, organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium. Their efficiency was evaluated through plant growth and soil microbiological experiments involving conifer seedlings, herbaceous crops, and ornamental plants. Germination and growth trials with Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) revealed clear species-specific responses: spruce seedlings performed best in substrates containing poultry or cattle manure, while pine showed enhanced growth with pig manure combined with bacterial inoculant. In pansies (Viola × wittrockiana), growth responses varied by cultivar; cattle manure enriched with bacteria increased leaf projection area, whereas poultry manure markedly suppressed growth. For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers, yet bacterial inoculation significantly influenced soil microbial activity by modifying respiration rates and hydrolytic enzyme intensity in plant- and manure-specific ways. The results demonstrate that microbial supplementation can alter soil biological processes and nutrient turnover, though its effects on plant productivity remain inconsistent. Further research is required to assess long-term performance under field conditions, as practical application will depend on achieving stable and reproducible results.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Spruce seedlings performed best in substrates containing poultry or cattle manure.
- Taxon
- Norway spruce
Picea abiese1 - Treatment
- substrates containing poultry or cattle manuree2
- Outcome
- growthe1
- Direction
- performed beste2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Germination and growth trials with Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) revealed clear species-specific responses”
e2“spruce seedlings performed best in substrates containing poultry or cattle manure”
Claim · model-written summary
Scots pine showed enhanced growth with pig manure combined with bacterial inoculant.
- Taxon
- Scots pine
Pinus sylvestrise1 - Treatment
- pig manure combined with bacterial inoculante2
- Outcome
- growthe1
- Direction
- enhancede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Germination and growth trials with Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) revealed clear species-specific responses”
e2“pine showed enhanced growth with pig manure combined with bacterial inoculant”
Claim · model-written summary
Cattle manure enriched with bacteria increased leaf projection area in pansies.
- Taxon
- pansies
Viola ×wittrockianae1 - Organ / stage
- leafe2
- Treatment
- cattle manure enriched with bacteriae2
- Outcome
- leaf projection areae2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In pansies (Viola × wittrockiana), growth responses varied by cultivar”
e2“cattle manure enriched with bacteria increased leaf projection area”
Claim · model-written summary
Poultry manure markedly suppressed growth in pansies.
- Taxon
- pansiesViola ×wittrockianae1
- Treatment
- poultry manuree2
- Outcome
- growthe2
- Direction
- suppressede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In pansies (Viola × wittrockiana), growth responses varied by cultivar”
e2“whereas poultry manure markedly suppressed growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Cucumber yields were lower with organic fertilizers than with mineral fertilizers.
- Taxon
- cucumbers
Cucumis sativuse1 - Treatment
- organic fertilizerse2
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
Claim · model-written summary
Basil yields were lower with organic fertilizers than with mineral fertilizers.
- Taxon
- basil
Ocimum basilicume1 - Treatment
- organic fertilizerse2
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley yields were lower with organic fertilizers than with mineral fertilizers.
- Taxon
- barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree1 - Treatment
- organic fertilizerse2
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
Claim · model-written summary
Radish yields were lower with organic fertilizers than with mineral fertilizers.
- Taxon
- radish
Raphanus sativuse1 - Treatment
- organic fertilizerse2
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
Claim · model-written summary
Garden bean yields were lower with organic fertilizers than with mineral fertilizers.
Verbatim
e1“For cucumbers, basil, barley, radish, and garden beans, yields were lower than with mineral fertilizers”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial inoculation significantly influenced soil microbial activity, modifying respiration rates and hydrolytic enzyme intensity in plant- and manure-specific ways.
- Taxon
- herbaceous cropse3
- Treatment
- inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megateriume2
- Outcome
- soil microbial activitye1
- Qualifier
- respiration rates and hydrolytic enzyme intensitye1
- Comparator
- without inoculatione2
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e1“bacterial inoculation significantly influenced soil microbial activity by modifying respiration rates and hydrolytic enzyme intensity in plant- and manure-specific ways”
e2“organic fertilizers were formulated from poultry, pig, and cattle manure mixed with peat and wood ash, with or without inoculation of the phosphate-solubilizing bacterium Priestia megaterium”
e3“involving conifer seedlings, herbaceous crops, and ornamental plants”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Ocimum basilicum (basil)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →fertilization · yield · Raphanus sativus (radish)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 107 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
108 papers more in this group
See all 112 papers →fertilization · growth · Viola x wittrockianaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
growing medium · growth · Picea abies (Norway spruce)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →inoculation · growth · Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →fertilization · growth · Picea abies (Norway spruce)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →fertilization · growth · Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →fertilization · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 263 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
284 papers more in this group
See all 288 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.