A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting

Chile, one of the top global wine producers, produces a significant quantity of grape pomace waste, composed primarily of peels and seeds, of which their management includes many environmental challenges. Composting offers a sustainable waste management solution, converting organic waste into a rich...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rodrigo Morales-Vera, Alex Echeverría-Vega, Hernán Ríos-Rozas, Francisca Barrera-Valenzuela, Denisse Mellado-Quintanilla, Matthias Piesche, Rosa Roa-Roco, Sebastian Tramon
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-04-01
Series:Fermentation
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/11/4/197
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850183321610354688
author Rodrigo Morales-Vera
Alex Echeverría-Vega
Hernán Ríos-Rozas
Francisca Barrera-Valenzuela
Denisse Mellado-Quintanilla
Matthias Piesche
Rosa Roa-Roco
Sebastian Tramon
author_facet Rodrigo Morales-Vera
Alex Echeverría-Vega
Hernán Ríos-Rozas
Francisca Barrera-Valenzuela
Denisse Mellado-Quintanilla
Matthias Piesche
Rosa Roa-Roco
Sebastian Tramon
author_sort Rodrigo Morales-Vera
collection DOAJ
description Chile, one of the top global wine producers, produces a significant quantity of grape pomace waste, composed primarily of peels and seeds, of which their management includes many environmental challenges. Composting offers a sustainable waste management solution, converting organic waste into a rich nutrient and beneficial microorganisms for soil amendment. This study compared traditional turning and static forced aeration composting systems using a mix of grape pomace (70 m<sup>3</sup>), wheat straw (15 m<sup>3</sup>), and manure (15 m<sup>3</sup>). The results show no significant differences in the final compost chemical quality between the two systems. Nevertheless, forced aeration (T1) influenced the bacterial community, particularly during the thermophilic stage, leading to a major differentiation compared to traditional composting (T0). Similar Shannon index values for bacterial diversity across stages suggest that both composting methods support comparable levels of bacterial diversity. However, the fungal communities exhibited more variability, likely due to the differences in temperature and aeration conditions between the windrows, which are known to affect fungal growth and activity. While both composting methods met the Chilean regulatory standards and achieved high-quality compost, the forced aeration system demonstrated advantages in temperature control, microbial diversity, and pathogen suppression, suggesting its potential for more efficient composting in similar agricultural contexts.
format Article
id doaj-art-edafadbea24944cfbce7571cce3caf44
institution OA Journals
issn 2311-5637
language English
publishDate 2025-04-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Fermentation
spelling doaj-art-edafadbea24944cfbce7571cce3caf442025-08-20T02:17:24ZengMDPI AGFermentation2311-56372025-04-0111419710.3390/fermentation11040197A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue CompostingRodrigo Morales-Vera0Alex Echeverría-Vega1Hernán Ríos-Rozas2Francisca Barrera-Valenzuela3Denisse Mellado-Quintanilla4Matthias Piesche5Rosa Roa-Roco6Sebastian Tramon7Centro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales (CENBIO), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChileCentro de Investigación de Estudios Avanzados del Maule (CIEAM), Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Postgrado, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChileCentro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales (CENBIO), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChileCentro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales (CENBIO), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChilePrograma de Doctorado Biotecnología Traslacional, Centro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales (CENBIO), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChileBiomedical Research Laboratories, Medicine Faculty, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avda, San Miguel 3605, Talca 3480112, ChileCenter for Research and Innovation, Viña Concha y Toro S.A., Fundo Pocoa s/n, Km10 Ruta K-650, Región del Maule, Pencahue 3550000, ChileEmiliana Organic Vineyards, Research and Innovation, Nueva Tajamar 481, Las Condes 7550099, ChileChile, one of the top global wine producers, produces a significant quantity of grape pomace waste, composed primarily of peels and seeds, of which their management includes many environmental challenges. Composting offers a sustainable waste management solution, converting organic waste into a rich nutrient and beneficial microorganisms for soil amendment. This study compared traditional turning and static forced aeration composting systems using a mix of grape pomace (70 m<sup>3</sup>), wheat straw (15 m<sup>3</sup>), and manure (15 m<sup>3</sup>). The results show no significant differences in the final compost chemical quality between the two systems. Nevertheless, forced aeration (T1) influenced the bacterial community, particularly during the thermophilic stage, leading to a major differentiation compared to traditional composting (T0). Similar Shannon index values for bacterial diversity across stages suggest that both composting methods support comparable levels of bacterial diversity. However, the fungal communities exhibited more variability, likely due to the differences in temperature and aeration conditions between the windrows, which are known to affect fungal growth and activity. While both composting methods met the Chilean regulatory standards and achieved high-quality compost, the forced aeration system demonstrated advantages in temperature control, microbial diversity, and pathogen suppression, suggesting its potential for more efficient composting in similar agricultural contexts.https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/11/4/197compostingforced aerationwine residuesmicrobial communitieswine industry
spellingShingle Rodrigo Morales-Vera
Alex Echeverría-Vega
Hernán Ríos-Rozas
Francisca Barrera-Valenzuela
Denisse Mellado-Quintanilla
Matthias Piesche
Rosa Roa-Roco
Sebastian Tramon
A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
Fermentation
composting
forced aeration
wine residues
microbial communities
wine industry
title A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
title_full A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
title_fullStr A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
title_short A Comparison of Static Aeration and Conventional Turning Windrow Techniques: Physicochemical and Microbial Dynamics in Wine Residue Composting
title_sort comparison of static aeration and conventional turning windrow techniques physicochemical and microbial dynamics in wine residue composting
topic composting
forced aeration
wine residues
microbial communities
wine industry
url https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/11/4/197
work_keys_str_mv AT rodrigomoralesvera acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT alexecheverriavega acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT hernanriosrozas acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT franciscabarreravalenzuela acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT denissemelladoquintanilla acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT matthiaspiesche acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT rosaroaroco acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT sebastiantramon acomparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT rodrigomoralesvera comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT alexecheverriavega comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT hernanriosrozas comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT franciscabarreravalenzuela comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT denissemelladoquintanilla comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT matthiaspiesche comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT rosaroaroco comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting
AT sebastiantramon comparisonofstaticaerationandconventionalturningwindrowtechniquesphysicochemicalandmicrobialdynamicsinwineresiduecomposting