Introduction

Livestock manure is a by-product from the livestock industry in Korea, and more than 48 million tons are generated every year as of 2020. Among this, over 80% goes through composting process and is used as fertilizer in farmland (Kim, 2012). Composting makes livestock manure stable and provides organic matter and nutrients to the soil, and when it is properly matured, it helps soil fertility and crop productivity (Kang, 2010). But if the maturity is incomplete or the composition is uneven, many problems can happen such as salt accumulation in soil, spread of pathogens, water pollution, and bad odor. Because of that, quality control and distribution of compost is very important (Ko et al., 2008; Song et al., 2012).

Livestock manure management is related not only to individual farm practices but also to environmental policy. Hwang (2023) reported that, after the ban on ocean disposal, livestock manure policy in Korea shifted toward land-based treatment and resource use, but the system has not yet been fully settled in practice. In particular, if manure recycling is not carried out together with region-based nutrient management, nutrient surplus and environmental pressure may increase at the local level.

In addition, proper management of livestock manure compost requires keeping records throughout the processes of compost production, storage, and field application. Compost management logs can be used to track manure generation, composting conditions, storage periods, and application history, and such records may support compost quality control, maturity testing, and future management decisions.

An important factor for compost quality is maturity control. Maturity means the degree of organic matter decomposition and stability, and it has been measured by different methods such as Germination Index, carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio, gas analysis (ammonia, CO₂), and colorimetric method (Kwon et al., 2010; Shim et al., 2022; Kim and Lee, 2023). Recently, research on standardization of maturity measurement and ICT-based integrated management technology has been developed, so it is possible to diagnose quickly and more correctly in the field (Cho, 2014; Yi, 2020). Still, some commercial compost does not meet the fertilizer standard, and cases of heavy metal excess or too much moisture have been reported (Kim et al., 2018).

Barn size also affects compost management and awareness of maturity testing. Large-scale farms usually rely more on mechanization and outsourcing, but small farms have limited sheds and equipment, so sometimes management is not sufficient (Lee, 2014; Lee et al., 2019). According to Hwangbo and Lee (2025), bigger barns had more animals and more equipment, and large farms tried to improve ventilation and reduce odor by building compost sheds outside, while small farms depended more on easy construction inside. Also, farmers in general think maturity testing is needed, but real participation is low, and lack of institutional incentives is pointed out as one reason (Kim and Kim, 2011; Yue et al., 2022). For compost distribution, some regions recycle it well inside farms, but farms with limited farmland must depend on external disposal or local circulation (Choi et al., 2008). In addition, the current Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Manure aims to promote resource recycling and environmental protection; however, in actual farm settings, it is often applied in a regulation-oriented manner, which has been pointed out as a factor reducing participation in the system (Yoo, 2016).

As seen, management, maturity testing, and distribution of livestock manure compost are shown differently depending on farm size, and both perception and distribution system also vary. So, comparing and analyzing compost management, maturity test participation, and distribution structure based on real farm experience and awareness is important as basic data for future farm-size-based policy and system improvement.

Therefore, this study compared and analyzed the management situation of cattle manure compost, awareness and participation of maturity test, and distribution status by barn size through a survey of cattle farms. With this, the main problems and differences in practice can be found, and future efficient compost recycling and farm support policy can be suggested.

Materials and Methods

Study subjects

This study targeted Hanwoo cattle farms in Gyeongbuk Province to investigate compost management, awareness of maturity testing, and distribution according to barn size. A total of 60 farms participated (3 in Gyeongsan, 4 in Gumi, 1 in Gimcheon, 1 in Dalseong, 5 in Mungyeong, 7 in Bonghwa, 2 in Sangju, 1 in Seongju, 3 in Andong, 3 in Yeongdeok, 15 in Yeongju, 10 in Yecheon, 1 in Uljin, and 4 in Uiseong). The survey period was 150 days, from March 1 to July 30, 2025. All farmers were given enough explanation about purpose and procedure, and they joined voluntarily.

The number of cattle by barn size is shown in Table 1.

Data collection

The questionnaire was filled out through direct visits and question–answer with farmers, and collected on the spot. In the whole process, it was told that participation was voluntary, personal information was protected, and withdrawal was possible at any time. All responses were collected anonymously, and 60 copies were gathered.

Questionnaire design and analytical variables

The questionnaire used in this study was made based on previous research and related literature. Before the main survey, a preliminary check was done to make sure the questions were proper and could be trusted. The internal consistency of the questionnaire, shown by Cronbach’s α, was 0.617, which means the reliability level was basic but acceptable for using it in the analysis.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 (IBM, 2019). Differences in distribution between groups were tested by chi-square independence test, and Fisher’s exact test was applied when expected frequency condition was not met. If significant, post-hoc exploration with standardized residuals was conducted. All tests were two-sided, with significance level α = 0.05.

Results

Compost management record

Table 2 shows the results of record status, recording method, interval, and reasons for no record according to barn size.

Looking at the record status, in general, farms not keeping record were more than farms keeping record (χ² = 2.079, p = 0.556). In 900 - 1,499 m² and ≥ 1,500 m² farms also, not recording was high (88.2% and 74.1%), but the difference was not significant.

Most farms wrote records by hand. Computer record was found only in some ≥ 1,500 m² farms (χ² = 2.857, p = 0.414). So, most farms still rely on traditional handwriting.

Recording interval did not show clear difference, but large farms tended to record by month, some even by year. Small farms did not have yearly record, only weekly or monthly (χ² = 5.429, p = 0.490).

Reasons for no record were different by barn size but not significant (χ² = 8.961, p = 0.441). Small farms (< 500 m², 500 - 899 m²) often answered “did not know how” or “did not know they must.” In 900 - 1,499 m² and ≥ 1,500 m² farms also these answers were common. Some farms answered “not suitable for field.”

Compost storage and management

Table 3 shows storage location after composting, intention to build more storage, preferred location, and transport method.

For storage location, using “inside-barn compost shed” and “on-farm compost shed” was common, but no significant difference (χ² = 3.729, p = 0.713). Large farms (≥ 1,500 m², 900 - 1,499 m²) used both compost sheds more often. Storage of outside-farm was rare.

Intention to build more storage was 56.7% overall, but not significant between groups (χ² = 1.612, p = 0.657). Large farms (≥ 1,500 m²) had more “yes” answers (16 farms), and similar in 900 - 1,499 m², but small farms showed more “no.”

Preferred location was similar: inside-farm (20) and outside-farm (14). Large farms chose inside, small farms (< 500 m²) chose outside. But no significant difference (χ² = 2.309, p = 0.511).

Transport of manure was mostly self-handled (30). Outsourcing was few (4). Self-handling was more in large farms (≥ 900 m²), but difference was not significant (χ² = 1.614, p = 0.656).

Awareness of compost maturity test

Table 4 shows awareness of compost maturity test, recognized agency, media, recognition level of test agencies, and sampling method.

Awareness of maturity test was mostly “aware” rather than “not aware.” Especially high in 500 - 899 m² (88.9%) and ≥ 1,500 m² (77.8%). Farms < 500 m² had more “not aware” (57.1%). But no significant difference (χ² = 4.914, p = 0.178).

For recognized agency, most answered agricultural technology center, especially 500 - 899 m² (100%). Some answered cooperative, county office, or Hanwoo association, but low proportion, not significant (χ² = 10.216, p = 0.597).

For recognized media, “training course” was common. In large farms, some learned from brochures. One farm in 500 - 899 m² also from brochure. No significant difference (χ² = 7.286, p = 0.607).

For recognition level of test agency, difference was clear (χ² = 17.239, p = 0.008). Farms < 500 m² mostly “not aware” (42.9%) or “somewhat aware” (57.1%). Farms 500 - 899 m² and ≥ 1,500 m² had more “well aware” (55.6% and 44.4%). This shows larger farms understand test agency better.

For awareness of sampling method, overall “aware” was more than “not aware.” Especially ≥ 1,500 m² farms, 81.5% said “aware.” But in < 500 m² farms, 57.1% said “not aware.” Difference was not significant (χ² = 4.398, p = 0.222).

Distribution of compost

Table 5 shows distribution of matured compost by barn size.

For farmland secured for compost use, many farms had own farmland or own + others. Farms < 500 m² split between own (57.1%) and others (42.9%). Farms 500 - 899 m² showed own (44.4%) and own + others (44.4%). Farms 900 - 1,499 m² and ≥ 1,500 m² also had many with own or own + others (47.0% and 29.4%, 37.0% and 40.7%). Few farms had no farmland. Difference not significant (χ² = 9.827, p = 0.365).

Transport of compost was more often done by farmland owner when barn size was bigger (900 - 1,499 m²: 5 cases, 62.5%; ≥ 1,500 m²: 12 cases, 66.7%). On the other hand, in the small groups the share of self-transport was relatively higher (< 500 m²: 2 cases, 50.0%; 500 - 899 m²: 3 cases, 75.0%). The difference between groups was not statistically significant (χ² = 12.986, p = 0.163).

For cost, mostly free distribution (< 500 m²: 85.7%, 900 - 1,499 m²: 94.1%, ≥ 1,500 m²: 85.2%). Some charged crop farms, but only 5.9 - 22.2%. Not significant (χ² = 1.489, p = 0.685).

Table 6 shows farmland type where own compost was applied (multiple answers).

Overall, “upland field” was most common, higher as farm size grew (< 500 m²: 38.5%, 500 - 899 m²: 42.9%, 900 - 1,499 m²: 50.0%, ≥ 1,500 m²: 55.9%). “rice paddy” was decreasing with larger size (< 500 m²: 46.2%, 500 - 899 m²: 35.7%, 900 - 1,499 m²: 33.3%, ≥ 1,500 m²: 23.6%). “forage field” use was 15.3% in < 500 m², 21.4% in 500 - 899 m², 16.7% in 900 - 1,499 m², and 17.6% in ≥ 1,500 m². No significant difference (χ² = 4.052, p = 0.908).

Discussion

This study analyzed compost management, awareness of maturity test, and distribution structure by barn size through farm survey. The result showed that many farms did not keep compost records, and most records were written by hand. This is similar with previous studies that management of facility and biosecurity in Hanwoo farms was still at basic level (Kim and Kim, 2011; Cho, 2014). Hwang (2023) reported that, although policies for livestock manure recycling have been established, their effects remain limited at the farm level due to insufficient record management. From this point of view, introducing ICT-based recording and management systems can be one practical way to improve the objectivity and reliability of compost management (Cho, 2014; Yi, 2020).

Awareness of compost maturity test was different by farm size. Small farms had low understanding of test agencies and sampling methods, while large farms showed higher awareness. Yue et al. (2022) reported that low participation in test was due to lack of incentives and insufficient education. Also, even though quick and accurate methods were suggested (Kwon et al., 2010; Kim and Lee, 2023), the application in field was still limited. So, strengthening education programs and institutional support is needed to expand participation.

Problems of compost quality are closely related with our results. Some farms were passive in maturity testing, and this is consistent with other studies reporting that many commercial composts do not meet standard or have too much moisture or heavy metal excess (Kim, 2012; Jeong et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018). This shows that even if farmers know the importance, without real test the quality in distribution goes down.

Distribution of compost was mostly free. Farms without enough farmland relied on external disposal or other farms. This is same as Choi et al. (2008) and Hwang et al. (2002), that large farms use compost in their own land, but small farms depend on local circulation or outside due to lack of farmland. This issue is closely related to regional nutrient imbalance, which has been discussed as an important factor in activating compost distribution (Lim et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021). In this regard, it is considered necessary to establish a systematic framework for region-based nutrient management, as suggested by Hwang (2023).

From environmental side, incomplete composting or poor management can cause odor and nonpoint pollution (Ko et al., 2008). Especially, nitrogen and phosphorus leaching during rainfall can pollute water, and similar problems were seen in farms with weak management. As countermeasures, studies reported low-cost techniques like biochar addition (Kim et al., 2023) and chlorine dioxide gas treatment (Song et al., 2012).

From animal welfare and housing side also, density and environment control affect manure production and treatment (Hwangbo and Lee, 2025). In this study, differences by farm size were found, so technical support for composting and manure management by barn size is needed.

In summary, this study showed differences in compost management, maturity test, and distribution depending on barn size, and these match with problems reported in previous studies. In future, stronger maturity test, ICT-based recording, support for small farms, and technologies for pollution reduction must be applied together. Through this, livestock compost can be used not as waste that pollutes, but as important resource for agriculture, environment, and energy.

Conclusion

This study surveyed Hanwoo farms in Gyeongbuk Province to see compost management, awareness of maturity test, and distribution by barn size. The results showed that many farms did not keep records in compost management log. Small farms had weak management because of small scale, while large farms showed better management compared to small farms.

Compost distribution was mostly free, and the way of use was different by farmland availability. Large farms used compost in their own land (self-circulation), while small farms depended on outside disposal and local circulation. Therefore, in the future, policy support should consider farm size, with activation of maturity testing, computerized record management, and improvement of distribution system.