RESUMEN
Water-extractable P (WEP) in manure and manure compost is widely used as an indicator of P release to runoff from manure and compost that are land applied. A survey of 600 manures and composts was conducted to assess trends in WEP (dry weight equivalent) related to manure and compost types from sources in the Mid-Atlantic region. Manure and compost WEP ranged from 0.2 to 20.8 g kg. Mean WEP was highest in turkey and swine manures (manure: 4.1-5.6 g kg; no composts tested), followed by layer and broiler chicken manures (manure: 3.0-3.5 g kg; compost: 4.6-5.1 g kg), cattle manure (dairy and beef manure: 2.1-2.8 g kg; compost: 1.1-2.7 g kg), and horse manure (manure: 2.7 g kg; compost: 1.9 g kg). Across all manures and composts, WEP was negatively correlated with manure dry matter content ( = 0.42, < 0.001). Moreover, WEP was strongly correlated ( = 0.66, < 0.001) to degree of P saturation expressed as a molar ratio of total P to total metals (Ca, Mg, Fe, Al, and Mn). Although WEP levels of beef, broiler chicken, and turkey manures from this survey are similar to those from a decade ago, WEP is now significantly lower for dairy (30%, < 0.001), swine (46%, < 0.001), and layer chickens (39%, < 0.05). Lower WEP resulted from decreasing total P and/or increasing P sorption capacity, combined with increasing dry matter content. Results highlight the potential to use degree of P saturation to predict WEP and suggest an opportunity to reduce WEP by managing manure handling, storage, and chemistry.
Asunto(s)
Compostaje , Estiércol , Fósforo/química , Animales , Bovinos , Pollos , Fósforo/análisis , AguaRESUMEN
Winter manure application elevates nutrient losses and impairment of water quality as compared to manure applications in other seasons. In conjunction with reviewing global distribution of animal densities, we reviewed worldwide mandatory regulations and voluntary guidelines on efforts to reduce off-site nutrient losses associated with winter manure applications. Most of the developed countries implement regulations or guidelines to restrict winter manure application, which range from a regulative ban to guidelines based upon weather and field management conditions. In contrast, developing countries lack such official directives, despite an increasing animal production industry and concern over water quality. An analysis of five case studies reveals that directives are derived from a common rationale to reduce off-site manure nutrient losses, but they are also affected by local socio-economic and biophysical considerations. Successful programs combine site-specific management strategies along with expansion of manure storage to offer farmers greater flexibility in winter manure management.
Asunto(s)
Agricultura , Estiércol , Animales , Regulación Gubernamental , Guías como Asunto , Nitrógeno , Fósforo , Estaciones del Año , Calidad del AguaRESUMEN
Timing of manure application to agricultural soils remains a contentious topic in nutrient management planning, particularly with regard to impacts on nutrient loss in runoff and downstream water quality. We evaluated the effects of seasonal manure application and associated manure storage capacity on phosphorus (P) losses at both field and watershed scales over an 11-yr period, using long-term observed data and an upgraded, variable-source water quality model called Topo-SWAT. At the field level, despite variation in location and crop management, manure applications throughout fall and winter increased annual total P losses by 12 to 16% and dissolved P by 19 to 40% as compared with spring. Among all field-level scenarios, total P loss was substantially reduced through better site targeting (by 48-64%), improving winter soil cover (by 25-46%), and reducing manure application rates (by 1-23%). At the watershed level, a scenario simulating 12 mo of manure storage (all watershed manure applied in spring) reduced dissolved P loss by 5% and total P loss by 2% but resulted in greater P concentrations peaks compared with scenarios simulating 6 mo (fall-spring application) or 3 mo storage (four-season application). Watershed-level impacts are complicated by aggregate effects, both spatial and temporal, of manure storage capacity on variables such as manure application rate and timing, and complexities of field and management. This comparison of the consequences of different manure storage capacities demonstrated a tradeoff between reducing annual P loss through a few high-concentration runoff events and increasing the frequency of low peaks but also increasing the annual loss.
Asunto(s)
Estiércol , Fósforo/análisis , Suelo , Agricultura , Estaciones del Año , Movimientos del AguaRESUMEN
Low-disturbance manure application methods can provide the benefits of manure incorporation, including reducing ammonia (NH3) emissions, in production systems where tillage is not possible. However, incorporation can exacerbate nitrate (NO3â») leaching. We sought to assess the trade-offs in NH3 and NO3â» losses caused by alternative manure application methods. Dairy slurry (2006-2007) and liquid swine manure (2008-2009) were applied to no-till corn by (i) shallow (<10 cm) disk injection, (ii) surface banding with soil aeration, (iii) broadcasting, and (iv) broadcasting with tillage incorporation. Ammonia emissions were monitored for 72 h after application using ventilated chambers and passive diffusion samplers, and NO3â» leaching to 80 cm was monitored with buried column lysimeters. The greatest NH3 emissions occurred with broadcasting (35-63 kg NH3-N haâ»), and the lowest emissions were from unamended soil (<1 kg NH-N ha⻹). Injection decreased NH-N emissions by 91 to 99% compared with broadcasting and resulted in lower emissions than tillage incorporation 1 h after broadcasting. Ammonia-nitrogen emissions from banding manure with aeration were inconsistent between years, averaging 0 to 71% that of broadcasting. Annual NO3â» leaching losses were small (<25 kg NO3-N ha⻹) and similar between treatments, except for the first winter when NO3â» leaching was fivefold greater with injection. Because NO3â» leaching with injection was substantially lower over subsequent seasons, we hypothesize that the elevated losses during the first winter were through preferential flow paths inadvertently created during lysimeter installation. Overall, shallow disk injection yielded the lowest NH3 emissions without consistently increasing NO3â» leaching, whereas manure banding with soil aeration conserved inconsistent amounts of N.
Asunto(s)
Amoníaco/química , Nitratos/química , Contaminantes Atmosféricos/química , Animales , Bovinos , Fertilizantes , Ensilaje , Eliminación de Residuos Líquidos/métodos , Zea mays/crecimiento & desarrolloRESUMEN
Surface application of manures leaves nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) susceptible to being lost in runoff, and N can also be lost to the atmosphere through ammonia (IH3) volatilization. Tillage immediately after surface application of manure moves manure nutrients under the soil surface, where they are less vulnerable to runoff and volatilization loss. Tillage, however, destroys soil structure, can lead to soil erosion, and is incompatible with forage and no-till systems. A variety of technologies are now available to place manure nutrients under the soil surface, but these are not widely used as surface broadcasting is cheap and long established as the standard method for land application of manure. This collection of papers includes agronomic, environmental, and economic assessments of subsurface manure application technologies, many of which clearly show benefits when comparedwith surface broadcasting. However, there remain significant gaps in our current knowledge, some related to the site-specific nature of technological performance, others related to the nascent and incomplete nature of the assessment process. Thus, while we know that we can improve land application of manure and the sustainability of farming systems with alternatives to surface broadcasting, many questions remain concerning which technologies work best for particular soils, manure types, and farming and cropping systems.
Asunto(s)
Agricultura/métodos , Estiércol , Agricultura/instrumentación , Agricultura/tendencias , Amoníaco/química , Amoníaco/metabolismo , Animales , Productos Agrícolas , Humanos , Nitrógeno/química , Nitrógeno/metabolismo , Fósforo/química , Fósforo/metabolismo , Contaminantes del Agua/química , Contaminantes del Agua/metabolismoRESUMEN
Injection of cattle and swine slurries can provide soil incorporation in no-till and perennial forage production. Injection is expected to substantially reduce N loss due to ammonia (NH3) volatilization, but a portion of that N conservation may be offset by greater denitrification and leaching losses. This paper reviews our current knowledge of the impacts of subsurface application of cattle and swine slurries on the N balance and outlines areas where a greater understanding is needed. Several publications have shown that liquid manure injection using disk openers, chisels, or tines can be expected to Sreduce NH, emissions by at least 40%, and often by 90% or more, relative to broadcast application. However, the limited number of studies that have also measured denitrification losses have shown that increased denitrification with subsurface application can offset as much as half of the N conserved by reducing NH3 emissions. Because the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) is one product of denitrification, the possible increases in N2O emission with injection require further consideration. Subsurface manure application generally does not appear to increase leaching potential when manure is applied at recommended rates. Plant utilization of conserved N was shown in only a portion of the published studies, indicating that further work is needed to better synchronize manure N availability and crop uptake. At this time in the United States, the economic and environmental benefits from reducing losses of N as NH3 are expected to outweigh potential liability from increases in denitrification with subsurface manure application. To fully evaluate the trade-offs among manure application methods, a detailed environmental and agricultural economic assessment is needed to estimate the true costs of potential increases in NO2O emissions with manure injection.