HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Cummings, G. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Cummings, G. A. Agricola Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Cummings, G. A.

Swine Manure and Lagoon Effluent Applied to a Temperate Forage Mixture: I. Persistence, Yield, Quality, and Elemental Removal¹

ABSTRACT

Swine (Sus scrofa domesticus) waste can be a nutrient source for crops when applied as a manure slurry or lagoon effluent. Limited land area for disposal may result in high application rates. Yet rates must be controlled to ensure stand persistence if perennial crops are grown and if groundwater quality (NO₃ concentrations) are to be considered. Also, safe concentration of elements in the resulting forage must be assured if used for animal feed. A 4-yr study was conducted to determine the effect of applying swine waste as manure slurry or lagoon effluent on persistence of a temperate forage mixture of predominantly tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Treatments were: a commercial N-P-K fertilizer (F), consisting of 201 kg N ha^–1 yr^–1 (67 kg ha^–1 in three applications) and 34 and 65 kg ha^–1 of P and K, respectively; 670 kg of N ha^–1 yr^– as a swine manure slurry (M); and supplying approximately 600 (E₁) and 1200 (E₂) kg of N ha^–1 from swine lagoon effluent. Subtropical grasses invaded all treatments by the third year but the E₂ treatment had greatest infestation averaging 53% of the dry matter and tall fescue averaging only 39%. Dry matter yields were similar between F and M treatments averaging 7750 kg ha^–1 yr^–1 while applying N as effluent (E₁) increased yields 3430 kg ha^–1 above M. Doubling the N loading rate (E₂ vs. E₁) did not increase yields (P 0.05). Concentrations of the 11 elements analyzed (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, Mn, Cu, Zn, Fe, and Na) showed a treatment x year interaction. Forage Zn was consistently increased by M treatment compared with F or E₁ treatments and forage Cu was elevated by M treatment the last 2 yr of the study. In vitro dry matter disappearance was similar (670–685 g kg^–1) among all treatments, but forage NO₃-N concentration from the E₁ and E₂ treatments, and after the second year for the M treatment, was considered unsafe for ruminants (> 700 mg NO₃-N kg^–1). The M, E₁, and E₂ treatments added large quantities of elements (N, P, K, Ca, Na, and Cl) that were not removed in the forage.

Key Words: tall fescue • ladino clover • Kentucky bluegrass • NO₃-N • nutritive value • animal waste management • N loading

¹ Paper no. 9952 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agric. Res. Service, Raleigh, NC 27695-7601 in cooperation with USDA-ARS. This study was partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.

² Professor, Dep. of Crop Science and Animal Science, Plant Physiologist, USDA-ARS; Associate Professor, Dep. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering; Associate Professor, Dep. of Soil Science; Professor, Dep. of Chemical Engineering; and Professor, Dep. of Soil Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7601, respectively.

Received for publication June 29, 1985.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. H. Chantigny, D. A. Angers, P. Rochette, G. Belanger, D. Masse, and D. Cote Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions and Forage Nitrogen Uptake on Soils Fertilized with Raw and Treated Swine Manure J. Environ. Qual., October 24, 2007; 36(6): 1864 - 1872. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Choudhary, L.D. Bailey, and C.A. Grant Review of the Use of Swine Manure in Crop Production: Effects On Yield and Composition and On Soil and Water Quality Waste Management Research, January 1, 1996; 14(6): 581 - 595. [Abstract] [PDF]