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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Fisher, D. S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Fisher, D. S. Agricola Articles by Burns, J. C. Articles by Fisher, D. S. Related Collections Other Forage Crops Forage quality Nutrient Management Animal Waste

TECHNICAL REPORTS

Waste Management

Intake and Digestibility of ‘Coastal’ Bermudagrass Hay from Treated Swine Waste Using Subsurface Drip Irrigation

^a Dep. Crop Science and Dep. Animal Science, North Carolina State Univ. Raleigh, NC 27695
^b Coastal Plains Soil, Water and Plant Research Center, Florence, SC 29501
^c Watkinsville, GA 30677. Cooperative investigation of the USDA-ARS and the North Carolina ARS, Raleigh, NC 27695-7643. The use of trade names does not imply endorsements by USDA-ARS or by the North Carolina ARS of the products named or criticism of similar ones not mentioned

^* Corresponding author (joe.burns{at}ars.usda.gov).

Received for publication November 26, 2008. Waste handling systems for confined swine production in the upper South (approximately 32–37° N and 79–93° W) depend mainly on anaerobic lagoons and application of the waste effluent to cropland. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of ‘Coastal’ bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] hay receiving effluent generated from a raw swine waste treatment system designed to reduce P and K concentrations and delivered by subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) compared with hay produced from commercial N fertilizer. Eight treatments, consisting of commercial N fertilizer or effluent, each irrigated at two irrigation rates (75 and 100% of estimated evapotranspiration) and two lateral spacings (0.6 and 1.2 m), were compared with a control treatment of commercial N fertilizer without irrigation. Three harvests were taken in each of 2 yr and five of the six evaluated using wether sheep (30–45 kg). Greatest dry matter intake (DMI) per unit body weight occurred for the control vs. all irrigated treatments (1.94 vs. 1.77 kg 100^–1 kg; P = 0.02; SEM = 0.11). Among irrigated treatments, DMI was greatest from commercial N vs. effluent (1.81 vs. 1.71 kg 100^–1 kg; P = 0.05; SEM = 0.11). Dry matter intake was similar for the 75% rate treatments and the non-irrigated treatment (mean, 1.87 kg 100^–1 kg) but was reduced for the 100% rate (1.94 vs. 1.72 kg 100^–1 kg; P = 0.03; SEM = 0.11). Hay from the 75% rate was more digestible than hay from the 100% rate (527 vs. 508 g kg^–1; P = 0.03; SEM = 21). The SDI system functioned well, and lateral spacing did not alter hay quality. Treated waste from a raw waste treatment system was readily delivered by SDI at the recommended rate to produce bermudagrass hay of adequate quality for ruminant production systems.

Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fiber • BW, body weight • CELL, cellulose • CP, crude protein • DMD, dry matter digestion • DMI, dry matter intake • EST, environmentally superior technology • ETc, calculated evapotranspiration • IVTD, in vitro true dry matter disappearance • NDF, neutral detergent fiber • SDI, subsurface drip irrigation