Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:01:58.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liquid manure as a grassland fertilizer. I. The response to liquid manure and to dry fertilizer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. E. Castle  and
A. D. Drysdale
M. E. Castle
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
A. D. Drysdale
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A small-scale plot experiment was conducted for a 3-year period, 1958–60, to study the comparative effect of applications of liquid manure, water and dry fertilizer on the yield and quality of an established meadow fescue and white clover sward.

2. The liquid manure was collected from a cowshed and contained on average 0·23% N, 0·003% P2O6 and 0·48%K2O.

3. The treatments applied each year were: (1) control, no fertilizer; (2) and (3) a low and a high rate of water equal in weight to the liquid manure applied in treatments (4) and (5) respectively; (4) a low rate of liquid manure supplying 75 lb. nitrogen and 159 lb. K2O; (5) a high rate of liquid manure supplying 150 lb. nitrogen and 318 lb. K2O/acre; (6) and (7) liquid manure as in (4) and (5) plus 82 lb. P2O6/acre; (8) a low rate of normal dry fertilizer supplying 87 lb. nitrogen, 82 lb. P2O6 and 84 lb. K2O/acre; and (9) a high rate supplying 174 lb. nitrogen, 82 lb. P2O5 and 168 lb. K2O/acre.

All treatments were applied in five equal dressings each year, one for each cut, except the P2O5 which was applied twice a year.

4. The yields of herbage dry matter and crude protein were not affected by the water treatments, but both the liquid-manure and dry-fertilizer treatments caused significant increases in yield. The application of phosphate on the liquid-manure treatments had no significant effect on yields.

5. The crude-protein contents of the herbage on the different treatments did not show any large or consistent differences.

6. The botanical compositions of the swards were significantly different at the end of the third experimental year. On the liquid-manure treatments the content of clover had increased and the meadow fescue and dicotyledonous weeds decreased compared with the control. The mean content of clover in the swards at the end of the trial was 32, 18 and 15% on the liquid-manure, dry-fertilizer and control treatments respectively.

7. There were no major differences between either the pH values or the contents of P2O5 in samples of soil on the different treatments after 3 years, but the average K2O value on the control and two water treatments was almost half that on the high liquid-manure treatment.

8. The mineral contents of the herbage were determined. In 2 of the 3 years the liquid-manure treatments produced herbage with high K and lowered Ca, Mg and Na contents. The Mg content of the herbage on the four liquid-manure treatments averaged 0·26%.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 165 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blake, G. A. (1942). N.Z. J. Agric. 65, 257.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Reid, D. (1960 a). Int. Grassld. Congr. p. 146.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Reid, D. (1960 b). Soc. Chem. Ind. Monograph no. 9, 55. London.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Holmes, W. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusserre, C. (1933). Landw. Jb. Schweiz, 47, 578. (In Herb. Abstr. 3, 246, 1933.)Google Scholar
Fenton, E. W. (1933). Agric. Progr. 10, (Suppl.), 238.Google Scholar
Frens, A. M. (1959). Int. Vet. Congr. p. 407.Google Scholar
Hendrick, J. (1915). Bull. N. Scot. Coll. Agric. no. 19.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. & MacLusky, D. S. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvidsten, H., ØDelien, M., Baerug, R. & Tollersrud, S. (1959). Acta Agric. Scand. 9, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConaghy, S., McAllister, J. S. V., Lowe, J. & Linehan, P. A. (1960). Soc. Chem. Ind. Monograph no. 9, 69. London.Google Scholar
Nevens, W. B. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 53, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reith, J. W. S. & Inkson, R. H. E. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Wood, Marian (1960). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 11, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, P. J., Conway, A. & Walsh, M. J. (1958). Vet. Rec. 70, 846.Google Scholar
Turner, R., Alexander, R. H., Forsyth, R. J. & Matthews, R. D. (1958). The use of liquid manure on farms. Bull. Dep. Agric. Scot. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wolberg, F. B., Spielman, A. A. & Miller, V. L. (1945). Bull. Wash. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 457.Google Scholar