1 / 36

How to Maximize Returns from Manure

How to Maximize Returns from Manure. Edwin Ritchey Extension Soil Specialist UK-REC. History of Manure Application. Homer mentioned “ manuring of vineyards” in the Odyssey (800 BC) Mentioned in the Bible (Luke 13:8) WWII, inorganic fertilizers

fairfax
Download Presentation

How to Maximize Returns from Manure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Maximize Returns from Manure Edwin Ritchey Extension Soil Specialist UK-REC

  2. History of Manure Application • Homer mentioned “manuring of vineyards” in the Odyssey (800 BC) • Mentioned in the Bible (Luke 13:8) • WWII, inorganic fertilizers • Switched from a waste product that had to be dealt with to something of value • How to best utilize that value

  3. Other “Organic” Amendments • Processed Municipal Waste • Louisville Green (5-3-0) • Separate solids, anaerobic digesters, dewatered in centrifuges, heat dried in rotary drums • Warren County has a new operation on-line • VitAg (16-0-2-18S) Treated with AA and Sulfuric Acid • Composted Products • Decomposition process that reduces the volume and produces a stabilized product • Concentrates some nutrients, not others

  4. Spreading Poultry Litter

  5. Processed Municipal Wastes VitAg 16-0-2-18S LG 5-3-0

  6. Manure and Compost = $$$ • Animal Manure is a complete fertilizer • Calculate value based on N-P-K • But more value than just N-P-K • Ca, Mg, S, B, Mo, Zn, Cu, and “other” • Hard to measure “other” • Increased OM, improved structure, improved tilth, and plant available water • Must be aware of mineralization rates

  7. Value of Nutrients in Manure • Bulk fertilizer prices per ton (10-12-12) • Urea (46-0-0) $790 (N=$0.86/lb N) • KCl (0-0-60) $597 (K2O=$0.54/lb K) • DAP (18-46-0) $649 • if only considered N= $1.80/lb N • if only considered P= $0.71/lb P2O5 • accounting for N in DAP = $0.37/lb P2O5 • Must consider what nutrients are needed

  8. Value of Nutrients in Manure • Nutrient content of broiler litter (lb/ton) AGR-1 • Moisture Content 20% • N = 55 • P2O5 = 55 • K2O = 45 • Value of Nutrients per ton of manure ($62.43) • N=$23.65 (assumes 50% available) • P2O5=$16.28 (assumes 80% available) • K2O=$22.50 (assumes 100% available) • Must consider what nutrients are needed • Moisture greatly influences nutrient value

  9. Nutrient Variation - N • Approximately 50% as NH4+, 50% as “organic” • Some are lost • NH3, NO3-, N20, N2 • Some are used • By plants, microbes, SOM • Organic N must be mineralized to NH4+ or NO3- • BEST TO TEST

  10. Nutrient Variation - N • Ammonia loss (NH3) • Warm, wet, and windy • Mineralization (Organic N  NH4+) • Warm, moist, and O2 • Nitrification (NH4+ NO3-) • NH4+ present, warm, moist, and O2 • Denitrification (NO3-  NO2-  NO  N20  N2) • NO3- , waterlogged soils, available carbon, and warm • Leaching (NO3-)

  11. Specific Research Results Understanding Components to High Yielding Soybean Systems

  12. Background • Soybean prices and input prices have increased substantially in the past few years • New products and practices not common to soybean production are becoming more common and have not been well evaluated • Fungicide use without disease pressure • Greater nutrition (organic and inorganic sources) • Higher seeding rates

  13. Objectives • Determine soybean yield potential when: • Five additional inputs are combined in a high-intensity production system • Impact of each additional input is removed from the high intensity system • Impact of each additional input is added to a general soybean production system

  14. Locations and Soil Types • Graves County (Collins SiL) • Henderson County (DekovanSiL) • Todd County (Newark SiL) • Fayette County – UK-LEX (Huntington SiL) • Caldwell County – UK-REC (Huntington SiL)

  15. Treatment descriptions

  16. UK-REC Yield Rankings by Treatment (Pr>F=0.3181)

  17. UK-REC Main Effects of Treatment on Soybean Yield *Values with a significance level > 0.10 are considered non-significant.

  18. Henderson County Main Effects of Treatment on Soybean Yield

  19. Todd County Yield Rankings by Treatment (Pr>F = 0.0001) Yields followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a 5% level of confidence

  20. Todd County Main Effects of Treatment on Soybean Yield

  21. Treatments that resulted in the three highest and lowest soybean yields, across all locations, in 2011 *Treatment number (yield, bu/A).

  22. Treatment descriptions

  23. Conclusions • No one treatment appeared to be substantially better than another • Data does not substantiate a higher seed rate • Response to additional fertilizer was minimal when utilizing proper soil fertility programs • Fungicide and PL use (???) • UK-CES Recommendations are sound

  24. Specific Research Results The Use of Organic Soil Amendments for Wheat Production

  25. Considerations • Time of poultry houses cleanout • Mainly Spring and Fall • Other organic sources • Composts – Between planting and harvest • Processed Municipal Waste – Year round • Nutrient availabilities – Varies • Due to type of material, timing, application and storage method, mineralization rates, etc

  26. Nitrogen Availability (PL) Crop Management* Availability (%) Corn or Spring Applied Annual Grass 2 days 60 5-6 days 50 > 7 days <45 Fall Applied No Cover Crop 15 Cover Crop 50 Wheat Preplant 50 Pasture (cool) Spring/Fall 80 * Incorporation with tillage or > 0.5 inches of rain (AGR-146)

  27. Second Year N Availability • Beegle, Penn State University • Depends on # of year applied in last 10 • PL (other manures) • <4 years => 3% (5%) • 4-8 years => 7% (15%) • > 8 years => 12% (25%)

  28. Additional Benefits • Soil Organic Matter • Storehouse of nutrients • Resistance to compaction • Fragipan Improvements (?) • Water Holding Capacity (PAW) • Soil Structure (sands to clays) • Activity of Soil Organisms (e.g. earthworms)

  29. Methods • Zanesville Silt Loam (2011) • Applied PL, LG, CSM based on Total N • Assumed 100% available • 100, 150, and 200 lbs Total N/A • 4 Rates of inorganic N plus non-treated check • 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 lbs N/A

  30. 2011 Results (LSD = 6.7)

  31. 2011 Results (LSD = 6.7)

  32. If not Yield then What? • Soil Organic Matter – soil test in spring • Residual Nitrogen – corn N response • Infiltration/Structure – infiltrometer • Plant Available Water – pressure plate

  33. Structure – Pore Size • Macropores • Large pores: infiltration, little PAW • Mesopores • Medium pores: infiltration, PAW • Micropores • Small pores: little infiltration or PAW • OM Improvements in Structure • Like a sponge or straw

  34. Conclusions • Organic amendments are a good source of plant nutrients, but… • Still well priced for N-P-K but other value • Optimize nutrients present (DAP for N) • Test soil, test manure • Still a good value if used properly

  35. Questions/Comments

More Related