Agronomic and economic productivity of summer annual forage systems under different poultry litter application methods

IF 0.8 Q3 AGRONOMY
IvaNelle Meyer, Michael P. Popp, Christin C. Nieman, Amanda J. Ashworth, Phillip R. Owens
{"title":"Agronomic and economic productivity of summer annual forage systems under different poultry litter application methods","authors":"IvaNelle Meyer,&nbsp;Michael P. Popp,&nbsp;Christin C. Nieman,&nbsp;Amanda J. Ashworth,&nbsp;Phillip R. Owens","doi":"10.1002/cft2.20281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Poultry litter (litter) is a nutrient dense fertilizer that increases nutritive value and yield in pastures in the mid-southern US. Nutrient losses due to runoff and nitrogen volatilization are common when broadcasting litter. As such, incorporating litter below the soil surface (subsurface) was evaluated in comparison to broadcasting in 2021 and 2022 by quantifying yield and nutritive value of annual forages. The study was a randomized complete block design with three forage treatments—sorghum-sudangrass only (<i>Sorghum bicolor</i> L.), cowpea only (<i>Vigna unguiculata</i> L.), and their mixture, and three litter application methods (broadcast, subsurface, and a no litter control). Litter was applied in 2021 only as biennial application is common to save on application cost. Nutritive analyses included neutral detergent fiber and crude protein (CP). Partial budgeting led to relative profitability estimates by accounting for yield and cost differences across treatments. In comparison to the second-highest yielding forage mixture, sorghum-sudangrass yielded 4.5%–18.4% more regardless of litter application method. The forage mixture did not improve forage nutritive value, as cowpea were vastly outcompeted and did not average more than 5% of the total forage harvested in mixtures. Cowpea yields did not benefit from litter application. Subsurface application resulted in 8%–10% greater CP content compared to no litter and broadcast litter, respectively, across all forage species. Sorghum-sudangrass with subsurface applied litter earned nearly $70/acre more than sorghum-sudangrass with broadcast litter, the next highest treatment combination, and, with lesser nutrient loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":10931,"journal":{"name":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cft2.20281","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cft2.20281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Poultry litter (litter) is a nutrient dense fertilizer that increases nutritive value and yield in pastures in the mid-southern US. Nutrient losses due to runoff and nitrogen volatilization are common when broadcasting litter. As such, incorporating litter below the soil surface (subsurface) was evaluated in comparison to broadcasting in 2021 and 2022 by quantifying yield and nutritive value of annual forages. The study was a randomized complete block design with three forage treatments—sorghum-sudangrass only (Sorghum bicolor L.), cowpea only (Vigna unguiculata L.), and their mixture, and three litter application methods (broadcast, subsurface, and a no litter control). Litter was applied in 2021 only as biennial application is common to save on application cost. Nutritive analyses included neutral detergent fiber and crude protein (CP). Partial budgeting led to relative profitability estimates by accounting for yield and cost differences across treatments. In comparison to the second-highest yielding forage mixture, sorghum-sudangrass yielded 4.5%–18.4% more regardless of litter application method. The forage mixture did not improve forage nutritive value, as cowpea were vastly outcompeted and did not average more than 5% of the total forage harvested in mixtures. Cowpea yields did not benefit from litter application. Subsurface application resulted in 8%–10% greater CP content compared to no litter and broadcast litter, respectively, across all forage species. Sorghum-sudangrass with subsurface applied litter earned nearly $70/acre more than sorghum-sudangrass with broadcast litter, the next highest treatment combination, and, with lesser nutrient loss.

Abstract Image

不同家禽粪便施用方法下夏季一年生牧草系统的农艺和经济生产力
家禽粪便(粪便)是一种营养丰富的肥料,可提高美国中南部牧场的营养价值和产量。播撒禽粪时,由于径流和氮挥发造成的养分损失很常见。因此,在 2021 年和 2022 年,通过量化一年生牧草的产量和营养价值,评估了在土壤表层下(地下)施用垃圾与播撒垃圾的比较。该研究采用随机完全区组设计,有三种牧草处理--仅高粱-苏丹草(Sorghum bicolor L.)、仅豇豆(Vigna unguiculata L.)和它们的混合物,以及三种垃圾施用方法(播撒、地下和无垃圾对照)。为节省施肥成本,通常每两年施肥一次,因此仅在 2021 年施肥一次。营养分析包括中性洗涤纤维和粗蛋白(CP)。通过计算不同处理的产量和成本差异,部分预算得出了相对收益率估算。与产量第二高的牧草混合物相比,高粱-苏丹草的产量高出 4.5%-18.4%,而不管采用哪种施肥方法。混合牧草并没有提高牧草的营养价值,因为豇豆的产量远远低于混合牧草,平均占总收获量的比例不超过 5%。豇豆的产量并没有从施用垃圾中受益。在所有牧草品种中,地表下施用与不施用秸秆垃圾和播撒秸秆垃圾相比,CP 含量分别高出 8%-10%。高粱-苏丹草每英亩的收益比高粱-苏丹草每英亩的收益高出近 70 美元,而高粱-苏丹草每英亩的收益仅次于高粱-苏丹草每英亩的收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management
Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agronomy and Crop Science
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management is a peer-reviewed, international, electronic journal covering all aspects of applied crop, forage and grazinglands, and turfgrass management. The journal serves the professions related to the management of crops, forages and grazinglands, and turfgrass by publishing research, briefs, reviews, perspectives, and diagnostic and management guides that are beneficial to researchers, practitioners, educators, and industry representatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信