Agronomy Journal 95:597-601 (2003)
© 2003 American Society of Agronomy
MANURE MANAGEMENT
Bermudagrass Cultivar Response to Swine Effluent Application
G. E. Brink
,*,
D. E. Rowe,
K. R. Sistani and
A. Adeli
USDA-ARS, Waste Manage. and Forage Res. Unit, P.O. Box 5367, Mississippi State, MS 39762
* Corresponding author (gebrink{at}wisc.edu)
Received for publication February 7, 2002.
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] has great potential to recover nutrients due to its pronounced yield response to N. Our objective was to determine differences in forage dry matter (DM) yield, nutrient concentration, and nutrient uptake among diverse bermudagrass cultivars fertilized with swine effluent. ‘Alicia’, ‘Brazos’, ‘Coastal’, ‘Russell’, ‘Tifton 44’, and ‘Tifton 85’ hybrid bermudagrass and common bermudagrass were grown on a Brooksville silty clay loam (fine, smectitic, thermic Aquic Hapludert) and fertilized with effluent to provide 370 and 61 kg ha-1 yr-1 N and P, respectively (mean of 3 yr), and on an Atwood silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic Typic Paleudalf) and fertilized to provide 200 and 38 kg ha-1 yr-1 N and P, respectively. Annual DM yields of Brazos, Coastal, Russell, and Tifton 85 were similar on Brooksville (23.3–24.2 Mg ha-1) and Atwood (12.3–14.1 Mg ha-1) soils. Annual N and P uptake ranged from 422 to 467 kg N ha-1 and 50 to 58 kg P ha-1 on the Brooksville soil and from 181 to 230 kg N ha-1 and 32 to 40 kg P ha-1 on the Atwood soil. Common bermudagrass uptake of N and P was similar to or greater than all hybrids except Russell on Atwood soil due to greater herbage N and P concentration. Hybrids generally recovered more K, Cu, and Zn than common bermudagrass. Relatively small differences in nutrient uptake among the bermudagrass cultivars suggest that forage quality, winter hardiness, and establishment cost be given equal consideration when choosing a cultivar.
Abbreviations: DM, dry matter
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
SWINE PRODUCTION has traditionally been concentrated in the Midwest (Hatfield et al., 1998), and the manure has been applied primarily to soils that produce row crops (Schmidt et al., 2001). The rapid growth of confined, contract swine production in the southeastern USA (Welsh and Hubbell, 1999) has resulted in widespread application of swine effluent to forage crops. Forage crop uptake of nutrients applied with manure is often less than the quantity applied because the manure is applied at rates necessary to meet the N requirements of the forage (Sims, 1995) and the N/P ratio of manure does not match that of the crop (Edwards, 1996). In addition, hay production may not prevent nutrient accumulation in the soil due to continued manure application (Kingery et al., 1993). Hay production, however, represents an important component of nutrient management. By exporting nutrients in the form of hay from land receiving manure and by reducing runoff and soil loss, the rate of nutrient accumulation in the soil and the potential for ground and surface water impairment may be reduced (Sims and Wolf, 1994).
Bermudagrass is the predominant forage grass grown in the region (Burton and Hanna, 1995), and hybrid bermudagrass responds readily to increasing N rates from either inorganic or organic sources (Overman et al., 1993). When swine effluent was applied to Russell hybrid bermudagrass to provide 560, 1120, and 2240 kg N ha-1 yr-1, a yield response similar to that for inorganic N was observed, but efficiency of N and P recovery declined quickly with increasing effluent rate (Liu et al., 1997). Applying effluent at the two higher rates resulted in large additions of N and P to the soil that were not recovered in the forage and were potential contributors to ground and surface water pollution. In North Carolina, Burns et al. (1985) reported that Coastal hybrid bermudagrass receiving 670 kg N ha-1 and 153 kg P ha-1 from swine effluent removed an average of 382 and 43 kg ha-1 yr-1 N and P, respectively. Nutrient uptake by unimproved common bermudagrass, prevalent throughout much of the southeastern USA, has not been compared with that of the hybrids when manure served as the fertilizer source.
Because forage nutrient concentration tends to fluctuate little, nutrient removal is primarily a function of herbage yield (Robinson, 1996), which, among many factors, is strongly influenced by cultivar. Since the release of Coastal hybrid bermudagrass in 1943, several hybrid cultivars have become available to producers in the southeastern USA. Routine application of swine effluent to bermudagrass requires additional information about potential cultivar-dependent responses. Our objective was to determine differences in forage DM yield and nutrient concentration and uptake among diverse bermudagrass varieties grown on contrasting soil types fertilized with swine effluent.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
The study was conducted for 3 yr on two different confined-feeding swine farms at Crawford, MS (33°17' N, 88°35' W), on a Brooksville silty clay loam and at Houston, MS (34°0' N, 89°0' W), on an Atwood silt loam. At both locations, excreta is washed from pits located below the barn floor into open lagoons and applied as effluent to adjacent fields using a center-pivot irrigation system (Crawford) or traveling spray gun (Houston). Effluent had been applied to the soil at both locations at rates ranging from 10 to 15 cm ha-1 yr-1 (unknown mineral concentration) for 2 to 5 yr before the experiment started. Before forage yield measurements were made the first year, 20 soil samples were collected in the plot area at 0- to 5-, 5- to 15-, and 15- to 30-cm depth and composited by depth. Selected soil chemical characteristics were determined using Mehlich-3 extractant (Mehlich, 1984; Table 1). Total soil N concentration was determined by the Dumas method (Bremner, 1996).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Mineral characteristics of the soil (Mehlich-3) at the beginning of the experiment and the quantity of nutrients applied each year with the swine effluent.
|
|
Alicia, Brazos, Coastal, Russell, Tifton 44, and Tifton 85 hybrid bermudagrass and common bermudagrass were established from sprigs in July 1996 in 2- by 6-m plots separated by a 1-m alley in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Alleys were maintained free of vegetation with Roundup herbicide [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine]. These bermudagrass hybrids represent those commonly used by producers in the southeastern USA. Unimproved common bermudagrass is not a true cultivar, but for the sake of brevity, it will be referred to as a cultivar. Although its growth is highly variable, common is usually shorter, with finer leaves and a denser growth habit than the hybrids (Burton and Hanna, 1995). Among the hybrids, Alicia, Coastal (Burton, 1954), Russell (Ball et al., 1996), and Tifton 44 (Burton and Monson, 1978) are most similar in morphology, with an erect growth habit, moderately coarse stems, and fine leaves. Brazos (Forage Information System, 2002) and Tifton 85 (Burton et al., 1993) are the tallest of the hybrids, with wider leaves and thicker stems than Coastal. By September 1996, all bermudagrass varieties had covered the respective plot areas. During the establishment year, effluent applied by the producer was not collected for mineral analysis.
Beginning in late May of the next 3 yr, plots were harvested every 6 wk. Precipitation was approximately 35% below normal at both locations from July to September in 1997, and dry conditions prevented a fourth harvest. Dry conditions prevented a fourth harvest at Houston in 1999 as well when precipitation was 45% below normal from July to September. Forage DM yields were determined by cutting a 1- by 6-m swath at a 7-cm stubble height through the center of each plot with a sickle-bar mower. A 600- to 800-g subsample was taken from each yield sample, dried at 65°C for 48 h, weighed to determine DM content, and then ground to pass a 2-mm screen. A 50-g subsample of the ground forage was stored in plastic bottles.
Forage N concentration was determined using the Dumas method (Bremner, 1996). Forage P, K, Cu, and Zn concentrations were determined by ashing a 0.8-g subsample in a ceramic crucible at 500°C for 4 h, dissolving the ash in 1.0 mL of 6 M HCl for 1 h and then in an additional 40 mL of a double-acid solution of 0.0125 M H2SO4 and 0.05 M HCl for another hour, and then filtering through Whatman no. 1 paper. The P, K, Cu, and Zn concentrations of the filtrate were measured by emission spectroscopy on an inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometer (Southern Coop. Ser., 1983).
Plots were located within 40- to 45-ha fields at both locations. Effluent application was governed by state regulations for application timing (1 April to 30 September) and application schedules for other fields on the farm. The quantity of effluent applied to plots from May to September each year was measured with a meteorological rain gauge placed in each replicate of the study. Timing and quantity of lagoon effluent applied was governed by the producer at both locations, which contributed to the difference in annual liquid application rate between the two locations (mean of 10 ha-cm at Crawford and 6.5 ha-cm at Houston). Application at Crawford began on 7 May 1997, 9 May 1998, and 22 Apr. 1999 and at Houston on 18 May 1997, 4 May 1998, and 20 May 1999. Less effluent was applied (0.3 to 0.6 ha-cm application-1) more frequently (two to three applications per week) with the center-pivot system at Crawford than with the traveling spray gun (1.0–1.5 ha-cm every 2 wk) at Houston. A 250-mL effluent subsample was collected immediately after each application and analyzed for total N concentration by the Kjeldahl procedure with a salicylic acid modification (Bremner, 1996). Total effluent P, K, Cu, and Zn concentrations were determined by digesting a 20-mL subsample containing 1 mL of concentrated H2SO4 and 5 mL of concentrated HNO3 to a total volume of 1 mL, diluting with 40 mL of distilled water, and filtering through Whatman 2V paper. The P, K, Cu, and Zn concentrations of the filtrate were measured by emission spectroscopy on an inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometer. Effluent nutrient concentration was used to calculate the total quantity of nutrients applied annually (Table 1).
Annual nutrient uptake was calculated as the product of forage DM yield and forage nutrient concentration at each harvest and summed over all harvests. Data from all locations, years, and cultivars were subject to analysis of variance using SAS (SAS Inst., 1999). Location x year and location x cultivar interactions were significant (P = 0.001). When analyzed by location, a significant (P = 0.03) year x cultivar interaction for annual forage DM yield and nutrient uptake occurred at Crawford because the magnitude of the yield difference between Tifton 44 and the other cultivars was greater in 1999 than in 1997 and 1998. Because this interaction had no effect on the general conclusions of the study, cultivar means were averaged over the 3-yr period of the study. Cultivar means for annual forage DM yield, nutrient concentration, and nutrient uptake were compared using Fisher's protected LSD (P 
0.05).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Forage Dry Matter Yield
Depending on the cultivar, mean annual forage DM yield at Crawford was often twofold greater than that at Houston. This difference could be attributed to differences in nutrient application rate (Table 1), soil physical or chemical properties (Table 1), or the occurrence of precipitation relative to effluent application at the two sites. At both locations, five of the seven cultivars (Alicia, Brazos, Coastal, Russell, and Tifton 85 at Crawford and Brazos, Coastal, Russell, Tifton 44, and Tifton 85 at Houston) had similar annual forage DM yield, ranging from 23.3 to 24.2 Mg ha-1 at Crawford and 12.3 to 14.1 Mg ha-1 at Houston (Fig. 1) . At Houston, Tifton 44 was among the highest-yielding cultivars while at the Crawford location, this cultivar yielded less forage DM than all other cultivars. At both Crawford and Houston, forage DM yield of common bermudagrass was similar to that of Alicia but less than that of Coastal and Russell.
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Annual forage dry matter (DM) yield of seven bermudagrass cultivars at Crawford and Houston, MS (mean of 3 yr).
|
|
Because the first harvest was always made near the end of May, seasonal distribution of DM production was influenced largely by timing of the initial effluent application. When effluent application at Crawford began in mid-April 1999, 37% of the annual forage DM yield was produced by the first harvest compared with 26% in 1997 and 1998 when effluent application began 2 wk later. Similarly, when effluent application at Houston began in mid-May of 1997 and 1999, the proportion of annual forage DM yield contained in the second harvest was 53% compared with 27% in 1998 when effluent application began 2 wk earlier. Few differences in seasonal distribution of forage DM yield were measured among the cultivars.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentration
Although N concentration of an individual harvest was similar among a majority of the cultivars at Crawford and Houston, some important differences were observed. The N concentration of common bermudagrass forage at Crawford was greater than that of all the hybrids at every harvest except the second harvest of Tifton 85 (Fig. 2)
. At Houston, the N concentration of common bermudagrass was similar to or greater than that of all hybrids at each harvest. These results are explained by an analysis of whole-plant samples taken from plots of common, Coastal, and Tifton 85 bermudagrass in Crawford during 1997 and 1998 and separated into the leaf, stem, stolon, and root fractions (Pederson and Brink, unpublished data, 1998). Throughout the growing season, the leaf fraction of common bermudagrass had greater N concentration than that of Coastal or Tifton 85 hybrid bermudagrass. In addition, the leaf fraction of common bermudagrass constituted a greater proportion of the herbage than did the leaf fraction of Coastal or Tifton 85 hybrid bermudagrass.
View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Nitrogen concentration of seven bermudagrass cultivars at each of four harvests at Crawford and Houston, MS (mean of 3 yr).
|
|
Results for individual harvest P concentration were generally similar to those for N concentration; the P concentration of common bermudagrass was similar to that of the hybrids at the first and second harvest at Crawford and was greater than that of the hybrids at the third and fourth harvests (Fig. 3)
. At Houston, P concentration of common bermudagrass was similar to that of the hybrids at the first three harvests and greater at the fourth. Similar to N concentration, analysis of plant fractions indicated that the P concentration of common bermudagrass stem and leaf fractions exceeded that of Coastal and Tifton 85 throughout the growing season (Pederson and Brink, unpublished data, 1998).
View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Phosphorus concentration of seven bermudagrass cultivars at each of four harvests at Crawford and Houston, MS (mean of 3 yr).
|
|
Nutrient Uptake
With the exception of Tifton 44, the range in annual uptake of N and P at Crawford was relatively narrow (422–467 kg N ha-1 and 50–58 kg P ha-1; Table 2). Despite generally lower annual forage DM yield than the hybrids (Fig. 1), annual N and P uptake of common bermudagrass at Crawford was similar to or greater than that of the hybrids. Because nutrient uptake is a product of DM yield and nutrient concentration, these results were due to the fact that the N (Fig. 2) and P (Fig. 3) concentrations of common bermudagrass were usually greater than those of the hybrids at Crawford.
Annual N and P uptake at Houston were less than that at Crawford due to reduced forage DM yield. Similar to Crawford, the range in uptake among cultivars at Houston was relatively narrow (181–230 kg N ha-1 and 32–40 kg P ha-1; Table 2). Only Russell recovered more N and P than common bermudagrass. At both locations, mean N uptake (Table 2) exceeded the amount applied in the effluent (Table 1) due to the availability of soil N. Nitrogen and P uptake at Houston was generally similar to values reported by Adeli and Varco (2001) for equivalent fertilization of Alicia bermudagrass with swine effluent on an acid (pH of 5.5) Vaiden silty clay (very-fine, smectitic, thermic Aquic Dystrudert). In contrast, N and P uptake at Crawford was nearly twofold greater than that reported by Adeli and Varco (2001) on a Vaiden silty clay or by Burns et al. (1985) on a Wagram loamy sand (loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kandiudult) for similar fertilization levels.
Hybrid bermudagrass has high annual K requirements (Day and Parker, 1985). In many instances, K uptake by a particular cultivar exceeded N uptake. At Crawford, the seven cultivars fell into three groups in terms of annual K uptake with the following ranking: Brazos and Tifton 85 (mean of 550 kg ha-1) > Coastal, Russell, and Alicia (mean of 475 kg ha-1) > common and Tifton 44 (mean of 412 kg ha-1; Table 2). With the exception of Tifton 44, these results can be attributed primarily to differences in the leaf and stem K concentration of cultivars that represent each group at Crawford, where Brazos > Coastal > common (Pederson and Brink, unpublished data, 1998). At Houston, K uptake by common was less than that of all the hybrids except Alicia.
Copper and Zn are common mineral supplements to swine rations, with their concentration in excreta depending on the dietary requirements for a particular class of animals. Although Cu and Zn levels in soils receiving manure are usually well below those of sites considered contaminated, their accumulation may be undesirable (Wood and Hattey, 1995). Copper uptake by hybrid bermudagrass was greater than that of common bermudagrass at both locations and ranged from 110 to 135 g ha-1 at Crawford and 71 to 87 g ha-1 at Houston (Table 2). At both locations, Russell recovered more Zn than all cultivars, except Alicia at Crawford and Coastal at Houston (Table 2).
Although DM yield has been cited as the primary determinant of nutrient uptake by forage crops (Robinson, 1996), this study of bermudagrass response to swine effluent application suggested some possible exceptions. On a somewhat poorly drained, silty clay loam soil at Crawford, the association between forage DM yield and nutrient uptake was low (R2 = 0.43 for N, 0.33 for P, 0.33 for K, 0.25 for Cu, and 0.50 for Zn at P 0.001) compared with that on a well-drained, silt loam at Houston (R2 = 0.96 for N, 0.93 for P, 0.94 for K, 0.82 for Cu, and 0.91 for Zn). Hybrid bermudagrass cultivars were originally developed on light-textured, coastal plain soils of the southeastern USA (Burton and Hanna, 1995) and may be less adapted than common bermudagrass to the heavier-textured soil at Crawford.
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
|---|
Although forage crops such as bermudagrass may serve as an important component of nutrient management plans on farms where animal manure is routinely applied (Sharpley and Withers, 1994), the role of forage production is not usually restricted to one of nutrient management. The primary purpose of forage production is to provide feed for ruminant livestock, either on the farm in a related enterprise or for sale off the farm. Although the importance of forages in nutrient management planning will likely increase, producers will often choose a particular forage species or cultivar for other reasons, including forage quality, seasonal distribution of growth, winter hardiness, availability of sprigs, and cost of establishment. The statistically significant but relatively small differences in nutrient uptake, particularly P, measured among the bermudagrass hybrids may be less important to a producer than the criteria listed above. A producer can compensate for reduced nutrient uptake obtained with a given cultivar compared with another by overseeding bermudagrass with a temperate annual forage like ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). When harvested as hay, ryegrass can recover an additional 20 to 30 kg P ha-1 yr-1 (Brink et al., 2001) and reduce the potential for N losses by leaching when bermudagrass is dormant (Shipley et al., 1992).
|
NOTES
|
|---|
Mississippi Agric. and Forestry Exp. Stn. Journal Article no. J10019.
G.E. Brink, current address: USDA-ARS, U.S. Dairy Forage Res. Cent., 1925 Linden Drive West, Madison, WI 53706-1108. 
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Adeli, A., and J.J. Varco. 2001. Swine lagoon effluent as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus for summer forage grasses. Agron. J. 1174–1181.
- Ball, D.M., M.M. Eichhorn, Jr., R.A. Burdett, Jr., and D.M. Bice. 1996. Registration of ‘Russell’ bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 36:467.[Free Full Text]
- Bremner, J.M. 1996. Nitrogen—total. p. 1085–1121. In D.L. Sparks et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI.
- Brink, G.E., G.A. Pederson, K.R. Sistani, and T.E. Fairbrother. 2001. Uptake of selected nutrients by temperate grasses and legumes. Agron. J. 93:887–890.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Burns, J.C., P.W. Westerman, L.D. King, G.A. Cummings, M.R. Overcash, and L. Goode. 1985. Swine lagoon effluent applied to ‘Coastal’ bermudagrass: I. Forage yield, quality, and element removal. J. Environ. Qual. 14:9–14.
- Burton, G.W. 1954. Coastal bermudagrass. Bull. NS2. Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn., Athens, GA.
- Burton, G.W., R.N. Gates, and G.M. Hill. 1993. Registration of Tifton 85 bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 33:644–645.[Free Full Text]
- Burton, G.W., and W.W. Hanna. 1995. Bermudagrass. p. 421–430. In R.F Barnes et al. (ed.) Forages: An introduction to grassland agricultural. Vol. 1. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
- Burton, G.W., and W.G. Monson. 1978. Registration of Tifton 44 bermudagrass. Crop Sci. 18:911.[Free Full Text]
- Day, J.L., and M.B. Parker. 1985. Fertilizer effects on crop removal of P and K in ‘Coastal’ bermudagrass forage. Agron. J. 77:110–114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Edwards, D.R. 1996. Recycling livestock manure on pastures. p. 45–64. In R.E. Joost and C.A. Roberts (ed.) Proc. Symp. Nutrient Cycling in Forage Syst., Columbia, MO. 7–8 Mar. 1996. Potash and Phosphate Inst. and Foundation for Agron. Res., Atlanta, GA.
- Forage Information System. 2002. Brazos bermudagrass [Online]. Available at http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Species/Grasses/Bermudagrass/Cultivars/Brazos.html (verified 15 Jan 2003). Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.
- Hatfield, J.L., M.C. Brumm, and S.W. Melvin. 1998. Swine manure management. p. 78–90. In R.J. Wright et al. (ed.) Agricultural uses of municipal, animal, and industrial byproducts. USDA Rep. 44. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
- Kingery, W.L., C.W. Wood, D.P. Delaney, J.C. Williams, G.L. Mullins, and E. van Santen. 1993. Implications of long-term land application of poultry litter on tall fescue pastures. J. Prod. Agric. 6:390–395.
- Liu, F., C.C. Mitchell, J.W. Odom, D.T. Hill, and E.W. Rochester. 1997. Swine lagoon effluent disposal by overland flow: Effects on forage production and uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus. Agron. J. 89:900–904.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Mehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1409–1416.
- Overman, A.R., M.A. Sanderson, and R.M. Jones. 1993. Logistic response of bermudagrass and bunchgrass cultivars to applied nitrogen. Agron. J. 85:541–545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Robinson, D.L. 1996. Fertilization and nutrient utilization in harvested forage systems—southern forage crops. p. 65–92. In R.E. Joost and C.A. Roberts (ed.) Proc. Symp. Nutrient Cycling in Forage Syst., Columbia, MO. 7–8 Mar. 1996. Potash and Phosphate Inst. and Foundation for Agron. Res., Atlanta, GA.
- SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 8. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
- Schmidt, J.P., J.A. Lamb, M.A. Schmitt, G.W. Randall, J.H. Orf, and H.T. Gollany. 2001. Soybean varietal response to liquid swine manure application. Agron. J. 93:358–363.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sharpley, A.N., and P.J.A. Withers. 1994. The environmentally-sound management of agricultural phosphorus. Fert. Res. 39:133–146.
- Shipley, P.R., J.J. Meisinger, and A.M. Decker. 1992. Conserving residual corn fertilizer nitrogen with winter cover crops. Agron. J. 84:869–876.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sims, J.T. 1995. Characteristics of animal wastes and waste-amended soils: An overview of the agricultural and environmental issues. p. 1–14. In K. Steele (ed.) Animal waste and the land–water interface. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
- Sims, J.T., and D.C. Wolf. 1994. Poultry waste management: Agricultural and environmental issues. Adv. Agron. 52:1–83.
- Southern Cooperative Series. 1983. Reference soil test methods for the southern region of the United States. Bull. 289. Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn., Athens.
- Welsh, R., and B. Hubbell. 1999. Contract hog production and environmental management in the southern United States. Agron. J. 91:883–888.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wood, C.W., and J.A. Hattey. 1995. Impacts of long-term manure applications on soil chemical, microbiological, and physical properties. p. 419–428. In K. Steele (ed.) Animal waste and the land–water interface. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. J. Read, G. E. Brink, A. Adeli, and S. L. McGowen
Swine Effluent Application Timing and Rate Affect Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Common Bermudagrass
J. Environ. Qual.,
September 2, 2008;
37(5_Supplement):
S-180 - S-189.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Pratt and G. E. Brink
Forage Bermudagrass Cultivar Responses to Inoculations with Exserohilum rostratum and Bipolaris spicifera and Relationships to Field Persistence
Crop Sci.,
January 22, 2007;
47(1):
239 - 244.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Read, G. E. Brink, J. L. Oldham, W. L. Kingery, and K. R. Sistani
Effects of Broiler Litter and Nitrogen Fertilization on Uptake of Major Nutrients by Coastal Bermudagrass
Agron. J.,
June 27, 2006;
98(4):
1065 - 1072.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. McLaughlin, K. R. Sistani, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Effects of Overseeding Cool-Season Annuals on Hay Yield and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Uptake by Tifton 44 Bermudagrass Fertilized with Swine Effluent
Agron. J.,
March 1, 2005;
97(2):
479 - 486.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. McLaughlin, K. R. Sistani, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Overseeding Common Bermudagrass with Cool-Season Annuals to Increase Yield and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Uptake in a Hay Field Fertilized with Swine Effluent
Agron. J.,
March 1, 2005;
97(2):
487 - 493.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E. Brink, K. R. Sistani, and D. E. Rowe
Nutrient Uptake of Hybrid and Common Bermudagrass Fertilized with Broiler Litter
Agron. J.,
November 1, 2004;
96(6):
1509 - 1515.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. McLaughlin, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Forage Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Warm-Season Annual Grasses in a Swine Effluent Spray Field
Agron. J.,
November 1, 2004;
96(6):
1516 - 1522.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. K. Pant, M. B. Adjei, J. M. S. Scholberg, C. G. Chambliss, and J. E. Rechcigl
Forage Production and Phosphorus Phytoremediation in Manure-Impacted Soils
Agron. J.,
November 1, 2004;
96(6):
1780 - 1786.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. McLaughlin, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Nutrient Uptake by Warm-Season Perennial Grasses in a Swine Effluent Spray Field
Agron. J.,
March 1, 2004;
96(2):
484 - 493.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
