Agronomy Journal Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 5 June 2006
Published in Agron J 98:873-882 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2004.0078
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soybean
Right arrow Sustainable Agriculture
Right arrow Crop Growth and Development
Right arrow Best Management Practices
Right arrow Plant and Soil Interactions
Right arrow Agricultural Systems
Right arrow Crop Systems
Right arrow Nutrient Management
Right arrow Plant Nutrition
Right arrow Crop Ecology
Right arrow Animal Waste

Production Papers

Residual Effects of Composted and Fresh Solid Swine (Sus scrofa L.) Manure on Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] Growth and Yield

Gina M. McAndrewsa,*, Matt Liebmana, Cynthia A. Cambardellab and Tom L. Richardc

a Dep. of Agron., 1126 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011-1010
b USDA-ARS, 310 Natl. Soil Tilth Lab., Ames, IA 50011-3120
c Dep. of Agric. and Biol. Eng., 225 Agric. Eng. Bldg., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802-1909

* Corresponding author (gina{at}iastate.edu)

Received for publication March 23, 2004.

   ABSTRACT
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Applying livestock manure to soil can enhance soil fertility and crop growth; however, little information is available on the residual effects of manure on crop growth. The objective of this study was to investigate the residual effect of fresh or composted hoop house swine manure on the growth and yield of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. During 2000 and 2001 near Boone, IA, research plots received applications of composted or fresh solid swine manure from hoop structures or one of four levels of urea (0, 60, 120, and 180 kg N ha–1) before planting maize (Zea mays L.). During the growing season following maize harvest, we evaluated the responses of soybean to the eight treatments applied the previous year. During both years, soybean plants from manure-amended plots were significantly taller and had a thicker stem diameter than plants from the other plots. The manure-treated plots produced 39% greater soybean leaf area than the control in 2001 and 11% greater leaf area than the urea-amended plots in 2002. There was a 21 to 34% greater K concentration in soybean plants grown in the manure-amended sites than in the other plots. Soybean grain yield was 0.2 to 0.5 Mg ha–1 greater in the manure-treated plots than the control or urea-fertilized plots. Responses to manure were unaffected by the time of application (fall or spring) or the form of manure (composted or fresh). We have shown that fresh and composted swine manure application before growing maize resulted in detectable, positive residual effects on soybean growth and yield.

Abbreviations: DAP, days after planting • DW, dry weight


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
LIVESTOCK MANURE has been used as a soil amendment in agricultural systems for centuries. The application of manure to soil provides several potential benefits, including improving the fertility, structure, and water-holding capacity of the soil, increasing soil organic matter, and reducing the amount of synthetic fertilizer needed for crop production (Reganold, 1988; Sommerfeldt et al., 1988; Clark et al., 1998; Grandy et al., 2002). Moreover, fields receiving only livestock manure have been known to produce crop yields equal to or greater than fields that have received only inorganic fertilizer (Eghball and Power, 1999a, 1999b; Singh et al., 1999; Bodruzzaman et al., 2002; Cherney et al., 2002; Matsi et al., 2003). There is growing interest in the use and effects of manure in agricultural systems, particularly as swine densities increase, producing large quantities of manure (Jackson et al., 2000; NRCS, 2000).

The majority of U.S. swine are raised in confinements where manure is handled primarily in liquid form. Concentrated swine operations often have an abundance of liquid manure relative to the land on which the manure can be spread, and as a result, researchers are exploring which crops can utilize large applications of manure and capture nutrients from manured soil most effectively (Barnhart, 2000; Rowe and Fairbrother, 2003). Researchers have investigated the frequency and amount of liquid swine manure that can be applied to soybean without negatively impacting yield (DeJong, 1995; Schmidt et al., 2000; Killorn, 2001; Schmidt et al., 2001). In southern Minnesota, Schmidt et al. (2001) investigated the application of various levels of liquid swine manure to 12 soybean cultivars and reported a favorable yield response regardless of cultivar.

As an alternative to large confinements, agricultural producers and researchers have been exploring other methods of raising pigs, such as in deep-bedded hoop structures (Wastell and Lubischer, 2000; Honeyman et al., 2001), and alternative methods for handling swine manure, including fresh or composted solid forms (Honeyman, 1996; Tiquia et al., 2000, 2002). A hoop structure is a simple tent-like building in which pigs are bedded with grain straw or maize stalks that absorb urine and feces. The bedding–manure mixture from the hoop structure can be applied directly on a crop field as a source of nutrients or composted for later use. In Iowa, there are more than 2100 hoop structures, producing one million head of swine annually (Leopold Cent. for Sustainable Agric., 2001).

Composting manure provides several potential advantages over the use of fresh forms of manure, including reduction of pathogens and weed seed viability (Wiese et al., 1998; Eghball and Lesoing, 2000; Menalled et al., 2002), reduction of manure volume and weight, and increase of stability and uniformity of the manure (Rynk et al., 1992). Disadvantages of composting include nutrient (especially N) loss and the extra cost of labor, equipment, and space necessary for composting (Rynk et al., 1992; Tiquia et al., 2002). Moreover, the concentration of P in compost may create environmental problems if applied to soil high in P. Using cattle manure, researchers found that composted and noncomposted manure have similar positive effects on maize yield and soil characteristics (Magdoff and Amadon, 1980; Eghball and Power, 1999a, 1999b; Eghball, 2002).

Research investigating the residual effects of fresh or composted manure is limited. The few published studies investigating the residual effects of livestock manure on crop production have reported positive residual effects of manure on yields of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Bodruzzaman et al., 2002), maize (Mugwira et al., 2002; Eghball et al., 2004), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae Shreb.) (Cherney et al., 2002), timothy (Phleum pratense L.) (Singh, 1999), rice (Oryza sativa L.), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) (Singh et al., 1999).

Investigations indicating positive residual effects of manure on plant growth have had manure applied over 3 to 5 yr. For example, after 120 and 180 kg N ha–1 of poultry (Gallus gallus L.) manure or N fertilizer were applied to wetland rice in three cycles of a rice–wheat rotation, Bijay-Singh et al. (1996) observed positive residual effects of manure on wheat yields compared with the N-fertilized plots and found significantly greater organic matter and available P in the manure-amended soils. Nonetheless, there has been no clear explanation of residual effects of manure except that the manure application resulted in beneficial biological, physical, and chemical changes in soil properties, such as increased organic matter and available nutrients (Magdoff and Amadon, 1980; Clark et al., 1998). Moreover, whereas existing research concerning residual effects has primarily focused on cattle or poultry manure, there has been no reported research on the residual effects of composted or fresh manure from swine raised in hoop structures.

During 2000 and 2001, Loecke et al. (2004) conducted research to investigate maize growth and yield responses to applications of fresh and composted solid swine manure from hoop structures. The objective of this study was to examine the residual effect of fresh or composted hoop house swine manure on growth and yield of soybean following manure application and maize production. We also evaluated residual soybean responses to four levels of urea (0, 60, 120, and 180 kg N ha–1) applied to maize the previous year.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Research Location and Experimental Design
During 2001 and 2002, plot research was conducted on adjacent fields (east and west) at the Iowa State University Agronomy and Agriculture Engineering Research Farm, Boone, IA (42°01' N, 93°45' W) on Nicollet loam (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Aquic Hapludolls) and Clarion loam (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic, Typic Hapludolls) soils. This experiment had eight treatments: four swine manure treatments (fall-applied fresh, fall-applied composted, spring-applied fresh, and spring-applied composted), three urea treatments (60, 120, and 180 kg N ha–1), and a control that did not receive manure or urea. All treatments were applied before the maize crops measured and described by Loecke et al. (2004). In the year following maize, the soybean crops used in this experiment were planted on the same plots. The experiment was a randomized complete block design with four replications.

Manure treatments were manually applied in the fall (22 Oct. 1999 on the east field and 24 Oct. 2000 on the west field) and spring (25 Apr. 2000 on the east field and 25 Apr. 2001 on the west field) at a rate of 340 kg total N ha–1 based on moisture content of samples taken 2 wk before application (Tables 1 and 2). All manure amendments were disked into the surface 15 cm of soil within 6 h of application. Urea N was sidedressed when maize was at the growth stage V6 (Ritchie et al., 1997) (9 June 2000 and 18 June 2001) and was incorporated within 24 h of application using an interrow cultivator. Before amendment application in Loecke's research, the east field site had been planted to oat (Avena sativa L.), and the west field site was planted to soybean; neither of the two fields had received animal manure for the preceding 8 yr (Loecke et al., 2004). Maize (‘Pioneer 35P12’) was planted the first week of May in 2000 and 2001. A preplant-incorporated application of metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl) acetamide] at 1.5 kg a.i. ha–1, interrow cultivation at V6, and hand weeding were used to manage weeds during the maize growing season. An automated weather station located within 1 km from the field site recorded air temperature and precipitation.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Composition of fresh and composted swine manure applied to plots before maize planting in 2000 and 2001 near Boone, IA.{dagger}

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Estimated N, P, C, and dry matter of fresh and composted swine manure applied at east and west field sites near Boone, IA.

 
After maize harvest, field plots were chisel-plowed in the fall and field-cultivated in the spring. One week before planting soybean, 1.5 kg a.i. ha–1 of metolachlor [(1S)-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)] was applied on a second pass with a field cultivator. On 30 May 2001 and 15 May 2002, a soybean hybrid (Latham 640, Latham Seed Co., Alexander, IA) was planted in 0.76-m rows at a density of 445 000 seeds ha–1. Each plot, 3.81 by 10.7 m in 2001 and 3.81 by 12.2 m in 2002, contained five rows. Soybean planting in May 2001 was slightly later than normal due to greater-than-average rainfall.

Sampling Procedures
To minimize border effects, all data were collected from the center three rows of each five-row plot. After emergence, population densities were recorded (11 June 2001 and 26 May 2002). Soybean height and stem diameter measurements were taken from two of the three center rows in each plot at 34, 44, 54, 63, 75, and 85 d after planting (DAP). Twenty consecutive plants were measured from a randomly chosen section of each of the two sampling rows. Weeds were removed through one interrow cultivation in June and hand labor; no pesticides were applied after soybean planting.

At growth stage R5 (Herman, 1997), the aerial portion of five randomly selected soybean plants was harvested from the center three rows of each plot for nutrient analysis. Soybean plants generally attain peak N and K uptake between R5 and R6 (Herman, 1997). Cut at the soil surface, the plants were dried for 5 d at 60°C and ground to pass a 0.85-mm screen. A ground plant sample from each plot was sent to a commercial laboratory (Harris Lab., Lincoln, NE) for mineral analysis. The same procedure was conducted on five plants harvested at physiological maturity.

At growth stage R5, plants from 1 m2 from the center three rows of each plot were harvested, counted, and placed in plastic bags. From each plot bag of the harvested plants, 20 plants were randomly selected and separated into two components, (i) leaves and petioles and (ii) stems and pods. From each set of 20 selected plants, a random sample of 20 leaves was selected and measured with a leaf area meter (LI-3100 Area Meter, LI-COR, Inc., Lincoln, NE). The remaining whole plants from each plot were placed into paper bags. The four bags of plant material from each plot—(i) leaves and petioles, (ii) stems and pods, (iii) 20 leaves, and (iv) whole plants—were dried for 5 d at 60°C and weighed. Using the 20 selected plants, the leaf to stem ratio was calculated by dividing the total leaf + petiole dry weight (DW) by the sum of leaf + petiole and stem + pod material. The sum total of the whole plants and the subsample of 20 plants (leaf + petiole and stem + pod) provided the total dry matter, which was then multiplied by the leaf to stem ratio to get the total DW of leaves per meter square. The Leaf Area Index (LAI) was calculated by multiplying the leaf area to DW ratio of the 20 leaves with the total DW of leaves per square meter. In October, a two-row combine was used to harvest grain from 6.7 m of the second and third row in each plot. Reported grain yields were adjusted to a moisture content of 130 g kg–1.

Soil Methods
In the fall of 2000 (east field) and 2001 (west field), after maize harvest, the surface soil was sampled to a depth of 20 cm. For all sampling dates at both fields, five randomly located soil cores were collected from each plot and then combined to produce one composite for each plot. The composite samples were placed in plastic bags, transported back to the laboratory in a cooler with dry ice, and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C before processing and analysis.

Bulk density was estimated by the core method (Blake and Hartge, 1986). Field moist soil was sieved through an 8-mm screen, and soil water content was determined gravimetrically on a subsample by oven drying overnight at 105°C. Another subsample was extracted with 2 M KCl, and inorganic N [NH4+(NO2– + NO3–)] in the filtrate was quantified using flow injection technology (Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee, WI). A subsample of the 8-mm-sieved soil was pushed through a 2-mm sieve, air-dried, and stored at room temperature before analysis. Orthophosphate P and extractable K were quantified using the 2-mm-sieved air-dried soil. Phosphorus concentrations (Bray-P) (Knudsen and Beegle, 1988) were measured colorimetrically using ascorbic acid-ammonium molybdate reagents. Exchangeable K was extracted with 1 M ammonium acetate (Brown and Warnecke, 1988) and measured using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. All analyses were conducted at the USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory and the Iowa State University Agronomy Soil Analysis Laboratory, Ames, IA.

Statistical Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using PROC GLM (SAS Inst., 1999) to test for main and interaction effects, with blocks, years, and treatments in the model. Single degree-of-freedom contrasts were used to test specific hypotheses and main and interactive effects. PROC MIXED of SAS was used for repeated-measures analysis of stem diameter, height, and plant tissue nutrient concentrations. Correlations between soil and plant parameters were made on an experimental unit basis using PROC GLM.


   RESULTS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Weather Conditions
During 2001 and 2002, the mean monthly air temperature was similar to the 50-yr mean (Fig. 1a ). Greater deviation from the 50-yr average was observed for monthly precipitation; May 2001 was wetter than average while June 2001 and June 2002 precipitation was 60 to 90 mm below average (Fig. 1b). During July and August, precipitation was lower than normal in 2001 but greater than average in 2002. The trend then reversed, with greater-than-normal rainfall in September 2001 while the same month in 2002 was drier than average.


Figure 1
Figure 1
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. (a) Monthly mean temperature and (b) total monthly precipitation for 2001, 2002, and the 50-yr mean in Boone, IA.

 
Plant Height and Stem Diameter
Soybean plants that had composted or fresh manure amendments applied before the previous maize growing season were significantly taller than soybean plants in the other plots (Fig. 2 and 3). At five of the six measurement dates in 2001, the mean soybean height in manure-treated plots ranged from 6 to 12% taller than the control plots or plots that had urea fertilizer applied to the soil the previous year (Fig. 2). Throughout the 2002 growing season, the manure-amended plots produced taller soybean plants compared with the urea-treated plots, ranging from 7 to 12% taller (Fig. 3). The control and manure-amended plots had similar height soybean plants at two of the six measurement dates in 2002. During both years, there was no difference in soybean plant height among the four manure-amended treatments (data not shown). At all recorded dates in 2001 and 2002, soybean plants in the control plots had similar heights as the plants from urea-treated plots (data not shown).


Figure 2
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Mean soybean heights for control and manure amendments in 2001 and 2002 in Boone, IA.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Effects of manure and urea on mean soybean height in 2001 and 2002 in Boone, IA.

 
In 2001, soybean stem diameters in the control and manure-amended plots were similar at the first three measurement dates but differed significantly during the remainder of the growing season, with a 7 to 10% width difference (Fig. 4 ). Also in 2001, soybean stem diameters in the manure-treated plots were significantly wider than in urea-treated plots at the last four measurement dates. At 34 DAP in 2002, all plots had similar stem diameters (Fig. 5 ). However, from 44 to 85 DAP in 2002, stem diameters of soybean in the manure-treated plots were 7 to 16% greater than in plots previously fertilized with urea (Fig. 5). Soybean plants in the control and the urea plots had similar stem diameter (data not shown). In the manure plots, there was no significant difference in stem diameter due to type of manure applied (composted or fresh) or time of application (spring or fall) at all measurement dates (data not shown).


Figure 4
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Mean soybean stem diameters for control and manure amendments in 2001 and 2002 in Boone, IA.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Effects of manure and urea on mean soybean stem diameters in 2001 and 2002 in Boone, IA.

 
Plant Tissue Analysis
During both years, the manure-amended plots produced soybean plants similar in N concentration to soybean plants from the control or the urea-treated plots (Table 3). Soybean plants grown in manure-treated plots had an 8% greater P concentration than soybean planted in plots treated with urea in 2001 but not in 2002 (Table 3). There was no significant difference in soybean plant N or P concentration between fresh and composted treatments or between fall or spring manure application.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Treatment means and analysis of variance for plant N, P, and K concentrations of soybean grown in 2001 and 2002 near Boone, IA.

 
Potassium concentration was significantly greater (27% in 2001 and 29% in 2002) in soybean plants from manure plots than plants grown in the urea-fertilized sites (Table 3). The manure-treated plots produced soybean plants with a 34% greater K concentration than the control in 2001 and a 21% greater K concentration than the control in 2002. In the manure plots, there was no significant difference in soybean K concentration due to type of manure applied (compost or fresh) or time of application (spring or fall).

Leaf Area
Soybean plants in plots receiving fresh and composted swine manure produced significantly greater leaf area (39%) than the control in 2001 but not in 2002 (Table 4). Urea-fertilized plots produced similar soybean leaf area to the manure-amended plots in 2001 but had a smaller leaf area than the manure-amended plots in 2002 (leaf area of 3.71 compared with 4.11). The time of application or form of manure produced no difference in soybean leaf area. Similarly, there was no significant difference in leaf area between the control plants and plants in plots that received urea the previous year.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Treatment means and analysis of variance for leaf area and grain yield of soybean grown in 2001 and 2002 near Boone, IA.

 
Grain Yield
The mean soybean grain yield from plots treated with manure was 15% greater than the mean yield of the control sites in 2001 and 6% greater in 2002 (Table 4). During both years, the manure-treated sites produced a greater mean soybean yield than the mean yield of plots previously treated with urea fertilizer, being 0.2 Mg ha–1 greater in 2001 and 0.3 Mg ha–1 greater in 2002. In 2001, there was a significant linear soybean yield response to urea fertilizer. Soybean grain yield was not affected significantly by the time of manure application (fall or spring) or form of manure (composted or fresh).

Soil Properties
In the east field in 2000, there was no significant difference in soil NO3– or NO3– + NH4+ between the control and either the manure or urea-amended plots (Table 5). Both Bray P and exchangeable K were significantly greater in the manure-amended plots relative to the plots treated with synthetic fertilizer, a P difference of 49.8 mg kg–1 and a K difference of 52.7 mg kg–1. Compared with the control, the manure-amended soil had a Bray P that was 41.5 mg kg–1 (72%) greater and an exchangeable K that was 72 mg kg–1 (54%) greater. In the east field, there was a positive correlation between mean soil P level in 2000 and subsequent soybean grain yield in 2001 (r = 0.41). Likewise, a positive correlation existed between the mean soil K level in 2000 and mean soybean grain yield in 2001 (r = 0.45). The greater P and K in the soil and the P and K correlation with mean soybean yield appears to be related to amendment application.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Soil properties and analysis of variance for surface 20 cm of soil of the east and west experimental field sites after maize harvest near Boone, IA in 2000 and 2001.{dagger}

 
In 2001, however, soil analysis revealed that the west field had similar amounts of inorganic N, Bray P, and exchangeable K among the control and manure and urea-amended plots (Table 5). The west field, however, showed no significant correlations of the 2002 mean soybean yield with the 2001 soil P (r = –0.2592) or exchangeable K (r = –0.2660).

Based on the soil analysis at both field sites, all of the experimental plots had Bray P and exchangeable K levels at or above concentrations recommended for optimal soil fertility before soybean was planted (Voss et al., 1999). In both years, the manure plots showed no significant difference in measured soil parameters due to type of manure applied (compost or fresh) or time of application (spring or fall).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Positive residual effects of fresh and composted swine manure on soybean growth and yield were shown after one manure application, regardless of the form of manure or time of application. Soybean plants from manure-amended plots were significantly greater in height (6 to 12%), stem diameter, P and K concentration, leaf area, and yield (5 to 15%) than plants from the control or urea-fertilized plots. Of all the soybean parameters measured in the manure-amended plots, no differences were attributable to the time of application (fall or spring) or the form of manure (composted or fresh). When deciding when and in what form to spread manure from hoop structures, producers may want to consider the economic and environmental tradeoffs, such as the potential of nutrient loss during composting or nutrient leaching after fresh manure application, which could negatively impact water quality. Producers should also compare the benefits of composting, such as increased manure uniformity, reduced manure volume, and lowered weed seed viability, with the extra costs of composting, such as the labor, equipment, and space necessary.

The few published studies investigating the residual effects of poultry and cattle manure on crop production have reported positive residual effects of manure on yields of several crops (Bodruzzaman et al., 2002; Cherney et al., 2002; Mugwira et al., 2002; Singh, 1999; Eghball et al., 2004). In all cases, previous studies involved a minimum of 3 yr of manure application, and results generally indicated a significant increase in measured soil nutrients.

After one application of fresh or composted swine manure from hoop structures in the fall or spring, Loecke et al. (2004) found that soil NO3––N concentrations measured when maize was 20 to 30 cm tall were significantly greater in manure-amended plots than in the unamended control plots. Loecke et al. (2004) reported a significant manure application time x form interaction in the first year of the 2-yr study, with the spring-applied composted manure having the greatest soil NO3––N concentration (19.6 µg g–1 NO3––N) and the spring-applied fresh manure having the lowest (9.1 6 µg g–1 NO3––N). In this same study, the mean N supply efficiency, calculated as N fertilizer replacement value divided by total N in soil amendments, was highest for fall-applied composted manure (35%), similar for spring-applied composted manure (25%) and fall-applied fresh manure (24%), and lowest for the spring-applied fresh manure (11%). In 1 of 2 yr of the study, a significant positive correlation existed between soil NO3––N concentration and maize yield (r = 0.47). Taken together, these results indicate that swine manure, especially as fall-applied compost, can increase soil N available to maize.

In both years of our study, which followed Loecke et al.'s (2004) field experiments, we found positive residual effects of swine manure on soybean growth and yield. Our results were less conclusive, however, regarding the effects of composted or fresh manure on soil N, P, and K. In the fall after maize harvest, there was no longer a difference in soil inorganic N between the manure-amended plots and the control (Table 5), indicating that manure decomposition and maize N uptake in one growing season can significantly reduce plant available N. Likewise, after soybean harvest, the manure-amended plots and control had similar amounts of soil inorganic N, with a mean of 3.6 mg kg–1 NO3– + NH4+ in the top 20 cm of soil in the east field and a mean of 9.2 mg kg–1 NO3– + NH4+ in the top 20 cm of the west field. For one of the 2 yr, the soil of the manure-amended plots had a Bray P that was 49 mg kg–1 greater and an exchangeable K that was 53 mg kg–1 greater than the other plots, which is likely related to the addition of manure. One application of manure adds a small amount of OM and nutrients to a large reservoir of soil. While manure application has been shown to increase soil OM and other nutrients (Magdoff and Amadon, 1980; Bijay-Singh et al., 1996; Clark et al., 1998), this change occurs slowly and may take years to become significantly quantifiable (Drinkwater et al., 1995; Werner, 1997).

We have shown that compost and manure application before growing maize resulted in detectable, positive residual effects on soybean plant parameters in the subsequent year. However, there was no direct relationship among amendment application, soil properties, and soybean plant characteristics, suggesting that relationships among these parameters may be indirect and complex. Alternatively, soil factors that we did not measure, such as microbial activity and concentration of substances that mimic the effects of plant growth regulators, may have contributed to the observed patterns of plant performance and could be the focus of future research.


   NOTES
TOP
 NOTES
ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Partial funding for this work was provided by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture (Project 2000-42), the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Project 00-G550-01CG), and Chamness Technology, Inc. (Project 1221). We thank J. Ohmacht, D. Sundberg, and R. Vandepol for technical assistance in the field and laboratory.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
J. W. Singer, S. D. Logsdon, and D. W. Meek
Soybean Growth and Seed Yield Response to Tillage and Compost
Agron. J., June 16, 2008; 100(4): 1039 - 1046.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
M. Liebman, L. R. Gibson, D. N. Sundberg, A. H. Heggenstaller, P. R. Westerman, C. A. Chase, R. G. Hartzler, F. D. Menalled, A. S. Davis, and P. M. Dixon
Agronomic and Economic Performance Characteristics of Conventional and Low-External-Input Cropping Systems in the Central Corn Belt
Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(3): 600 - 610.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McAndrews, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Richard, T. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soybean
Right arrow Sustainable Agriculture
Right arrow Crop Growth and Development
Right arrow Best Management Practices
Right arrow Plant and Soil Interactions
Right arrow Agricultural Systems
Right arrow Crop Systems
Right arrow Nutrient Management
Right arrow Plant Nutrition
Right arrow Crop Ecology
Right arrow Animal Waste

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome