Literature DB >> 16899756

Fresh, stockpiled, and composted beef cattle feedlot manure: nutrient levels and mass balance estimates in Alberta and Manitoba.

Francis J Larney1, Katherine E Buckley, Xiying Hao, W Paul McCaughey.   

Abstract

The fate of manure nutrients in beef cattle (Bos taurus) feedlots is influenced by handling treatment, yet few data are available in western Canada comparing traditional practices (fresh handling, stockpiling) with newer ones (composting). This study examined the influence of handling treatment (fresh, stockpiled, or composted) on nutrient levels and mass balance estimates of feedlot manure at Lethbridge, Alberta, and Brandon, Manitoba. Total carbon (TC) concentration of compost (161 kg Mg(-1)) was lower (P < 0.001) than stockpiled (248 kg Mg(-1)), which was in turn lower (P < 0.001) than fresh manure (314 kg Mg(-1)). Total nitrogen (TN) concentration was not affected by handling treatment while total phosphorus (TP) concentration increased with composting at Lethbridge. The percent inorganic nitrogen (PIN) was lower (P < 0.01) for compost (5.1%) than both fresh (24.7%) and stockpiled (28.9%) manure. Composting led to higher (P < 0.05) dry matter (DM) losses (39.8%) compared to stockpiling (22.5%) and higher (P < 0.05) total mass (water + DM) losses (65.6 vs. 35.2%). Carbon (C) losses were higher (P < 0.01) with composting (66.9% of initial) than with stockpiling (37.5%), as were nitrogen (N) losses (46.3 vs. 22.5%, P < 0.05). Composting allowed transport of two times as much P as fresh manure and 1.4 times as much P as stockpiled manure (P < 0.001) on an "as is" basis. Our study looked at one aspect of manure management (i.e., handling treatment effects on nutrient concentrations and mass balance estimates) and, as such, should be viewed as one component in the larger context of a life cycle assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16899756     DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Qual        ISSN: 0047-2425            Impact factor:   2.751


  4 in total

1.  Autoclave treatment of pig manure does not reduce the risk of transmission and transfer of tetracycline resistance genes in soil: successive determinations with soil column experiments.

Authors:  Yijun Kang; Xian Gu; Yangyang Hao; Jian Hu
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Stockpiling versus Composting: Effectiveness in Reducing Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Resistance Genes in Beef Cattle Manure.

Authors:  Zachery R Staley; Bryan L Woodbury; Bobbi S Stromer; Amy M Schmidt; Daniel D Snow; Shannon L Bartelt-Hunt; Bing Wang; Xu Li
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Longitudinal characterization of antimicrobial resistance genes in feces shed from cattle fed different subtherapeutic antibiotics.

Authors:  Trevor W Alexander; Jay L Yanke; Tim Reuter; Ed Topp; Ronald R Read; Brent L Selinger; Tim A McAllister
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 3.605

4.  Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from stored manure from beef cattle supplemented 3-nitrooxypropanol and monensin to reduce enteric methane emissions.

Authors:  Jennifer L Owens; Ben W Thomas; Jessica L Stoeckli; Karen A Beauchemin; Tim A McAllister; Francis J Larney; Xiying Hao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.996

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.