REVIEW OF THE USE OF SWINE MANURE IN CROP PRODUCTION: EFFECTS ON YIELD AND COMPOSITION AND ON SOIL AND WATER QUALITY

Waste Management & Research (1996) 14, 581–595

REVIEW OF THE USE OF SWINE MANURE IN CROP PRODUCTION: EFFECTS ON YIELD AND COMPOSITION AND ON SOIL AND WATER QUALITY M. Choudhary, L. D. Bailey1, and C. A. Grant Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000 A, R. R. #3, Brandon, Manitoba, R7A 5Y3, Canada (Received 11 November 1994, accepted in revised form 3 September 1995) The world swine population produces about 1.7 billion tonnes of liquid manure annually. At an application rate of 20 tonnes per hectare, this could fertilize about 85 million hectares of land annually. Storage and disposal of this material presents a challenge to producers because of the potential for environmental pollution. However, because swine manure contains essential plant nutrients, use of swine manure as a soil amendment for crop production is a practical method to solve the disposal problem. The composition and effectiveness of swine manure as a source of plant nutrients depends on several factors including type of ration fed, housing system, method of manure collection, storage and handling. Research has shown that manure application increased soil N, P, K, Ca, Mg and Na. However, heavy or excessive application of manure increased leaching of NO3-N, P and Mg. Swine manure is reported to be effective in increasing the yields of cereals, legumes, oilseeds, vegetables and pastures, and in increasing plant nutrient concentration, especially N, P and K. The efficient use of swine manure can be an agronomically and economically viable management practice for sustainable crop production in temperate regions such as the Canadian prairies where the swine industry is expanding rapidly.  1996 ISWA Key Words—Swine manure, nutrients, crop production, plant composition, soil, water, quality.

1. Introduction Swine manure can be an asset to a pork producer and to agriculture when properly managed and utilized in a sustainable food production system. An increase in swine production on the Canadian prairies is occurring and has a positive impact on the local economy, by increasing employment, and by providing alternative markets for feedstuffs (Larson 1991). However, as swine operations generate large amounts of animal waste, manure storage and utilization have become important management considerations (Sutton et al. 1984a). On average, a hog produces 2 tonnes of manure each year (Larson 1991). Based on the 1993 world pig population of 871.87 million pigs (Food and Agriculture Organization 1993), about 1743.7 tonnes of manure is produced annually. In the past, disposal of manure was an economic liability because disposal costs exceeded the value of nutrients in the manure (McEachron et al. 1969; McKenna & Clark 1970). However, Freeze & Sommerfeldt (1985) reported that manure may be cost 1

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

0734–242X/96/060581+15 $25.00/0

 1996 ISWA

582

M. Choudhary et al.

TABLE 1 Composition of liquid beef and liquid swine manure∗ Measurement pH Dry matter (%) Total N (%) NH4+-N (%) Total P (%) K (%) Ca (%) Mg (%) Na (%)

Liquid beef† Liquid swine† Liquid swine‡ 7.6–8.1 10.4–10.7 7.3–7.9 4.1–5.6 2.31–4.04 1.32–5.89 1.22–5.79 0.52–2.18 0.80–4.25

7.8–8.1 2.33–5.04 8.1–11.6 5.7–8.9 2.58–4.38 2.81–5.50 3.12–6.33 0.93–2.66 1.61–3.66

6.3–6.5 5.25–6.58 6.3–9.1 3.3–5.7 1.7–3.0 2.2–3.8 – – –

∗All data expressed on dry weight basis. Sources: †Evans et al. (1977), ‡Sutton et al. (1984b).

effective for crop production if the distance of transport is less than 18 km from the source. Further, Sutton et al. (1984a) reported that swine manure contains essential plant nutrients that can be utilized for efficient crop production and to enhance soil properties. Application of swine manure to crop land is one of the most obvious methods of recycling plant nutrients. Plant nutrients are removed from the soil in the harvested product fed to the animals and returned to the soil as manure. The availability of plant nutrients from swine manure depends on the composition of the manure and on other factors such as management practices and soil characteristics. During the past two decades, considerable work has been done to evaluate the effect of ration fed and manure handling system on composition of swine manure, but only a few reviews covering one or more aspects of manure (including cattle, swine and poultry) composition, utilization and its application on various crops have been published (Azevedo & Stout 1974; Richards & Martel 1991). This paper is a global review of the factors affecting composition and effectiveness of swine manure, and includes a comparison of the effect of swine manure with or without chemical fertilizers on various crops including cereals, legumes, oil seeds, vegetables and forages, and summarizes the resultant effect of swine manure application to lands, on soil and water quality. 2. Factors affecting composition and effectiveness of swine manure There is wide variation in manure composition from livestock and also within different lots of a particular domestic animal. Azevedo & Stout (1974) reported that characteristic digestion processes and feed preferences of different species of animals are responsible for some differences in manure nutrient concentrations. For example, P is generally lower in ruminant manure than poultry and swine manure because of the ability of ruminants to extract organically-bound P from plant feeds. In general, on a composition basis, swine manure contains higher total N and lower dry matter than beef manure (Table 1) (Evans et al. 1977). Further, during the production cycle, 10 hogs produce as much as 80% of manure N as two beef cows (Table 2). Increasing levels of dietary salt (NaCl) and/or other mineral additives (Cu, As and other minerals) in swine rations directly affect the concentration of these elements in

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

583

TABLE 2 Quantity of nutrient elements excreted in manure of various animals during their reproduction cycles∗ Number and type of animal, length of production period, and animal weight during production period

Element excreted (kg) N

P

K

1000 broilers: 10 weeks: 0–1.8 kg 100 hens: 365 days: 2.3 kg 10 hogs: 175 days: 14–91 kg 10 beef: 365 days: 181–500 kg 2 dairy cows: 365 days: 544 kg

70 57 52 64 64

14 20 13 13 13

23 19 15 66 66

∗Adapted from Webber et al. (1968) as in Azevedo & Stout (1974).

%

50

50

%

Manure N (200)

"Organic" N (100) 20

Min. N (20)

%

80

Ammonium N (100) %

%

25

Resid. N (80)

Vol. N (25)

75

%

Ammonium N remaining (75)

Available N (95) Fig. 1. Flow chart showing the contribution of manure N when applied to soil to N available to a crop. The numbers in parentheses indicate units of N (derived from Beauchamp 1983).

the manure (Sutton et al. 1976; Brumm & Sutton 1979; Sutton et al. 1984a). Thus, heavy application of manure from such sources may be toxic to plants and may affect soil productivity. Sutton et al. (1984a) reported that manure from pigs fed 0.5% salt averaged more than twice the Na content as from pigs fed 0.2% salt. However, application of the manure did not lead to soil contamination or phytotoxicity. Dietary copper at levels of 125 ppm to 250 ppm is generally added as a growth stimulant to swine rations (Wallace et al. 1960). Kornegay et al. (1976) reported a 16 to 32-fold increase in Cu concentration in manure from swine fed 250–300 ppm Cu diets compared to a control. The housing system, method of manure collection, storage and handling can affect the composition of manure (Azevedo & Stout 1974; Menzies & Chaney 1974; Powers et al. 1975; Vanderholm 1975; Gilberston et al. 1979). Generally 50% of N in the swine manure slurry is present in the ammonium N form and the remaining 50% is present in organic N form (Sutton et al. 1978, 1982, 1984a,b; Burns et al. 1987). The organic N consists of microbial N, labile organic N and stable organic N (Burton et al. 1994). Beauchamp (1983) determined that during a growing season, approximately 20% of the organic N will be mineralized and become available, and that 25% of ammoniacal N will be volatilized resulting in a net availability of about 50% applied N for crop growth (Fig. 1). Vanderholm (1975) summarized research indicating NH4+-N losses of

584

M. Choudhary et al.

10–99% from manure depending on the type of storage and system of treatment. The least loss was from aerated storage and the highest loss was from feed-lot surfaces and anaerobic lagoons. Al-Kanani et al. (1992) reported that use of sphagnum peat moss reduced NH3 losses by 75%. In general, losses of P and K are minimal (5–15%) except from open-lot or lagoon handling systems where 40–50% of P can be lost to runoff and leaching (Sutton et al. 1984a). The rate, time and method of manure application depends on numerous factors including climatic conditions, soil properties, type of crop and rate of mineralization of nutrients. Maximum nutrient benefit from swine manure is obtained when it is incorporated immediately after land application to minimize the loss of nutrients (Vanderholm 1975; Hoff et al. 1981; Alberta Agriculture 1984; Sutton et al. 1984a). Manure must be applied uniformly to minimize localized salt concentration, especially Na which can reduce germination and crop yields. Knifing the manure into the soil is recommended when there are severe odour problems, but this procedure also reduces the rate that manure can be applied. Vanderholm (1975) reported 5, 15 and 30–90% losses of NH3-N from manure with ploughing down, discing and surface applied systems, respectively. Hoff et al. (1981) reported 0–2.5% NH3-N losses with the injection method of liquid hog manure compared with 10–16% from surface broadcast. Similar findings were reported with swine manure (Safley et al. 1981; Sutton et al. 1982) and with cattle manure (Lauer et al. 1976; Klausner & Guest 1981; Beauchamp et al. 1982; Beauchamp 1983). Applying manure close to the planting date will maximize nutrient availability to the crop, especially in areas of high rainfall and highly permeable soils (Alberta Agriculture 1984; Sutton et al. 1984a). However, reduced germination and seedling growth could occur if planting is done immediately after heavy manure application because of salt accumulation. Thus, even though fall–winter application may cause 25–30% loss of N from manure, a longer field duration will allow soil micro-organisms to decompose the manure and make the nutrient more available to spring seeded crops. In temperate climates, early spring application of manure may not be possible since it may be frozen in the pit, particularly when stored in open lagoons. The loss of N from fall–winter application of manure can be minimized either by injecting it into the soil or by addition of a nitrification inhibitor. To obtain the most efficient use of manure, the rate of application should be such that the amount of available nutrients is equal to the amount required by the crop. This creates a problem, since the N in manure is present in organic and ammonium forms, and in the first year of application only 45% of the manure N is mineralized. Larson (1991) reported that it takes about 5 years to mineralize 80% of the N from manure. On the other hand, almost all the P and K present in manure are available at the time of application. Heavy textured soils have low permeability and promote low rates of decomposition, hence the rate of manure application should be lower compared with coarse textured soils which are highly permeable and promote rapid decomposition of manure (Xie & MacKenzie 1986). On the other hand, high application rates of manure to coarse textured soil may contaminate groundwater due to leaching of nutrients, while high application rates of manure on heavy textured soil may be beneficial because of the high nutrient holding capacity of these soils. Manure should not be applied on snow or frozen ground, particularly when the land is subject to rapid spring runoff (Larson 1991). Further, heavily manured fields should not be summer-fallowed to avoid leaching of N and the possibility of contamination of groundwater.

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

585

3. Effect of swine manure on crop yield and quality and on soil and water quality Numerous studies have been conducted on the effect of application of cattle and poultry manure on crop land (Powers et al. 1975). However, limited research has been done on crop responses, or on changes in soil chemical composition and groundwater quality resulting from application of swine manure (Sutton et al. 1978).

3.1 Crop yield and net return Manure is most frequently used for annual crop production because it can be applied before planting or after harvest. The type of crops fertilized with swine manure vary from one region to another and include rice, wheat, maize, mustard, other cereals, legumes, oil seeds and forages. However, grasses and cereal grains, because of their extensive root systems and relatively high N requirements, derive more benefit from manure than legumes. Swine manure application resulted in similar or higher crop and pasture yields than inorganic fertilizers (Table 3; Evans et al. 1977; Sutton et al. 1978, 1982, 1984b; Xie & MacKenzie 1986; Burns et al. 1987; Chase et al. 1991; Vıˆjialaˇ et al. 1991; Petrˆ´ıkova´ 1992). However, due to limited availability of N from manure at the time of application, the rate of manure was higher than inorganic fertilizers. On an equal N basis, Miller & MacKenzie (1978) reported lower corn grain yield and lower plant N recovery in the first year of manure application compared with inorganic fertilizer. However, because of the slow release of N from manures, residual N recovery from manure was twice that from inorganic fertilizer. In other studies, Xie & MacKenzie (1986) reported that 1–4 kg manure-N had the same effect as 1 kg urea-N on corn dry matter yield and N uptake. Chase et al. (1991) reported that, in Iowa in a study involving various application rates of liquid manure, the highest economic return (U.S. $379 ha−1) was from lands treated with manure applied at 2000 U.S. gallons ha−1 (7570 l ha−1) compared to commercial fertilizer (U.S. $337 ha−1) at the recommended rate for the region and crop. They concluded that with increasing cost of fertilizer, the profitability of swine manure as a nutrient source will increase. Long-term studies with swine manure often do not show consistent annual crop yield responses to applied manure because annual variations in weather generally produces significant treatment×year interactions. Differences as high as 3500 kg dry matter ha−1 were reported between normal weather and dry weather and years when droughty soil conditions stressed corn plants during pollination (Sutton et al. 1984b). Inconsistent or non-significant responses of forage yield to increasing rate of applied swine manure were attributed to winter injury, low rainfall, soil heterogeneity or disease infestation (Burns et al. 1985, 1987, 1990). Increasing the rate of swine manure application increased crop yields (Sutton et al. 1978; Xie & MacKenzie 1986; Chase et al. 1991; Vıˆjialaˇ et al. 1991; Petrˇ´ıkova´ 1992), but yields varied depending on actual rate and method of application, type of soil and growing conditions. For example, Sutton et al. (1978) reported increases in corn yield with increasing rate of surface application of liquid swine manure varying from 0 to 134 tonnes ha−1 on a silt loam soil. Chase et al. (1991) obtained increased corn yields with liquid swine manure surface applied or injected at 2000 U.S. gallons to 12,000 U.S. gallons ha−1 (7570 to 45,420 l ha−1) on a fine loamy soil. Burns et al. (1990) reported increased forage yield with increasing manure application (Table 3). In contrast, no response to corn yield was obtained when rate of manure was increased from 135

Corn (grain)

Corn (silage)

Corn after corn Corn after beet

Sandy loam/clay

Sandy loam and sandy clay loam

Typical reddish brown Typical reddish brown

Tara silt loam

Corn (grain)

Cereals Corn (grain)

BrookstanCrosby silt loam

Crop

Soil

TABLE 3

Compost 10 20 IF Compost 10 20 IF

Control 318 IF Control 90 135 180 90 135 180 IF Control Manure IF Control 141 IF

Manure t ha−1 (wet) or IF∗

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Manure effluent (cm)

167 334 180 167 334 –

0 1197 123 0 428 643 857 428 643 857 168 0 150 150 0 180 180

N 0 393 19 0 133 200 266 133 200 266 56 0 – – 0 167 Soil test 95 190 50 95 190 –

P 0 529 37 0 155 232 310 155 232 310 112 0 – – 0 258 Soil test 68 136 – 68 136 –

K

Total nutrient applied (kg ha−1)

– – – – – –

– Incorporation Broadcast – Broadcast Broadcast Broadcast Injection Injection Injection – – Broadcast Broadcast – Incorporation –

Application method

3780 5800 4750 4260 7760 5030

4455 7097 6881 7007 10,895 11,137 11,274 13,359 13,377 13,091 11,585 2090/4130 2470/4305 3870/5870 10,750 15,200 14,250

DM† or grain yield (kg ha−1)

– – – – – –

2.18 3.13 3.84 1.92 2.49 2.63 2.62 3.02 3.13 3.25 2.62 – – – – – –

N

– – – – – –

0.22 0.39 0.31 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.29 – – – – – –

P

– – – – – –

1.78 2.51 1.93 2.21 2.43 2.22 2.39 2.63 3.04 3.54 2.41 – – – – – –

K

Crop composition (leaf %)

– – – – – –

54 118 107 – – – – – – – – – – – 100 184 176

N

Effect of swine manure on crop production, crop nutrient composition and nutrient uptake

– – – – – –

11 26 20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

P

Nutrient removal (kg ha−1)

– – – – – –

15 28 23 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

K

Vıˆjialaˇ et al. (1991)

Vıˆjialaˇ et al. (1991)

Miller & MacKenzie (1978) Xie & MacKenzie (1986)

Sutton et al. (1982)

Evans et al. (1977)

Reference

586 M. Choudhary et al.

Wheat

Typical reddish brown Mine dump

Spring barley

Mine dump

Typical reddish brown

Typical reddish brown

Sugar crops Sugar beet

Soy bean

Legumes Faba bean

Rye

Mine dump

Mine dump

Spring wheat

Mine dump

Winter wheat

Crop

Soil

Compost 10 20 IF

Control Slurry IF Compost 10 20 IF

Compost 10 20 IF Control Slurry IF Control Slurry IF Control Slurry IF Control Slurry IF

Manure t ha−1 (wet) or IF∗

Manure effluent (cm)

167 334 240

0 475 300 167 334 –

N 167 334 100 0 436 150 0 436 150 0 372 150 0 134 150

95 190 50

– – – 95 190 50

P 95 190 50 – – – – – – – – – – – –

68 136 –

– – – 68 136 –

K 68 136 – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Total nutrient applied (kg ha−1)

– – –

– – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Application method

37,600 50,300 40,000

4280 4510 5530 2540 3520 3040

2420 4330 3370 1573 3343 2536 1360 1490 2820 2590 4020 3870 1780 1990 2170

DM† or grain yield (kg ha−1)

TABLE 3—continued

– – –

– – – – – –

N – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – –

– – – – – –

P – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – –

– – – – – –

K – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Crop composition (leaf %)

– – –

– – – – – –

N – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – –

– – – – – –

P – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Nutrient removal (kg ha−1)

– – –

– – – – – –

K – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Vıˆjialaˇ et al. (1991)

Vıˆjialaˇ et al. (1991)

Petrˇ´ıkova´ (1992)

Petrˇ´ıkova´ (1992)

Petrˇ´ıkova´ (1992)

Petrˇ´ıkova´ (1992)

Petrˇ´ıkova´ (1992)

Vıˆjialaˇ et al. (1991)

Reference

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality 587

Sugar beet (sugar)

Oilseeds Winter rape

Organic sand and sandy silt soil

Mine dump

Alfalfa (5-year average)

Mine dump

Slurry – – IF Control Manure IF

Control 75 150 IF

0 198 396 110 220 672 592 1212 201 0 203 104

120 160

436 150 40 80

Slurry IF Slurry

N 40 80 120 160

0 52 104 22 22 196 118 242 34 – – –

– –

– – – –

–

P – – – –

0 92 184 71 71 276 1066 2241 65 – – –

– –

– – – –

–

K – – – –

Total nutrient applied (kg ha−1)

0

– – – – – – 18.1 37.8 –

Manure effluent (cm)

Control

Manure slurry

Manure t ha−1 (wet) or IF

IM, inorganic fertilizer; DM, dry matter.

Forage mixture

Forages Timothy

(starch)

Cecil sandy clay loam

Sandy loam/clay loam

and sandy silt soil

Vegetables Organic sand Potatoes

Crop

Soil

– Surface Surface Surface Surface Broadcast Irrigation Irrigation Topdress – – –

– –

– – – –

–

– – – –

Application method

2433/3667 4100/5867 4867/6867 4233/6000 5133/7367 7580 11,180 12,495 7865 2660 3160 3140

1530 1710

2500 3000 675 1170

2490

825 1335 1665 1845

DM or grain yield (kg ha−1)

TABLE 3—continued

– – – – – – – – – – – –

– –

– – – –

–

N – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – –

– –

– – – –

–

P – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – –

– –

– – – –

–

K – – – –

Crop composition (leaf %)

91/138 172/255 226/323 167/280 251/348 280 380 430 260 – – –

– –

– – – –

–

N – – – –

18/25 33/41 36/49 32/40 38/47 30 44 52 27 – – –

– –

– – – –

–

P – – – –

Nutrient removal (kg ha−1)

– – – – – 260 420 520 220 – – –

– –

– – – –

–

K – – – –

Petrˇ´ıkova´ 1992)

Burns et al. (1987)

Warman (1986)

Lorenz & Steffens (1992)

(1992)

Petrˇ´ıkova´

Lorenz & Steffens (1992)

Reference

588 M. Choudhary et al.

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

589

tonnes ha−1 to 180 tonnes ha−1 (Sutton et al. 1982) or from 180 to 270 tonnes ha–1 (Sutton et al. 1984b). On a silty loam soil, the injection of liquid swine manure increased corn grain yield to 2130 kg ha−1 (on average) compared with the broadcast method at similar rates (Table 3; Sutton et al. 1982). The authors attributed the lower yield to NH3-N volatilization from the broadcast manure. Similar findings were reported by Chase et al. (1991). On the other hand, on a sandy loam soil, Xie & MacKenzie (1986) found no significant difference in corn yields between surface spreading and incorporation of manures. They presented evidence to show that the rate of manure decomposition was greater on coarse textured soils than on fine textured soils. 3.2 Crop quality Swine manure has been shown to increase crop quality by increasing plant nutrient concentration not only in the year of application but also in succeeding years (Sutton et al. 1982). These authors reported higher corn leaf-N content from injected manure compared to broadcast. They attributed this result to losses of N from the surface application due to volatilization. Higher plant nutrient concentrations have also been observed in plants that had poor growth caused by stressful conditions including drought and salt stress. In other studies, liquid swine manure was reported to increase leaf or seed N, P and K concentrations in grains (Evans et al. 1977; Sutton et al. 1982) or N, P and K content of forages (Burns et al. 1987) compared with inorganic fertilizers (Table 3). Increasing the rate of application of swine manure increased plant N, P and K concentration (Xie & MacKenzie 1986; Sutton et al. 1978, 1984b; Burns et al. 1985, 1990). However, the rate of recovery of plant nutrients decreased with increasing amount of manure. Burns et al. (1985), working on nutrient recovery by coastal bermudagrass, reported N, P and K recoveries of (applied vs. removed) 73, 41 and 74% for low (13.7 cm), 57, 28 and 56% for medium (27.2 cm), and 34, 17 and 32% for the highest (53.6 cm) effluent loading rates. They concluded that nutrients in excess of quantities removed by crops were potential pollutants in surface water and groundwater, or soil. Excessively high rates of swine manure application to pastures may result in high levels of NO3−-N in the forage making it unsafe for ruminants (Burns et al. 1990). Dietary salt or manure handling system had no consistent effect on plant composition in studies by Sutton et al. (1978, 1984b). In contrast, Kornegay et al. (1976) reported increased corn leaf Cu, Zn, P and K with swine manure from pigs fed high Cu diets (250–370 mg Cu kg−1). In other studies, Zhu et al. (1991) reported increased plant growth and Cu uptake from Cu-amended swine manure compared to non-amended manure. 3.3 Soil quality There is little to no information available on the effect of swine manure on soil physical properties. However, the effects of swine manure may be similar to those reported for cattle manure. Cattle manure has been reported to improve soil aggregation (Elson 1941; Williams & Cooke 1961; Hafez 1974), to lower bulk density (Hafez 1974; Tiarks et al. 1974), and to improve structure and water holding capacity of soils due to increased organic matter (Unger & Stewart 1974; Weil & Kroontje 1979). Also, Sommerfeldt & Chang (1985), working on Chernozemic soil with three different tillage

590

M. Choudhary et al.

systems, reported increased soil organic matter and decreased bulk density, spring soil temperature, and drawbar draft on tillage implements with increasing rate of cattle manure. Changes in soil chemical composition due to application of liquid swine manure are variable and highly influenced by factors such as soil texture, rate, time and method of manure application, amount of precipitation, crops grown and time of sampling. Heavy application of manure increased NO3−-N, available P and exchangeable K and Na more than did inorganic fertilizer (Evans et al. 1977). King et al. (1985) reported accumulation of NO3−-N, Mehlich I extractable P and Na in subsoil from manure effluent application; the level of accumulation increased with increasing rate of manure application. Manures have lower N/P ratios than crop plants, thus when N is supplied through manure to a crop, more P is applied than is required by the plants, this may result in downward movement of P. At high rates of manure application, Ca and Mg may be displaced from exchange sites by competing ions present in the manure, such as Na+, K+ and NH4+, and may be leached from the top soil with some accumulation in deeper layers. Also, the H+ produced during conversion of NH4+ to NH3 may compete successfully for Ca and Mg sites on the soil colloids and thus lower the surface soil pH (King et al. 1985). Addition of salt or additives to the swine feed can change the swine manure composition and can accumulate in the soil. Manure from pigs fed high dietary Cu increased soil Cu, Zn, P, Ca and Mg levels slightly compared to a control (Kornegay et al. 1976). Similarly, increasing dietary salt levels increased Na levels in manure and Na loading of the soil (Sutton et al. 1984b). Bernal & Kirchmann (1992) reported that addition of swine manure in arid and semi-arid areas could cause salinization.

3.4 Water quality Heavy application of manure may result in leaching of NO3−-N, P and K (Fig. 2; King et al. 1990). The leaching of NO3−-N depends on factors such as the rate of manure application, soil type, type and duration of crops grown, and rate and amount of precipitation. In temperate regions, the soil solution NO3−-N concentrations are generally highest in May and decline during the growing season due to crop N uptake and leaching. Burton et al. (1994) found that the application of liquid cattle manure to a Humic Luvic Gleysol resulted in higher NO3−-N concentration in the soil solution at 75 cm depth with high precipitation compared to the years when precipitation was low, and the concentration of NO3−-N was found to be higher when the manure was applied in the fall compared to spring application. They concluded that the fate of manure N is influenced by the carbon content of the manure, and they speculated that increased C associated with manure may increase the extent of denitrification in the soil profile and can reduce the potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater. Although N, P and other nutrients accumulated in soil with increasing manure application rate on south-eastern United States coastal plains and piedmont, no significant downward movement of P has been observed (Humenik et al. 1972). In contrast, under subtropical grassland vegetation, increasing the rate of swine manure application from 335 to 1340 kg N ha−1 significantly increased leaching of NO3−-N, P, K and Mg (King et al. 1985, 1990) and NO3−-N and P concentrations in rainfall runoff (Westerman et al. 1985). Sutton et al. (1978) also found evidence of downward movement of Na, K and NO3 in soil profiles of plots receiving swine manure, but downward

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

591

–1

Concentration (mg kg ) 10

0

20

40 0

30

100

200

300

400

30

30 High

60

a

b b

90

a

b b b

b

180

b b

210

a

Con

a

40

80

60 b

Con

High

120 150

a a

180

b a b a

a

Med

90 a

a

b b

a

20

0

a

100

High

120 0

210

10

20

30

a

30

40

50

Low

ab

ab

30

a

60

60

Con b

90

a

b

90

a

b

High

a

120

0

Sodium

Med b

60

a

b

a

Low

b Med

b b

a

a a

ab

b b

b

a

b

150

Low b

Con a

b

120

Soil depth (cm)

0

Potassium

Nitrate-N

Magnesium

b

150

b

Low

a a

a

ab

a

Med

180 ab

b

120 150 180

a

210

210 –1

Concentration (mg kg ) 0

0

100

Soil depth (cm)

200 Low

Con c

30

b

300 b

Med

b

400 High

4.2

5.0 High

a

6.0

b

a

a Low

b ab

a

Con Med

60 Phosphorus 90

a

pH

Fig. 2. Effect of lagoon effluent loading rate (335, 670 and 1340 kg N ha−1 year−1 through swine manure as low, medium and high rate, respectively) on water-extractable NO3-N, Mehlich 1 (M1) extractable (0.05 M HCl+0.05 M H2SO4) K, Mg, Na, P and pH. At a given depth, values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at PΖ0.05 by LSD (derived from King et al. 1990). Con, control samples.

592

M. Choudhary et al.

movement of NO3−-N from inorganic fertilizer application was greater than from the manure application. Evans et al. (1977) observed higher NO3−-N leaching from cow manure than from liquid hog manure. Increasing the application rate of manure increased NO3−-N in the soil profile up to 122 cm depth (Sutton et al. 1984b). However, in earlier studies, the authors did not find any effect of rate of application of swine manure on NO3−-N leaching (Sutton et al. 1982). They concluded that leaching of soluble nutrients, especially NO3−-N, to lower portions of the sole profile (62–122 cm depth) may be of greater concern when manure is applied by the injection method than when broadcast (topdress) on the soil surface. 4. Summary and conclusion Use of manure is an efficient method for recycling nutrients through the soil–plant system. Swine manure is a valuable on-farm source of plant nutrients that will benefit the soil–plant system provided that it is properly managed. Swine manure can improve soil fertility, soil productivity and soil quality. Significant loss of nutrients occurs when manure is applied to frozen soils. Leaching of NO3−-N and other soluble nutrients also increases in areas of high precipitation. Research has shown that nutrients accumulate or were leached only when manure application exceeded crop requirements. Hence, manure should be applied at levels to match the crop nutrient demand. Research on swine manure is limited compared to that available for cattle and poultry manures. However, with the increase in swine population in temperate countries (developed countries), pressure will be placed on researchers to develop technology that will greatly enhance the use of swine manure in crop production. The effluent utilization of nutrients from manure depends on management factors such as rate and time of application, on feed composition and on soil and climatic factors. To date, most of the swine manure research has been conducted on annual crops such as corn. The effectiveness of swine manure has not been studied on temperature pastures. Temperate pastures are generally located on coarse textured soils, where manure decomposition has been shown to be greatest. Further, temperate pasture forage grasses and legumes are perennials with extensive root systems, are winter hardy and commence growth very early in the spring, and thus are capable of making optimum use of available plant nutrients. Increased knowledge of swine manure handling and utilization for crop production in temperate regions is necessary to facilitate the rapid expansion in swine population in these regions. References Alberta Agriculture (1984) Swine manure as fertilizer. Agdex-440/27-1. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Agriculture. Al-Kanani, T., Akochi, E., MacKenzie, A. F., Alli, I. & Barrington, S. (1992) Organic and inorganic amendments to reduce ammonia losses from liquid hog manure. Journal of Environmental Quality 21, 709–715. Azevedo, J. & Stout, P. R. (1974) From animal manures: an overview of their role in the agricultural environment. Manual 44. California Agricultural Experiment, Station Extension Service, U.S.A., p. 109. Beauchamp, E. G. (1983) Response of corn to nitrogen in preplant and sidedress applications of liquid dairy cattle manure. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 63, 377–386. Beauchamp, E. G., Kidd, G. E. & Thurtell, G. (1982) Ammonia volatilization from liquid dairy cattle manure in the field. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 62, 11–19. Bernal, M. P. & Kirchmann, H. (1992) Carbon and nitrogen mineralization and ammonia

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

593

volatilization from fresh, aerobically and anaerobically treated pig manure during incubation with soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 13, 135–141. Brumm, M. C. & Sutton, A. L. (1979) Effect of copper in swine diets on fresh waste composition and anaerobic decomposition. Journal of Animal Science 49, 20–25. Burns, J. C., Westerman, P. W., King, L. D., Cummings, G. A., Overcash, M. R. & Goode, L. (1985) Swine lagoon effluent applied to ‘Costal’ Bermudagrass: I. Forage yield, quality, and elemental removal. Journal of Environmental Quality 14, 9–14. Burns, J. C., Westerman, P. W., King, L. D., Overcash, M. R. & Cummings, G. A. (1987) Swine manure and lagoon effluent applied to a temperate forage mixture: I. Persistence, yield, quality, and elemental removal. Journal of Environmental Quality 16, 99–105. Burns, J. C., King, L. D. & Westerman, P. W. (1990) Long-term swine lagoon effluent applications on ‘Costal’ Bermudagrass: I. Yield, quality, and elemental removal. Journal of Environmental Quality 19, 749–756. Burton, D. L., Younie, M. F., Beauchamp, E. G., Kachanoski, R. G. & Loro, P. (1994) Impact of manure application on nitrate leaching to groundwater. In Proceedings of 37th Annual Manitoba Society of Soil Science Meeting. Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, pp. 190–201. Chase, C., Duffy, M. & Lotz, W. (1991) Economic impact of varying swine manure application rates on continuous corn. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46, 460–464. Elson, J. (1941) A comparison of the effect of fertilizer and manure, organic matter, and carbonnitrogen ratio on water-stable soil aggregates. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 6, 86–90. Evans, S. D., Goodrich, P. R., Munter, R. C. & Smith, R. E. (1977) Effects of solid and liquid beef manure and liquid hog manure on soil characteristics and on growth, yield, and composition of corn. Journal of Environmental Quality 4, 361–368. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1993) FAO Agrostat PC. FAO Computerized Information Series Statistics. Rome, Italy. Freeze, B. S. & Sommerfeldt, T. G. (1985) Breakeven hauling distances for beef feedlot manure in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 65, 687–693. Gilbertson, C. B., Van Dyne, D. L., Clanton, C. J. & White, R. K. (1979) Estimating quantity and constituents in livestock and poultry manure residue as reflected by management systems. Transactions of the ASAE 22, 602–611. Hafez, A. A. R. (1974) Comparative changes in soil-physical properties induced by admixtures of manures from various domestic animals. Soil Science 118, 53–59. Hoff, J. D., Nelson, D. W. & Sutton, A. L. (1981) Ammonia volatilization from liquid swine manure applied to cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality 10, 90–95. Humenik, F. J., Skaggs, R. W., Willey, C. R. & Huisingh, D. (1972) Evaluation of swine waste treatment alternatives. In Waste Management Research. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: Graphics Corporation, pp. 341–352. King, L. D., Westerman, P. W., Cummings, G. A., Overcash, M. R. & Burns, J. C. (1985) Swine lagoon effluent applied to ‘costal’ bermudagrass: II. Effects on soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 14, 14–21. King, L. D., Burns, J. C. & Westerman, P. W. (1990) Long-term swine lagoon effluent applications on ‘costal’ bermudagrass: II. Effect on nutrient accumulation in soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 19, 756–760. Klausner, S. D. & Guest, R. W. (1981) Influence of NH3 conservation from dairy manure on the yield of corn. Agronomy Journal 73, 720–723. Kornegay, E. T., Hedges, J. D., Martens, D. C. & Kramer, C. Y. (1976) Effect on soil and plant mineral levels following application of manures of different copper contents. Plant and Soil 45, 151–162. Larson, B. G. (1991) Saskatchewan Pork Industry Manure Management Recommendations. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Saskatchewan Pork Producers’ Marketing Board. Lauer, D. A., Bouldin, D. R. & Klausner, S. D. (1976) Ammonia volatilization from dairy manure spread on the soil surface. Journal of Environmental Quality 5, 134–141. Long, N. J. & Gracey, H. I. (1990) Herbage production and nitrogen recovery from slurry injection and fertilizer nitrogen application. Grass and Forage Science 45, 77–82. Lorenz, F. & Steffens, G. (1992) Agronomically efficient and environmentally careful slurry application to arable crops. Aspects of Applied Biology 30, 109–116.

594

M. Choudhary et al.

McEachron, L. W., Zwerman, P. J., Kearl, C. D. & Musgrave, R. B. (1969) Economic return from various land disposal systems for dairy cattle manure. In Animal Waste Management. Proceedings Cornell University Waste Management Conference 13–15 January 1969, Syracuse N.Y., U.S.A. Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.: Cornell University Press, pp. 393–400. McKenna, M. F. & Clark, J. H. (1970) The economics of storing, handling and spreading of liquid hog manure for confined feeder hog enterprises. In Relationship of Agriculture to Soil and Water Pollution. Proceedings Cornell University Agricultural Waste Management Conference 19–21 January 1970, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A. Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.: Cornell University Press, pp. 98–110. Menzies, J. D. & Chaney, R. L. (1974) Waste characteristics. In Factors Involved in Land Application of Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Miller, P. L. & MacKenzie, A. F. (1978) Effects of manures, ammonium nitrate and S-coated urea on yield and uptake of N by corn and on subsequent inorganic N levels in soils in southern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 58, 153–158. Petrˇ´ıkova´, V. (1992) Hnojenı´ prˇi biologicke´ rekultivaci du˚lnı´ch vy´sypek a slozˇisˇtˇ popelu˚ (Fertilizer for biological reclamation of mine spoil and ash dumps). Rostlinna´ Vy´roba 38, 327–335. Powers, W. K., Wallingford, G. W. & Murphy, L. S. (1975) Research status on effects of land application on animal wastes. Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA 660/2-75010. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 44–46. Richards, J. E. & Martel, Y. A. (1991) Agronomic management of manure—A position paper. In Expert Committee on Soil and Water Management. Research Station, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Fredericton, N.B., Canada. Safley, L. M., Jr., Lessman, G. M., Wolt, J. D. & Smith, M. C. (1981) Comparisons of corn yields between broadcast and injected applications of swine manure slurry. In Livestock Waste: A Renewable Resource. Proceedings International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Amarillo, Texas, U.S.A., 15–17 April 1980. St Joseph, Michigan, U.S.A.: American Society of Agricultural Engineering, pp. 178–180. Sommerfeldt, T. G. & Chang, C. (1985) Changes in soil properties under annual applications of feedlot manure and different tillage practices. Soil Science Society of America Journal 49, 983–987. Sutton, A. L., Mayrose, V. B., Nye, J. C. & Nelson, D. W. (1976) Effect of dietary salt level and liquid handling systems on swine waste composition. Journal of Animal Science 43, 1129–1134. Sutton, A. L., Nelson, D. W., Mayrose, V. B. & Nye, J. C. (1978) Effects of liquid swine waste applications on corn yield and soil chemical composition. Journal of Environmental Quality 7, 325–333. Sutton, A. L., Nelson, D. W., Hoff, J. D. & Mayrose, V. B. (1982) Effects of injection and surface applications of liquid swine manure on corn yield and soil composition. Journal of Environmental Quality 11, 468–472. Sutton, A. L., Melvin, S. W. & Vanderholm, D. H. (1984a) Fertilizer Value of Swine Manure. AS-453. Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.: Iowa State Cooperative Extension Service, p. 6. Sutton, A. L., Nelson, D. W., Mayrose, V. B., Nye, J. C. & Kelly, D. T. (1984b) Effects of varying salt levels in liquid swine manure on soil composition and corn yield. Journal of Environmental Quality 13, 49–59. Tiarks, A. E., Mazurak, A. P. & Chesnin, L. (1974) Physical and chemical properties of soil associated with heavy applications of manure from cattle feedlots. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 38, 826–830. Ungar, P. W. & Stewart, B. A. (1974) Feedlot waste effects on soil conditions and water evaporation. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 38, 954–957. Vanderholm, D. H. (1975) Nutrient losses from livestock waste during storage, treatment and handling. In Managing Livestock Wastes. Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A., 21–24 April 1975, St. Joseph, Michigan, U.S.A.: American Society of Agricultural Engineering, pp. 282–285. Vıˆjialaˇ, M., Dumitru, M., Jinga, I., Gament¸, E. & Zelinschi, C. (1991) Technologia de producere s¸i valorificare ˆın agriculturaˇ a compostului obt¸nut din naˇmol porcin (A technology for the production and agricultural use of compost from pig waste) Lucraˇri St¸iint¸ifice, Seria A: Agronomie 34, 93–100. Wallace, H. D., McCall, J. T., Bass, B. & Combs, G. E. (1960) High level copper for growing– finishing swine. Journal of Animal Science 19, 1153–1163.

Review of swine manure on crop yield and soil/water quality

595

Warman, P. R. (1986) Effects of fertilizer, pig manure, and sewage sludge on timothy and soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 15, 95–100. Webber, L. R., Lane, T. H. & Nodwell, J. H. (1968) Guidelines to land requirements for disposal of liquid manure. Proceedings of 8th Industrial Water and Wastewater Conference, Lubbock, Texas, U.S.A., June 1968, p. 13. Weil, R. R. & Kroontje, W. (1979) Physical condition of a Davidson clay loam after five years of heavy poultry manure applications. Journal of Environmental Quality 8, 387–392. Westerman, P. W., Overcash, M. R., Evans, R. O., King, L. D., Burns, J. C. & Cummings, G. A. (1985) Swine lagoon effluent applied to ‘costal’ bermudagrass: III. Irrigation and rainfall runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 14, 22–25. Williams, R. J. B. & Cooke, G. W. (1961) Some effects of farmyard manure and of grass residues on soil structure. Soil Science 92, 30–39. Xie, R. & MacKenzie, A. F. (1986) Urea and manure effects on soil nitrogen and corn dry matter yields. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50, 1504–1509. Zhu, Y. M., Berry, D. F. & Martens, D. C. (1991) Copper availability in two soils amended with eleven annual applications of copper-enriched hog manure. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis 22, 769–783.