Gaseous nitrogen losses from pig slurry fertilisation: can they be reduced with additives in a wheat crop?

Aim of the study: The use of pig slurry as fertiliser is associated with gaseous nitrogen (N) losses, especially ammonia (NH3) and nitrous oxide (N2O), leading to environmental problems and a reduction of its fertiliser value. This study evaluates, in an irrigated wheat crop, the effect of different additives mixed with pig slurry to decrease NH3 and N2O losses.Area of study: Middle Ebro valley, SpainMaterials and methods: The treatments were: i) non-N-fertilised control, ii) pig slurry (PS), iii) pig slurry with the urease inhibitor monocarbamide dihydrogen sulphate (PS-UI), iv) pig slurry with a microbial activator in development (PS-A), and v) pig slurry with the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (PS-NI). Pig slurry was applied at a target rate of 120 kg NH4+-N ha-1. Ammonia volatilisation was measured using semi-opened static chambers after treatments application at presowing 2016 and side-dressing 2017. Nitrous oxide emissions were measured using static closed chambers after treatments application at the 2017 and 2018 side-dressing.Main results: Ammonia volatilisation was estimated to be 7-9% and 19-23% of NH4+-N applied after presowing and side-dressing applications, respectively. Additives were not able to reduce NH3 emissions in any application moment. PS-NI was the only treatment being effective in reducing N2O emissions, 70% respect to those in PS treatment. Crop yield parameters were not affected by the application of the additives because of the no effect of additives controlling NH3 losses and the low contribution of N2O losses to the N balance (<1 kg N2O-N ha-1).Research highlights: The use of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate would be recommended from an environmental perspective, although without grain yield benefits.

Suitability of litter amendments for the Australian chicken meat industry

The Australian chicken meat indutstry is rapidly expanding due to the increasing consumption of chicken meat. As a result, the industry has growing issues of sourcing new bedding materials and disposing of spent litter, which can be attributed, in part, to a lack of widespread litter re-use for rearing chickens. According to insights and perspectives recently gathered from industry stakeholders, it is believed that re-using litter will become more common in the future, so as to reduce production costs and ease pressures on both the supply of new bedding materials and disposal of spent litter. However, there are potential risks that need to be addressed if litter re-use increases, particularly with regard to the production and mitigation of ammonia, which can negatively affect chicken health if not managed correctly. The present review discusses the potential benefits reported for different types of litter amendments, which have the primary goal of reducing ammonia volatilisation, but may also contribute to improvements in bird performance, welfare, pathogen loads, fertiliser value of spent litter, and reduced costs associated with purchasing new bedding materials. Acidifiers have been shown to be the most effective of all amendment types, with sodium bisulfate or alum being among the most commonly tested products mentioned in research literature. Litter amendments are currently rarely used in Australia, but it is hoped that the information provided in the present review, based mostly on overseas usage and research, will help inform future decision-making on the use of these products in Australian poultry production systems.

Simultaneous measurements of ammonia volatilisation and deposition at a beef feedlot

The nitrogen (N) excreted at intensive livestock operations is vulnerable to volatilisation, and, subsequently, may form a source of indirect nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. The present study simultaneously investigated volatilisation and deposition of N at a beef feedlot, semi-continuously over a 129-day period. These data were examined relative to pen manure parameters, management statistics and emission-inventory calculation protocols. Volatilisation measurements were conducted using a single, heated air-sampling inlet, centrally located in a feedlot pen area, with real time concentration analysis via cavity ring-down spectroscopy and backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS) modelling. Net deposited mineral-N was determined via two transects of soil-deposition traps, with samples collected and re-deployed every 2 weeks. Total volatilised ammonia amounted to 210 tonnes of NH3-N (127 g/animal.day), suggesting that the inventory volatilisation factor probably underestimated volatilisation in this case (inventory, 30% of excreted N; 65 g N volatilised/animal.day; a value of ~60% of excreted N is indicated). Temperature contrast between the manure and air was observed to play a significant role in the rate of emission (R2 = 0.38; 0.46 Kendall’s tau; P &lt; 0.05). Net deposition within 600 m of the pen boundary represented only 1.7% to 3% of volatilised NH4+-N, between 3.6 and 6.7 tonnes N. Beyond this distance, deposition approached background rates (~0.4 kg N/ha.year).

Mitigation of ammonia volatilisation from urea with micronised sulfur applied to common bean

Urea with micronised sulfur (S) in granules may result in lower nitrogen (N) depletion through ammoniacal N (NH3-N) loss than conventional urea due to the acidification reaction of S near urea granules in soil, and the addition of S to the urea may provide a limiting nutrient in tropical soils. The research objectives were to (1) verify whether urea containing micronised S (urea+S) can mitigate NH3-N volatilisation in comparison to conventional urea, ammonium nitrate, and ammonium sulfate; and (2) evaluate the efficiency of N and S sources for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grown on coarse-, medium-, and fine-textured soil. The results showed that ~90% of NH3-N volatilisation occurred during the first 14 days after application. The blend of elemental sulfur and sulfate in urea reduces the loss of N by NH3-N volatilisation compared with regular urea but not enough to achieve the low volatilisation as observed for ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate application. Despite the differences in the leaf N and S concentration and bean yield components, no differences were observed among N sources in grain yield in general.