Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:19:08.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ammonia volatilization following surface-applied pig and cattle slurry in France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J.-F. Moal ,
J. Martinez ,
F. Guiziou  and
C.-M. Coste
J.-F. Moal
Affiliation:
CEMAGREF, Division Production et Economie Agricoles, 17 avenue de Cucillé, 35044 Rennes, France
J. Martinez
Affiliation:
CEMAGREF, Division Production et Economie Agricoles, 17 avenue de Cucillé, 35044 Rennes, France
F. Guiziou
Affiliation:
CEMAGREF, Division Production et Economie Agricoles, 17 avenue de Cucillé, 35044 Rennes, France
C.-M. Coste
Affiliation:
Centre de Phytopharmacie, Université de Perpignan, 52 avenue de Villeneuve, 66860 Perpignan, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Field experiments were carried out in Brittany (Western France) in 1993 to measure ammonia losses from surface-applied pig and cattle slurry. Experiments were conducted on grass, stubble (wheat and maize) and arable land using a wind tunnel system. Ammonia losses were followed during periods ranging from 20 to 96 h after slurry application. Rates of slurry applied varied from 40 to 200 m3/ha. In two experiments, losses from cattle slurry were respectively 75 and 54% of the ammoniacal nitrogen applied in the slurry. Ammonia emissions from pig slurry applied at a rate of 40 m3/ha, during spring and summer experiments, were higher on grass (45–63% of the total ammoniacal nitrogen applied) than on wheat stubble (37–45%). On average, 75% of the total loss in all experiments occurred within the first 15 h after spreading. Significant correlations were found between ammonia losses (kg N/ha) and mean soil temperature and slurry dry matter content (%) using simple linear regressions and stepwise procedures. The time of application was also found to influence the magnitude of ammonia loss: 83% of the total loss occurred within 6 h when the slurry was applied at midday compared with 42% when it was applied in the evening.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 245 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrassart, J., Bertrand, M. & Herve, A. M. (1993). Bilan global de l‘azote, phosphore et potassium. Informations Techniques du CEMAGREF, 09 1993, 91, note 1.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bless, H.-G., Beinhauer, R. & Sattelmacher, B. (1991). Ammonia emission from slurry applied to wheat stubble and rape in North Germany. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunke, R., Alvo, P., Schuepp, P. & Gordon, R. (1988). Effect of meteorological parameters on ammonia loss from manure in the field. Journal of Environmental Quality 17, 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buijsman, E., Maas, H. F. M. & Asman, W. A. H. (1987). Anthropogenic NH3 emissions in Europe. Atmospheric Environment 21, 1009–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bode, M. J. C. (1991). Odour and ammonia emissions from manure storage. In EEC Workshop on Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming (Eds Nielsen, V. C., Voorburg, J. H. & L'Hermite, P.), pp. 59–66. London & New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Dobbelaere, A. (1992). 2. Déjections animales. 2.1. Volatilisation après application de lisier. 2.1.2. Mesures sur le terrain. Landbouwtijdschrift – Revue de L'Agriculture 45, 276–288.Google Scholar
Döhler, H. (1991). Laboratory and field experiments for estimating ammonia losses from pig and cattle slurry following application. In EEC Workshop on Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming (Eds Nielsen, V. C., Voorburg, J. H. & L'Hermite, P.), pp. 132–140. London & New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. C. & Pain, B. F. (1990). Ammonia volatilization from agricultural land. Proceedings of the Fertilizer Society, No. 298. Greenhill House, Peterborough, England.Google Scholar
Klarenbeek, J. V. & Bruins, M. A. (1991). Ammonia emissions after land spreading of animal slurries. In EEC Workshop on Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming (Eds Nielsen, V. C., Voorburg, J. H. & L'Hermite, P.), pp. 107–115. London & New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Lamperiere, B. (1993). Evolution des principales productions agricoles. In Cahiers du S.G.A.R. (Ed. Nicolaeiff, B.), No. 6, pp. 69. Préfecture de la Bretagne, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Lockyer, D. R. (1984). A system for the measurement in the field of losses of ammonia through volatilisation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35, 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockyer, D. R. & Whitehead, D. C. (1990). Volatilization of ammonia from cattle urine applied to grassland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 22, 1137–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockyer, D. R., Pain, B. F. & Klarenbeek, J. V. (1989). Ammonia emissions from cattle, pig and poultry wastes applied to pasture. Environmental Pollution 56, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oosthoek, J., Kroodsma, W. & Hoeksma, P. (1991). Ammonia emission from dairy and pig housing systems. In EEC Workshop on Odour and Ammonia Emissions from Livestock Farming (Eds Nielsen, V. C., Voorburg, J. H. & L'Hermite, P.), pp. 31–41. London & New York: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Pain, B. F. & Klarenbeek, J. V. (1988). Anglo-Dutch experiments on odour and ammonia emissions from landspreading livestock wastes. In Research Report 88–2 of the Institute of Agricultural Engineering. Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pain, B. F., Phillips, V. R., Clarkson, C. R. & Klarenbeek, J. V. (1989). Loss of nitrogen through ammonia volatilisation during and following the application of pig or cattle slurry to grassland. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 47, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryden, J. C. (1986). Gaseous losses of nitrogen from grassland. In Nitrogen Fluxes in Intensive Grassland Systems (Eds Meer, H. G. van der, Ryden, J. C. & Ennik, G. C.), pp. 59–73. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, S. G. (1992). Ammonia volatilization from cattle and pig slurry during storage and after application in the field. PhD thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Sommer, S. G. & Olesen, J. E. (1991). Effects of dry matter content and temperature on ammonia loss from surfaceapplied cattle slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality 20, 679–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, S. G., Olesen, J. E. & Christensen, B. T. (1991). Effects of temperature, wind speed and air humidity on ammonia volatilization from surface applied cattle slurry. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. B., Ryden, J. C. & Lockyer, D. R. (1987). Fate of nitrogen in cattle slurry following surface application or injection to grassland. Journal of Soil Science 38, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. B., Pain, B. F. & Rees, Y. J. (1990). Ammonia volatilization from cattle slurry following surface application to grassland. II. Influence of application rate, wind speed and applying slurry in narrow bands. Plant and Soil 125, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Molen, J., Bussink, D. W., Vertregt, N., van Faassen, H. G. & den Boer, D. J. (1989). Ammonia volatilization from arable and grassland soils. In Nitrogen in Organic Wastes Applied to Soils (Eds Hansen, J. A. & Henriksen, K.), pp. 185–201. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, D. C. & Raistrick, N. (1993). The volatilization of ammonia from cattle urine applied to soils as influenced by soil properties. Plant and Soil 148, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar