Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:43:43.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of liquid digested sewage sludge. I. The effect of liquid sewage sludge on growth and composition of grass-clover swards in South-east England*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. G. Coker
E. G. Coker
Affiliation:
Hertfordshire Institute of Agriculture, St Albans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the period 1959-62 liquid digested sludge was applied to grass to supply nitrogen at rates similar to those normally recommended to farmers. The responses were compared to those produced by equivalent inorganic fertilizers.

Liquid digested sludge gave as large an increase in dry matter as equivalent fertilizers. At the low rate of application the mean dry matter increase was 15.2 lb./lb. of applied nitrogen, and at the high rate the mean response was 11.0 lb. dry matter per lb. of nitrogen.

On one site, all treatments reduced the clover percentage, the high rate more than the low rate. Sludge treatments reduced the clover percentages less than equivalent inorganic fertilizers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1966 , pp. 91 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

REFERENCES

Baker, H. K. (1960), J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 15, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (1954). Bull. Commonw. Bur. Past. Fld. Crops, 42Google Scholar
Bunting, A. H. (1963), J. Agric. Sci. 60, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1965). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1966 a). J. Agric. Sci. 67, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1966 b). J. Agric. Sci. 67, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornfield, A. A. & Pollard, A. G. (1950). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 1, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, E. M. & Bunting, A. H. (1944). J. Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. for 1944. p. 46.Google Scholar
Drew, E. A. (1962). Instn. Publ. Hlth Engrs. J. 61, 216.Google Scholar
D.S.I.R. (1963). Wat. Pollut. Res. for 1962 (1963), p. 55.Google Scholar
Greenhill, A. W. & Page, H. J. (1931). J. Agric. Sci., 21, 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackness, N. & Jenkins, S. H. (1958). J. Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. for 1958, p. 85.Google Scholar
Hemingway, R. G. (1960), J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 11, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, M. A., Wood, R. & Ainsworth, G. (1962). J. Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. for 1962, p. 521.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. H. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, P. A. & Lowe, J. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassld Congr. 1960; Session 5A, p. 133.Google Scholar
Lunt, H. A. (1959). Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn, no. 622.Google Scholar
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1954). Report of an informal working party on the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge.Google Scholar
Plant, W., Jones, J. O. & Nicholas, D. J. D. (1945). Rep. Agric. Hort. Res. Stn Univ. Bristol for 1944, p. 79.Google Scholar
Rahman, H., Macdonald, P. & Simpson, K. (1960). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 11, 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. L. (1934). J. Agric. Sci. 24, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, G. (1962). J. Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. for 1962, p. 581.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. M. H. & Williams, G. (1955). J. Soil Sci. 6, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojkovska, A. & Cooke, G. W. (1958). Chemy. Ind. 42, 1368.Google Scholar
Swaine, D. J. (1962). Tech. Commun. Commonw. Bur. Soils, no. 52.Google Scholar
Thorne, G. N. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 58, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. H. (1960). Anal. Chim. Acta, 22, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). Tech. Commun. Commonw. Bur. Soils. no. 35.Google Scholar