Repository logo
 
Publication

Surface application of acidified cattle slurry compared to slurry injection: Impact on NH 3 , N 2 O, CO 2 and CH 4 emissions and crop uptake

dc.contributor.authorFangueiro, David
dc.contributor.authorPereira, José Luís
dc.contributor.authorMacedo, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorTrindade, Henrique
dc.contributor.authorVasconcelos, Ernesto
dc.contributor.authorCoutinho, João
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-31T09:28:27Z
dc.date.available2018-08-31T09:28:27Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractIntensive cattle production has a severe environmental impact due, partly, to ammonia (NH3) and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from handling of the large amounts of slurry (liquid manure) produced. The present study aimed to compare, in terms of NH3, N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions and crop yield, slurry injection in soil (reference technique) and a combined approach of slurry (S) treatment (by separation and/or acidification) followed by surface application. A pot experiment was performed over 67 days with an oat forage crop amended with S or the separated liquid fraction (LF), with and without acidification to pH 5.5. Injection of S was compared with surface application of treated S followed or not by soil incorporation. Soil injection reduced NH3 emissions to insignificant levels and did not increase N2O emissions, while maintaining oat yields similar to those for the surface application of S. Surface application of acidified S or acidified LF led to NH3 emissions < 7% of applied NH4+-N, with no increase of N2O emissions relative to surface application of S. Furthermore, a stronger decrease of N losses can be achieved by surface application of acidified S followed by soil incorporation. However, surface application of LF without incorporation led to significant NH3 emissions and therefore is not recommended. Significantly lower (p < 0.05) CH4 emissions were observed with application of acidified slurry and LF, relative to the respective non-acidified treatments. These results show that surface application of acidified slurry is a good alternative to slurry injection when the latter technique cannot be used.pt_PT
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpt_PT
dc.identifier.citationFangueiro, D., Pereira, J.L.S., Macedo, S., Trindade, H., Vasconcelos, E., & Coutinho, J. (2017). Surface application of acidified cattle slurry compared to slurry injection: Impact on NH3, N2O, CO2 and CH4 emissions and crop uptake, Geoderma, 306, 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.023.pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.023pt_PT
dc.identifier.issn0016-7061
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.19/5064
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
dc.relationEuropean Investment Funds by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI - Operational Competitiveness and Internationalisation Programme, under Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006958 and National Funds by FCT - Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UID/AGR/04033/2013, PEst-OE/AGR/UI0528/2014 and project PTDC/AGR-PRO/119428/201pt_PT
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706116304529?via%3Dihubpt_PT
dc.subjectAnimal manurept_PT
dc.subjectForage oatpt_PT
dc.subjectSlurry acidificationpt_PT
dc.subjectSlurry injectionpt_PT
dc.subjectSolid-liquid separationpt_PT
dc.titleSurface application of acidified cattle slurry compared to slurry injection: Impact on NH 3 , N 2 O, CO 2 and CH 4 emissions and crop uptakept_PT
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage166pt_PT
oaire.citation.startPage160pt_PT
oaire.citation.titleGeodermapt_PT
oaire.citation.volume306pt_PT
rcaap.rightsrestrictedAccesspt_PT
rcaap.typearticlept_PT

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Fangueiro et al 2017 Geoderma.pdf
Size:
166.65 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.79 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: