Abstract
A study was initiated in 1996 in the Black Soil zone in east-central Saskatchewan to examine soil and crop response to application of feedlot cattle manure at different application rates, frequencies and incorporation timing in a sandy loam and loam soil. Three rates of feedlot cattle manure (approx. 100, 200 and 400 kg total N ha -1 ) were applied annually and under reduced frequency application regimes. Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively. Pre-seeding available N (0–60 cm) increased with application rates. Annual application resulted in a linear increase in grain yield with application rates but had no effect on grain N concentration. Cumulative N use efficiency was low (7–10%) with no significant difference among treatments. Single application showed significant residual fertility benefit in the second year but not in the third year except at the high rate. Incorporation timing of feedlot cattle manure had no impact on soil or crop performance. Low availability of N in feedlot cattle manure over the short-term suggests the need for high application rates or addition of supplemental N fertilizer in order to meet crop N requirements. Key words: Feedlot cattle manure, N availability, manure management, N use efficiency
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-seeding available N increased with feedlot cattle manure application rate.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- application ratese1
- Outcome
- Pre-seeding available Ne1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e1“Pre-seeding available N (0–60 cm) increased with application rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual feedlot manure application increased grain yield linearly with application rate.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- Annual applicatione2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- linear increasee2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e2“Annual application resulted in a linear increase in grain yield with application rates but had no effect on grain N concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual feedlot manure application had no effect on grain N concentration.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- Annual applicatione2
- Outcome
- grain N concentratione2
- Direction
- no effecte2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e2“Annual application resulted in a linear increase in grain yield with application rates but had no effect on grain N concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative N use efficiency was low, 7–10%.
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e3“Cumulative N use efficiency was low (7–10%) with no significant difference among treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative N use efficiency did not differ significantly among manure treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e3“Cumulative N use efficiency was low (7–10%) with no significant difference among treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
A single feedlot manure application gave a residual fertility benefit in the second year.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- Single applicatione4
- Outcome
- residual fertility benefite4
- Direction
- increaseinferrede4
- Qualifier
- in the second yeare4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e4“Single application showed significant residual fertility benefit in the second year but not in the third year except at the high rate”
Claim · model-written summary
A single feedlot manure application gave no residual fertility benefit in the third year except at the high rate.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- Single applicatione4
- Outcome
- residual fertility benefite4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Qualifier
- in the third year except at the high ratee4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e4“Single application showed significant residual fertility benefit in the second year but not in the third year except at the high rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Incorporation timing of feedlot cattle manure had no impact on soil or crop performance.
- Taxon
- Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.)e0
- Treatment
- Incorporation timing of feedlot cattle manuree5
- Outcome
- soil or crop performancee5
- Direction
- no impacte5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e5“Incorporation timing of feedlot cattle manure had no impact on soil or crop performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Feedlot cattle manure supplied little available N over the short term.
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e6“Low availability of N in feedlot cattle manure over the short-term suggests the need for high application rates or addition of supplemental N fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
High manure application rates or supplemental N fertilizer are needed to meet crop N requirements.
Verbatim
e0“Canola (Brassica napus, L.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.), hulless barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) and canola were seeded in spring of 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000”
e6“Low availability of N in feedlot cattle manure over the short-term suggests the need for high application rates or addition of supplemental N fertilizer”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 337 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
374 papers more in this group
See all 378 papers →fertilization · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
76 papers in the same direction as this paper · 473 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
546 papers more in this group
See all 550 papers →fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
322 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,115 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,434 papers more in this group
See all 3,438 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.