Paper · 2011 · Agronomy Journal

Nitrogen Availability from Poultry Litter and Pelletized Organic Amendments for Organic Rice Production

Paula L. Wild; Chris van Kessel; Jessica Lundberg; et al.

10
claims
22
verbatim quotes
31
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Nitrogen is the most limiting nutrient in irrigated rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production, and growers continue to be faced with the challenge of meeting crop N demand, particularly in organic production systems. The main objective of this study was to determine how rice yield was affected by seasonal availability of N from organic sources under continuously and noncontinuously flooded conditions. Laboratory and field experiments were conducted to determine the effectiveness of the commonly used poultry litter, pelletized organic fertilizers (blood, meat, and feather meal 13–0–0, feather meal 12–0–0, poultry litter plus feather meal 6–3–2), and (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 , in synchronizing the supply of mineralized N with the demand of N by rice. The N mineralization of all organic fertilizers occurred primarily during the first 53 d after planting, results which were confirmed subsequently in a laboratory incubation study. In all fields, fertilizers increased grain yield and N uptake relative to a zero N control. Relative to poultry litter, the pelletized fertilizers resulted in higher yields (9980 vs. 9267 kg ha −1 ), N uptake (140 vs. 114 kg ha −1 ), and N recovery efficiency (35 vs. 20%) in all fields. It was concluded that pelletized fertilizers were significantly more effective than poultry litter in supplying N to the crop when fields were continuously flooded. In contrast all organic fertilizers were less effective in supplying N when fields were drained for weed control due to lower N recovery efficiency (26%) and N loss through denitrification, indicating that organic fertilizer application may not be economically viable under such circumstances.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic fertilizers mineralized most nitrogen in the first 53 days after planting.

Outcome
N mineralization of all organic fertilizerse0
Value
53 de0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The N mineralization of all organic fertilizers occurred primarily during the first 53 d after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 742–845 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizers increased rice grain yield versus zero N.

Treatment
fertilizerse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
zero N controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In all fields, fertilizers increased grain yield and N uptake relative to a zero N control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–1013 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizers increased rice N uptake versus zero N.

Treatment
fertilizerse0
Outcome
N uptakee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
zero N controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In all fields, fertilizers increased grain yield and N uptake relative to a zero N control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–1013 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pelletized fertilizers gave higher yield, 9980 versus 9267 kg ha −1, than poultry litter.

Treatment
pelletized fertilizerse0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Value
9980 vs. 9267 kg ha −1e0
Comparator
poultry littere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Relative to poultry litter, the pelletized fertilizers resulted in higher yields (9980 vs. 9267 kg ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1015–1121 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pelletized fertilizers gave higher N uptake, 140 versus 114 kg ha −1, than poultry litter.

Treatment
pelletized fertilizerse0
Outcome
N uptakee0
Direction
highere0
Value
140 vs. 114 kg ha −1e0
Comparator
poultry littere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Relative to poultry litter, the pelletized fertilizers resulted in higher yields (9980 vs. 9267 kg ha −1 ), N uptake (140 vs. 114 kg ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1015–1155 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pelletized fertilizers gave higher N recovery efficiency, 35 versus 20%.

Treatment
pelletized fertilizerse0
Outcome
N recovery efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
35 vs. 20%e0
Comparator
poultry littere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Relative to poultry litter, the pelletized fertilizers resulted in higher yields (9980 vs. 9267 kg ha −1 ), N uptake (140 vs. 114 kg ha −1 ), and N recovery efficiency (35 vs. 20%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1015–1195 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pelletized fertilizers were significantly more effective than poultry litter for N supply under continuous flooding.

Treatment
pelletized fertilizerse0
Outcome
supplying N to the crope0
Direction
more effectivee0
Qualifier
fields were continuously floodede0
Comparator
poultry littere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pelletized fertilizers were significantly more effective than poultry litter in supplying N to the crop when fields were continuously flooded”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1374 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drained fields had lower organic fertilizer N supply effectiveness and 26% N recovery efficiency.

Treatment
fields were drained for weed controle0
Outcome
N recovery efficiencye0
Direction
lowere0
Value
26%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all organic fertilizers were less effective in supplying N when fields were drained for weed control due to lower N recovery efficiency (26%) and N loss through denitrification”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1388–1564 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drainage for weed control caused N loss through denitrification.

Outcome
N loss through denitrificatione0
Setting
fieldse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N loss through denitrification”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1534–1564 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields were drained for weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1452–1488 · show in text ↑
e2

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors conclude organic fertilizer may not be economically viable when fields are drained for weed control.

Outcome
organic fertilizer application may not be economically viablee0
Qualifier
fields were drained for weed controle1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“organic fertilizer application may not be economically viable under such circumstances”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1582–1668 · show in text ↑
e1

“fields were drained for weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1452–1488 · show in text ↑
e2

“rice ( Oryza sativa L.) production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–86 · show in text ↑

herbicide · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

220 papers: 202 positive, 18 negative or no effect

201 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

216 papers more in this group

See all 220 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

993 papers: 932 positive, 61 negative or no effect

931 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

989 papers more in this group

See all 993 papers →

fertilization · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

3,455 papers: 3,183 positive, 272 negative or no effect

3,182 papers in the same direction as this paper · 207 in the opposite direction · 65 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3,451 papers more in this group

See all 3,455 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.