Paper · 2012 · Acta Horticulturae

NECTARINE PRODUCTIVITY AND FRUIT QUALITY UNDER SWINE MANURE FERTILIZATION: METHODOLOGIES AND EARLY RESULTS

A.K. Cerutti; G.L. Beccaro; G. Bounous

2
claims
6
verbatim quotes
3
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The disposal of swine slurry is becoming a serious problem due to pollutant effects of the nitrogen and phosphorus content of this material. To evaluate the possibility of application of swine effluent as fertilizer for peach orchard, a field test was started in 2008. Methodologies and the early results are presented in this paper. The trial has been conducted in a 'Spring Bright' necatrine commercial orchard in Cuneo province, Northern Italy, in a 1-ha study area following a randomized block design with three replications of five treatments: liquid slurry (LS), covered slurry (CS), solid fraction (SF), mineral nutrition (MN). Also a no-fertilized (NF) treatment was added in order to better discriminate the effect of the different fertilizations above the field nutrients content. Optimal quantity of liquid and solid materials and best surface for distribution were also calculated. Measurements of yield, yield efficiency and crop load were used to evaluate the orchard productivity. Fruit quality was assessed at harvest and after refrigeration (4 to 5°C) storage for ten days in normal atmosphere. Using ANOVA no statistically significant differences were found in productivity and fruit quality. This was the case for fruit refrigerated for 10 days. The preliminary results show that there are no differences in orchard productivity and fruit quality using swine liquid manure as fertilizer. Nevertheless, long term application have to be investigated before confirming these results. Therefore we will have to wait till the end of the experiments for the final results.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization treatments showed no statistically significant productivity difference.

Treatment
swine liquid manuree1
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
no statistically significant differencese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using ANOVA no statistically significant differences were found in productivity and fruit quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1210 · show in text ↑
t0

“NECTARINE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–9 · show in text ↑
e1

“using swine liquid manure as fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1366–1405 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization treatments showed no statistically significant fruit quality difference, including after refrigeration.

Treatment
swine liquid manuree1
Outcome
fruit qualitye0
Direction
no statistically significant differencese0
Qualifier
fruit refrigerated for 10 dayse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using ANOVA no statistically significant differences were found in productivity and fruit quality. This was the case for fruit refrigerated for 10 days.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1264 · show in text ↑
t0

“NECTARINE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–9 · show in text ↑
e1

“using swine liquid manure as fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1366–1405 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ

59 papers: 50 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

55 papers more in this group

See all 59 papers →

fertilization · quality: grain · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 7 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.