Abstract
The disposal of swine slurry is becoming a serious problem due to pollutant effects of the nitrogen and phosphorus content of this material. In order to evaluating the possibility of application of swine effluent as fertilizer for orchards, a field trial has been conducted during 2008-2010. The final results of the trial are presented in this paper. The trial has been conducted in a ‘Spring Bright’ nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] commercial orchard in Cuneo province, Northern Italy, on 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), and an unfertilized control (NF). Optimal quantity of liquid and solid materials and best surface for distribution were also calculated according to soil properties and nutrient requirements of the orchards. 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. According to statistical ANOVA analysis, statistically significant differences have been not shown both for productivity and quality. Also the analysis after ten days of postharvest does not present statistically significant differences. Final results show that there are no differences in orchard productivity and fruit quality using swine liquid manure as fertilizer. Nevertheless longer term applications (more than three years) have to be investigated to confirm these results during the whole lifetime of the orchard.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer treatments showed no statistically significant productivity differences.
- Taxon
- NECTARINE
Prunus persica var. nucipersicat0 - Treatment
- five treatmentse1
- Outcome
- productivitye0
- Comparator
- unfertilized control (NF)e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“statistically significant differences have been not shown both for productivity and quality”
e1“five treatments: liquid slurry (LS), covered slurry (CS), solid fraction (SF), mineral nutrition (MN), and an unfertilized control (NF)”
t0“NECTARINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer treatments showed no statistically significant fruit-quality differences.
- Taxon
- NECTARINEPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
- Treatment
- five treatmentse1
- Outcome
- qualitye0
- Comparator
- unfertilized control (NF)e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“statistically significant differences have been not shown both for productivity and quality”
e1“five treatments: liquid slurry (LS), covered slurry (CS), solid fraction (SF), mineral nutrition (MN), and an unfertilized control (NF)”
t0“NECTARINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit-quality analysis after ten days of storage showed no statistically significant differences.
- Taxon
- NECTARINEPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
- Treatment
- five treatmentse2
- Outcome
- Fruit qualitye1
- Qualifier
- after ten days of postharveste0
- Comparator
- unfertilized control (NF)e2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Also the analysis after ten days of postharvest does not present statistically significant differences.”
e1“Fruit quality was assessed at harvest and after refrigeration (4 to 5°C) storage for ten days in normal atmosphere.”
e2“five treatments: liquid slurry (LS), covered slurry (CS), solid fraction (SF), mineral nutrition (MN), and an unfertilized control (NF)”
t0“NECTARINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Swine liquid manure produced no difference in orchard productivity.
- Taxon
- NECTARINEPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
- Treatment
- swine liquid manure as fertilizere0
- Outcome
- orchard productivitye0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- unfertilized control (NF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there are no differences in orchard productivity and fruit quality using swine liquid manure as fertilizer”
e1“an unfertilized control (NF)”
t0“NECTARINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Swine liquid manure produced no difference in fruit quality.
- Taxon
- NECTARINEPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
- Treatment
- swine liquid manure as fertilizere0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- unfertilized control (NF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there are no differences in orchard productivity and fruit quality using swine liquid manure as fertilizer”
e1“an unfertilized control (NF)”
t0“NECTARINE”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend studying manure applications longer than three years to confirm orchard-lifetime results.
- Taxon
- NECTARINEPrunus persica var. nucipersicat0
- Outcome
- longer term applications (more than three years) have to be investigatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“longer term applications (more than three years) have to be investigated to confirm these results during the whole lifetime of the orchard”
t0“NECTARINE”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
55 papers more in this group
See all 59 papers →fertilization · quality: grain · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.