J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:1603-1610
© 2003 American Society of Animal Science
Effect of soil type and fertilization level on mineral concentration of pasture: Potential relationships to ruminant performance and health
K. J. Soder1 and
W. L. Stout
USDA, ARS, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, University Park, PA 16802-3702
1 Correspondence:
Bldg. 3702, Curtin Rd. (fax: 814-865-0935; E-mail:
ksoder{at}psu.edu).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
A three-year study was conducted to measure the effects of varying levels of dairy slurry application on mineral concentration of forages from three soils types. Slurry was applied to orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata [L.] cv. Pennlate) growing in 60-cm diameter drainage lysimeters to measure the effect of four levels of slurry (urine and feces) N application (0, 168, 336, and 672 kg of N•ha-1•yr-1) on mineral (P, K, Ca, Mg) concentration of the forage on three soil types (Hagerstown, Hartleton, and Rayne). The results were then related to potential effects on performance and health of grazing ruminants. Forage P was not affected by slurry application (mean = 0.46% of DM). Forage grown on the Hartleton soil had the highest (P < 0.05) P concentration (0.6% of DM). Forage K increased (P < 0.05) with increased slurry (2.50, 2.85, 3.22, and 3.45% of DM, respectively), and was lowest (P < 0.05) for forage grown on the Rayne soil (2.69% of DM). Forage Ca decreased (P < 0.05) with increased slurry (0.59, 0.56, 0.50, and 0.49% of DM, respectively) and was not affected by soil type. Forage Mg also decreased (P < 0.05) with increased slurry (0.25, 0.24, 0.24, and 0.23% of DM, respectively), and was highest (P < 0.05) for the Hartleton soil (0.27% of DM). The variable results in mineral concentration associated with soil type may have, in part, been due to prior soil fertility. The P and Mg concentrations in all treatments were generally adequate for grazing ruminants. The K concentrations were high in relation to NRC recommendations for prepartum dairy cows, which might predispose them to milk fever. The Ca concentrations were inadequate for lactating dairy cows. Comprehensive forage testing and diet formulation based on individual farm situations is the best strategy to ensure proper mineral nutrition of grazing animals.
Key Words: Fertilization • Grazing • Health • Mineral • Pasture • Ruminants
|
Introduction
|
|---|
One of the greatest challenges in pasture management is meeting the nutrient requirements of the ruminant due to variable forage quality. Previous research has shown that location and soil parent material were significant factors contributing to mineral uptake by forages (Stout et al., 1977). Forage mineral composition can have a significant effect on animal performance and health as they are often not in balance with the nutrient requirements of the animals (Grunes and Welch, 1989; Mayland and Wilkinson, 1989).
Many northeastern U.S. dairy farms apply dairy slurry to crop and grazing lands (Bouldin and Klausner, 1998). The effects of dairy slurry application on water quality have been documented (Sharpley et al., 1998; Stout et al., 2000). In addition, research has shown that mineral uptake of forages can be affected by the type and amount of fertilizer application (Van Horn et al., 1996). However, little work has linked the effects of soil type and fertilization level to potential implications on animal performance and health.
The first objective of this experiment was to measure the effects of varying levels of dairy slurry application on mineral concentration of forages on three soil types. The second objective was to relate mineral concentration to the nutrition and metabolic health of the grazing ruminant.
|
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
A detailed description of experimental procedures is given by Stout et al. (2000) in a study to determine nitrate leaching from manure slurry application. The nitrate leaching data was previously presented (Stout et al., 2000). Briefly, the study used monolith drainage lysimeters (60 cm diameter x 90 cm deep) constructed from three soil types collected in central Pennsylvania—two soils from the Ridge and Valley and one soil from the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province (USDA, 1981a). These soils were chosen to span the range in physical properties that affect soil water holding capacity and they represent the range of this soil property that exists in well-drained agricultural soils in the northeastern United States.
The Hagerstown silt loam soil (fine, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalf) was from The Pennsylvania State University Dairy Research Center located near State College, PA (40°48'N lat., 77°2'W long., 350 m elevation). Hagerstown is a deep, well-drained soil formed in relatively pure limestone residuum and has a high water-holding capacity (USDA, 1981b). The Hartleton channery silt loam soil (loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult) was from a private farm in the USDA/ARS Mahantango Creek Watershed near the town of Leck Kill, Pa (40°43'N lat., 76°37'W long., 265 m elevation). This is a deep, well-drained soil with rapid permeability that formed in acid shale residuum. This soil has a low water-holding capacity because of a large amount of coarse fragments throughout the soil profile (USDA, 1985). The Rayne silt loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult) was from a private farm near Kylertown, PA (40°59'N lat., 78°14'W long., 600 m elevation). The Rayne is a deep, well-drained soil derived from acid shale and fine-grained sandstone residuum. The Rayne soil has a moderate to high water-holding capacity (USDA, 2001).
Of the three soils, the Hagerstown is inherently the most productive and the most intensively farmed for grain and forage crops. The productivity of the Hartleton is limited by its low water-holding capacity, but it is also intensively farmed. Root growth in the Rayne soil is limited by its acid subsoil and is the least intensively farmed, with much of the production on the Rayne limited to pasture.
Sixteen intact cores for each soil were collected from well-established sites previously seeded to orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata [L.] cv. Pennlate). Monolith lysimeters were constructed on site from the intact cores and transported to the Leck Kill site for installation. The lysimeters and collection system used in this study were constructed using the design developed by Moyer et al. (1996).
Lysimeter installation was complete and data collection began in April 1996. Data collection for this paper for forage production continued for 3 yr, ending in October 1998. The manure application and lysimeter herbage harvest schedules simulated a grazing management scheme. In March of each year, manure was collected from a local dairy farm and surface applied in amounts to supply four rates (0, 168, 336, and 672 kg N•ha-1•yr-1). The mean N concentration in the manure was 34.6 g/kg and ranged from 31.6 to 38.9 g/kg. In addition to N, the manure also supplied appreciable amounts of P, K, Ca and Mg (Table 1
). The mineral composition of the manure was typical for confinement dairy farms in this region. There were four replications of each treatment and individual lysimeters received the same treatments each year of the study.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Average nutrient application to orchardgrass grown on drainage lysimeters treated with dairy slurry for 3 yr
|
|
The herbage on the lysimeters was harvested by cutting with electric grass shears to a 7.5-cm stubble height when the sward height was approximately 30 cm. After harvest the samples were dried at 60°C and weighed. The herbage samples were then ground and analyzed by The Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory for N by direct combustion (Campbell, 1991) and for P, K, Ca, and Mg concentration by atomic emission spectroscopy (Dahlquist and Knoll, 2001). The harvests were summed within years for statistical analysis. The soils were analyzed by The Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Analytical services laboratory for total N by direct combustion (Campbell, 1991) and Mehlich 3 extractable Ca, K, P and Mg (Wolf and Beegle, 1991). The Mehlich 3 extraction procedure is a measure of plant available nutrients in the soil and is commonly used by soil-testing laboratories in the eastern United States. Meteorological data were measured by the USDA/ARS at Klingerstown, PA, 8 km from the Leck Kill site using an automated weather station.
At the end of the study, soil samples were collected from each lysimeter by taking several 2.5 x 10-cm cores and compositing on the cores within each lysimeter. The soils were analyzed by the Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Analytical Services laboratory for pH (Eckert and Sims 1991) and extracted for Ca, Mg, K, and P using the Mehlich 3 extraction procedure (Wolf and Beegle, 1991).
Data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC). The model included main effects for year, soil type, fertilization level, and replication, the two-way interaction between soil type and fertilization level, and three-way interaction between soil type, fertilization level, and year. Statistical differences were calculated as LSD and evaluated with Duncan's multiple range test at P = 0.05.
|
Results and Discussion
|
|---|
Plant and Soil Responses
Weather during the 3 yr of the study is presented in Table 2. Temperature patterns were similar for the April to September growing seasons. However, precipitation pattern varied yearly, with the biggest variation occurring in 1998. In this year, the first half of the growing season was very wet and the last half very dry compared with the other years. Annual precipitation for all 3 yr was near normal.
There was no significant soil type by slurry N application x year interaction (P > 0.05) for N, P, K, Ca, or Mg concentration in the forage (P < 0.05). Therefore, data for these parameters are summarized over soils and slurry application treatments (Table 3). There were, however, significant soil x slurry application interactions (P < 0.05) for forage P, K, and Ca concentrations and soil K concentration. Consequently, all plant and soil data are presented to illustrate these interactions (Tables 3 and 4).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Dry matter yield and mineral concentration of orchardgrass pasture grown on drainage lysimeters treated with dairy slurry for 3 yr
|
|
Averaged over soils and years, N concentration of the orchardgrass increased as slurry application rate increased (P < 0.05), with the 672 kg•ha-1•yr-1 application rate having the highest N concentration and the 0 and 158 kg•ha-1•yr-1 application rates having the lowest N concentration (P < 0.05; Table 3
). The highest forage N concentration occurred on the Rayne soil and the lowest forage N concentration occurred on the Hartleton soil (P < 0.05; Table 3). However, the total soil N concentration was higher in the Hagerstown than in the Rayne (P < 0.05; Table 4). This discrepancy is explained by the higher yield on the Hagerstown diluting the plant N concentration. The total forage N uptake (DM yield x N concentration) was 188 and 172 kg of N/ha on the Hagerstown and Rayne soils, respectively.
The percentage of apparent manure N uptake (AMNU) was calculated as the quantity of the N uptake from manure-treated lysimeters minus N uptake from the untreated lysimeters divided by the manure N application. Across all manure treatments, AMNU was 25 and 27% for the Hagerstown and Rayne soils, respectively (P < 0.05). This was somewhat higher than that of the Hartleton, which was 20%. This was mostly due to the lower DM yields on the Hartleton soil. Lower DM yields on the Hartleton soil were due to the low water-holding capacity of this soil compared with the Hagerstown and Rayne since other factors such as P, K, Ca, and Mg were higher on the Hartleton than on the Rayne (P < 0.05; Table 3).
Forage P concentration averaged 0.46% of DM across all slurry and soil treatments and was not significantly affected by slurry application rate (P > 0.05; Table 3). This was due to a significant soil x manure application rate interaction, in which forage P concentration decreased in the Hagerstown and Hartleton soils and increased in the Rayne (P < 0.05; Table 3), the soil with the lowest pH and P concentration (Table 4). Forage P concentration in the untreated Rayne soil was below the adequate range for crop growth, 0.23 to 28%. Manure application increased soil pH and soil P concentration in all the soils (Table 4), but in the Rayne soil, these increases increased P availability to the forage. In contrast, high soil P concentration in the Hartleton and Hagerstown soils supplied sufficient P to the forage even without manure application. As manure application rate increased, forage P concentration on the Hagerstown and Hartleton soils decreased due to dilution caused by increased DM yields.
In response to the appreciable amount of K in the manure (Table 1), both forage and soil K concentration increased significantly in all soils as slurry application rate increased (P < 0.05; Tables 3 and 4). Although the lowest manure application rate (0 kg of N•ha-1•yr-1) brought forage K concentrations in all soils within the critical range (2.3 to 2.5%) (Martin and Matocha, 1973), forage K concentration continued to increase along with increasing manure application and consequent increasing DM yield (Table 3). This is because K is a nutrient that can be assimilated in amounts in excess of that required for plant growth (Miller and Reetz, 1995). Overall forage K concentration was also reflective of initial soil K concentration, with forage K concentration being lower on the Rayne soil, the soil with the lowest initial K concentration (Tables 3 and 4).
The significant soil x slurry application (P < 0.05) interaction in forage K concentration was due to forage K increasing faster in the Rayne soil than in the Hagerstown and Hartleton soils. This was because, at the low soil K concentrations in the Rayne, forage K uptake would be at the steep linear portion of the nutrient uptake curve. In contrast, at the high soil K concentrations in the Hagerstown and Hartleton soils, the forage K uptake would be at the shallow curvilinear portion of the nutrient uptake curve.
In contrast to K, forage Ca and Mg concentration decreased, whereas soil Ca and Mg concentration increased with manure application (P < 0.05; Tables 3 and 4). The decreasing forage Ca and Mg concentration was due to the large amounts of K being applied in the manure decreasing the uptake of Ca and Mg. The amount of manure K was greater than the combined amount of manure Ca and Mg (Table 1). The antagonistic effect of soil K on plant Ca and Mg concentration is well documented and will be further discussed in relation to potential impacts on grazing ruminants (Tisdale et al., 1993).
The antagonistic effect of K on Ca uptake is further illustrated in the significant soil x dairy slurry treatment interaction in forage Ca concentrations (P < 0.05; Table 3). This interaction was caused by forage Ca concentrations decreasing in the Hagerstown and Rayne soils but remaining constant in the Hartleton soil. The Hagerstown soil had the highest Mehlich 3 Ca concentrations, but Mehlich 3 K increased the most in this soil with dairy slurry application (Table 4). This large increase in Mehlich 3 K caused forage Ca to be depressed in the Hagerstown, despite Mehlich 3 Ca being high. In contrast to the Hagerstown, the Rayne soil had the lowest Mehlich 3 Ca and a low increase in Mehlich 3 K with dairy slurry application; still, forage Ca concentration decreased. The decrease in forage Ca concentrations in this instance was due to low initial Mehlich Ca in the Rayne. In contrast to both the Hagerstown and Rayne, the Hartleton had a medium level of Mehlich 3 Ca and a low increase in Mehlich 3 K with dairy slurry application. Consequently, forage Ca concentrations remained relatively constant. The difference in the ways the monovalent-divalent cation interaction manifests itself in this different soil is a function of the dominant clay types in the soils (Stout, 1982).
Potential Implications to Grazing Ruminants
Phosphorus concentrations in all soil types and all slurry application levels were generally adequate or in excess for all classes of ruminants listed (lactating dairy cow producing 35 kg of milk, lactating beef cow producing 8 kg of milk, nonlactating pregnant dairy cow during the last month of gestation, lactating ewe suckling twins) with perhaps the exception of the Rayne soil, which was marginal or deficient particularly at lower levels of fertilization (Figure 1). This is in contrast to earlier research where forage P was found to be generally inadequate for lactating dairy cows (Stout et al., 1977). Soil P has increased in the last few decades, primarily due to the accumulation of manure P (Wang et al., 1999), which is then available for uptake by forage (Grunes and Welch, 1989). In addition, the recommended P feeding level for lactating dairy cows has decreased in light of recent research showing lower actual requirements with additional P being excreted in the feces (NRC, 1989; 2001; Knowlton et al., 2001). Regulations in the northeastern United States target animal production as a nonpoint source of water pollutants (Wang et al., 1999). This data suggests that perhaps even less P supplementation would be necessary in grazing ruminants due to the increased P concentration in the forage itself as well as the decreased P nutrient requirement, although P availability would also have to be considered.
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Phosphorus concentration in orchardgrass pasture collected from three soil types and four fertilization levels in Pennsylvania in relation to mineral nutrient requirements for: a) a lactating dairy cow producing 35 kg of milk/d, b) a lactating beef cow producing 8 kg of milk/d, c) a pregnant, nonlactating dairy cow during the last month of gestation, or d) a lactating ewe suckling twins (NRC, 1985; NRC, 1996; NRC, 2001).
|
|
Potassium concentration in the forage was high in relation to NRC recommendations (NRC 1985; 1996; NRC 2001; Figure 2). High K concentrations in the prepartum diet of high-producing dairy cows can predispose the cow to parturient paresis (milk fever) at parturition by decreasing Ca resorption from bone (Fisher et al., 1994; Sanchez and Beede, 1994; Goff and Horst, 1997). High K concentrations are not as great a concern for lactating cows or ewes since excess K is required by animals under heat stress and lactating animals also excrete moderate amounts of K in milk (Daniels et al., 1985).
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2.
Potassium concentration in orchardgrass pasture collected from three soil types and four fertilization levels in Pennsylvania in relation to mineral nutrient requirements for: a) a lactating dairy cow producing 35 kg of milk/d, b) a lactating beef cow producing 8 kg of milk/d, c) a pregnant, nonlactating dairy cow during the last month of gestation, or d) a lactating ewe suckling twins (NRC, 1985; 1996; NRC, 2001).
|
|
In general, Ca concentration in the forage was marginal (lactating beef cows, dry dairy cows) or inadequate (lactating dairy cows) in relation to NRC (1996; 2001) recommendations, with the exception of the lactating ewe where forage Ca concentration was more than adequate (Figure 3). Although low (0.45% of DM) Ca concentration in the prepartum dairy ration may help prevent milk fever in dairy cows, a high K concentration, such as that observed in this experiment, has been shown to be the overriding factor in predisposing animals to milk fever (Goff and Horst, 1997). However, Soder and Holden (1999) pastured prepartum dairy cows on a grass pasture containing high K (3.2% of DM) with and without anionic salts and found no increased incidence of milk fever cases in animals that were not fed anionic salts. There may be other factors affecting K absorption and metabolism in pastured cows compared with cows fed conserved forages; however, this theory has yet to be researched.
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3.
Calcium concentration in orchardgrass pasture collected from three soil types and four fertilization levels in Pennsylvania in relation to mineral nutrient requirements for: a) a lactating dairy cow producing 35 kg of milk/d, b) a lactating beef cow producing 8 kg of milk/d, c) a pregnant, nonlactating dairy cow during the last month of gestation, or d) a lactating ewe suckling twins (NRC, 1985; 1996; NRC, 2001).
|
|
Magnesium concentration in the forage was generally adequate for all classes of ruminants shown (Figure 4), although some values, particularly those in the Hagerstown soil, were approaching marginal levels for lactating cows. The published values represent seasonal averages across three growing seasons. Seasonal variations in Mg concentration of the forage, particularly the low Mg concentration commonly observed in lush spring growth (Mayland and Wilkinson, 1989) could result in inadequate Mg concentration in the forage, predisposing animals to grass tetany, a metabolic disease of grazing ruminants usually associated with low Mg concentrations in forage (Miller et al., 1969; Grunes and Welch, 1989). Potential animal health problems associated with low Mg concentration in forage are compounded by generally high K concentrations found in Pennsylvania forages (Stout et al., 1977; Fisher et al., 1994); thus, the importance of Mg supplementation in grazing ruminants must be stressed.
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Magnesium concentration in orchardgrass pasture collected from three soil types and four fertilization levels in Pennsylvania in relation to mineral nutrient requirements for: a) a lactating dairy cow producing 35 kg of milk/d, b) a lactating beef cow producing 8 kg of milk/d, c) a pregnant, nonlactating dairy cow during the last month of gestation, or d) a lactating ewe suckling twins (NRC, 1985; 1996; NRC, 2001).
|
|
Mineral adequacy of pastures can be affected by many factors, particularly DMI of the pasture. Typically, DMI is estimated based on BW and physiological status of the animal. If DMI is different from the estimated values, perhaps as a result of low forage availability or low palatability, mineral adequacy of the forage will change. Other factors, such as forage maturity, forage type, season, supplementation of animals, or interactions with other minerals can also affect mineral absorption by animals and must be considered when formulating diets for grazing ruminants.
In summary, forage P was not affected by slurry application, whereas forage K increased and forage Ca and Mg decreased with increasing levels of dairy slurry application. Effect of soil type was variable; the Rayne soil had the lowest P and K concentrations, whereas the Hagerstown soil had the lowest Mg concentrations. Phosphorus and Mg concentrations in all treatments were generally adequate for grazing ruminants. Potassium concentrations were high in relation to NRC (2001) recommendations for prepartum dairy cows, which might predispose them to milk fever. Calcium concentrations were inadequate for lactating dairy cows.
|
Implications
|
|---|
Mean nutrient concentrations in pastures are useful in developing baseline recommendations for fertilization and animal feeding. However, variability in mineral concentration based on geographic location, soil type, fertilization type and level, and fertility of the soil is large. Comprehensive forage testing and diet formulation based on individual farm situations is the best strategy to ensure proper mineral nutrition of grazing animals.
Received for publication October 18, 2002.
Accepted for publication February 19, 2003.
|
Literature Cited
|
|---|
Bouldin, D. R., and S. D. Klausner. 1998. Managing nutrients in manure: General principles and applications to dairy manure in New York. Pages 65–88 in Animal waste utilization: Effective Use of Manure as a Soil Resource. J. L. Hatfield and B. A. Steward, ed. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Campbell, C. R. 1991. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue by combustion. Pages 21–23 in Plant Analysis Reference Procedures in the Southern Region of the United States. C. O. Plank, ed. Southern Region Coop. Ser. Bull. 368, Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Georgia, Athens.
Dahlquist, R. L. and J. W. Knoll. 2001. Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission, spectrometer: analysis of biological materials and major, trace and ultra-trace elements. Applied Spectroscopy 39:1–29.
Daniels, L. B., O. T. Stallcup, and J. M. Rakes. 1985. Potassium levels in diets of lactating dairy cows. Nutr. Rep. Int. 32:915–919.
Eckert, D., and J. T. Sims. 1991. Recommended Soil pH and Lime Requirement Tests. Pages 11–16 in Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. J. T. Sims and A. Wolf, ed. Northeast Regional Bull. #493, Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Delaware, Newark.
Fisher, L. J., N. Dinn, R. M. Tait, and J. A. Shelford. 1994. Effect of level of dietary potassium on the absorption and excretion of calcium and magnesium by lactating cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 74:503–509.
Goff, J. P., and R. L. Horst. 1997. Effects of the addition of potassium or sodium, but not calcium, to prepartum rations on milk fever in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:176–186.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Grunes, D. L., and R. M. Welch. 1989. Plant constituents of magnesium, calcium, and potassium in relation to ruminant nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 67:3485–3494.
Knowlton, K. F., J. H. Herbein, M. A. Meister-Weisbarth, and W. A. Wark. 2001. Nitrogen and phosphorus partitioning in lactating Holstein cows fed different sources of dietary protein and phosphorus. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1210–1217.[Abstract]
Martin, W. E., and J. E. Matocha. 1973. Plant Analysis as an Aid in the Fertilization of Forage Crops. Pages 393–426 in Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. L. E. Walsh and J. D. Beaton, ed. Soil Sci. Soc. of America, Madison, WI.
Mayland, H. F., and S. R. Wilkinson. 1989. Soil factors affecting magnesium availability in plant-animal systems. J. Anim. Sci. 67:3437–3444.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Miller, W. J., W. M. Britton, and M. S. Ansari. 1969. Magnesium in livestock nutrition. Pages 109–130 in Magnesium in the Environment, Soils, Crops, Animals and Man. J. B. Jones, M. C. Blount, and S. R. Wilkinson, ed. The Taylor County Printing Co., Reynolds, GA.
Miller, D. A., and H. F. Reetz. 1995. Forage fertilization. Pages 71–87 in Forages, an Introduction to Grassland Agriculture. R. F. Barnes, D. A. Miller and C. J. Nelson, ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Moyer, J. W., L. S. Saporito, and R. J. Janke. 1996. Design, construction, and installation of intact soil core lysimeter. Agron. J. 88:253–256.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
NRC. 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. 6th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 6th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
NRC. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
Sanchez, W. K., and D. K. Beede. 1994. Interactions of sodium, potassium, and chloride on lactation, acid-base status, and mineral concentrations. J. Dairy Sci. 77:1661–1675.[Abstract]
Sharpley, A., J. J. Meissinger, A. Breeuwsma, J. T. Sims, T. C. Daniel, and J. S. Schepers. 1998. Impacts of animal manure management on ground and surface water quality. Pages 173–242 in Animal Waste Utilization: Effective Use of Manure as a Soil Resource. J. L. Hatfield and B. A. Steward, ed. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Soder, K. J., and L. A. Holden. 1999. Use of anionic salts with grazing prepartum dairy cows. Prof. Anim. Sci. 15:278–285.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Stout, W. L., D. P. Belesky, G. A. Jung, R. S. Adams, and B. L. Moser. 1977. A survey of Pennsylvania forage mineral levels with respect to dairy and beef nutrition. Prog. Rep. No. 364. Pennsylvania Agric. Exp. Stn., University Park.
Stout, W. L. 1982. Potassium and magnesium recovery from selected soils of the Allegheny Plateau. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:1023–1027.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Stout, W. L., S. R. Weaver, W. J. Gburek, G. J. Folmar, and R. R. Schnabel. 2000. Water quality implications of dairy slurry applied to cut pastures in the northeast USA. Soil Use Manag. 16:189–193.
Tisdale, S. L., W. L. Nelson, J. D. Beaton, and J. L. Havlin. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th ed. P. F. Corey, ed. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY.
USDA. 1981a. Major land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States. Agric. Handbook 296. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USDA. 1981b. Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennylvania. USDA, Washington, DC.
USDA. 1985. Soil Survey of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. USDA, Washington, DC.
USDA. 2001. Soil Survey of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. USDA, Washington, DC.
Van Horn, H. H., G. L. Newton, and W. E. Kunkle. 1996. Ruminant nutrition from an environmental perspective: factors affecting whole-farm nutrient balance. J. Anim. Sci. 74:3082–3102.[Abstract]
Wang, S. J., D. G. Fox, D. J. R. Cherney, S. D. Klausner, and L. D. Bourquin. 1999. Impact of dairy farming on well water nitrate level and soil concentrations of phosphorus and potassium. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2164–2169.[Abstract]
Wolf, A., and D. B. Beegle. 1991. Recommended Soil Tests for Macronutrients: phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium. Pages 25–34 in Recommended soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. J. T. Sims and A. Wolf, ed. Northeast Regional Bull. #493, Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. of Delaware, Newark.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
G. F. Tremblay, H. Brassard, G. Belanger, P. Seguin, R. Drapeau, A. Bregard, R. Michaud, and G. Allard
Dietary Cation Anion Difference of Five Cool-Season Grasses
Agron. J.,
March 2, 2006;
98(2):
339 - 348.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Adeli, D. E. Rowe, and J. J. Read
Effects of Soil Type on Bermudagrass Response to Broiler Litter Application
Agron. J.,
January 5, 2006;
98(1):
148 - 155.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
