UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ammonia volatilization losses from manure during and following application to land Cha, Daniel 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A7 C42.pdf [ 3.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096894.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096894-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096894-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096894-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096894-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096894-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096894-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096894-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096894.ris

Full Text

AMMONIA VOLATILIZATION LOSSES  FROM MANURE DURING  FOLLOWING APPLICATION TO LAND  by DANIEL B.Sc.  CHA  (Agr. Eng.), M c G i l l  University,  1984.  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR  THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF APPLIED  SCIENCE  in FACULTY  OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  (DEPARTMENT OF BIO-RESOURCE ENGINEERING)  We  accept to  this  thesis  the r e q u i r e d  THE UNIVERSITY  standard  OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  August,  ©  as conforming  Daniel  1986  Cha,  1986  OF  AND  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It i s  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l n o t be allowed without my  permission.  Department O f  Bio-Resource  Engineering  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  October 10, 1986.  written  ii  ABSTRACT . Volatilization land a p p l i c a t i o n experiments British  comparing  the  carried  manure  out  on  and  following  was measured  three  different  in six farms  in  loss  during  a p p l i c a t i o n was  determined  by  o f manure i n t h e t a n k e r  o f manure  i n the c o l l e c t i o n  and  trays  on  field.  measuring  volatilization  after  spreading  was  t h e ammoniacal-N c o n c e n t r a t i o n following spreading,  and a t  determined  of s o i l  cores  day 1, day 2  and  5. The  percentage  application depending  from  higher  than  The  of  ammonia  the spreading the  high  spray  system  f r o m t h e low s p r a y  manure  during  winter.  Over  2.4%.  summer  the  was  temperature  during  4.0 t o 12.0% i n  method ( h i g h  p e r c e n t a g e o f ammonia  increase  volatilized  o f manure v a r i e d f r o m  on  Losses  of  of l i q u i d  ammonia c o n t e n t  immediately day  ammonia d u r i n g  t h e ammonia c o n t e n t  Ammonia by  of  Columbia.  Ammonia  the  loss  o r low  were  the  summer spray).  significantly  system. lost  always range  during  application  of  greater  than  of 4 to  25 °C,  each  i n ammonia  loss  o f 10 °C r e s u l t e d i n an i n c r e a s e  during  iii  The  percentage of  ammonia  hours a f t e r  application  manure t y p e ,  soil  rate.  The  was  loss during  a function  moisture content,  percentage of  ammonia  during  summer was a l w a y s g r e a t e r  during  w i n t e r . The p e r c e n t a g e o f  manure 24  hours a f t e r  from  s w i n e manure by a f a c t o r  soil  moisture content  by a  p e r c e n t a g e o f ammonia  loss  the  same  resulted in  in a greater  24 h o u r s  The  that  percentage  application loss are  than  varied  The  varied  30 cm snow c o v e r  after  5 days.  ammonia  than  that in  two i n c r e a s e d  the  approximately  o f ammonia 1  dairy  2. An i n c r e a s e  h o u r s by  o f 138 t h a '  to  of  from  during  responsible  of  from  higher  manure c o v e r  percentage  of  was  lost  lost  a t 52 t loss  ha  - 1  (54.7%)  (42.0%).  lost  48  hours  after  temperature,  manure  type,  in and  rate.  percentage  application  factors  i n 24  application  the percentage  ammonia  factor  application  f r o m 43.3 t o 84.8%. The d i f f e r e n c e s  attributed  manure a p p l i c a t i o n  than  24  temperature,  after  of about  f a c t o r . A much t h i n n e r  of  a n d manure  lost  application  the f i r s t  for  ammonia 50.0  lost  5  days  after  t o 93.9%. T e m p e r a t u r e a n d  the winter  s t u d y were t h e  the d i f f e r e n c e s  a  primary  i n ammonia  loss  iv  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  L I S T OF TABLES  V  L I S T OF FIGURES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ix  I.  INTRODUCTION  1  II.  S P E C I F I C RESEARCH OBJECTIVES  3  III.  LITERATURE REVIEW A. L i v e s t o c k Waste Management - Land D i s p o s a l B. V o l a t i l i z a t i o n L o s s o f Ammonia C. F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g V o l a t i l i z a t i o n L o s s o f Ammonia  IV.  V.  MATERIALS AND METHODS A. E x p e r i m e n t a l S i t e s B. E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n and S a m p l i n g C. A n a l y t i c a l T e c h n i q u e  Procedure  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Ammonia N i t r o g e n L o s s D u r i n g A p p l i c a t i o n B. A n a l y t i c a l Method C o m p a r i s o n f o r S o i l Ammonia A n a l y s i s C. Ammonia N i t r o g e n L o s s F o l l o w i n g A p p l i c a t i o n  ...  4 4 5 8  ...  16 16 16 24 26 26  ..  35 36  VI .  SUMMARY  71  VII.  CONCLUSIONS  73  VIII  RECOMENDATIONS  75  LITERATURE CITED  76  APPENDIX A  79  APPENDIX B  81  APPENDIX C .  88  L I S T OF TABLES  Table  Title  page  1  Name, l o c a t i o n , a n d manure t y p e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t e s and t h e d u r a t i o n o f experiments  17  2  T o p o g r a p h y , s o i l , and v e g e t a t i o n o f t h e experimental s i t e s  18  3  E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s a n d manure c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e summer e x p e r i m e n t s  27  4  E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and manure c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r the winter experiments  27  5  P e r c e n t ammonia i n summer  loss during application  29  6  p e r c e n t ammonia in winter  loss during application  30  7  B a c k g r o u n d pH, m o i s t u r e , ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s o i l b e f o r e manure a p p l i c a t i o n i n summer ( s o i l depth=0.5 cm)  37  8  B a c k g r o u n d pH, m o i s t u r e , ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s o i l b e f o r e manure a p p l i c a t i o n i n w i n t e r ( s o i l depth=0.5 cm)  38  9  E f f e c t o f t e m p e r a t u r e on t h e l o s s o f ammonia from s u r f a c e a p p l i e d manure a f t e r 24 h o u r s  49  10  E f f e c t o f s o i l m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t on p e r c e n t ammonia l o s s from s w i n e manure i n 24 h o u r s  55  11  E f f e c t o f manure s o l i d s c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e l o s s o f ammonia from s u r f a c e a p p l i e d manure  59  12  Manure a p p l i c a t i o n  59  13  S o i l pH d u r i n g summer o v e r period  a 5 day s a m p l i n g  63  14  S o i l pH d u r i n g w i n t e r period  a 5 day s a m p l i n g  63  rate  over  vi  Changes in.ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l over 5 days f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f l i q u i d manure i n summer Changes i n ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l over 5 days f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f l i q u i d manure i n w i n t e r C o m p a r i s o n o f c a l c u l a t e d and m e a s u r e d v a l u e s o f ammonia l o s s i n 5 d a y s i n summer C o m p a r i s o n o f c a l c u l a t e d and measured v a l u e s o f ammonia l o s s i n 5 d a y s i n w i n t e r  vi i  L I S T OF Figure  FIGURES  Title  page  1  A vacuum  t a n k e r a t a manure p i t  2  Collection  3  Lay-out  4  E f f e c t o f a m b i e n t t e m p e r a t u r e on t h e p e r c e n t ammonia l o s s d u r i n g manure application  5  P a r t i a l p r e s s u r e o f ammonia o v e r an a q u e o u s s o l u t i o n ( 5 % ammonia s o l u t i o n ) v a r i o u s temperature  trays  19  on t h e f i e l d  of the sampling  21  trays  22 32  34 at  6  C h a n g e s i n ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l w i t h t i m e f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f d a i r y manure a t f a r m A  39  7  C h a n g e s i n ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l w i t h t i m e f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f s w i n e manure a t f a r m A  40  8  C h a n g e s i n ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l w i t h t i m e f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f s w i n e manure a t f a r m B  41  9  C h a n g e s i n ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n s o i l w i t h t i m e f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n o f d a i r y manure a t f a r m C  42  10  P e r c e n t ammonia l o s s f r o m s w i n e manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n a t farm A  44  11  P e r c e n t ammonia l o s s f r o m s w i n e manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n a t farm B  45  12  P e r c e n t ammonia l o s s f r o m d a i r y manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n a t farm A  46  13  P e r c e n t ammonia l o s s f r o m d a i r y manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n a t farm C  47  14  E f f e c t o f manure p o n d i n g on t h e l o s s ammonia from s u r f a c e a p p l i e d s w i n e manure  52  15  C o m p a r i s o n o f p e r c e n t ammonia l o s s d a i r y a n d swine manure a t f a r m A  57  from  viii  E f f e c t o f manure a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e on t h e r a t e o f ammonia l o s s from surface a p p l i e d manure P e r c e n t a g e o f ammonia i n s o l u t i o n a t e q u i l i b r i u m a t v a r i o u s pH  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e my s u p e r v i s o r  D r . Ross B u l l e y  encouragement. S i n c e r e Dr.  S.T. C h i e n g  criticisms  and h e l p f u l  and  the gradute  Department  and  i s a l s o expressed  Bomke f o r t h e i r  t o thank  to  constructive  the e n t i r e t e c h n i c a l  of the Bio-Resource  enthusiastic  s p e c i a l thanks t o  f o rtheir  advice  to  suggestions.  students  fortheir  Finally, my b r o t h e r  like  f o r h i s constant  appreciation  and D r . A.  I would a l s o  thanks and g r a t i t u d e  moral  support my w i f e ,  support.  staff  Engineering  and a s s i s t a n c e . my p a r e n t s ,  and  1 I. Application economically management  of  the  INTRODUCTION  animal best  because  the  waste  to  established nitrogen(N),  crop  land  method  of  is waste  phosphorus(P),  and  potassium(K) content  o f t h e waste c a n be u t i l i z e d  as p l a n t  nutrients.  one o f  concerns  related fact  However,  to u t i l i z a t i o n  that  nitrogen  through v o l a t i l i z a t i o n .  This  in  of  potential ammonia  application lost,  the  finally  ammonia loss  form  became  of  in a  immediately  nitrogen to  in  the lost  reduction in  problems. Furthermore,  occurs  available  i s readily  results  o f manure a n d a s i g n i f i c a n t quantity  is  manure and an i n c r e a s e  f o r environmental  volatilization  important  and d i s p o s a l o f f a r m manure  i n the  the f e r t i l i z e r value  t h e most  after  the since  the  land  amount o f N c a n be manure  plants  is  which  difficult  will to  estimate. In  order  necessary  to  to  best  know  of  the  conservation  most  and u t i l i z e  the q u a n t i t i e s  manure a n d any c h a n g e s Two  manage  i n these  crucial  a r e 1) d u r i n g  of  manure, i t i s  nutrients  nutrients during  periods  concerning  in  handling. nitrogen  t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f manure  2) f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n and b e f o r e  the  and  i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o the  soil.  There are very from manure  during  few r e p o r t s application.  on t h e  l o s s of  B u l l e y and  ammonia  Holbek(l982)  2 reported  that  manure was flail  between 4  lost  during  s p r e a d e r . Pote  sprinkler pH  60%  ammonia  a p p l i c a t i o n with  ammonia  manure  nitrogen  i s lost  was  dairy  delivery  that  during  n o t e x c e e d 8%  for  10.5, l o s s o f 30 t o  predicted.  indicate that  a  by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  manure a p p l i c a t i o n and b e f o r e  large  f r a c t i o n of N  o f ammonia  following  crops are planted  in the  (Lauer  et  1976; Beauchamp e t a l , 1978, 1982; Reddy e t a l , 1979).  Lauer  e t a l . (1976) showed  content  in solid  following  surface  in  d a i r y manure  May. and soil  only  It i s quite soil  pH,  type,  ammonia Logan,  The changes  up t o 90% o f t h e  manure may  application.  that  liquid  that  dairy cattle  indicated  its  loss will  in  a side  suggested  (7 t o 8) manure; however, a t pH  Many s t u d i e s  al,  the nitrogen  e t a l (1980)  irrigation,  low  and 9% o f  be l o s t  Beauchamp  et  24 t o 33% o f t h e a p p l i e d may  apparent  be l o s t  that  l o s s from manure  i n 5 days al(l982)  ammoniacal-N  6 or 7 days  in  many f a c t o r s s u c h a s manure  t e m p e r a t u r e , manure  and v e g e t a t i v e  after  ammonia  cover  (Reddy  solids have  concentration,  strong  effects  on  e t a l , 1979, Donovan  and  1983).  objective in nitrogen  of  this  content  a p p l i c a t i o n to a grass  thesis  is  to  o f manure d u r i n g c r o p under  field  measure and  the  following  conditions.  II.  To  determine  methods on  S P E C I F I C RESEARCH OBJECTIVES  the e f f e c t of s e l e c t e d volatilization  losses  manure of  application  ammonia  during  spreading.  To  determine  temperature, rate,  manure  ammonia after  from  the e f f e c t of s e l e c t e d  variables  soil  manure  moisture  solids field  spreading.  content,  concentration)  spread  manure  on  ( i e . pH,  application  the  loss  f o r up t o f i v e  of days  4 III.  A.  Livestock It  of the  has  been e s t i m a t e d  of  will  liquid  poultry  the  still  wastes that  positive  nutrient  fertilizer  to  by the  costs  a n i m a l w a s t e as  wastes  to  application the  control by  volumes  is  of  disposal. A to u t i l i z e  soil.  Also  are  nutrient  surface  immediate plow-down,  relatively  the  also  reduce  the  or  simple  waste  for  crops in  its  through inorganic  i n the  use  of  livestock  application, or  1981). T h i s l o s s of  surface  injection  p o s s i b l e , manure s h o u l d  o d o r s and  solid  applying  with  (Sutton,  used,  source.  include:  volatilization.  either  increase  land  soil  from  systems  the  a v a i l a b l e for  i n t o the  tonnes  1983).  increases an  wet  Columbia  treatment  r e c y c l i n g i t back t o  a plant  s o i l . Whenever  injected  be  have s t i m u l a t e d  Methods t h a t  (BCMAF,  and  require  6 million  in B r i t i s h  industry  large  Disposal  about  handling  method  content  application  that  produced a n n u a l l y  l i v e s t o c k and  there  yet  Waste Management - Land  wastes are  Regardless  LITERATURE REVIEW  be  into  plowed  will  nitrogen  help  or to  caused  5 B. V o l a t i l i z a t i o n Fresh ammonia-N occur  L o s s o f Ammonia  animal (Hoff  waste  e t a l , 1981).  when manure  production  contains  Volatile  i s exposed  facilities  and  from  0.1  losses  to of  t o a i r movement  i n the f i e l d  1.0% ammonia  in  during  animal  and  after  spreading. Ammonia land  application  quantities water  volatilization  ammonia by  lakes  eutrophication Denmead  et  demonstrated  can  contribute  t o the atmosphere  Direct and  absorption  streams et  Hutchinson  and  that  near  per  y e a r from  a beef the  ammonia  vicinity,  ammonia facility  surrounding  The  quite  i n the a i r to  (1969) absorbed  raise  moves  away  that  from  a n d t h e d i s p e r s a l and d i l u t i o n is  al.,1973;  Viets  a i r to  their  its N  mg/1.  volatilized  atmosphere  et  to  feedlot  However, L a u e r e t a l . (1976) s t a t e d of  atmospheric  contribute  a l . , 1974). a lake  significant  the  Luebs  by 0.6  (Elliot  of  could  o r from  and c a u s e a i r and  a l . , 1971;  enough ammonia content  sites  o f ammonia  pollution.  from a n i m a l f a c i l i t i e s  be  rapid.  Lueb  0.8 km downwind  nearly  at  the  et  the majority  the  immediate  o f ammonia al.  i n the  (1973)  found  from a 600-cow  dairy  background  level  of  the  area.  most  volatilization  serious from manure  consequence s l u r r y i s the  of  ammonia  d i s p e r s a l of  N  6 that  could  have  production. surface  Volatilization  applied  economic v a l u e Sutton ammonia-N earthen 90%  slurry of  from  storage  nitrogen  rates  and  low  as  (7 t o  will  not  8)  exceed  and  Holbek  the  application  delivery predicted they  found  almost that at  pH  a  that  droplet  a  losses  to  of  of  were  a  droplet  20  The  of  losses  of  30  to  increases  increase diameter,  60%  al. pH  exposed  of  that  ammonia  7.7)  ambient when pH  loss  during  with  In  a  side  however, addition,  temperature caused They a l s o  is  Bulley  9%  (1980),  tripled  a the  ammonia-N  4 to  10.5.  i n ammonia l o s s . when h a l v e d ,  as  pH,  of  (pH  i n ambient  such  s u p p o r t e d by  losses  at  to  l o s s and  of  stated  Pote et  70  manure w i t h  degree of  d a i r y manure  and  time.  s t a t e m e n t was reported  of  pit  manure was  i n most a n i m a l manures, t h e 8%.  the  40%  (deep  liquid  They  to  systems  function  size.  and  improve  ammonia-N of  where t h e  The  crop  fertilizer.  examined  system.  for  from s t o r e d  facilities  a p p l i c a t i o n of  spreader.  loss  linear  8.  the  (1982) who  flail  reduced  losses  ditches  (1980)  losses  temperature,  ammonia  e x t e n d e d amount of  irrigation  of  fertilizer  f r o m manure t r e a t m e n t  al.  during  sprinkler  reported  oxidation  et  a  manure as  p i t ) . Higher  a i r f o r an  Pote  be  manure s t o r a g e  were r e p o r t e d  the  as  l o s s of  must  liquid  (1981)  l a g o o n s and to  been u t i l i z e d  an  reported  ammonia  losses  7 Many s t u d i e s a p p l i e d manure spreading al.,  i s lost  (Lauer  have been  applied  reported (Hoff  and L o g a n ,  fraction  of N  o f ammonia  reported  losses  during  t o be  o f more  a  1983). A l t h o u g h a s low a s  after than  greenhouse  in  after  6 days  ammonia-N  24 t o 33%  of  (Beauchamp  et  80% w i t h i n  study  3 days  using  swine  were slurry  e t a l . , 1981). T h u s , N l o s s e s c a n be c o n s i d e r a b l e i f  manure c h a r a c t e r s t i c s  and  favourable.  a l . (1981)  losses  Crane  were  following of  large  by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  d a i r y manure n i t r o g e n  1982),  a  e t a l . , 1976; C r a n e e t a l . , 1981; H o f f e t  1981; Donovan  losses  al.,  i n d i c a t e that  et  between  75  A majority may  be  application. ammonia  lost Lauer  content  days a f t e r  of  over  that  a  ammonia  5-day  manure a t a  are  period  temperature  o f 70%.  t h e ammonia in  conditions  reported  and 100%  a p p l i c a t i o n of p o u l t r y  24 °C and a h u m i d i t y  slurry  environmental  a short  contained period  in  following  e t a l . (1976) i n d i c a t e d t h a t  i n d a i r y manure c a n be l o s t  surface a p p l i c a t i o n .  a  manure surface  50% o f t h e  within  1 to  2  8 C.  Factors It  and  is quite  environmental  loss  will  reduce  factors  have s t r o n g  A discussion  Manure and  2.  Temperature  3.  Manure  4.  A i r movement  5.  Soil  6.  Influence  soil  moisture  the  ammonia dominant  m e a s u r e s t o be  taken  pH  of  other  Soil  ammonia  factors  pH have  i n d i c a t e d the  volatilization  relationship  (Peters  and  et  a l . , 1974;  Reddy e t a l . , 1979;  Crane et  a l . , 1983;  Donovan and  During  ammonia  Logan,  dissociation  of  reaction  ammonia, w h i c h  i s given  NH  =^r  3  +  H0 2  is highly is highly  pH  NH*  et a l . ,  1973; 1981;  1983). the  (Reddy e t  ammonia-N  between  Reddal,  Hoff  volatilization,  physico-chemical process occurs  This  of  on  soil  content  Many s t u d i e s  Mills  effect  some  the  manure,  incorporation  1. Manure and  and  number of  of  in determining  Ammonia  losses.  1.  pH  that  help  such  a  L o s s of  apparent  f r o m manure.  factors to  Affecting Volatilization  following  a l . , 1979).  The  as: +  0H~  d e p e n d e n t . At  susceptible  to  alkaline  pH,  volatilization,  9 predominates while  at neutral  i s mainly  form.  in ionic  Mills fertilizer pH was  or a c i d i c  e t a l (1974) r e p o r t e d ammonia-N  i n the  was  lost  a s ammonia  47%  o f added  Donovan and Logan applied  for  during  (1983) r e p o r t e d in  soils  with  pH's  lost  t h e same  was  of  10% o f  added  g a s when t h e s o i l  was  that  sewage s l u d g e  ammonia-N  a one week  ammonia-N  7.5-8.0, a n d 63% a t pH 8.0-8.5  hours  about  r a n g e o f 7.0-7.5, o v e r  whereas a b o u t  nitrogen  that  pH, t h e  period, a t pH  of  period.  20, 21, a n d 24% volatilized  5.1,  6.7  of  in  and  24 7.5  respectively.  On  land  volatilization soil  and  receiving  losses  are influenced  manure.  ammonia-N  losses  significantly applied  areas  with  ammonia-N  Hoff  et  animal  a l .  from  broadcast  soil  and manure  was v o l a t i l i z e d  7.0,  whereas o n l y  volatilized of  6.4  the s o i l  i n t h e same p e r i o d  Crane approached application manure  from  14% o f  swine  et  al.  (1979)  t h e pH f o u n d of  i s spread  poultry on t h e  reported manure  pH. N e a r l y  that varied  65% o f  i n a 3.5-day p e r i o d t o the s o i l  the a p p l i e d  w i t h a pH o f 6.4 of  ammonia  by t h e pH o f b o t h t h e  (1981)  manure w i t h a pH o f 7.8 was a p p l i e d of  manure,  with a  ammonia-N  the when pH was  a n d a manure pH  time.  observed  that  i n t h e f r e s h manure  the  soil  following  manure. They  suggested  that  soil  the e f f e c t  of  surface,  pH the if soil  10 pH on  ammonia  ammonia  2.  loss  becomes n e g l i g i b l e ,  are influenced  and  losses  by t h e pH o f t h e manure  itself.  Temperature Increasing  increases  the  the  al.,  temperature  loss  (Adriano et a l . ,  of  1958). E r n s t  pH 6.5. They  losses  volatilization  ammonia  As  winter. of  that  dependent,  volatilization  urea,  ammonia  losses  u r e a t o ammonia, w h i c h  in  with  ammonia  Wagner losses  reported  and from  For the f i r s t  they  the  two that  volatilization  is  e t a l . (1971) r e p o r t e d  much  from a f e e d l o t  Steenhuis et a l .  on  h i g h e r a t 25 °C.  ammonia  Elliot  Smith,  f r o m u r e a on a s o i l  10 and 25 °C. of  older  o f 7, 16,  of temperature  increase.  of  and  temperatures  temperature  addition  evidence  Wagner  increase  l o s s e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  temperature higher  the  i n many  a significant  ammonia  et  volatilization  documented  (1960) u s e d  f o r each  urea a t temperatures  a l . , 1976; Reddy  1960;  o f ammonia  (1958) compared  weeks a f t e r  was w e l l Massey,  reported  volatilization  on ammonia  to study the e f f e c t  volatilization  Smith  and  and Massey  a n d 32 °C  through  systems  1983)  temperature  f r o m u r e a s p r e a d on s o i l (Ernst  soil-manure  1974; S t e e n h u i s e t  e f f e c t of  references  of  ammonia  1979; Donovan and Logan, The  24,  of  i n the s p r i n g  (1976) s u g g e s t e d t h e i s temperature  than  conversion  dependent,  may be  11  the  limiting  winter  f a c t o r of  spreading.  ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  At lower  temperatures,  manure N i s i n t h e more s t a b l e  urea  following  a large  form  amount o f  (Steenhuis  et a l ,  1976). Several  studies  f r o m manure a p p l i e d pattern 1982;  (Denmead  Harper  reported  have  i n d i c a t e d that  to the s o i l  et a l . ,  surface  t h e ammonia followed  1974; Beauchamp  the  d i u r n a l ammonia  shortly  a f t e r midday and minima o c c u r r i n g  morning  hours.  and  incorporation  Logan  Kissel  of  the  ammonia with  (1983)  the  losses, the depth  also  loss  application sludge  is  and  (1976)  and  i t s maxima  1982) closely  occurring  during  reported  the  that  the e a r l y  ammonia  by  a t 0.25,  1,  the They  that  into  degree  incorporated,  determined  ammonia-N  reported  of i n c o r p o r a t i o n .  incorporation.  incorporated  application, 4, 6,  with  ammonium compounds  d e c r e a s e d when s l u d g e was of  1978,  Incorporation  Fenn  increased  et a l . ,  was v e r y  t o ambient  reduced  temperature  flux  related  3. Manure  a diurnal  e t a l . , 1983). Beauchamp e t a l . (1978,  that  flux  the  of  reduction  14, a n d 26% o f t h e ammonia-N  and  volatilization magnitude  lag  reported  between  that  3, 6, and 12 h o u r s  volatilized  soil  Donovan  and t h e time  the  for after  i n 24 h o u r s was was applied,  3,  respectively.  12  The  results  conserve  indicate  that  t h e ammonia-N  soon a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n  there  is  i f the sludge as  an  opportunity  i s incorporated  to as  possible.  4. A i r Movement S t u d i e s have increases 1972;  with  indicated  increasing  Steenhuis.,  a l . (1976) r e p o r t e d  by  a factor  o f two  manure d u r i n g  periods  volatilization  losses.  Watkins e t a l . o f 100 t o  proportional these  flow  experiment  indicated  had  flow  little  loss  by  turbulence  minimizes  rate.  at  the a i r  losses  were  km h "  rate  1  air  subsequent  increase  e f f e c t on  that  average A  flow  nearly  They r e p o r t e d  calculated  a further  additional  o f ammonia  rate  spreading  f r o m 0.0004 t o 0.01 that  the a i r flow  that  to  Steenhuis  recommended  ammonia  1  corresponded  ranging  1  air  (1972) showed  velocities  mL m i n "  o f low  3000 mL m i n ~  rates  the rate  f a c t o r . They  t o the l o g of  (Watkins e t a l . ,  increasing  increased  t h e same  o f ammonia  and Stumpe., 1978).  that  approximately  volatilization  a i r movement  1976; V l e k  et  rate  that  to  7000  volatilization  losses. Reddy e t ammonia for  a l . (1979)  occurred at the  a i r v e l o c i t y above  ammonia  reported  that  a i r v e l o c i t y of  0.06  maximum l o s s 0.06 km h "  km h " , t h e r e l a t i v e 1  was assumed t o be c o n s t a n t .  1  loss  of and of  13 5. S o i l  Moisture  There moisture 1960;  ammonia  Adriano  et  90%  t o 60%  on  Ernst  ammonia loss  loss than  saturated ammonia  of  soil  moisture  They  from  In  was  applied  than  soil  a t 21% m o i s t u r e . They a t t r i b u t e d  the  fact  that  moisture  after  moisture  was s t i l l  14-day p e r i o d . extremely soil  soil  (1983).  37.5% m o i s t u r e  at  between  sewage  sludge  the  urea  content  difference  stopped  loss  (1960) a l s o  this  to  to  losing a t 37.5% the  noted  from a i r d r i e d  the  s o i l (5%  incomplete  of m o i s t u r e .  r e p o r t e d by very 24  from  while the s o i l  attributed  reported a  loss  on  study,  p r o c e s s a t t h e end o f  Massey  due t o a l a c k  r e s u l t s were  loss  t h e two s o i l s  21% m o i s t u r e  of ammonia  and t h e y  They a l s o  liquid  having  rates  and  the  ammonia  in a drying  Ernst  moisture),  Similar  soil  of i t s microbial  higher  7 days of a e r a t i o n ,  low r a t e  urea h y d r o l y s i s  from  the  soil  a 14-day  that  ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  that  a n d on  found  in  was  because  they  to  applied  a t m o s p h e r e was d e p e n d e n t  the s o i l .  a significantly  (1971)  manure  (1960) r e p o r t e d t h a t  to the  Massey,  manure  indicated  of m o i s t u r e  soil  a l .  same  volatilization  and Massey  from  the  and  et  liquid  when  between  (Ernst  Adriano  from  soil.  the evaporation  activity.  the  soil  affects  relationship  volatilization  a h i g h e r ammonia  moisture  of  direct  a l . , 1971).  saturated  applied  effect  a  and  measured to  exists  Donovan  low ammonia  hours  after  and loss  it  had  Logan of  6% been  14 applied  to  however,  tension  absorbed  greater  depth  depth of diffuse  soil  than  the  through  soil.  sludge  other  to  moisture  rapidly  thus  w h i c h ammonia  higher  The l o w e r  more  soil,  the  and  to  increasing  gas w o u l d  the  have  to  surface.  Factors  volatilization affected  et  a l .  application  rate  by  factor  about  greater  a  losses  by t h e  from  rate  increased o f 2. of  reported  surface-applied  of i t s  the h a l f Lauer  that life  et a l .  ammonia  application  1  same manure. The  dried  more r a p i d l y  which  increased  Increasing  lighter  doubling  the  f o r ammonia  loss  (1976) m e a s u r e d  loss  (34 t h a " ) t h a n a h e a v i e r  of the  resulted  (1976)  percentage  application  from  the rate  soil  o f ammonia  cation  manure  loss  exchange  ammonia  loss  ammonia  losses  were  lighter (200  t  application  ground  capacity  (Stanley  and Smith  greatest  a  cover,  f r o m t h e manure.  Wahhab e t a l . , 1958; Fenn a n d K i s s e l , ammonia, S t a n l e y  a  application  because of i t s t h i n n e r  in decreasing  with anhydrous that  losses  They,  e t a l . , 1976; S t e e n h u i s e t a l . , 1976).  Steenhuis  1956;  moisture content).  lower  liquid  manure a r e a l s o  1  (6%  i n the a i r d r i e d  of Other  Ammonia  ha"  the  the  to the  6. I n f l u e n c e  (Lauer  soil  attributed  moisture soil  a i r dried  in  and  (CEC) Smith,  1976). W o r k i n g (1956)  found  sandy  soil,  15 intermediate and  Kissel  a wide  loam, a n d l e a s t  (1976) a p p l y i n g  range  inversely  in s i l t  of CEC,  related  ammonium s u l p h a t e  concluded  t o CEC.  in clay  that  soil.  to s o i l s  ammonia  loss  Fenn with was  16 IV. MATERIALS A. E x p e r i m e n t a l of  application  of  experiments  carried  ammonia liquid  Columbia  (Table  sites  grass  i n Table  g r a s s . The a c t u a l was  ranging  during  and  from  manure  out  experimental given  METHODS  Sites  Losses  British  AND  on  were three  1).  2 is  the l e n g t h  1. Ammonia L o s s  During  Application  Three d i f f e r e n t  methods o f  t o compare t h e e f f e c t s  the  loss  o f ammonia  1.  dairy  manure w i t h h i g h  2.  dairy  manure w i t h  3.  swine manure w i t h h i g h  experimental  sites.  manure  (Figure  tanker,  during  same s a m p l i n g  collected  from  using a  of  in the  2. The l e n g t h o f of the  blade  of  field  1 t o 2 cm.  and S a m p l i n g  pit  six  farms  h e i g h t o f t h e g r a s s canopy on t h e  Design  The  land  in  descriptions  i n Table  B. E x p e r i m e n t a l  used  measured different  The  are presented  following  Procedure  manure a p p l i c a t i o n  o f manure s p r e a d i n g methods on application: spray  low s p r a y  vacuum vacuum  spray  procedure  10 cm  tanker.  was employed  Samples  t h e manure p i t  tanker. tanker.  vacuum  The vacuum t a n k e r 1).  were  of  was b a c k e d up t o t h e the  at the i n l e t  diameter  and  at a l l three  15 cm  manure of t h e  were vacuum  deep t i n can  Table 1. Name, l o c a t i o n and manure type of the experimental  sites,  and the duration of experiments.  Farm  Name John V i e t s  Location Chilliwak  Manure Type Swine & Dairy  Duration of Experiment June 26 - July 1/85 Feb. 1 2 - 1 8 , 1986  B  Casey Gulikers  Agassiz  Swine  Sept. A - 9, 1985 Feb. 13 - 18, 1986  U.B.C. Exp. Farm  Oyster River  Dairy  Aug. 26 - 31, 1985 Mar. 26 - 31, 1986  18  Table 2.  Farm A  Topography, s o i l , and vegetation of experimental  sites  Topography  S o i l Type  Vegetation  l e v e l to gently  Grigg series  Orchard grass  undulating  S i l t y clay loam  10 to 20 cm long  Very gently  Fairfield-  Orchard grass  sloping  Kent s e r i e s  10 to 30 cm long  (0.5 to 2% grade)  S i l t loam  level  CassidyChemainus s e r i e s Sandy loam to loam  Orchard grass 10 to 20 cm long  19  F i g u r e 1.  A vacuum tanker a t a manure p i t .  20 w h i c h was Since  nailed  the  to  manure had  s a m p l e s were t a k e n obtain  a  subsampled The  plastic  2m  sample  in  l o n g wooden  been a g i t a t e d ,  at approximately  samples  the  of  tin  nine  30-second the  can  stick. separate  intervals  manure  were  with a  small p l a s t i c  scoop  subsamples  were t h e n  composited  the  plastic  and  of a  in  the  stirred  and  (approximately into  a  to  15  150  mL  bottle.  At  placed  not  representative  t a n k e r . The  mL).  t h e end  field,  collection on  nine trays  t h e p a t h of  3). Immediately  grams) o f  30  cm  diameter  and  ( a r r a n g e d i n 3 by  4  cm  deep  3 matrix)  were  t h e manure vacuum t a n k e r after  manure was  spreading, a  taken  from  sample  each  tray  (Figures  2  (about  50  following  a  careful  m i x i n g . Each  manure sample was  placed in a  plastic  bottle  and  in  immediately  after  collection. from  the  placed The  nine  total  time  trays  was  s a m p l e s were t h e n the  stored  ice  box  taken  to  finish  approximately  in  a l l  5  a refrigerator  sampling  minutes. a t 4 °C  The until  analysis.  Ambient humidity each  and  Co.  manure  were r e c o r d e d  experiment.  Seiki and  an  A wet  L t d . ) was  relative  anemometer.  used  temperatures, at the and  b e g i n n i n g and  dry  speed  speed, t h e end  b u l b thermometer  to determine  h u m i d i t y . Wind  wind  was  ambient  and of  (Ogawa  temperature  m e a s u r e d w i t h a vane  21  F i g u r e 2.  C o l l e c t i o n t r a y s on the  field.  22  Figure  3.  Lay  out of the sampling  trays  Tractor  Manure Vacuum Tanker  10 m  o  r o  5 m  o 5 m  o  o  o  o  o  o  C o l l e c t i o n Trays  10 m  23 Ammonia and  l o s s e s were  calculating  concentration pit  and  the  from the  2.  the  (wet  determined difference  weight  of  the  ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n  of  the  order the  to simulate effect  of  the  soil/manure  a p p l i e d to  cover.  The  was  spreading  of  and  plot  manure f r o m samples  the  collected  same  day  3 cm  soil  vegetative  immediately  following  day  on  the  top  the  soil  was  a l s o sampled  5.  Nine  soil  were c o l l e c t e d  i n t o the the  with  as  in  soil.  blades  soil  ammonia  a  3 matrix  cut of  and  depth  3 by  readily  2,  s y s t e m on  to  was  of  from  Figure The  cores  3)  sharp  grass,  collected  the  with  by edge thus the  core.  The to  nitrogen All  spreading  to  f o r each t e s t  sample  cores  were  t o r e d u c e any  before  the  sample  at  three  determine  content  collection place  1,  and  a  sampled  i n v e r t e d t i n can  can  vegetation  prior  a t day  (the  an  the  soil  soil  diameter  pushing  ammonia  o p e r a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s , and  manure was  test  the  Application  losses,  6 cm  between  samples  trays.  determine  of  analysing  basis)  Ammonia L o s s F o l l o w i n g In  by  the  locations  background  soil  plot.  placed  further reached  random  in  an  ice  box  changes t h a t might the  laboratory.  after take  24 C. A n a l y t i c a l All  analyses  Engineering British  Technique were c a r r i e d  Laboratory  out i n  located  at  the  the  Bio-Resource  University  of  Columbia.  1. Manure A n a l y s i s Dry  matter  content  the  sample  The  pH f o r e a c h manure sample was  electrode al.,  convection  directly  1976),  before  into  oven a t 107  a moist  allowing 1  to  Auto A n a l y z e r Kjeldahl  hours.  by i n s e r t i n g  manure  sample  2 minutes  for  a  pH  (Lauer  et  equilibration  f o r ammonia  content  II (Technicon,  nitrogen  with d i s t i l l e d  directly  1971). To  Kjeldahl  digestion  concentrated digester. analysed  The  on a  reagent  sulphuric sample  acid was  (Black, f.or then  f o r TKN on a T e c h n i c o n method p r o p o s e d  1.5 g o f  total  to  Auto A n a l y z e r  on 50  of  standard  and 5  hours  diluted  by T e c h n i c o n  Technicon  (g) sample  1965b) 24  water  determine  (TKN) o f manure, a 1 gram  manure was d i g e s t e d w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y  (1971 ).  °C f o r 24  taken  manure samples were d i l u t e d  analyzed  to the  by d r y i n g  t a k i n g the reading.  The and  in a  o f manure was d e t e r m i n e d  mL  a  of  block mL  and  II a c c o r d i n g  Industrial  Systems  25 2. S o i l  Analysis  In  the  laboratory,  plastic  bags a n d  shaking  and c r u s h i n g  was d e t e r m i n e d and  soil  using  pH  from  blender  was m e a s u r e d  nitrate,  1M  decanted  KC1  into  a air-tight 24  was t h e n  analysed  digester  for  ammonia  Auto A n a l y z e r  the s o i l  sample  and  a  To to  soil  give  et  series) and  of  the in  ammonia 1:10  a  and  (wt/vol)  5  minutes,  and k e p t  in  the The  m i n u t e s a t 3500  rpm  and t h e  nitrate  supernatant  directly  1971). TKN  on  II  and  on a d r y w e i g h t  block  (Technicon,  as t h e manure  TKN,  a  content  by u s i n g a  Analyzer  ammonia,  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d  suspension  a l . , 1976).  was a l s o d e t e r m i n e d  analysis,  1965a)  rest  for  bottle  (Lauer  Auto  moisture  and p l a c e d  a  blended  f o l l o w i n g t h e same p r o c e d u r e  For  the  II (Technicon,  Technicon  of  (Black,  extract  plastic  H-103N  action  1965b).  was  hours  in  soil-water  c e n t r i f u g e d f o r 10  (Western S c i e n t i f i c ,  Technicon  added  mixture  for  basis  bag was w e i g h e d  blender). was  The  refrigerator  1971)  a 1:1  placed  hand. S o i l  weight  in  were  repeated  determinations,  the p l a s t i c  suspension.  mixture  these  (Osterizer  by  t h e s a m p l e s by  a glass electrode (Black,  sample  in  samples  mixed t h o r o u g h l y  on an o v e n - d r y  Following  was  soil  analysis.  nitrate  basis.  26 V. RESULTS AND  A. Ammonia  Nitrogen  Ammonia calculated  loss  in  Loss During during  by s u b t r a c t i n g  waste c o l l e c t e d  DISCUSSION  Application  application t h e ammonia  i n the tray  express  by  the  losses  Losses of  ammonia  concentration  ammonia  ammonia from  among  This  indicates  not  the 9 trays  affected  that  concentration  Tables  3  each  tray  were  presented  and  conditions  Table  4.  the e n t i r e  of s p r a y i n g  Analysis height  i n 3 by 3 m a t r i x  (ie.  Since  there  air  was  experimental period,  (Figure loss  3). was  temperature,  method on ammonia o f ammonia  o f t h e manure s p r a y  was c a r r i e d  deflector  are given i n no  rainfall  precipitation  tables.  of v a r i a t i o n  angle of the  i n ammonia  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f ammonia  i s n o t shown i n t h e s e  1. E f f e c t  to  loss.  h u m i d i t y ) and manure c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  throughout data  the  and  by w i n d .  Environmental relative  placed  of the  concentration  A p p e n d i x A. T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e loss  was  of t h e vacuum t a n k e r )  manure p i t ' s  as p e r c e n t  manure  f r o m t h e ammonia  t h e manure p i t ( a t t h e i n l e t  dividing  of  plate  loss loss  with  varying  o u t by c h a n g i n g t h e  at the rear  of the  manure  27  Table 3-  Environmental conditions and manure characteristics for the experiments i n summer.  Faro  Manure Type  A i r Temp.  Swine  27.A  RH  Manure pH  Manure . Std. Z TS - Dev.  50  7.58  6.06+0.21  Dairy B  Table 4.  7.54  Swine  17.8  70  7.82  Dairy  26.4  45  7.51  10.9  + 0.59  3.60 + 0.18 12.5  + 0.52  Environmental conditions and manure characteristics for the experiments i n winter.  Farm A  Manure Type  A i r Temp. (deg.C)  RH X  Manure Temp.( C)  Manure pH  Manure Std. % TS — Dev.  Swine  5.0  38  6.0  7.56  4.18+0.15  6.5  7.70  7.22 + 0.28 2.58+0.11  Dairy B  Swine  4.0  40  5.0  7.66  C  Dairy  8.0  70  10.0  8.43  11.7  + 0.61  28 vacuum t a n k e r . Maximum h e i g h t o f t h e manure p a r t i c l e  from  the high  5 m from  the  reached  only  spray  system  reached  g r o u n d w h i l e manure from 1.5 t o 2 m from The high  s p r a y method system  (Table  5).  (section  from  9.78  4.12  The  spray  to  I in  turbulence  deflector  plate  b r e a k up i n t o  from  the  system. During  the  11.8% f o r  differences Appendix  spray  spray  provided appeared  to  spray  B ) . The h i g h e r  losses  droplet size  and  that the droplet size system  the  was much  higher  cause  smaller droplets.  s y s t e m , t h e manure was  high  statstically  s y s t e m . The g r e a t e r by  the  t h e low  were  f a c t o r s : manure  the high  t o t h e low  to  greater  5.82% f o r  i n t h e a i r . I t was o b s e r v e d  compared  system  significantly  t h e low  t o two  t h e manure from  spray  than  varied  are a t t r i b u t e d  and  was  and from  significant  time  loss  system  summer, l o s s e s  t h e low s p r a y  the ground.  ammonia  spray  approximately  the  smaller  resistance  angle  of  the  manure s t r e a m  In the case  r e l e a s e d from  of  of the  to low  the tanker  in  size,  is  "lumps". As  the  result  of  smaller  hypothesized  that the g r e a t e r  t h e ammonia  exchange w i t h  ammonia  i n the high  loss  a l s o noted They s t a t e d  that the that a  l o s e s more t h a n  droplet  available  the a i r  spray  caused  affects  d r o p l e t diameter  50 p e r c e n t  surface area  system. Pote  droplet size  an  for  additional  et a l .  (1980)  ammonia  loss.  of l e s s  o f i t s ammonia  it  than  while a  2  mm  droplet  Table 5.  Farm A  Percent ammonia loss during application i n summer.  *  Manure Type  Spray Method  Ammonia (ppm) *10 Tray Std. Dev. Tank  TKN (ppm) *10 Tank Tray Std. Dev.  Swine  High  1.28  1.15 + 0.04  6.00  5.70 + 0.14  10.1  Dairy  High  1.32  1.16 + 0.03  6.32  5.81 + 0.32  11.8  Low  1.38  1.30 + 0.05  6.20  5.81 + 0.39  5.82  3  3  Ammonia Loss (%)  B  Swine  High  2.01  1.82 + 0.11  3.58  3.26 + 0.27  9.02  C  Dairy  High  1.57  1.41 + 0.07  4.46  4.40+0.46  9.78  1.57  1.50 + 0.08  4.46  4.20 + 0.33  4.12  Low  *  i  presented on Appendix C. S t a t s t i c s on the comparison of the higll and low systems are  Table 6.  Farm  B  Percent ammonia loss during application i n winter.  Manure Type  Spray Method  Ammonia (ppm) *10 Tank Tray Std. Dev.  Swine  High  2.45  2.32 + 0.23  7.48  7.23 + 0.41  5.38  Dairy  High  1.81  1.72 + 0.05  6.33  6.12 + 0.84  5.20  Swine  High  2.97  2.84 + 0.12  6.06  5.87 + 0.59  4.33  Dairy  High  2.38  2.20 + 0.08  9.17  8.95 + 0.63  7.73  Low  2.38  2.28 + 0.09  9.17  9.11 + 0.65  4.08  TKN (ppm) *10 Tank Tray  Ammonia Std. Dev. Loss (%)  31  of  diameter  greater  of  i t s ammonia d u r i n g Furthermore,  than  2  mm  the f l i g h t  spray  the  system. Since  volatilization  droplet  time  50  percent  o f t h e manure  s y s t e m was much  i s the  manure d r o p l e t a n d  than  flight.  from t h e h i g h low s p r a y  loses less  longer  the d r i v i n g  concentration  the a i r ,  than  that  force for  gradient  the longer  to the a i r r e s u l t e d i n greater  droplets of  ammonia  between  the  exposure of  the  ammonia  loss.  2. T e m p e r a t u r e T h e r e was a  significant  temperature  and  application  (Figure  significantly the  winter  greater  trial.  volatilization according  the  correlation  percent 4).  The  increased  ambient  loss  during  ammonia loss  of  f o r t h e summer t r i a l  Linear  between  ammonia  was  a s compared  to  r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s showed with  increasing  that  temperature  to the equation: % ammonia loss = 4.34 + 0.24T  ( r = 0.944)  where T = ambient temperature ("C) Polynomial but  r e g r e s s i o n was a l s o u s e d  the r e s u l t According  loss during rise  was s i m i l a r  i n the data  to the l i n e a r  t o t h e above e q u a t i o n ,  a p p l i c a t i o n i n c r e a s e d by  i n temperature. For a temperature  10 °C, t h e v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  loss  analysis,  regression.  the percent 2.4% f o r e a c h shift  o f ammonia  was  ammonia 10  °C  from 0 °C - t o i n c r e a s e d by  32  Figure A.  E f f e c t of ambient temperature on the percent loss during manure  application.  ammonia  33 a  factor  et  o f 1.55. T h i s  a l . ( 1 9 8 0 ) , who  ambient  reported  temperature,  2% d u r i n g  from  free  over  at various  plotted  5.  temperature ammonia  by a f a c t o r  Figure shift  The  Pote  loss  in  increased  by  sprinkler  5  of  solution  were  (Perry  Figure  o f an  partial  (5%  ammonia  obtained  and C h i l t o n , indicates  solution  of  the  from  o f ammonia  the  1973) and  that  from 0 °C t o 10 °C, t h e p a r t i a l  o v e r an aqueous  aqueous  the v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  values  temperatures handbook  in  to  an aqueous  Chemical Engineers'  of  ammonia  of  10 °C r i s e  i n temperature  i s related surface.  o f ammonia  solution)  f o r each  o f swine manure w i t h a  a change  o f ammonia  pressure  that  to that  system.  Theoretically,  ammonia  i s similar  the percent  the a p p l i c a t i o n  irrigation  solution  result  for  a  pressure increases  o f 1.8.  A possible  explanation  v a l u e a s compared the  solids  in  gas  transfer.  to  f o r the  higher  the observed value  manure may  have  reduced  theoretical  o f 1.55 i s  that  the i n t e r f a c e  for  34  Figure 5.  P a r t i a l pressure of ammonia over an aqueous s o l u t i o n (5% ammonia solution) at various temperatures.  35 B. A n a l y t i c a l In  order  experiment, from  Method C o m p a r i s o n  soil  to  the  simplify  For S o i l and  s t a n d a r d method  (Black  1965b) was  Ammonia  reduce  the  time  f o r ammonium  m o d i f i e d i n two  Analysis of  extraction  ways f o r  this  study: 1.  samples shaken  of s o i l for  1  were b l e n d e d hour  f o r 5 minutes  as recommended  by  rather  the  than  standard  method. 2.  1 M KC1 to  was  save  used  in  chemical  place cost  o f t h e recommended and  the  time  of  2 M  KC1  chemical  preparation. As  shown  materials  i n Appendix  o r methods  m e a s u r e d ammonium In pH  3  addition,  v s pH  in  significant  in  o f ammonium e x t r a c t i o n  at  concentrations. a comparison  ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  process  in  changes  minimize  blending  t h i s paper  resulted  no  to  on  none o f t h e above c h a n g e s  6 showed  solution  Based  C,  (Appendix  benefit  on  an  acidified during  the  C).  these r e s u l t s ,  a r e based  in using  a l l soil  analysis  reported  t h e m o d i f i e d s t a n d a r d method.  in  36 C.  Ammoniacal-N  Loss Following  B a c k g r o u n d pH, concentrations are  presented Percent  was  found  of  moisture,  soil  ammonia  concentration  nitrate  l o s s f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of  manure  the  soil  ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n after  and  manure  7 and  of  the  TKN,  a p p l i c a t i o n of  8.  determining of  ammonia,  before  in Table  by  Manure A p p l i c a t i o n  the with  the  change time  soil  in  and  the  ammonia  dividing  sample t a k e n  by  immediately  spreading. The  most  s e r i o u s consequence  o f ammonia  loss  from  nitrogen  that  manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n i s t h e  l o s s of  could  nutrient. Little  have been  utilized  lost  when manure s l u r r y  soil  (Donovan  there  is  a  incorporation, lost. in  the  Figures soil  vegetative  Logan,  time  lag  a  the  was  cover  pattern  resembles  that  the  of  slope  1983). On between  significant 9  on  (orchard sharply  of  for winter.  the  winter  the  of  the  soil  first  from  day  concentration However,  into  hand,  nitrogen  if  with  surface  may  be  t i m e when having  concentration two  and  concentration  days,  2 t o day curve  from day  appears  is  application  exponentially  i n the  curve  other  ammonia  g r a s s ) . The  change the  manure  N  incorporated  the  amount  show t h a t  spread  a much more g r a d u a l 2,  plant  samples d e c r e a s e d  ammonia d r o p s v e r y  day  as  i s immediately  and  6 to  manure s l u r r y  by  the  of  followed 5.  for  Up  off  to  summer  2 t o day  to l e v e l  a  5, more  Table 7.  Background pH, moisture, ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e concentration of s o i l before manure application i n summer ( s o i l depth « 5 cm).  pH + ** - DevSt(  Farm  Moisture Content (%)  Concentration (ppm) Ammonia  TKN *10  3  Nitrate  5.61 + 0.25  15.4 + 1.0  10.2 + 1.5  2.81 + 0.31  6.11 + 0.36  31.2 + 1.7  45.0 +5.9  3.03 + 0.49  94.0 + 10.8  5.14 + 0.29  20.4 + 1.2  26.4 + 3.2  4.01 + 0.50  68.5 + 8.2  118 + 19  Table 8.  Background pH, moisture, ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e concentration of s o i l before manure a p p l i c a t i o n i n winter ( s o i l depth = 5 cm).  Farm  C  „ p  H  , Std. - Dev.  Moisture Content (%)  Concentration (ppm) Ammonia  TKN *10  3  Nitrate  5.52 + 0.19  25.8 + 1.3  35.1 + 4.1  3.49 + 0.49  6.42 + 0.31  40.6 + 1.9  60.6 + 7.2  3.77 + 0.42  86.5 + 11.3  4.88+0.15  30.1+1.4  39.7+5.1  3.28+0.38  54.4+7.7  71.2 + 10.5  CD  »  39  in  © —<ZL CZL  cz o ro  cz  QJ U CZ  © summer < -+ winter ( 0 to 22  t  o  27  d  e  g  .c)  5 de .c) g  \  CD CD  CO  CO  i \  a  CD ,  (\l  I  o  T 2  0  T  T 3  Time (day) Figure 6.  Changes i n ammonia concentration i n s o i l with time f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n of dairy manure at farm A.  40  If)  -© summer ( 2 2 winter < -4-  CD  O ,  0  t  1 0  o  27 5  d d  e  e  g  g  .c)  .c)  •L  3S  ^  °.  CD* CD  CZ CO  a ro  o CD  T 2  T  3  Time (day) Figure 7.  Changes i n ammonia concentration i n s o i l with time f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n of swine manure at farm A.  41  Figure 8.  Changes i n ammonia concentration i n s o i l with time f o l l o w i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n of swine manure at farm B.  42  Figure 9.  Changes i n ammonia concentration i n s o i l with time following an application of dairy manure at farm C.  43 quickly  than  that  o f t h e summer  A l t h o u g h ammonia-N applied  liquid  (Figures with  manure  l o s s e s were o n l y after 5  10 and 11), l o s s e s  liquid  the winter 90% were  t h e summer  study recorded  study  (Figures  l o s s e s c a n be c o n s i d e r a b l e  characteristics  A majority  of  i n a very  short  Up t o  55% o f  within  24  days,  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  t h e ammonia  t h e ammonia  up t o 85% o f These  ammonia  results Lauer  losses  greenhouse  period  hours a f t e r  (1981) and  that  40 t o 45% f o r t h e  if  conditions  favourable.  lost  12).  in  o f more t h a n  12 a n d 1 3 ) . T h u s , n i t r o g e n  are  days  d a i r y manure d u r i n g  manure/soil  curve.  study  surface  in dairy  manure c a n  application,  applied  ammonia-N  support  the  80% w i t h i n  a s low  a s 1.86 d a y s ,  the  content  c a n be l o s t  ammonia  On t h e o t h e r losses manure  difference  only  24  from b r o a d c a s t to  33%  days d u r i n g et a l .  of the s o i l  a  reported exhibited 50%  of  1 to 2 days.  applied  after  between o u r s t u d y and t h a t  was t h e c o n d i t i o n  reported  i n d i c a t i n g that  within  2  et a l .  hand, Beauchamp e t a l (1982) f o u n d  o f ammoniacal-N were  3  lost  (Figure  a l .  l o s s f r o m d a i r y manure  a half-life  be  Hoff  et  swine s l u r r y . L a u e r  t h e r a t e o f ammonia  application.  c a n be l o s t  Hoff  be  and a f t e r  f i n d i n g s of  (1976).  more t h a n using  s l u r r y can  following  surface  et a l .  of  i n manure  6  liquid  days.  A  that dairy major  by Beauchamp e t a l .  surface.  Beauchamp e t a l .  44  CD  •  CD CD  Time (DAY) Figure 10.  Percent ammonia l o s s from swine manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n at farm A.  45  CD  •  CD CD  Figure 11.  Percent ammonia l o s s from swine manure f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n at farm B.  46  CD  «  CD CD  Time (day) Figure 12.  Percent ammonia l o s s from d a i r y manure a p p l i c a t i o n at farm A.  following  47  Figure 13.  Percent ammonia l o s s from dairy manure a p p l i c a t i o n at farm C.  following  48 applied  the  liquid  plowed and d i s k e d surface to  has a h i g h  this the  i s applied  study, manure  permeability of l i q u i d to  soil  the surface  between t h i s  may  soil  with a  cover  account  had  been  Such a b a r e  soil  into  thus  leading  the s o i l .  vegetative  decreases  cover  When as  the rate a t  i n t e r a c t with  for part  s t u d y and t h a t  that  f o r moisture  manure  s o l i d s and l i q u i d s  diffference  bare  t o smooth t h e s u r f a c e .  r a p i d movement  manure  manure t o  which  the s o i l .  of the d i f f e r e n c e s  o f Beauchamp e t a l .  in  This noted  (1982).  1. T e m p e r a t u r e Ammonia winter 13.  and summer  Increasing  increased period, and  losses  from  losses  applied  o f ammonia  varied  from  manure  a r e compared  the temperature  those  of the soil-manure  reported  by  Lauer lost  (Table  Statistical  loss  9).  study These  24 h o u r s loss  in  who of the  i n August.  analysis  (p=0.95) d i f f e r e n c e  1-day  e t a l (1976)  within  to  systems  25 t o 40 % f o r t h e w i n t e r  25% o f ammoniacal-N was  24-hour p e r i o d  the  10  l o s s . A t t h e end o f a  manure a p p l i c a t i o n i n J a n u a r y and 45% ammonia same  during  in Figures  30 t o 55 % f o r t h e summer s t u d y  resemble  reported  studies  the rate  losses  from the  showed  e x i s t s between  i n summer and i n w i n t e r  (section  that  a  the rate  significant of  ammonia  II i n Appendix B ) .  49  Table 9.  E f f e c t of temperature on the loss of ammonia from surface applied manure a f t e r 24 hours.  Farm  B  Manure Type  Ambient Temperature (deg. C)  Ammonia Loss i n 24 hours (Z)  Winter  Summer  Winter  Summer  Swine  5.1  27.4  23.4  29.8  Dairy  5.1  27.4  39.9  54.7  Swine  4.3  17.8  37.3  42.4  Dairy  8.0  26.4  25.9  42.0  50 For winter 24  a t e m p e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n c e of  study  to the  h o u r s was  result found  increased  is similar that  summer  the  by  the  to that  reaction  of  t o 3.5  times  f o r each  the  system  t e m p e r a t u r e was  ammonia  flux  closely  related  occurred  at  occurred  20  in  relatively  94%  losses  occurred  11).  winter  as  ,but  also  loss.  at  the  °C)  minimum  (9  not  had  At  when  They  when  that  the  w h i c h was  most  high  flux  peak  l o s s of  ammonia  temperature  of a  i n the  (1974)  found  affected  strong B,  was  effect  a higher  during  on  ammonia  t o a l o s s of  65%  same 5-day p e r i o d t h a t , under a  at  25  °C d u r i n g  the  snowfall  occurring  3 days a f t e r  trial  at  average  the  during  to a  °C,  winter  loss  greenhouse  10  the  the  the  (Figure  at  t o 45%  cm  short-term  5-day p e r i o d d u r i n g  compared  °C)  only  a  farm  end  as  reported  t o a 30  application  This  °C.  also reported  morning  temperature  et a l  compared  Due  0 t o 30  in  approximately  t e m p e r a t u r e a f f e c t e d l o s s e s f o r up  p e r i o d . They 39%  (26  study  Adriano  condition,  1.7.  the  low.  summer s t u d y the  to  in temperature,  t e m p e r a t u r e . The and  from  et a l . (1976).  diurnal pattern  early  l o n g - t e r m ammonia of  rise  1982)  (midday)  the  Furthermore, ammonia  °C  1.3  increased  between  a  to a i r °C  10  °C  l o s s of ammonia  Steenhuis  (1978,  followed  the  t o 20  f a c t o r of  r a t e was  1.3  Beauchamp e t a l  study,  15  4-week  losses  first  were  4 weeks.  farms A and  manure B,  very  51 little  loss  apparent  o f ammonia that  was  the  found  snow  f r o m day 2  cover  t o 5. I t  inhibited  is  ammonia  volatilization.  2. Manure  Ponding  Manure p o n d i n g liquid  manure  strongly soil.  i s a condition  where a l a y e r  i s m a i n t a i n e d on t h e s o i l  influenced  by  Consequently,  the rate  swine  of  surface  liquid  manure  which  In  effect Figure  o f manure p o n d i n g 14, ammonia  where manure p o n d i n g 29.8%  1 from from  loss at  analysis  f a r m A was  fields  farms  had  with similar  showed t h a t  h e i g h t s and  solids  both  comparable.  at  farms  farm B  throughout  were  evaluate  lost  B of  loss at than  manure  densities  of  However, ambient from  a s compared t o  from  day that  B).  low ( r a n g e d  the experiment  loss.  42.4% f o r f a r m  to  15  grass  vegetative  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f t h e manure  was u n u s u a l l y  p e r c e n t o f ammonia  greater  o f ammonia  ammonia  swine  (25 t o 27 ° C ) . B e c a u s e o f t h e l o w e r the  to  (p=0.95) l o w e r  B applied  c o v e r . The t o t a l  a  into  a s compared t o l o s s  I I I i n Appendix  A and  and i t i s  was n o t n o t i c e d .  significantly  farm B ( s e c t i o n Both  day 1 was  was o b s e r v e d  a t f a r m A where p o n d i n g Statistical  on t h e r a t e  free  movement  m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t t h a n d a i r y manure was c h o s e n the  of  from  temperature t o 18  °C)  that  of farm  A  temperature  a t farm  B,  farm B s h o u l d have  been  52  Figure 14.  Effect of manure ponding on the loss of ammonia from surface applied swine manure.  53 lower  than  the l o s s e s  f a r m B, p o n d i n g application liquid In  manure  on t h e s o i l  (containing ponding  manure l i q u i d adsorb  volatilization  caused  and  o f ammonia  from  f a r m A i n 24 h o u r s . Ponding  to  loss  at  appeared  ammonia  loss  than  the curve Similar  of  ammonia-N  of  of the s o i l  the  rate  g r e a t e r than  moisture farm A  factor  on  the  c o n t e n t as  the  ( w h i c h was  24 h o u r s  23.4%  exposed sharply  (Figure 14).  i n 24 h o u r s  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y obtained  that  and  i n c r e a s e d much more  volatilized  This  of  24 h o u r s ,  was o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r  f a r m B where ammonia  loss  for  f o r farm A a f t e r  applied.  with  the  r e d u c e d . As a r e s u l t , t h e  soil  temperature)  ponding  to the a i r .  Thus, t h e c a p a c i t y  disappeared after  than  of the  c o n t a c t between  t o be a more p r o m i n e n t  at  ammonia  a minimal  f a r m B was  loss curve  h i g h e r ambient  ammonia)  interfere  from  farm B  o f ammonia  percent  i n longer exposure  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  rate  rate  s u r f a c e was o b s e r v e d a f t e r t h e  dissolved  and t h e s o i l .  ammonia  temperature  f a r m A. However, i n t h e c a s e o f  o f manure, r e s u l t i n g  addition,  to  from  from  study  was  37.4%  higher  farm  A  than  without  ponding. Possible soil  moisture  reduction of  reasons  f o r ponding  content.  of the s o i l ' s  the a b i l i t y  of  Soil  are s o i l  compaction  infiltrability,  the s o i l  profile  compaction results  which  and in  a  i s a measure  t o conduct  water  (De  54 Vries,  1983).  machinery  and/or  infiltration manure  liquid  liquid  that  into  the  into  into  the  liquid  Table  soil.  traffic  of  reduced  the s o i l ,  thus  the  causing  10  indicates  into  that  that  from the  m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t . Donovan and significantly  higher  liquid  when  than  rate the  i n the a i r - d r i e d  addition  of the soil  greater  depth  than  of  soil  through  to the  soil  sludge  soil  soil  lower  air-dried  soil.  loss  from  the  soil  was  alway  background  loss at  soil  time.  (1983) a l s o  was  soil  reported a  from  sewage  saturation  (32%  (6% m o i s t u r e ) . M o i s t u r e  were h i g h enough a f t e r  the  the sludge l i q u i d .  the l i q u i d  the s a t u r a t e d  surface.  sewage  of  o f ammonia  which  of  w i t h lower  sludge to absorb absorbed  (1983)  to the s a t u r a t e d  Logan  from a i r - d r i e d  tensions  Logan  moisture content  soil  of  and  the  ammonia  soil  the r a t e  significantly  to a i r for a longer period  than  air-dried  was  sewage s l u d g e a p p l i e d  greater  moisture)  rate  soil  infiltration  background  sludge  influences  Donovan  infiltration  with higher  diffuse  by  have  strongly  the s a t u r a t e d  exposed  the  caused may  manure  moisture content  Consequently, was  livestock  movement  reported  than  of  compaction  ponding.  Soil  liquid  Soil  more r a p i d l y  soil  ammonia  increasing gas  would  The  and  to  the  depth  have  a  to  55  Table 10. E f f e c t of s o i l moisture content on percent ammonia l o s s from swine manure i n 24 hours.  Farm  Manure Type  S o i l Moisture Standard Content (%) — Deviation . Summer  Winter  Ammonia Loss i n 24 hours ( I ) Summer  Winter  A  Swine  15.4+0.95  25.8+1.26  29.8  23.4  B  Swine  31.2 + 1.68  40.6 + 1.89  42.4  37.4  56 Furthermore, moisture loss.  content  They  at  of  near  ammonia  saturated  on m i c r o b i a l  could  study because  for  5  that  long-term  soil  ammonia  l o s s e s a f t e r 4 weeks manure  condition.  was  They  spread found  ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  of on that  because  activity.  n o t , however,  our  the  when l i q u i d  a f f e c t e d long-term  i t s effect We  influences  that  were h i g h e r  a  moisture  also  reported  incubation soil  A d r i a n o e t a l (1974) s u g g e s t e d  support  the d u r a t i o n  their  o f our  conclusion  experiment  with  was  only  days.  3. Manure  Type  Ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n manure  was  application  compared (Figure  and  swine manure on  was  possible  dairy  swine  environmental  applied  for  days  15). S i n c e the  manure  during  the  losses  found  for  under  manure  both  dairy  same day, i t  similar  losses  from  soil  and  conditions.  swine  higher  swine  following  farm A spreads  same f i e l d  manure, l o s s e s  ammonia-N, a t day  constant  5  manure and  t o compare ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  and  For  from d a i r y  of  dairy  exposure  54.7  1  and  a t day  manure  were day  1 and  (Figure  29.8%  and  60.6%  of  2 respectively.  Much  84.8%  were  15).  to high temperatures  a t day However,  f o r 5 days  2  under (average  57  Figure 15.  Comparison of percent ammonia loss from d a i r y and swine manure at farm A  58 temperature  =  27 ° C ) ,  l o s s e s from  90.4%, w h i c h was a p p r o x i m a t e l y of  the winter  study  manure w i t h 23.4%  was  a solids  obtained  a t f a r m A. L o s s e s o f 39.9% and  solids  possible  between first  concentration  concentration  2 days that  swine  of  60.7%  for  dairy  7.22%.  Swine  o f 4.18% had l o s s e s  cover  manure w i t h Dairy  and  potential  and  ammonia  of  on  top  f o r ammonia  and of  differences  losses during  concentration.  which  had  much more  i n t o the  i t s higher  cover  sizeable  solids  manure  manure a p p e a r e d  vegetative  grass  the  (6.06% TS) moved  vegetative  TS).  for  i s t h e manure  concentration  dairy  reason  s w i n e and d a i r y manure  observed  the  a  loss  a t day 1 and 43.3% a t day 2 ( T a b l e 1 1 ) . A  the  result  day 1 a n d day 2, r e s p e c t i v e l y , were r e p o r t e d  manure h a v i n g  reached  t h e same as t h e 5-day  93.9% f r o m d a i r y manure. A s i m i l a r  for at  swine manure  solids  soil  a  It  lower  readily as  the was  solids through  compared  concentration  to  (10.9%  t o be p h y s i c a l l y i n t e r c e p t e d by tended  the  t o s i t on t h e b l a d e s  soil,  thus  increasing  of the  volatilization.  4. A p p l i c a t i o n Rate o f Manure Manure a p p l i c a t i o n were f a i r l y study  where  observed  r a t e s throughout  c o n s i s t e n t , except an  (Table  unusually 12).  the  a t farm C d u r i n g  high  application  The a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e  experiment t h e summer rate  o f manure  was was  59  Table 11. E f f e c t of manure s o l i d s concentration on the loss of ammonia from surface applied manure.  Period of Exp.  Manure yP  Summer  Swine  Winter  T  e  % Total Std. Solids — Dev. 6..06 + 0.21  Ammonia Loss (%) day 1 day 2  29.8  60.6  Dairy  10.9  + 0.59  54.7  84.8  Swine  4.18  + 0.15  23.4  43.3  Dairy  7.22  + 0.28  39.9  60.7  Table 12. Manure application rate.  Manure Farm  B  T  yP  e  Application Rate, tonne/ha Summer Winter  Swine  38  22  Dairy  52  40  Swine  42  31  Dairy  138  44  60 calculated core  sample w h i c h  over It  by m e a s u r i n g  the q u a n t i t y  had a f i x e d  surface  Figure  16 compares t h e ammonia  5 days  between d a i r y  clearly  indicates  manure  that  o f manure i n t h e s o i l area.  volatilization  from  f a r m A and f a r m  t h e amount  of  volatilized  f r o m a g i v e n manure on t h e s o i l  of  affected  time  is  f a r m C, l o s s e s  the rate  of  rate  2, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  total  with  from  solids  that  over a  period  i t s application.  o f 138 t h a " . H i g h e r  At  farms  concentration  s p r e a d i n g was  carried  out  of  f a r m A on day 1 and  an a p p l i c a t i o n  both  losses  1  and 84.8% were r e p o r t e d a t  D a i r y manure  ammonia  C.  were 41.8% a t day 1 and 63.3% a t day 2 w i t h  a manure a p p l i c a t i o n 54.7%  by  pattern  had  rate  o f 52 t  ha" . 1  approximately the  (TS =10.9%; under  TS  similar  day  same  =12.5%)  and  environmental  conditions. It rate, top  was  observed  a thicker  of the  manure t h a t  of  ammonia  also  ammonia-N  the  lowering the  of the barrier  exposed  may  application  o f manure formed percentage  of  t o the a i r . In  manure l a y e r which  higher  dried,  on  fresh  addition,  i t caked  have p r e v e n t e d  and  diffusion  gas t o t h e a i r .  A similar They  thus  was a c t u a l l y  a solid  with  and more u n i f o r m l a y e r  soil,  as t h e s u r f a c e formed  that  result  suggested was l o s t  was a  f o u n d by greater  Lauer  et a l .  percentage  through v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  of  (1976). manure  from a s h a l l o w e r  61  Figure 16.  E f f e c t of manure a p p l i c a t i o n rate on the rate of ammonia l o s s from surface a p p l i e d manure.  62 application  than  manure. They ammonia  from  reported  a heavier  application  that  quantities  volatilization  the  before  plowing  were 61 and 85 %, r e s p e c t i v e l y , rates  o f manure  much t h i n n e r lower thus  rate  application.  covering  of  5. E f f e c t The unit  This  the  was  N lost  manure  attributed  o f manure on t h e s o i l  the p o t e n t i a l  of  same by  under  a t t h e 200 and 34 t  manure, w h i c h p r o m o t e d  increasing  of the  to  surface  1  the  a t the  more r a p i d  f o r ammonia  ha"  drying,  volatilization.  o f pH pH o f t h e s o i l - m a n u r e  throughout  the  system  experiment  c o n s e q u e n t l y , an e x t e n s i v e  remained w i t h i n  (Table  investigation  pH on t h e ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  13  1 pH  and  14);  on t h e e f f e c t  was n o t p o s s i b l e  in  of our  study.  Theoretically, exists  an aqueous f o r m o f ammonia  in equilibrium  ^(aq.)  As  the  pH  equilibrium is  converted  of  +  the  H  2°  —  system  N H  is  i s s h i f t e d to the to  volatilization reaction  w i t h ammonium  ammonia, w h i c h (Reddy  et a l . ,  i s pH d e p e n d e n t ,  4  +  ions,  0  H  is  a s shown:  '  increased  left;  in solution  7,  the  a n d t h e ammonium  ion  highly  above  susceptible  1979). B e c a u s e  the  to  above  the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n  of  63  Table 13  S o i l pH during summer over 5 day sampling period.  Manure Type  day 0  day 1  day 2  day 5  Swine  6.56  6.49  6.27  6.07  Dairy  7.19  7.13  7.16  7.00  B  Swine  6.96  6.82  6.92  6.85  C  Dairy  6.64  6.81  6.37  6.17  Farm A  Table 14  pH  S o i l pH during winter over 5 day sampling period.  Manure Type  day 0  day 1  day 2  day 5  Swine  6.53  6.28  6.23  5.84  Dairy  6.69  6.51  6.41  6.05  B  Swine  6.82  6.88  —  6.74  C  Dairy  6.70  6.81  6.58  6.66  Farm A  pH  64 ammonia  and  following  ammonium  equation  ion  NH NH +  *  where:  K = w  constants  17 i n d i c a t e s t h a t study), as  hydrogen i o n concentration  ammonia minimal;  loss  i n other  6. N i t r o g e n  17  using  the  range of 5 t o 7 (as i n  of the t o t a l  Therefore, a pH  an i n c r e a s e  shift  words, a t  ammoniacal-N  from 5  exists  i n the rate  of  to 7  be  would  low a n d n e u t r a l pH,  t h e r a t e o f ammonia  this  changing  loss.  Balance  Ammonia,  TKN and n i t r a t e  ( d r y weight  application  Figure  o f water a n d ammonia a t 25 ° C . F i g u r e  due t o  pH may n o t a f f e c t  samples  plotted in  f o r t h e pH  ions.  )  W  i o n i z a t i o n constant f o r ammonia  the vast majority  ammonium  100  i o n i z a t i o n constant f o r water  +  was  the  1979):  4  [H ]=  equation  using  1 +• ( K j H " ] / K  =  ionization  computed  100 =  NH+  3  above  be  ( M e t c a l f a n d Eddy,  % ammonia =  The  can  basis)  are presented  was made t o a s s e s s  whether  concentrations  from  0 t o 5 days a f t e r  i n Table these  of the  15 and 16. An  measurements were  soil  manure attempt useful  65  Figure 17.  Percentage of ammonia in solution at equilibrium at various  pH's.  Table 15.  Changes i n ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e concentration i n s o i l over 5 days following an application of l i q u i d manure i n summer.  Farm  Manure Type  day 0  day 1  day 2  day 5  Ammonia Concentration (ppm) Swine  213 + 39  150 + 29  84.1 + 15.0  20.5 + 3.5  Dairy  313 + 51  142 + 25  47.5 + 14.9  19.2 + 4.1  B  Swine  472 + 32  272 + 20  169 + 37  125 + 21  C  Dairy  1200 + 119  700 + 124  441 + 55  74.0 + 20.0  TKN Concentration  (ppm) *10  Swine  3.53 + 0.16  3.47+0.41  3.40+0.28  3.30 + 0.14  Dairy  3.88 + 0.35  3.69+0.50  3.58+0.51  3.50 + 0.32  B  Swine  6.17 + 0.23  5.97 + 0.44  5.85 + 0.34  5.76 + 0.26  C  Dairy  5.79 + 0.13  5.39 + 0.29  5.13 + 0.29  4.74 + 0.15  Nitrate Concentration (ppm) Swine  11.7 + 1.8  23.7 + 3.2  33.2 + 4.3  61.4 + 6.6  Dairy  11.8 + 1.4  17.0 + 1.6  23.0 + 1.8  60.3 + 7.2  B  Swine  14.8 + 2.6  16.2 +1.8  28.0 + 4.5  48.5 + 5.1  C  Dairy  13.9 + 1.2  30.2 + 4.1  71.0 + 12.5  8.40 + 0.85  Table 16.  Changes i n ammonia, TKN, and n i t r a t e concentration i n s o i l over 5 days following an application of l i q u i d manure i n winter.  Farm  Manure Type  day 0  day 1  day 2  day 5  Ammonia Concentration (ppm) Swine  282 + 10  216 + 37  160 + 28  141 + 25  Dairy  381 + 61  229 + 29  146 + 13  148 + 10  B  Swine  738 + 137  463 + 62  C  Dairy  564 + 98  418 + 77 TKN Concentration  434 + 84 272 + 26  196 + 34  (ppm) *10'  Swine  2.94 + 0.21  2.84 + 0.18  2.68 + 0.14  2.63 + 0.15  Dairy  3.46 + 0.35  3.18 + 0.31  3.11 + 0.29  3.20 + 0.22  B  Swine  4.39 + 0.65  4.24 + 0.50  C  Dairy  4.79 + 0.28  4.62 + 0.41.  3.83 + 0.51 4.51 + 0.29  4.39 + 0.50  Nitrate Concentration (ppm) Swine  14.6 + 2.2  27.2 + 3.9  40.9 + 4.3  32.4 + 4.3  Dairy  15.6 + 2.3  23.6 + 2.5  41.8 + 4.3  35.2+6.1  B  Swine  26.1 + 4.3  49.0 + 8.7  C  Dairy  10.6 + 1.9  23.1 + 4.3 ;  19.0 + 1.5 35.5 + 8.5  64.5  +9.8  68 in  estimating  application. subtracted  volatilization The  from  amount  the  amount of ammonia (1981) r e p o r t e d  total  lost that  of  in  an  system  In in  o f ammonia and  Table  17 and  18,  5 d a y s were compared  summer  study,  volatilization  the  due  the  nitrate  to the  the  sum  of  formation.  calculated  close  ( w i t h i n about  (Table  17),  indicating  v a l u e s may  useful  i n p r o v i d i n g a check  loss  v a l u e s . In  estimates  measured d a t a be  reduction  m e a s u r e d v a l u e s of ammonia  calculated  were v e r y  controlled  a l l TKN to  the  Crane et a l .  environmentally  was  was  to obtain  to v o l a t i l i z a t i o n .  in  volatilization  i n TKN  allowed,  manure  formation  due  leaching  soil-manure  following  nitrate  reduction  chamber w i t h m i n i m a l a  losses  the  of  ammonia  10%)  to  that these  the  calculated  f o r the  .ammonia  volatilized. However, a s study  (Table  cover  were  18)  expected, t h a t was  very  may  18). L e a c h i n g  have  observed  accounted between  results  carried  inconsistent.  between t h e m e a s u r e d and (Table  the  out  of n i t r a t e f o r some  of  t h e measured and  under  Some  calculated  from  the  the  large  30  the  to the large  calculated  cm  snow  differences  v a l u e s were  due  winter  snow  observed melting  differences values.  Table 17.  Comparison of calculated and measured value of ammonia loss i n 5 days i n summer.  Manure Farm  T  yP  e  TKN l o s s i n 5 days (ppm)  Nitrate gain i n 5 days (ppm)  Ammonia l o s s i n 5 days (ppm) Calculated  *  Measured  Swine  230  49.7  180  192  Dairy  380  48.5  332  294  Swine  410  81.2  329  347  Dairy  1050  62 .6  997  1129  Caculated ammonia loss = TKN loss - n i t r a t e gain  Table 18.  Farm  Comparison of calculated and measured value of ammonia loss i n 5 days i n winter.  Manure Type  TKN l o s s i n 5 days (ppm)  N i t r a t e gain i n 5 days (ppm)  Ammonia l o s s i n 5 d a y s (ppm) * Calculated Measured  Swine  310  17 . 8  292  141  Dairy  260  19 .6  240  233  Swine  560  -7.1  567  304 o  Dairy  400  73.9  * calculated ammonia loss = TKN loss - n i t r a t e gain  326  368  71 VI. Increased nitrogen,  SUMMARY  awareness  both  as a  of  fertilizer  pollutant,  has  utilization  of the n u t r i e n t s  In  this  following under  If  intensified  the losses  However, a  spray  short  than a  than  that  i f t h e manure period  of time  to  50% o f t h e ammonia-N  be  lost  any it hot  within  delay may  in  increased  efficient  during  manure was  the primary  and  measured  goal  w i t h a low s p r a y application  and  of manure i n t o  with the high  i s not plowed  the s o i l  spray  the s o i l  difference  manure of was  system. within  i s n e g l i g i b l e a s up applied  manure  may  i s to  be  manure f o l l o w i n g  application,  practice  spreading  following moisture  to  system  24 h o u r s o f a p p l i c a t i o n . I f t h e r e  and d a y s  followed  i n t o the s o i l  i n the surface  incorporating  a  system  system, the l o s s  from t h e low s p r a y  this  of  application.  low s p r a y  be a good management  days  the  system tended t o spread  f r o m manure a p p l i e d  5% h i g h e r  is  during  following  much more u n i f o r m l y  about  environmental  o f ammonia  liquid  be a p p l i e d  incorporation  Although a high  ammonia  in  manure  i n f a r m manure.  conservation  the l o s s e s  immediate  minimize  a  of  conditions.  f a r m e r , manure s h o u l d  with  and a s  interest  a p p l i c a t i o n of  nitrogen  to minimize  potential  study, v o l a t i l i z a t i o n  land  field  the  a  to avoid  rainfall  (It  would  c o n t e n t ) because the r a t e  on  have of  72  ammonia increase  loss  from manure  i n ambient  In a d d i t i o n , appears to applied.  content  a  must  over-application  higher  a detrimental  rate  of  moisture  manure  reduced percentage be  balanced  o f manure w h i c h may  of the s o i l  proportional  t e m p e r a t u r e and s o i l  result in  This  is directly  beyond t h e c r o p  e f f e c t on t h e c r o p .  against  to  the  content.  application  l o s s of a  the  N  potential  b u i l d up t h e n u t r i e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s and  have  73 VII.  A. Ammoniacal-N The of %  loss  percentage  CONCLUSIONS  during  application  o f ammonia  lost  manure w i t h a h i g h s p r a y s y s t e m  during the a p p l i c a t i o n varied  from  9.0 t o 12.0  i n t h e summer. The  percentage  o f ammonia  lost  of  manure w i t h a low s p r a y s y s t e m  in  t h e summer.  The  difference  flight  in losses  varied  is attributed  from  4.0 t o 7.0 %  to droplet  s i z e and  time.  The manure  percentage during  percentage  lost  10 °C r e s u l t e d B. Ammoniacal-N The  was  lost  during application  always  greater  than  of the  during winter. range  o f 4 t o 25 °C, e a c h  i n an i n c r e a s e loss  percentage  after  o f ammonia  summer  Over t h e temperature  hours  during the a p p l i c a t i o n  following of  application  manure t y p e , s o i l  i n ammonia  o f 2.4%.  application  ammonia was  loss  i n c r e a s e of  loss during  a function  the f i r s t  of  m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t , and manure  24  temperature, application  rate. the  percentage  during lost  summer  of  ammonia  was a l w a y s  during winter. Losses  lost  after  g r e a t e r than the i n 24 h o u r s  application percentage  varied  from  25  74 to  40 % f o r t h e w i n t e r  to  55 % f o r t h e summer s t u d y  the  percentage  study  o f ammonia  manure was h i g h e r  than  factor  2.  of  about  attributed an  in  two i n c r e a s e d  greater  The  i n 24 h o u r s from  difference  the percentage  from  a  losses  is  by a f a c t o r  of  o f ammonia  o f ammonia  varied  from  attributed  to  in  24  factor.  loss  1  resulted  (54.7%) i n 24  in a hours  (42.0%).  1  ammonia  lost  48  hours  after  43.3 t o 84.8%. The d i f f e r e n c e s temperature,  manure  type,  in and  rate.  percentage varied  of  loss  of  from  ammonia 50.0  lost  5  days  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s  after  t o 93.9%. T e m p e r a t u r e  30 cm snow c o v e r d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r s t u d y were t h e factors  dairy  manure by in  manure c o v e r a t 52 t h a "  percentage  application  swine  moisture content  o f 138 t h a "  manure a p p l i c a t i o n The  soil  percentage  that  application loss are  lost  by a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same  a much t h i n n e r  than  (18 t o 27 ° C ) .  that The  30  t o manure s o l i d s c o n c e n t r a t i o n .  increase  hours  (4 t o 9 °C) a n d from  i n ammonia  loss  after  and  a  primary 5 days.  75 VIII. A  number  nitrogen  of  RECOMMENDATIONS  general  recommendations  regarding  c o n s e r v a t i o n d u r i n g and f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n  manure c a n  be p u t  forth  based  on  the r e s u l t s  of  of  this  study. 1.  Manure s h o u l d  be a p p l i e d w i t h  followed  immediate  the 2.  with  i s not  short  of  period  practices  b.  ambient  avoided  plowed  time,  into  the  the  soil  following  manure  on  into  within  a  management  soil  high  before  affected  manure s p r e a d i n g  s h o u l d be  with  manure  low  should not  infiltrability (ie.  solids  concentration should  a v e g e t a t i v e cover  r a t e o f manure a p p l i c a t i o n  and i n t o is  not  be o v e r - a p p l i e d t o a p o i n t where t h e  requirements.  up i n t h e s o i l  soil.  beneficial  d i s c u s s e d on page 5 8 ) . However, manure  building  be  t o i n c r e a s e the r a t e of  (as  contents  be  soils).  application  movement t h r o u g h A higher  i s strongly  ponding,  or compacted  Manure w i t h diluted  volatilization  temperature,  To p r e v e n t  saturated  d.  i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f manure  on h o t d a y s .  applied  c.  and  a r e recommended:  S i n c e ammonia by  '  system  soil.  I f t h e manure  a.  a low s p r a y  should nutrient  exceeds the  crop  76  LITERATURE CITED  A d r i a n o , D. C , A. C. C h a n g , a n d R. S h a r p l e s s . 1974. Nitrogen loss from manure a s i n f l u e n c e d by m o i s t u r e and t e m p e r a t u r e . J . E n v i r o n . Q u a l . , V o l . 3, n o . 3, p p 258-161. B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and F o o d S t a t i s t i c s , A p r i l , 1984.  and  Food.  Farm  Beauchamp, E. G., G. E. K i d d , a n d G. T h u r t e l l . 1978. Ammonia f r o m sewage s l u d g e a p p l i e d i n t h e f i e l d . J . E n v i r o n . Q u a l . , V o l . 7, n o . 1, p p 141-146. Beauchamp, E. G., G. E. K i d d , a n d G. T h u r t e l l . 1 9 8 2 . Ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n from liquid dairy cattle manure i n t h e f i e l d . C a n . J . S o i l S c i . 6 2 : 1 1 - 1 9 . B l a c k , C. A. 1965a. M e t h o d s o f s o i l a n a l y s i s - P a r t 1. Physical and m i n e r a l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s , including statistics o f measurement and sampling. American S o c i e t y o f Agronomy, I n c . M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n . P 9 2 . B l a c k , C. A. 1965b. M e t h o d s o f s o i l analysis-Part 2. Chemical and m i c r o b i a l p r o p e r t i e s . American S o c i e t y of Agronomy, I n c . M a d i s o n , W i s c o n s i n . P 801 B u l l e y , N. R. A n d N. H o l b e k . 1 9 8 2 . N i t r o g e n mass balances for d a i r y farms from f e e d t o f i e l d . Can. A g r i c . Eng. 24:19-23. C r a n e , S. R., P. W. W e s t e r m a n , a n d M. R. O v e r c a s h . 1981. Short-term chemical transformations following land a p p l i c a t i o n of p o u l t r y manure. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE 2 4 : 3 8 2 - 3 9 0 . Denmead, 0. T., J . S. S i m p s o n , a n d J . T. F r e n e y . 1974. Ammonia flux into t h e atmosphere from a grazed p a s t u r e . S c i e n c e 185:609-610. De V r i e s , J . 1 9 8 3 . D e g r a d a t i o n e f f e c t s o f s o i l compaction. Proceedings o f t h e 8 t h B.C. S o i l S c i e n c e W o r k s h o p . P 91-121. D o n o v a n , W. C. A n d T. J . L o g a n . 1983. F a c t o r s affecting ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n f r o m sewage s l u d g e a p p l i e d t o s o i l i n a laboratory study. J . Environ. Qual., V o l . 12, n o . 4 , p p 584-590. Elliot, L. F., G. E. Schuman, a n d F. G. V i e t s , J r . 1 9 7 1 . V o l a t i l i z a t i o n o f n i t r o g e n c o n t a i n i n g compounds from beef cattle a r e a s . S o i l S c i . S o c . Am. P r o c . 3 5 : 7 5 2 755.  77  E r n s t , J . W. And H. F. Massey. i960. The effects of several f a c t o r s on v o l a t i l i z a t i o n of ammonia f o r m e d from urea i n t h e s o i l . Soil S c i . S o c . Am. Proc. 24:87-90. Fenn,  L. B. And D. E. K i s s e l . 1976. The i n f l u e n c e o f c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y and d e p t h of i n c o r p o r a t i o n on ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n from ammonium compounds a p p l i e d t o c a l c a r e o u s s o i l s . S o i l S c i . S o c . Am. J. 40:394-398.  H a r p e r , L. A., V. R. C a t c h p o o l e , R. D a v i s , and K. L. W e i r . 1983. Ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n : soil, p l a n t , and microclimate effects on diurnal and seasonal f l u c t u a t i o n s . A g r o n . J . 75:212-218. H o f f , J . D., D. W. N e l s o n , a n d A. L. S u t t o n . 1 9 8 1 . Ammonia volatilization from liquid s w i n e manure a p p l i e d t o c r o p l a n d . J . E n v i r o n . Q u a l . , V o l . 10, n o . 1 , pp 9 0 - 9 5 . H u t c h i n s o n , G. L . And F. G. Viets, J r . 1969. Nitrogen enrichment o f s u r f a c e w a t e r by a b s o r p t i o n o f ammonia v o l a t i l i z e d from c a t t l e f e e d l o t s . Science 166:514515. Koelliker, J . K. And J . R. M i n e r . 1973. D e s o r p t i o n o f ammonia f r o m a n a e r o b i c l a g o o n s . T r a n s a c t i o n s of the ASAE 16:148-150. Lauer, D. A., D. R. B o u l d i n , a n d S. D. K l a u s n e r . 1976. Ammonia V o l a t i l i z a t i o n f r o m D a i r y Manure Spread on the Soil S u r f a c e . J . E n v i r o n . Q u a l . , V o l . 5, n o . 2, pp 134-141. L u e b s , R. E., Enrichment volatilized Qual., V o l .  K. R. Davis, and A. E. L a a g . 1973. o f t h e a t m o s p h e r e w i t h n i t r o g e n compounds from a large dairy area. J. Environ. 2, n o . 2, 1 3 7 - 1 4 1 .  Metcalf, L. And H. P. E d d y . 1979. W a s t e w a t e r E n g i n e e r i n g : t r e a t m e n t , d i s p o s a l , r e u s e . 2nd e d . M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co. P735. Mills, H. A., A. V. Barker, and D.N. M a y n a r d . 1974. Ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n f r o m s o i l s . A g r o n . J . 6 6 : 3 5 5 358. Perry  R. H. And C. H. C h i l t o n . 1973. C h e m i c a l Handbook. M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co. 3-67.  Engineers'  Peters, R. E. And D. L. Reddell. 1973. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen transformations i n high pH s o i l s u s e d f o r b e e f manure d i s p o s a l . ASAE Paper n o . 73-428.  78  Pote,  J . W., J. R. Miner, and J . K. K o e l l i k e r . 1980. Ammonia l o s s e s d u r i n g s p r i n k l e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n i m a l w a s t e s . T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e ASAE- 23 :1 202-1 21 2.  Reddy, K. R., R. Khaleel, M. R. Overcash, and P. W. Westerman. 1979. A nonpoint s o u r c e model f o r l a n d areas receiving animal wastes: II. Ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n . T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE 22:1398-1405 Stanley, F. A. And G. E . S m i t h . E f f e c t o f s o i l m o i s t u r e and d e p t h o f a p p l i c a t i o n on retention of anhydrous ammonia. S o i l S c i . S o c . Am. P r o c . 20:557-561. Steenhuis, T. S. volatilization no. 76-4514. Sutton, Pig Vlek,  And J. C. Converse. 1976. Ammonia of w i n t e r s p r e a d manure. ASAE Paper  A. L . 1981 M a x i m i z i n g t h e v a l u e o f swine manure, A m e r i c a n , A Watt P u b l i c a t i o n , May, 1981, pp 14-16  P. L . And J . M. Stumpe. 1978. Effects of solution chemistry and environmental c o n d i t i o n s on ammonia v o l a t i l i z a t i o n l o s s e s from a q u e o u s s y s t e m s . S o i l S c i . S o c . Am. J . 42:416-421.  T e c h n i c o n A u t o A n a l y z e r I I m a n u a l . 1971. I n d u s t r i a l Method No. 98-70W, Ammonia i n Water and Wastewater; Method No. 103-70A, TKN i n Water and W a s t e w a t e r ; Method No. 100-70W, N i t r i t e and N i t r a t e i n Water and W a s t e w a t e r . T e c h n i c o n I n d u s t r i a l System, T a r r y t o w n , N.Y. Wagner, G. H. And G. E . S m i t h . 1958. N i t r o g e n l o s s e s from soils fertilized with different nitrogen carriers. S o i l S c i . 85:125-129. Wahhab, A., M. S. Randhawa, and S. Q. A l a m . 1956. L o s s of ammonia from ammonium sulfate under different c o n d i t i o n s when a p p l i e d t o s o i l s . S o i l S c i . 84:249255. Watkins, S. H., R. F. S t r a n d , D. S. D e b e l l and J . E s c h , J r . 1972. F a c t o r s influencing ammonia losses from urea a p p l i e d to northwestern f o r e s t s o i l s . S o i l S c i . S o c . Am. P r o c . 36:354-357.  79  APPENDIX  A  The ammonia concentration of manure from nine trays which were placed on the f i e l d i n 3 by 3 matrix.  0C"  © © ©  ay  tray number  © © ©  © © ©  Dairy manure applied with the high spray system ammonia concentration of manure (ppm) Tray no.  Farm A  Farm C  Summer  Winter  Summer  Winter  1  1120  1660  1440  2150  2  1130  1730  1330  2190  3  1160  1770  1420  2230  4  1220  1770  1430  2210  5  1170  1730  1470  2270  6  1160  1630  1400  2090  7  1150  1730  1400  2100  8  1190  1700  1430  2330  9  1190  —  —  1160  1720  1410  2200  30  50  70  80  Average Std. Dev.  80  II.  Dairy manure applied with low spray system. ammonia concentration of manure (ppm)  Tray no.  Farm A  Farm C  Summer  Winter  Summer  Winter  1  1130  —  1540  2230  2  1290  —  1450  2270  3  1350  —  1490  2250  4  1270  —  1460  2150  5  1350  —  1540  2430  6  1320  --  1550  2310  7  1260  —  1540  2250  8  1286  --  1460  2370  9  1220  —  1500  —  Average  1300  —  1500  2280  70  90  Std. Dev. III.  50  Swine manure applied with the high spray system ammonia concentration of manure (ppm)  Tray no.  Farm A  Farm B  Summer  Winter  Summer  Winter  1  1170  2050  1870  2870  2  1170  2340  1750  2850  3  1130  2100  1750  2910  4  1180  2300  1920  2950  5  1170  1980  1920  2930  6  1050  2450  1810  2800  7  1150  2560  1870  2840  8  1170  2530  1870  2580  9  1130  2550  1840  —  Average  1150  2320  1820  2840  40  230  110  120  Std. Dev.  81  APPENDIX  B  S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis I.  To test whether the loss of ammonia from a high spray vacuum tanker during applicationis s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that from a low spray vacuum tanker.  a. Ammonia loss during application (ppm) - Farm A (summer)  Tray  Ammonia Loss during Application (ppm) High Spray System  Low Spray System  )1  200  60  2  190  80  3  160  20  4  100  100  5  150  20  6  170  30  7  170  110  8  130  90  9  130  160  160  75  30  50  Mean Standard Deviation (S)  82  N u l l Hypothesis  (H  Q  ) : Mean^ = Mean.  Alternative Hypothesis (H ) : Meai  Mean. L  a  ( ijjj -  1 )sj + (  -  1 )s£  = "H  +  n  L "  =  T =  41  2  4.40  L  At  =  0.05,  t h e o r e t i c a l T = 2.12  Since calculated T value i s greater than the t h e o r e t i c a l T value, the n u l l hypothisis (H ) i s rejected. Q  Therefore, the loss of ammonia from the high spray system i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that from the low spray system.  83  b.  Ammonia loss during application  Tray  (ppm) - Farm C (summer)  Ammonia Loss during Application High Spray System 120  30  2  240  120  3  150  80  4  140  110  5  190  30  6  170  20  7  170  30  8  150  110  9  150  60  Mean  170  70  Standard Deviation  40  40  40  T  5.30  At  Low Spray System  1  S = P =  =0.05,  (ppm)  theoretical T = 2.12 i s less than the calculated T  of 5.30. Therefore, the loss of ammonia from the high spray system i s S i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that from the low spray system.  84  S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis  II.  (continued)  To test whether the rate of ammonia loss following application i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n summer than i n winter.  Farm  % ammonia loss i n 24 hours Summer  Winter  29.8  23.4  54.7  39.9  B  42.4  25.9  C  41.8  37.3  A  A randomized block design i s used to decrease the uncontrolled v a r i a t i o n caused by four d i f f e r e n t experimental  sites.  The data i s transformed using a l o g transformation to meet the requirement of normal d i s t r i b u t i o n .  85  Treatments Block  Summer  Winter  Total  a  1.47  1.36  2.83  b  1.74  1.60  3.34  c  1.63  1.41  3.04  d  1.62  1.57  3.19  Total  6.46  5.94  12.40  ANOVA  Source  df  SS  MS  F  Critical F  Block  3  0 .0711  0 .0237  8.46  9.28  Treatment  1  0 .0338  0 .0338  12.07  10. 13  Error  3  0 .0080  0 .0028  Total  7  0 .1129  Since the computed value of F exceeds the c r i t i c a l value, there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence to conclude that a s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the rate of ammonia loss i n summer and i n winter.  86  S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis III.  (continued)  To test.whether ammonia loss at day 1 from farm B i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that from farm A.  % ammonia loss a f t e r 24 hours Samples  Farm A  Farm B  1  31.8  44.4  2  30.2  42.1  3  44.1  38.5  4  16.9  27.8  5  28.2  52.9  6  14.4  42.3  7  22.2  51.1  8  35.5  37.9  9  39.6  37.0  A randomized block design i s used to decrease the uncontrolled v a r i a t i o n caused by two d i f f e r e n t experimental s i t e s . The data i s transfromed using a l o g transformation to meet the requirement of normal d i s t r i b u t i o n .  87  Block Treatment  a.  1  1.50  1.65  3.15  2  1.48  1.62  3.10  3  1.64  1.59  3.23  4  1.23  1.44  2.67  5  1.45  1.72  3.17  6  1.16  1.63  2.79  7  1.35  1.71  3.06  8  1.55  1.58  3.13  9  1.60  1.59  3.17  12.96  14.49  27.45  Total  _b  Total  Anova Source  df  SS  Block  1  0.130  Treatment  8  Error Total  MS  F  Critical F  0.130  8.125  5.32  0.210  0.026  1.625  3.44  8  0.130  0.016  17  0.470  Since the computed value of F exceeds the c r i t i c a l value, there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence to conclude that a s i g n i f i c a n t difference e x i s t s between the rate of ammonia loss i n summer and i n winter.  88  APPENDIX C  Comparison  of S o i l  Ammonium  Extraction  Method  Objective: to  compare  extraction method to  results  from  the standard  method  (Black,  1965b)  soil  and  ammonium  the  blender  ( L a u e r e t a l , 1976).  determine  solution (Black,  the e f f e c t  rather  than  1965b)  for  of u t i l i z i n g  1N KC1  recommended  2N  extracting  KC1  ammonium  extraction solution from  soil  sample. to  determine  solution  the  during  benefit  of using  low pH  extraction  blending.  Procedure A.  Soil  Sample  Preparation  50 ml o f swine manure was p o u r e d on t o t h e 400 gm o f in  a 30 cm d i a m e t e r t r a y  Swine manure f r o m t h e s t u d y . The s o i l clay  loam  of Ladner  series,  Water Management  The  m a n u r e - s o i l sample mixed  farm  was c l a s s i f i e d  Bay  hours and w e l l  (4 cm d e e p ) .  John V i e t s  which  soil  was u s e d  for  this  as B - h o r i z o n o f s i l t y  was o b t a i n e d from t h e B o u n d a r y  Site. was l e f t  a t room t e m p e r a t u r e  before the a n a l y s i s .  f o r 24  89  B. A n a l y t i c a l 1. S t a n d a r d  Method  soil  ammonium e x t r a t i o n  10 g o f manure sample was mixed w i t h  100  4 replicates the  flask  m o d e l no.  was  2.  Blender  was  1:10  for this in  G24)  air-tight  and  study.  shaker and  then  (New  shaked  centrifuged  Scientific,  Brunswick  f o r 1 hour  at  for  10 m i n u t e s  at  H-103N s e r i e s )  analysed for  and  ammonia d i r e c t l y  (Technicon,  mixed m a n u r e - s o i l  (wt/vol) was  500  the on  a  1973).  ml  was of  placed in a blender 1N KC1  was  added  to  suspension.  blended  f o r 5 minutes,  plastic bottle  and  kept  decanted  i n the  into  a  refrigerator  hours.  the m i x t u r e  was  then  3500 rpm  and  the  supernatant  directly  on  1973).  flask  250.  b l e n d e r ) and  the m i x t u r e  24  ml  Method  (Osterizer  for  250  KC1.  Auto A n a l y s e r II  50 g o f w e l l  give  of  (Western  supernatant  placed into  placed  setting  Technicon  2N  were u s e d  the m i x t u r e 3500 rpm  of  were  Scientific, the speed  ml  method.  a Technicon  centrifuged was  for  10 m i n u t e s  analysd for  A u t o A n a l y s e r II  at  ammonia  (Technicon,  90  3. The p r o c e d u r e  2 was r e p e a t e d but u s e d  IN KC1 t o e x t r a c t  4. The p r o c e d u r e which  t h e ammonium  from  2N KC1 i n s t e a d o f  the  2 was r e p e a t e d b u t a d d e d  was s p i k e d w i t h HC1 a c i d  to bring  sample.  IN K C l  solution  down t h e pH  to  2.0.  Results:  No. of Samples  Average Ammonia Content i n S o i l Sample (ppm)  1.  Standard Method  412 + 14  2.  Blender Method  406 + 13  3.  2N KCL Solution  430 + 19  4.  A c i d i f i e d Solution  424 + 17  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096894/manifest

Comment

Related Items