Information from 2000 Missouri Rice Research Update, February 2001.

Using Chicken Manure on Cut and Fill Areas of a Graded Field

Gene Stevens, John Lory, Alan Sheckell, Keith Birmingham, and Chris Moylan
Green Line

Abstract
Land grading improves water drainage and furrow irrigation uniformity on delta soils. However, crop yields are often reduced the first year after it is done. An experiment was started in 2000 to determine whether chicken manure can be used to restore crop productivity by supplying nutrients and organic matter. Inorganic fertilizers including micronutrients were also tested. Results indicated that 2.5 tons of chicken manure per acre significantly increased yields in cut areas on graded rice and cotton fields.

Introduction
The main factors affecting the cost of land leveling is the amount of earth to be cut and how far it will need to be moved. Although drainage and irrigation are improved immediately with grading, surface soil structure is slow to recover because the topsoil is usually either removed or buried under fill dirt. Many farmers are applying chicken manure to improve soil tilth and water holding capacity in deep cut areas to try and remedy this problem.

Materials and Methods
Three different locations and crops were used for this experiment. All fields had been graded in the fall of 1999. Tests were conducted in a cotton field near Hayti, MO. On the Danny Stevens Farm, a rice field on the Bracey Brothers Farm at Portageville, MO., and a soybean field on the University of Missouri Lee farm. Soil test results showed that each of the fields had high levels of P and K even in the cut areas. (Table 1.) The three experiments had the same six treatments with modifications for each crop. They included a check, 2.5 tons of chicken manure, 2.5 tons of manure plus crop removal, the equivalent amount of P and K as the manure without any micronutrients, an equivalent amount of P and K with micronutrients, and the equivalent amount of P and K with crop removal. The crop removal treatments were based on estimates of the nutrients the plant will remove to achieve an average yield. The manure tested 47 lb N, 62 lb P2O5 and 51 lb K2O per ton. Nitrogen rates on manure treatments were reduced because of N in the manure. We assume 60% of the inorganic N would be released in the first year. All rice plots received 30 lb N/acre at ½ inch internode elongation and 30 lb N/acre one week later.

Results
Test results showed that soil P levels were less in cut areas than fill areas in graded rice and cotton fields (Table 1). No difference was found in other nutrients. Averaged across treatments, fill areas produced higher yields than cut areas in the rice and cotton fields but did not in the soybean field. In cotton and rice fields, applying manure increased yields in cut areas compared to plots without inorganic P, K, or micronutrients. Applying 125 lb K2O and 155 lb P2O5 (amount equivalent to manure) produce similar rice and cotton yields to manure plots in cut areas. Micronutrients did not have an effect on crop yields.

Conclusion
Phosphorus was the only nutrient that we found that was reduced by grading. The chicken manure was high in P. Chicken manure increased yields in cut areas on rice and cotton fields. Less N fertilizer was needed in manure plots. The price of manure in this area is around $25 per ton, which includes hauling and spreading.

Table 1. Soil tests averaged across replications.

Nutrients	Bracey Rice		Stevens Cotton		Ward Soybeans
	--------------- 0 to 6 inch soil depth ---------------
	Cut	Fill	Cut	Fill	Cut	Fill
Phosphorus	39	53	58	145	83	74
Potassium	318	273	391	370	672	736
Calcium	5577	4291	5435	3666	7307	7410
Magnesium	2108	1336	1584	505	2108	2356
Sulfur	3.1	4	3.5	1.9	4.5	4.6
Copper	2.7	2	2.3	1.6	3.5	3.8
Iron	85.6	78.2	88	80.5	85.6	94
Manganese	16	11.3	13	8.2	9.8	10.1
Zinc	2.6	2.5	1.8	1.9	2	2.2

Table 2. Effect of fertilizer and chicken manure treatments on rice yields.

Treatment	Manure	Preplant K2O Lb/acre	Preplant P2O5 Lb/acre	Micro- nutrients	Preflood N Lb/acre	Cut area bu/acre	Fill area bu/acre
						---Yield bu/acre---
Check	No	0	0	No	120	111	129
Manure	Yes	0	0	No	45	133	142
Manure+ crop removal	Yes	30	45	Yes*	75	121	139
Equiv P and K to manure w/o micros	No	125	155	No	120	135	136
Equiv P and K to manure with micros	No	125	155	Yes*	120	124	124
Equiv P and K to manure + crop removal	No	155	200	Yes*	150	118	129
LSD .05							16
CV %							12
* Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn 2.5 tons chicken litter/plot=34 lb manure/plot (Treatments 2 and 3). NS=non-significant at 0.05 level.

Table 3. Effect of fertilizer and chicken manure treatments on cotton yields.

Treatment	Manure	Preplant K2O Lb/acre	Preplant P2O5 Lb/acre	Micro- nutrients	Preflood N Lb/acre	Cut area	Fill area
						---Yield bu/acre---
Check	No	0	0	No	80	211	257
Manure	Yes	0	0	No	5	292	190
Manure+ crop removal	Yes	25	30	Yes*	35	331	222
Equiv P and K to manure w/o micros	No	125	155	No	80	270	284
Equiv P and K to manure with micros	No	125	155	Yes*	80	271	189
Equiv P and K to manure + crop removal	No	150	185	Yes*	110	193	248
LSD .05						117	NS
CV %						34	41
* Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Mn,, Zn 2.5 ton chicken litter/plot=34 lb manure/plot (Trts 2 and 3), NS=non-significant at 0.05 level.

Table 4. Effect of fertilizer and chicken manure treatments on soybean yields.

Treatment	Manure	Preplant K2O Lb/acre	Preplant P2O5 Lb/acre	Micro- nutrients	Preflood N Lb/acre	Cut area	Fill area
						---Yield bu/acre---
Check	No	0	0	No	0	53	45
Manure	Yes	0	0	No	0	53	42
Manure+ crop removal	Yes	85	50	Yes*	30	42	46
Equiv P and K to manure w/o micros	No	125	155	No	0	51	41
Equiv P and K to manure with micros	No	125	155	Yes*	0	51	46
Equiv P and K to manure + crop removal	No	210	205	Yes*	30	51	43
LSD .05						NS	NS
CV %						9	12
* Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Mn,, Zn 2.5 ton chicken litter/plot=34 lb manure/plot (Trts 2 and 3), NS=non-significant at 0.05 level.

This experiment funded by a USDA Irrigation Grant.

Green Line

[ AgEBB ] - [ Missouri Rice ]