Comparison of Two Different Management Practices under Organic Farming System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Localities
2.2. Methodology of the Experiment
2.3. Statistical Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. First Experimental Year—Winter Wheat
3.2. Second Experimental Year—Potato Tubers
3.3. Third Experimental Year—Spelt
3.4. Fourth Experimental Year—Legume-Cereal Mix and Silage Corn
3.5. Average Yield over Four Experimental Years—Summary
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dvorský, J.; Urban, J. Basic of Organic Farming According to Council Regulation (ES) nb.834/2007 and Commission Regulation (ES) č.889/2008 with Examples, 2nd ed.; Central institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture: Brno, Czech Republic, 2014; p. 114. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. Yearbook 2018 Organic Farming in the Czech Republic; MZe: Olomouc, Czech Republic, 2019; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- EBA. Statistical Report of the European Biogas Association 2018; European Biogas Association: Brussels, Belgium, December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higer Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2006; p. 672. [Google Scholar]
- Urban, J.; Šarapatka, B. Organic Farming, 1st ed.; Ministry of Environment in Cooperation with PRO-BIO Association of Organic Farmers: Prague, Czech Republic, 2003; p. 502. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Barker, V. Science and Technology of Organic Farming; Taylor and Francis Group with CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; p. 272. [Google Scholar]
- Maeder, P.; Fliessbach, A.; Dubois, D.; Gunst, L.; Fried, P.; Niggili, U. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 2002, 296, 1694–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fliess, A.; Oberholzer, H.; Gunst, L.; Maeder, P. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional fading. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zbíral, J.; Malý, D.; Váňa, M. Analysis of Soil III—Unified Techniques, 3rd ed.; Central institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture: Brno, Czech Republic, 2011; p. 250. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System), Version 12. 2013. Available online: www.statsoft.com (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Šimon, T.; Kunzová, E.; Friedlová, M. The effect of digesate, cattle slurry and mineral fertilization on the winter wheat yield and soil quality parameters. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abubaker, J.; Risberg, K.; Pell, M. Biogas residues as fertilisers—Effect on wheat growth and soil microbial activities. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Final Harvest Figures—2015. Available online: https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/final-harvest-figures-2015 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- Rieux, C.M.; Vanasse, A.; Chantigny, M.H.; Gelinas, P.; Angers, D.A.; Rochette, P.; Royer, I. Yield and bread-making potential of spring wheat under mineral and organic fertilization. Crop Sci. 2013, 53, 1139–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loecke, T.D.; Cambardella, C.A.; Liebman, M. Synchrony of net nitrogen mineralization and maize nitrogen uptake following applications of composted and fresh swine manure in Midwest US. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2012, 93, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gale, E.; Sullivan, D.M.; Cogger, C.; Bary, A.I.; Hemphill, D.D.; Myhre, E.A. Estimating plant-available nitrogen release from manure, composts, and speciality products. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 2321–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larney, F.J.; Buckey, K.E.; Hao, X.; McGaughey, P.W. Fresh, stockpiled, and composted beef cattle manure: Nutrient levels and mass balance estimates in Alberta and Manitoba. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1844–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.J.; Beasley, B.; Drury, C.F.; Zebarth, B.J. Barley yield and nutrient uptake for soil amended with fresh and composted cattle manure. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 1047–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Škarda, M. Hospodaření s Organickými Hnojivy; SZN: Prague, Czech Republic, 1982; p. 324. [Google Scholar]
- Mahimaraja, S.; Bolan, N.S.; Hedley, M.J.; MacGregor, M.A. Loses and transformation of nitrogen during composting of poultry manure with different amendments: An incubation experiment. Bioresour. Technol. 1994, 47, 65–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, A.; Carter, M.S.; Jensen, E.S.; Hauggard-Nielsen, H.; Ambus, P. Effects of digestate from anaerobically digested cattle slurry and plant materials on soil microbial community and emission of CO2 and N2O. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 63, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moller, K.; Muller, T. Effect of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review. Eng. Life Sci. 2012, 12, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alburquerque, J.A.; de la Fuente, C.; Campoy, M.; Carrasco, L.; Nájera, I.; Baixauli, C.; Caravaca, F.; Roldán, A.; Cegarra, J.; Bernal, M.P. Agricultural use of digestate for horticultural crop production and improvement of soil properties. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 43, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smatanová, M. Digestate used as organic fertilizers. Farmer 2012, 18, 21–22. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Ryant, P.; Smatanova, M.; Škarpa, P.; Šimečková, J.; Antosovsky, J.; Hejduk, S. Digestate Utilization As a Fertilizer. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Reasonable Use of Fertilizers, Prague, Czech Republic, 9–11 October 2019; pp. 57–65. [Google Scholar]
- Harvest For7ecast—September 2016. Available online: https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/ari/harvest-forecast-september-2016 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- El-Sayed, S.F.; Hassan, H.A.; El-mogy, M.M. Impact of bio- and organic fertilizers on potato yield, quality, and tuber weight loss, after harvest. Potato Res. 2015, 58, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plaza, A.; Gasiorowska, B.; Makarewicz, A.; Krolikowska, M.A. The yielding of potato fertilized with undersown crops in integrated and organic production system. J. Plant Breed. 2013, 267, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, J.J.; Beasley, B.; Drury, C.F.; Zebarth, B.J. Available nitrogen and phosphorus in soil amended with fresh and composted cattle manure. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 90, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berner, A.; Böhm, H.; Buchecker, K.; Dierauer, H.; Dresow, J.F.; Dreyer, W.; Finckh, M.; Fuchs, A.; Keil, S.; Keiser, A.; et al. Bio-Kartoffeln: Qualität Mit Jedem Anbau; Bioland Beratung GmbH: Mainz, Germany, 2010; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, J.E.; Harwood, R.R.; Willson, T.C. Managing soil carbon and nitrogen for productivity and environmental quality. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Konvalina, P. Winter wheat spelt in organic farming. Farmer 2013, 21, 35. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, R.; Jabeen, N. Demonstration of growth improvement in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) by the use of organic fertilizers under saline conditions. Pak. J. Bot. 2009, 41, 1373–1384. [Google Scholar]
- Somasundaram, E.; Mohamed, A.; Vaipury, K.; Thirukkumaran, K.; Sathyamoorthi, K. Influence ofo rganic sources of nutrients on the yield and economics of crops under maize based cropping system. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2007, 3, 1774–1777. [Google Scholar]
- Lehrsch, G.A.; Kincaid, A.C. Compost and manure effects of fertilized corn silage yield and nitrogen uptake under irrigation. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 2131–2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barlog, P.; Hlisnikovsky, L.; Kunzova, E. Yield, content and nutrient uptake by winter wheat and spring barley in response to applications of digestate, cattle slurry and NPK mineral fertilizers. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2007, 66, 1481–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutser, R.; Ebertseder, T.; Weber, A.; Schraml, M.; Schmidhalter, U. Short-term and residual availability of nitrogen afterlong-term application of organic fertilizers on arable land. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2005, 168, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira, S.M.; Umburanas, R.C.; Pereira, R.G.; De Souza, L.T.; Favarin, J.L. Biostimulants via seed treatment in the promotion of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) root growth. Appl. Res. Agrotechnol. 2017, 10, 109–114. [Google Scholar]
- Holečková, Z. The Effect of Bioeffectors on Plant Yield Parameters with a Focus on Increasing Phospohorus Uptake from the Soil; Czech University of Life Sciences Prague: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Backes, C.; Boas, R.L.V.; Santos, A.J.M.; Ribon, A.A.; Bardiviesso, D.M. Foliar application of seaweed extract in potato culture. Rev. Agric. Neotrop. 2017, 4, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paradiso, R.; Arena, C.; De Micco, V.; Giordano, M.; Aronne, G.; De Pascale, S. Changes in leaf anatomical traits enhanced photosynthetic activity of soybean grown in hydroponics with plant growth-promoting microorganisms. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gravel, V.; Antoun, H.; Tweddell, R.J. Growth stimulation and fruit yield improvement of greenhouse tomato plants by inoculation with Pseudomonas putida or Trichoderma atroviride: Possible role of indole acetic acid (IAA). Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1968–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Experimental Area | Characteristics | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meters Above Sea Level | Main Crop | Soil Groups | Soil Texture | Avg. Precipitation (mm) | Avg. Temperature (°C) | |
Věrovany | 207 | sugar beet | Chernozems | clay | 502 | 8.7 |
Čáslav | 260 | 555 | 8.9 | |||
Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou | 425 | cereals | Haplic luvisols | clay loam | 481 | 8.0 |
Horažďovice | 475 | potatoes | Cambisols | sandy loam | 585 | 7.8 |
Lípa | 505 | 594 | 7.5 |
Experimental Area | Content (mg/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P | K | Ca | Mg | NO3– | NH4+ | Nmin | |
Věrovany | 106 | 215 | 3184 | 136 | 35.3 | 0.4 | 35.7 |
Čáslav | 66 | 172 | 3082 | 160 | 9.3 | 0.2 | 9.5 |
Jaroměřice nad Rokytnou | 90 | 200 | 3017 | 211 | 8.6 | 0.5 | 9.1 |
Horažďovice | 79 | 143 | 1711 | 151 | 17.6 | 6.4 | 24.0 |
Lípa | 69 | 77 | 2261 | 112 | 12.8 | 0.8 | 13.6 |
Variant | Fertilization (Dose and Date) | Auxiliary substances 1 (Dose and Date) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Unfertilized | ||||
2. Renewable external sources | Digestate—14 t/ha | April of 2015 | ||
3. Renewable external sources + AS | 5 l/ha | May (2x) | ||
4. Farm fertilizers | Fermented urine—14 t/ha | |||
5. Farm fertilizers + AS | 5 l/ha | May (2x) |
Variant | Fertilization (Dose and Date) | AS 1 (Dose and Date) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Unfertilized | ||||||
2. Green manure + renewable external sources | Compost—27 t/ha | August of 2015 | Digestate—14 t/ha | April of 2016 | ||
3. Green manure + renewable external sources + AS | 5 L/ha May (2×) | |||||
4. Green manure + farm fertilizers | Manure—27 t/ha | Fermented urine—14 t/ha | ||||
5. Green manure + farm fertilizers + AS | 5 L/ha May (2×) |
Variant | Fertilization (Dose and Date) | AS 1 (Dose and Date) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Unfertilized | |||||
2. Green manure + renewable external sources | Compost—27 t/ha | August of 2017 | |||
3. Green manure + renewable external sources + AS | 0.5 L/ha June | ||||
4. Green manure + farm fertilizers | Manure—27 t/ha | Fermented urine—14 t/ha | May of 2018 | ||
5. Green manure + farm fertilizers + AS | 0.5 L/ha June |
Date | Fertilizer | Content of n (%) |
---|---|---|
April of 2015—fertilization of winter wheat | Digestate | 0.75 |
Fermented urine | 0.05 | |
August of 2015—fertilization after harvest of wheat | Compost | 1.30 |
Manure | 0.67 | |
April of 2016—spring fertilization of potatoes | Digestate | 1.37 |
Fermented urine | 0.06 | |
August in 2017—fertilization after harvest of spelt | Compost | 1.47 |
Manure | 0.69 | |
May of 2018—fertilization of corn | Fermented urine | 0.07% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Antošovský, J.; Prudil, M.; Gruber, M.; Ryant, P. Comparison of Two Different Management Practices under Organic Farming System. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081466
Antošovský J, Prudil M, Gruber M, Ryant P. Comparison of Two Different Management Practices under Organic Farming System. Agronomy. 2021; 11(8):1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081466
Chicago/Turabian StyleAntošovský, Jiří, Martin Prudil, Milan Gruber, and Pavel Ryant. 2021. "Comparison of Two Different Management Practices under Organic Farming System" Agronomy 11, no. 8: 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081466