THE mo? OF cmcxm mum: AND quzm ON some 309. CHEMICAL cmmcmsncs Ehesis for the Degree of M. S. , I MECHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PEDRO 6002- 1972 LIBR/RY Michigan State University UHESIs ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF CHICKEN MANURE AND FERTILIZER ON SOME SOIL CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS BY Pedro Godz Soil samples from the surface down to 42 inches at 6 inch increments were taken from a field experiment involving one rate of fertilizer (150+66+126, N+P+K) and four rates of chicken manure (5.8, 11.6, 23.2, and 46.4 T/A) . The samples were analyzed for pH, nitrates, total nitrogen, total carbon, carbonates, chlorides, exchange- able ammonium, and available calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and phosphorus. The effect of manure on the soil chemical pro- perties was great and significant, both in the surface and the subsurface horizons. The highest rate of manure naturally had the most significant effects. The nitrate, total carbon, total nitrogen, exchangeable ammonium, available phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, and copper contents of the soil were increased by the treatments. The pH was lowered. The use of manure did not Pedro Godz significantly affect the chloride, carbonate, and avail- able calcium, magnesium, manganese, and iron contents of the soil. Generally Speaking, the greatest changes caused by the treatments occurred in the surface soil samples, 0-6 and 6-12 inches, except for soil pH, nitrates, and total nitrogen which varied significantly throughout the profile. Fertilizer had a statistically significant lower- ing effect upon soil pH at some depths and an increasing effect on nitrates in the 36-42 inch depth. It had little effect upon the other soil characteristics con- sidered. THE EFFECT OF CHICKEN MANURE AND FERTILIZER ON SOME SOIL CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS BY Pedro Godz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1972 ' K ' 'N-J ‘...« a”“"’ To Ema Margarita To my wonderful wife for her continuous support, understanding and help during the 20 months at Michigan State University. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses gratitude to his major pro— fessor, Dr. Lynn S. Robertson, for assistance, guidance, and support in developing this project. Special thanks is also expressed to Dr. A. R. Wolcott for his continuous help during the analysis of the data. Sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. B. G. Ellis and Dr. B. D. Knezek for their generous offers of needed laboratory facilities and equipment. Special thanks is also expressed to Betsy Bricker and Elizabeth Shields for their help in making some of the analyses. Thanks is also expressed to the guidance com- mittee, Dr. Lynn S. Robertson, Dr. A. R. Wolcott, Dr. Henry Foth, and Dr. John Wolford. The author acknowledges the financial support of INTA and AID during the 20 months at Michigan State Uni— versity. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION. O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . X INTRODUCTION 0 Q C O O O O O O O O O O O 1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Manure and Crop Yields. . . . . . . . . 3 Manure and Soil Carbon and Nitrogen . . . . 6 Manure and Exchangeable Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, and Potassium . . . . . . . . 9 Manure and Micronutrients. . . . . . . . 10 Manure and Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . 12 Manure and Soil pH and Cation Exchange Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 Manure and the Physical ondition of the Soil . 15 .MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Soil Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Soil Reaction. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Phosphorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Sodium and Potassium . . . . . . . . . 23 Calcium and Magnesium . . . . . . . . . 23 Iron, Manganese and Zinc . . . . . . . . 24 Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Total Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Carbonate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Ammonium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Total Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Nitrate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 iv RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . Soil Reaction. . . Available Available Available Available Available Available Available Available Available Phosphorus Potassium. Calcium . Magnesium. Sodium. . Iron . . Manganese. Zinc . . Copper. Total Carbon . . . Carbonate Total Nitrogen . . Exchangeable Ammonium Nitrate. Chloride SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . LITERATURE CITED. . . . APPENDIX . . Page 28 29 35 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 62 65 68 70 74 77 82 89 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Chemical characteristics of chicken manure. . Nutrients applied in fertilizer and manure each year (lbs/A) . . . . . . . . . Total nutrients applied in fertilizer and manure in 5 years (lbs/A) . . . . . . . pH in the soil profiles as affected by ferti- lizer and chicken manure. . . . . . . . Available phosphorus levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available phosphorus in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Available potassium levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available potassium in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Available calcium levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available calcium in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches Available magnesium levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available magnesium in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Available sodium levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 18 20 21 3O 33 33 36 36 4O 4O 43 43 46 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Pounds per acre of available sodium in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Available iron levels (ppm) in the soil pro- files as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O C O O I O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available iron in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . Available manganese levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available manganese in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Available zinc levels (ppm) in the soil pro- files as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available zinc in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . Available copper levels (ppm) in the soil pro- files as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Pounds per acre of available copper in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . Total carbon levels (%) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . Pounds per acre of total carbon in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . Carbonate levels (%) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . Pounds per acre of carbonate in the soil pro- files to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . . Total nitrogen levels (ppm) in the soil pro- files as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Pounds per acre of total nitrogen in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . Vii Page 46 49 49 52 52 55 55 58 58 60 6O 63 63 66 66 Table 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Exchangeable ammonium levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 Pounds per acre of exchangeable ammonium in the soil profiles to depths of 12 and 42 inches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nitrate levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . Pounds per acre of nitrate in the soil pro- files to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . . Chloride levels (ppm) in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . Pounds per acre of chloride in the soil pro- files to depths of 12 and 42 inches . . . . pH levels in soil in individual plots . . . Available phosphorus levels in soil (ppm) in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available potassium levels in soil (ppm) in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available calcium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available magnesium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available sodium levels (ppm) in soil in indiVidual plots . O . C . O O C . 0 Available iron levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available manganese levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available zinc levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . Available c0pper levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 69 69 72 72 75 75 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Table 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Page Total carbon levels (%) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . 99 Carbonate levels (%) in soil in individual plOts Q 0 Q I O O I O I O O O I O 100 Total nitrogen levels (ppm) in soil in indi— vidual plots. . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Exchangeable ammonium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . 102 Nitrate levels (ppm) in soil in individual plOtS o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o 103 Chloride levels (Ppm) in soil in individual plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. pH in the soil profiles as affected by ferti- lizer and chicken manure. . . . . . . . 31 2. Available phosphorus in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 34 3. Available potassium in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 37 4. Available calcium in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 41 5. Available magnesium in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 44 6. Available sodium in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 47 7. Available iron in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 50 8. Available manganese in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 53 9. Available zinc in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 56 10. Available copper in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 59 11. Total carbon in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . . . . 61 12. Carbonate in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . . . . . 64 13. Total nitrogen in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . 67 14. Exchangeable ammonium in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . 71 Figure Page 15. Nitrate in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . . . . . 73 16. Chloride in the soil profiles as affected by fertilizer and chicken manure . . . . . . 76 xi INTRODUCTION Manure is used for several reasons including the fact that it is a source of plant nutrients. This has been the case since the beginning of agriculture because frequently crop yields were increased with its use. Today, there is an increasing interest in manure because of its close relationship to the quality of the environment. The interest is now more intense because of the increasing amounts of manure that are now produced by cattle, swine, and poultry on single farms which fre- quently are concentrated within small geographical areas. People are now vitally concerned about possible contami- nation of the air, soil, and water. Manure contains large amounts of water-soluble or biodegradeable products that can contribute to the pollution of ground water when the products are leached through the soil. This hazard increases with the amount of manure used. Manure applied to the soil causes changes in the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the soil. For the most part, the changes represent an improved condition for crop production. When manure is applied at high rates for an extended period of time, the changes in condition of the soil could result in decreased crop yields. Manure should be used in such a way and at such a rate that there is little opportunity for the yields or quality of crops to be reduced and that the quality of the environment is not decreased. The purpose of this investigation was to determine changes in the chemical condition of the soil as affected by the conventional use of commercial fertilizer and the use of both conventional and high to very high rates of poultry manure. LITERATURE REVIEW Manure and Crop Yields Manure has beneficial effects upon the yields of many crops all over the world. In 1927, D. W. Pitman and J. F. Fonder (32) said that "farm manure is of value to sugar beets not so much for its organic matter content or for its physical or bacteriological effect upon the soil as for the nitrogen it contains." In 1930, D. W. Pitman (33) showed a high corre- lation between sugar beet yields and soluble phosphorus and nitric nitrogen which were derived from manure. B. L. Brage, §E_gl, (4) in 1952 reported on the effects of barnyard manure applied at different rates for a 30 year period on the yield of several crops, all of which were increased. J. R. Guttay, gt_al. (11) in 1956 reported on crop yields being increased by manure applied every 2, 4, and 6 years. The effect of the manure was highest with the most frequent applications. J. T. Cope, gt_gl. (8) in 1958 showed increased .yields of corn and cotton due to the application of both animal and green manures and from commercial fertilizer. They showed that 5 T/A of manure for corn was equivalent to 57 pounds of commercial nitrogen. For cotton the manure was equivalent to 62 pounds. This work summarized 18 years of treatment. C. W. Carlson, et_al. (6) in 1961 reported on the effect of manure on corn, forage, and grain yields. The manure was applied to an undisturbed soil and toga soil where the surface horizon was cut and removed from loca- tion. There was a positive linear correlation between amount of manure used and yield from the cut plots. There was no significant increase in yield from the plots with the undisturbed soil. R. F. Bishop, et_al. (2) in 1962 reported on the results of long-term applications of manure and commercial fertilizer which had been applied since 1937 in Nova Scotia, Canada. There were increased yields of potatoes, oats, and hay. The greatest effect was on potatoes. R. A. Hedlin and A. O. Ridley (15) in 1964 reported 6 years of results on the effect of both fertilizer and manure on the yield of several crops grown in a crop sequence experiment. Manure used at the rate of 8 T/A substantially increased crop yields. R. L. Halstead and F. S. Sowden (13) in 1968 pub— lished their summary of 20 years work on the application of different sources of organic matter to both sand and clay soils. The highest yields were from the manure treatments which were accompanied by an increase in N and P uptake by the crops. J. Muller (27) in 1964 showed the results of a long-term experiment with mineral fertilizer and manure in France. The author reported that mineral fertilizers employed alone in sufficient quantity were able to produce higher yields than those obtained with the use of manure alone. K. Rauhe (36) reported in 1964 the effect of dif- ferent manurial and fertilization managements in a long- term experiment. He showed that manure alone maintained the soil fertility and crop yield levels, but that manure and fertilizer together resulted in an increase in humus and nitrogen contents of the soil. J. Sarkadi, et_al. (40) in 1964 reported on the results of using 35 T/Ha of farmyard manure every 4 years, compared with other treatments. The average yield of the manured plots for the first 4 years of experiment was 16% higher than from the check plots, but the application of manure with mineral fertilizer produced a 38% yield increase. R. Wabersich (44) in 1964 reported similar results. Summarizing, it seems that commercial fertilizer alone used at low or medium rates is able to cause higher yields than manure alone, but that the combination of fertilizer plus manure is likely to result in the highest yields. Not any of the research involved the use of high rates of manure (25 T/A or more) on an annual basis. Manure and Soil Carbon and Nitrogen In 1943 G. R. Muhr, et_§l. (26) reported signifi— cant differences in the nitrogen and oxidable material in soil from plots established in 1921. There was a decrease in nitrogen and oxidable material in the soil representing the surface 6 inches and treatments involving manure and manure plus lime. In 1947 J. Kubota, et_al. (18) presented results from an experiment established in 1912 on a Tripp very fine sandy loam. The experiment involved different crop- ping and manurial practices. In the check plot there was a 30% decrease in total soil nitrogen. Twelve T/A of manure applied every 3 years did not maintain the nitrogen level in the surface soil. Oxidable materials in the soil were reduced as were the nitrifiable materials. In 1952 B. L. Brage, §E_al. (4) reported similar reductions in nitrogen and carbon after 30 years of manure applications. J. T. Cope, Jr., gt_al. (8) in 1958 published on changes in the soil nitrogen and carbon contents of the soils after 30 years of manure applications. Five T/A c>f horse manure increased the soil carbon content 33% and the soil nitrogen content 62%; The C/N ratio changed from 21 to 17. R. A. Young, et_§l. (45) in 1960 showed the results of a long-term experiment involving both manure and fertilizer in a 4 year rotation. Manure was used at a 7-10 T/A rate and applied before corn in the rotation. The experiment was located on a Fargo clay. In this experiment the soil carbon and nitrogen declined 27% in Karma“ . the check plots and 20% in the manured plots. There was no change in the C/N ratio. The nitrification capacity is” of the soil was correlated with the total nitrogen content. In contrast, R. F. Bishop, §E_§l. (2) in 1962 reported that 30T/A every 3 years over a 20 year period maintain the nitrogen and organic matter contents of the soil. R. L. Halstead, §E_§l. (13) in 1968 in Canada showed that after 20 years, the use of 11.1 T/Ha of manure increased the carbon and nitrogen contents, and the nitrification capacity of the soil. Again in contrast, D. F. Rothwell and C. C. Hortenstine in 1969 (38) reported that the nitrification rates decreased. Chicken manure was used in these laboratory experiments. In 1970 R. J. Olsen, §E_gl. (30) with laboratory experiments under aerobic conditions, reported increased nitrate production, with increasing rates of manure application, but the reverse under anaerobic conditions. The experiment utilized manure up to 621 T/A. In 1971 D. C. Adriano, et_al. (1) reported on the NOE-nitrogen of the ground water under corrals and under land utilized for disposal of dairy cattle manure. The NOS-nitrogen of the water was in excess of the 10 ppm, F“? the limit recommended by the PHS for safe drinking water. T. J. Concannon and E. J. Genetelli (7) in 1971 reported é similar results. E J. Muller (27) in 1964 also reported on losses of nitrogen from manured soils. K. Rauhe (36) in 1964 showed that the use of manure compensates for the usual loss of nitrogen and humus that occurs in crop production. In combination with fertilizer the nitrOgen and humus contents of the soil may increase. R. Wabersich (44) in 1964 showed a positive cor- relation between carbon and nitrogen levels and yields. The highest fertility levels were obtained with the use of both manure and fertilizer. L. S. Murphy, et_al. (28) in 1972 reported large accumulations of nitrogen in the soil profile due to heavy applications of manure. They used up to 720 T/Ha (dry weight). Nitrates tended to collect in the soil profile at about 1.8 meters. At such rates of application, the total nitrogen naturally increased greatly. They predicted a continued nitrate penetration into the soil for a number of years. Manure and Exchangeable Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, and Potassium G. R. Muhr, et a1. (26) in 1943 reported an increase in exchangeable calcium in the soil when lime was used with manure. Otherwise calcium levels were '1 not affected. J. Kubota, et a1. (18) in 1947 reported an increase in exchangeable potassium levels in treatments involving 120 and 180 T/A of manure over a 30 year period. Similar results were found by G. K. Smith and S. S. Obenshain (39) in 1948 in Virginia. B. L. Brage, et_§l. (4) in 1952 showed increased exchangeable calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium levels in the soil, after 30 years of manure applications. R. F. Bishop, §E_al. (2) in 1962 reported increases in the exchangeable calcium and magnesium levels in the soil after the use of up to 30 T/A of manure for 20 years. R. L. Halstead and F. S. Sowden (13) in 1968 measure increased amounts of exchangeable calcium, mag- nesium, and potassium after 20 years of manure applica- tions on both sand and clay soils. Similar results were obtained by R. J. Olsen, et a1. (30) who reported on their work in 1970. 10 L. H. Hileman (16) in 1971 discussed his results from the use of poultry manure applied at 5, 10, 15, and 20 T/A on three different soil series the Ruston, Captina, and Sharkey. The changes in soil potassium were greater than for calcium and magnesium. The changes in potassium levels were greatest in the Ruston and Captina series. The calcium level was significantly decreased in the Sharkey series but increased in the other two soils. Similar trends were shown with magnesium. In the Sharkey series plants presented symptoms of magnesium deficiency where the higher rates of manure were used. L. S. Murphy, et_al. (28) in 1972 showed the results of 2 years of work with beef feedlot solid wastes. The rates of applications were 0, 22, 45, 90, 180, 360, and 720 T/Ha on a dry weight basis. Both total sodium and exchangeable potassium in the top 30 cm of soil were linearly related to rates of application. Manure and Micronutrients M. B. Parker, gt_al. (31) in 1969 reported on the use of chicken manure in soybean production. They found manganese toxicity and measured high levels of water- soluble soil and leaf manganese on the check plots. The application of chicken manure slightly decreased the soil acidity and produced normal appearing plants. 11 B. L. Brage, §E_al. (4) in 1952 observed an increased available manganese level in a long-time experi- ment involving manure. C. W. Carlson, et_§l, (6) in 1961 showed that zinc used with manure gave no yield response, but that it pro— duced yield increases without manure. They said "it FT appears that the zinc contained in the manure was suffi- cient for plant needs." In 1958, M. H. Miller and A. J. Ohlrogge (24,25) demonstrated the presence of water-soluble chelating agents in manure and in other organic materials. They concluded from a nutrient solution experiment that chelating agents held zinc and iron in a form that was less available to plants than ionic forms. The addition of manure and water extract of manure to a Brookston soil decreased the availability of zinc and c0pper but increased the availability of manganese. K. H. Tan, §E_al. (42) in 1971, found complexing agents in sewage sludge treated with 0.1 N_NaOH and then separated into high and low molecular weight fractions. The low molecular weight fraction had a high complexing capacity. The stability constant increased with increas- ing pH levels 1.8 at pH 5.5 to 6.8 at pH 7.0. There were coordinate covalent bounds between OH- groups and zinc and electrovalent linkages between COO- groups and zinc. 12 K. H. Tan, et_al. (41) in 1971 reported on the metal complexing capacity and the nature of the chelating ligands of organic matter extracted from poultry litter. The extraction was made with water. Approximately 25% of the dried litter was water soluble. The extraction had a chelating effect on copper, zinc, magnesium, and aluminum. The organic matter complexed by the cations increased with increasing pH. The stability constants were increased with increasing pH levels. The stability decreased in the order of copper>zinc>magnesium. The extraction from the poultry litter showed the property to complex aluminum and iron from insoluble Al 03 and 2 Fe O The metal complex formation involved carboxyl 2 3' electrovalent linkages and probably hydroxyl and/or amino coordinate linkage. L. S. Murphy, et_al. (28) said that in soil of the Great Plains area with high pH levels and with applications of 20 T/Ha of manure, the problem of iron and zinc deficiencies are usually solved. Manure and Phosphorus W. H. Metzger (23) in 1939 reported an increase in easily soluble phosphorus on old manured plots. J. Kubota, §E_al. (18) in 1947 showed the results of a long-term experiment where the amount of soluble phosphorus in the soil was related to the amount of manure used. 13 R. A. Young, et_al, (45) in 1960 published on their long-time plots on a Fargo clay soil. The extract- able phosphorus declined appreciably in the check plots, but less in the manured plots. The organic phosphorus decreased in all plots but not as greatly where the manure was used. r-H H. J. Hass, et_§l, (12) in 1961 discussed the effect of manure on changes in phosphorus levels of some Great Plains soils. In North Dakota, cropping reduced the total phosphorus levels by 8% but on the manured plots there was a 14% increase. Manure increased the inorganic phosphorus levels but had no effect on reducing the loss of organic phosphorus. The NaHCO3 soluble phosphorus averaged nearly five times that of a virgin sod soil. R. A. Hedlin and A. O. Ridley (15) in 1964 reported on the effect of crop sequence, manure and fertilizer upon phosphorus levels. Manure alone increased the levels of NaHCO -extractable phosphorus more than 3 manure plus ammonium phosphate and more than ammonium phosphate alone. The crop yields however were similar. R. J. Olsen, et_al. (30) in 1970, in a laboratory experiment with manure, reported an increase in the available phosphorus levels in the soil from the use of manure. In 1962, R. F. Bishop, et al. (2) showed an increase in absorbed and easily acid-soluble phosphorus. 14 L. S. Murphy, et_al. (28) in 1972 reported a very large accumulation of absorbed and available phosphorus where heavy rates of manure, up to 720 T/Ha on a dry weight basis, had been used. Weak acid extractable phosphorus levels were as high as 600 ppm. Movement.or accumulation of phosphorus was restricted in most cases to the surface 20 cm of soil. Manure and Soil pH and Cation Exchange Capacity W. H. Metzger (23) in 1939 reported an increase in cation exchange capacity due to the use of livestock manure. J. Elson (9) in 1940 also reported an increased cation exchange capacity.- His studies were conducted on plots that had received treatments for 30 years. G. R. Muhr, et_al. (26) in 1943 reported a significant increase in soil pH but no change in cation exchange capacity after 16 years of manuring. In this research lime was used with the manure. B. L. Brage, et_§l. (4) in 1952 presented results from a long-time experiment with manure. Their treatments increased both the pH level and the cation exchange capacity of the soil. R. F. Bishop, et_al. (2) in 1962 showed increased soil pH for plots receiving 10, 20, and 30 T/A of manure every 3 years for a 30 year period. 15 R. L. Halstead and F. S. Sowden (13) in 1968 reported increased soil pH levels and cation exchange capacities in plots where 11.1 T/Ha of manure were used over a 20 year period. L. H. Hileman (16) in 1971 reported on the effect of different rates of poultry manure on some soil gee chemical properties. The amounts of manure used were 5, E 10, 15 and 20 T/A on three soils. There was a rapid . increase in soil pH on all soils which was followed by a slight decrease in levels. After 7 months the soil pH was still higher than previous to the application of manure for two soils where the original pH was acid, on the third soil with a neutral reaction the soil became more acid. Manure and the Physical Condition of the Soil Several of the researchers, who have already been reviewed, noted that the use of manure, on occasions, affected the physical condition of the soil. From a plant growth viewpoint, the effect upon the physical condition may be as great as the effect upon the chemical condition. The following references all pertain to the effect that manure can have upon the physical condition of the soil: J. Elson (9); J. Elson (10); J. R. Guttay, et al. (11); A. P. Mazurak, et al. (21); A. P. Mazurak, et al. et a1. 16 (22); P. J. Salter, et a1. (45). (39); R. A. Young, MATERIALS AND METHODS In 1967 Dr. Lynn S. Robertson of the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and Dr. J. Wolford of the Poultry Department initiated a field experiment involving the use of chicken manure. The plots were located in Huron County, Michigan. The purpose was to determine how much chicken manure could be used before corn yields would be adversely affected. The soils in the plot area were mapped as Brecken— ridge loam (Mollic Haplaquepts) and Parkhill loam (Mollic Ochraquepts) both naturally poorly drained. The field where the plots were located was tile drained in 1957. The depth varied between 3 and 4 feet. The experiment was terminated in 1971. This is one of the summaries of the work. The treatments were: A--No manure and no fertilizer (check) B--150+66+126 lbs/A (N+P+K) C-—5.8 T/A chicken manure D--ll.6 T/A chicken manure E--23.2 T/A chicken manure F--46.4 T/A chicken manure l7 18 Treatment F was incorporated into the experiment in 1968, one year after the others were initiated. The plot design was a randomized block with 4 replications. The size of each plot was 28 x 80 feet. Manure and fertilizer were applied to the treatments B~C~D and E in the spring and fall of 1967 and in the fall of 1968, 1969, and 1970. All manure applications for treatment F were made in the fall of 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970, after the corn had been harvested. The chemical characteristics of the chicken manure utilized in the experiment are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1.-—Chemica1 characteristics of chicken manure.* I. 5.4)! t‘.‘ 1"" .,_.,__ . % expressed on Chemical "as—received" basis Water (H20) 72.01 to 74.01 Nitrogen (N) 1.00 to 1.50 Phosphorus . (P) 0.68 to 0.71 Potassium (K) 0.70 to 0.74 Calcium (Ca) 2.79 to 3.01 Magnesium (Mg) 0.26 to ' 0.29 Copper (Cu) 0.00009 to ‘ 0.00011 Iron (Fe) 0.22 to 0.25 Manganese (Mn) 0.008 to 0.008 Sodium (Na) ’ 0.24 to 0.24 Zinc (Zn) 0.13 to 0.16 pH 7.17 to 7.33 *Data from Robertson and Wolford (37). 19 The water content of the manure may be as much as 10% higher during warm weather. The other values shown remain similar throughout the year. It is necessary to point out the similarity in phosphorus and potassium levels. This is in contrast with manure from other classes of animals.' The data are from a cage laying operation. The manure contained no bedding. . r“! The amount of nutrients incorporated into the soil each year and for the 5 year period of the experiment are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The data in Tables 2 and 3 were calculated from the averages of the chemical composition of the chicken manure . Soil Sampling In November, 1971, after the corn was harvested, each experimental plot was sampled. The soil profile samples were taken at 6 inch increments down to a depth of 42 inches. The same day the samples were taken, they were spread out in the greenhouse on 25 pound paper bags to dry. The samples were mixed twice a day to accelerate the drying process. After becoming air dry, the samples were crushed and screened and then stored in new pint plastic ice cream containers. 20 TABLE 2.--Nutrients applied in fertilizer and manure each year (lbs/A).* Treatments Nutri- B C D E F ents Fertilizer Manure Manure Manure Manure 150+66+126 5.8 T/A 11.6 T/A 23.2 T/A 46.4 T/A N 150.0 145.0 290.0 580.0 1160.0 P 66.0 81.2 162.4 324.8 649.6 K 126.0 84.1 168.2 336.4 672.8 Ca 336.4 672.8 1345.6 2691.2 Mg 32.48 64.96 129.92 259.84 Cu 0.0116 0.0232 0.0464 0.0928 Fe 27.8 55.7 111.4 222.7 Mn 0.928 1.856 3.712 7.424 Na 27.84 55.68 111.36 222.72 Zn 16.8 33.6 67.3 134.5 *Data from Robertson and Wolford (37). 21 TABLE 3.-—Total nutrients applied in fertilizer and manure in 5 years (lbs/A). Treatments F” Ngfiii’ B c D E F i Fertilizer Manure Manure Manure Manure . 150+66+126 5.8 T/A 11.6 T/A 23.2 T/A 46.4 T/A l N 750.0 725.0 1450.0 2900.0 4640.0 P 330.0 406.0 812.0 1624.0 2598.4 '” K 630.0 420.5 841.0 1682.0 2691.2 Ca 1682.0 3364.0 6728.0 10764.8 Mg 162.4 324.8 649.6 1039.36 Cu 0.058 0.116 0.232 0.3712 Fe 139.2 278.4 556.8 890.9 Mn 4.64 9.28 18.56 29.696 Na 139.2 278.4 556.8 890.88 Zn 84.1 168.2 336.4 538.2 22 Soil Reaction A pH meter, model DR Sargent, was used for pH determinations. Ten grams of air dry soil and 10 cc of distilled water in a 50 cc beaker were stirred and allowed to react for 30 minutes. The measurements were made with the aid of a magnetic stirrer. T“ Phosphorus 1 Bray's P 1 method was used with a 1:7 soil- extracting solution ratio. The extracting solution was 0.025‘N'NH4F and 0.03 N HCl. A Chloromolybdic acid—boric 1.; acid solution was used to develop the blue color. F-S solution was used as reductor. 2.85 grams of soil were placed in a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 20 cc of extract- ing solution. This was shaken for 5 minutes on a rotatory shaker at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered through a No. 42 paper. An aliquote varying between 2 and 10 cc depending upon the phosphorus concentration, was poured into a 50 cc volumetric flask. The volume was then made to about 20 cc with distilled water. Then 2 cc of F-s reducing agent was added and the flask shaken. After this, the volume was completed to 48 cc with distilled water and 2 cc of Chloromolybdic acid-boric acid was used to make up to volume and to develop the blue color. The solution then was shaken again. Measurements were made between 15 and 30 minutes after the addition of the Chloromolybdic—boric 23 acids solution with an Evelyn photoelectric colorimeter containing a 660 mu filter. A standard curve was made with solutions of 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 ppm of phosphorus. The results were plotted on semilogaritmic paper. Sodium and Potassium [“1 The NH Ac 1 N, adjusted to pH 7, was used to 4 extract Na and K. Five grams of soil were placed into a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 50 cc of extracting solu- tion. This was shaken for 60 minutes on a rotatory shaker @— at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered through a No. 2 paper. Aliquotes varying from 2 to 10 cc of the filtrate, depending upon the concentration of sodium and potassium, were added to a 25 cc volumetric flask and made to volume« with distilled water. The determination was made with a Coleman model 21 flame photometer. Standard curves were made with solutions of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ppm of sodium and 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ppm of potassium. The results were plotted on a milimetric paper with ppm of sodium or potassium vs percent transmition. Calcium and Magnesium One N_NH4Ac adjusted to pH 7 was used as an extracting solution. Five grams of soil were placed into a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 50 cc of extracting 24- solution. This was shaken for 60 minutes on a rotatory shaker at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered through a No. 2 paper. A 0.5 cc aliquote and 5 cc of a 60,000 ppm of La203 solution were added t0'a 25 cc volumetric flask, and then diluted to 25 cc with distilled water. The evaluation was made with a Perkin Elmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrOphotometer. A standard curve for'calcium was made with solu- tions of 0, l, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ppm of calcium. The results were plotted on semilogaritmic paper, ppm of calcium vs absorbance. A standard curve was made with solutions of 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 ppm of magnesium. Iron, Manganese and Zinc Hydrochloric acid 0.1 N, was used for extracting these metals. Two grams of soil were placed into a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 20 cc of extracting solution. This was shaken for 30 minutes on a rotatory shaker at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered through a No. 2 paper. The measurements of iron, manganese and zinc were made with a Perkin Elmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrophoto- meter. Standard curves were made with solutions of 0.0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 ppm of iron, 25 manganese or zinc, and plotting ppm vs absorbance on semi- logaritmic paper. Co er Hydrochloric acid 1N_was used as an extracting solution. Two grams of soil were placed into a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 20 cc of extracting solution. This was shaken for 60 minutes on a rotatory shaker at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered through a No. 2 paper. The measurements were made with a Perkin Elmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrophotometer. A standard curve was made with solutions contain- ing 0.0, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 ppm of copper. The results were plotted on semilogaritmic paper. Total Carbon Total carbon was analyzed by dry combustion with a Leco model 750-100 instrument. After calibrating the instrument, the samples were analyzed by standard pro- cedures for the instrument using 0.1 grams of finely ground soil. Carbonate Carbonate was evaluated by determining the inorganic carbon according to the titration method described by L. G. Bundy and J. M. Bremmer (5). 26 Ammonium Into a 100 cc Kjeldahl flask, 5 grams of soil with 10 cc of distilled water and 10 cc of 0.1 N_NaOH 4 were added. After steam diStillation the distillate was collected in a 50 cc Erlenmeyer flask with 5-cc of a boric acid solution, bromocresol green and methyl red indicators, until the distillate reached the 30 cc level. 5 2804. The distillate was then titrated with 0.013 Ii H Total Nitrogen Micro-Kjeldahl and steam distillation were used for total nitrogen analysis. In a 100 cc Kjeldahl flask 0.5 grams of finely ground soil, 0.8 grams of a catalitic mixture (selenium, copper sulfate, and potassium sulfate), and 3 cc of sulfuric acid, were digested for 3 hours. Ten cc of 10 N_NaOH was added and then steam distilled. The distillate was collected in a 50 cc Erlenmeyer flask and then the method already described for ammonium was used. Nitrate The nitrate electrode was used for the nitrate determination. Twenty grams of air dry soil in a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask and 50 cc of a saturated solution of CaSO4 were shaken for 30 minutes at 200 RPM on a rotatory shaker. The evaluation was made with an electrode for nitrate determinations and a pH meter model DR Sargent hi?! - i 27 which measured emf milivolts in the magnetically stirred soil suspension. A standard curve was made with solutions of 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 ppm of nitrate. The ppm of nitrate and emf milivolts were then plotted on semilogaritmic paper. Chloride In a 125 cc Erlenmeyer flask, 5 grams of soil with 10 cc of distilled water were shaken on a rotatory shaker for half an hour at 200 RPM. The suspension was filtered with No. 2 paper. Five cc of the filtrate and 0.2 cc of potassium chromate solution were titrated with 0.0132 N_AgNO3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION To expedite discussion the treatments and the sampling depths are coded as follows: Soil sample code Code Sample Depth 1 0- 6 inches 2 6—12 inches .1. 3 12-18 inches 4 18-24 inches 5 24-30 inches 6 30—36 inches 7 36~42 inches Soil treatment code Code Treatments A no fertilizer and no manure B fertilizer only+150+66+126 (N+P+K) C chicken manure—- 5.8 T/A D chicken manure-~ll.6 T/A E chicken manure--23.2 T/A F chicken manure--46.4 T/A 28 29 Soil Reaction The pH of the soil material in the seven depths as affected by both fertilizer and chicken manure are shown in Table 4. The values represent the averages for the four replications. As can be seen, the soil within the plot area was . ij naturally alkaline and increased in pH with depth. The use of fertilizer alone had a tendency to make the soil less alkaline. This was especially evident at depths 2 and 3 (6-18 inches). This is probably due to the fact that 150 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer were plowed down each year. While there were some variation in the data associated with soil depth, the use of increasing amounts of manure tended to make the soil less alkaline at all depths. The acidifying effect was noticeable even at tile depth, 36 to 42 inches (see Figure l). The decrease in soil pH in the lower depths for some treatments could be attributed to (l) slight natural differences in the soil, (2) the effect of nitrogen mineralization on the production of nitrates which were leached through the profile and which carried certain cations with them, and (3) the leaching of water-soluble chelating agents which carry cations with them. Several workers have shown the presence of chelating agents in manures. Tan, et a1. (41) reported that about 25% of 30 .moaunanmum a no mafiaannnoum mocnoamanmamr H~.o mao.o mm.n ae.m ea.m ao.m me.m a~.m .meu.em a~.o eoo.o He.n wo.m ma.n oe.m ma.m Hm.m .em-=om Hm.e Hoo.o em.a eo.m mn.n ao.m Ha.a ea.m =omu=em em.o aoo.o am.a mn.e ee.n em.n ae.a ao.m =emu=wa m~.o moo.o om.n .em.n em.n an.» mm.n mm.a .meu=ma m~.o mooo.ov Ha.e am.a mm.a Hm.e em.n am.a .meu.e mm.o mee.e mo.a nm.a mm.a mm.a «v.5 em.a an nae Amo.v «.nonn e\e e.ee «\a m.m~ <\e e.aa «\e m.m eme+me+oma retro Haom .o.m.q muscmz madam: muscmz muscmz HwNHHHDme :H m m a U m m Spawn mucmaummna .muscme cmxoflno paw Hmuflaflyumm an Umpowmmm mm mmHHmonm Aflom may cH mmt|.¢ mqmm mo muom “mm moqsomll.m mqmda .moflumwnmum m mo mpflafibwnoum 00:60HMflcmflmr .m.z .m.z e.e m.m o.e ~.e a.m m.m =~eu.em omoz .moz mom Nam mom mom fiom Hem =0MI:OM e.~ mmo.o ~.m ~.n ~.a e.m o.e 0.x .omu.e~ .m.z .m.z a.m a.m a.a e.e m.a e.a =e~u.we .m.z .m.z o.oa a.aa e.eH e.m ~.m e.e .mH-=~H e.e~ mooe.ov a.om ~.mm m.oa e.me a.ae e.mm .me-.e m.am moo.o e.HeH m.m0H m.ea m.ne m.ee e.mm =e 4=e xmo.v r.nona e\a e.ee «\a ~.m~ ¢\e e.HH «\e e.m ema+ee+ema romno Haom .o.m.q mused: mussmz muscmz wuscmz. HmNflHfluHmm :w a m a o m a shame mucmaummne .muscwE :mxoflno paw HwNflHflpHmm an Umpommmm mm mmawmoum HHOm may cw “Emmy mHm>mH msuonmmonm wHQmHHm>¢rt.m musmfim Antennae arena mv .mm om em ma 0 r b F s L «4 a L n A _ 1 {/ILDVQ t D 1/ .uom /O -xov // //1II. III I. m 0 / E. O AHM\¢\B ~.mmv mussmz u m // Am+m+z .ema+me+omav umnaaennmm u m o gownu n e .uom . O /O //J [Eooa m (mdd) snxoquoqa 35 With increasing rates of manure, the soil tests for available phosphorus increased. This would be expected because the manure applied in the 5 years con- tained, depending upon the treatment, up to almost 2,600 pounds of phosphorus. Indirectly, the data in Table 5 illustrate the tremendous fixing power for phosphorus that the soil within the experimental area had. The data in Table 6 have been calculated from the data in Table 5. The ppm values were changed to "pounds per acre." The appropriate numbers were added to show the total values for the 0 to 12 inch depth and for the 0 to 42 inch depth. This procedure was used for each of the plant nutrients considered in this project. Considering the great effect that the higher rates of manure had upon the phosphorus soil test levels, poultry farmers should be using very little or possibly no phosphate in their fertilization programs if they use rates of manure similar to the high rates used in this experiment. Available Potassium The potassium soil test levels are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and in Figure 3. In general, the effects of both fertilizer and manure on these soils were very similar to that already described for phosphorus. While the differences caused by fertilizer were not great or statiStically significant, the fertilizer o.mmn o.m~nm m.mmo~ «.mnma «.mama «.mHHH m.oooa emeno o.mem e.nmna ~.oeea e.anH N.Hee ~.emm m.mme .mauo amo.o gamma .o.m.q m m o o m a mucmaymwne .nmrona me one NH mo mnummp on mmHHmon HHOm map :a Edflmmmuom wHQmHHm>m mo muom Hmm mpcsomll.m mqmfle .noannannnn a no suaaanmnoum monnoenanmama 36 .m.z .m.z e.me e.am m.em e.em m.em a.am .me4.em .m.z .m.z a.om m.me a.~m e.ae m.mm H.mm .em-.om .m.z .m.z e.eee a.em e.oe a.mm m.am o.Hm .em4.e~ .m.z .m.z m.HHH m.em e.ee e.em a.ee a.ae =emu=me m.me mme.e o.mmH a.eoa e.me m.me a.ee e.ee .mH-=~H m.~ee mee.o m.nae m.mem m.amm H.Hea e.oee H.mee .mau.e m.eee Hoe.e m.eee m.eam ~.H~m m.aeH m.amH m.mme .e u=e Ame.v r.nonn «\a e.ee e\a «.mm «\B e.HH «\e m.m ema+ee+oma romeo Haom .Q.m.A masses ounce: muscmz madam: “mafiaflyumm 2H m m a o m 4 reams mucmfiammua .muscma cmxowzo can Hmuwaflwumm an pmuommmm mm mmawwoum Hwom 0:» ca Afimmv mam>wa Edammmuom mannaflw>¢ll.> mamma 37 Ne ‘- .muscms cox0fl£o can HmNfiHHuuwm an pmuomwmm mm mmawmoum Hwom mcu ca Eswmmmuom mannawm>¢rt.m musmflm Ammnocflv gamma mm om em ma NH - _ _ . q)- _ a ll I31 an»\«\e «.mmo meant: Am+m+z .mma+mo+omav Hmnaaannmm romeo ‘ I' ll «:00 om ONH omH ovm oom owm (mdd) mnrsseqod 38 tended to increase the soil test levels in the surface soil down to a depth of 12 inches. Below this depth the test levels on the check plots and the fertilizer plots were remarkably similar and relatively low, less than 150 ppm. As on the check plots, the available potassium levels in the profile of the fertilized plots tended to decrease with depth. The potassium in the manure applied during the 5 year period amounted to up to almost 2,700 pounds per acre. Such large amounts, as expected, significantly increased the soil test levels. The greatest increase occurred in the surface soil down to a depth of 12 inches. There was little evidence to suggest that the potassium applied in the manure moved very much until the highest rate of manure was used. Increasing the rate from 23.2 to 46.4 T/A tended to result in higher soil test levels in the 18 to 42 inch depths, but the differences shown in Table 7 were not statistically significant. It is problematical as to what the results might be if the manure had been used at even higher rates or it had been used for a longer time. The data strongly suggest that on these soils, potassium in the manure is not likely to leach and to cause pollution problems. At the rates used for the duration of the research, the potassium tended to collect 39 in the surface soil and therefore was subject to loss pri- marily through erosion——either wind or water. Furthermore, when poultry manure is used at rates similar to those used in this experiment, or for longer periods of time crop producers should be testing their soils at frequent and regular intervals so that proper adjustments can be made in a fertilizer use program. With the higher soil test levels reported in Table 8, the use of commercial fertilizer potassium is more likely to reduce crop yields than to improve them. Available Calcium Calcium availability levels for the seven depths of sampling as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer treatments are shown in Tables 9 and 10. There were statistically significant differences within the 0 to 6 inch sampling depth. No other signifi- cant differences were observed. The soils utilized for this project were naturally high in available calcium. Chicken manure is high in calcium. Both situations undoubtedly affect the pH of the soil by tending to keep the pH at a relatively high level. The data presented in Figure 4 suggest that both fertilizer and manure might possibly reduce the amount of available calcium in the entire profile. With more time, 40 .m.z eae.~m omauee emeumm emaumm ~mm.ee mmm.~m .meue mme.a ~mm.~fi moo Ha one ea see a eaa.m eme.HH .mauo Amo.v Spawn .e.m.q a m a o m a mucmEummHB .mmnocH Nv paw NH mo mzummp on mmaflmoum HHom may cw asfioamo mannaflm>m wo muom Mom mossomlu.oa mqmde .mOflumHumum M NO muwawnmaoum mOQMOHwHQmHmr W .m.z .m.z Hee.m eom.e aoo.e em~.m Hem.m emm.e =me-.em .m.z .m.z me~.~ mmm.m eae.e Ham.m eae.m HmH.e .em-=om .m.z .m.z meo.~ Hee.m eem.~ Hmo.m mam.m amm.e =om4.em .m.z .m.z aee.m onm.m mma.a aoe.m eme.m mem.m =em-.ma .m.z .m.z oam.m mem.~ mea.a mmo.m ema.m amo.e .meaame .m.z .m.z mmm.~ Hma.m mee.~ Ham.m em~.m amm.~ amau=e mam mme.o Hea.m mma.m aam.m eme.m emm.m mme.m =6 u=o xmo.v r.nonm «\e e.ee e\e «.mm «\B e.HH m\e m.m ema+me+oma romro Haom .Q.m.q madam: muscmz munch: mussmz nmNHHHuHmm cH m m 0 U m a summo mpsmfipmmue .muscmE cmMOHco paw HoNHHHDHmm xn pouommmm mm moaflmonm HHOm mnu CH Aemmv mHm>mH Esfloamo manmfiflm>¢rl.¢ madman Ammzosflv gamma mm om vm m b q NH N cit—H III)— IIIP \D 0 ~- —_ roomm - Aum\<\e «.mmv muscmz Am+m+z .mma+mm+omav amneawunmm x0050 roowm i>p K/o 41 1 LL noovm iloomm J— woomv eeeee looom (mdd) mnroteo 42 or with these materials used at higher rates the differ- ences shown might become significant. Never the less, the only interpretation that is valid at this time is that while differences in available calcium levels within the subsurface horizons were measured, the differences probably represent natural soil variations as much as treatments. Available Magnesium Magnesium availability in the soil profile as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 11 and 12. The soils in this project were well supplied with magnesium in an available form. Generally speaking, the available magnesium levels tended to decrease with depth. The fertilizer used in the experiment did not cause any statistical difference in magnesium levels to develOp. The use of high rates of chicken manure had a tendency to increase the available magnesium levels in the plow layers as is shown in Figure 5. As with calcium, the small differences are difficult to interpret. With the use of more manure or with more time the trend could become more distinct. There is about 10 times as much calcium as magnesium in poultry manure and approximately 2.5 times as much potassium. As has been discussed, such a situation affects 43 .m.z NBH.¢ ~mo.m Nao.m mam.~ mam.~ mmm.~ .mv-o o.mm~ omm.a mm~.H omH.H mam vmm amo.a =~H-o Amo.v gamma .Q.m.q m m a U m d mucmEummHB .mmnocfl mu paw NH mo mnummp ou mmaflmoum HHom on» :H ESfimmcmmE mHanflm>m wo whom mom mpcsomnu.ma mamme .mOHumHuwum m mo mpflHHQMQOHm mocmoHMficmHm« .m.z .m.z mam mva mma Ham vva mva =mvn=mm .m.z .m.z mom mma vma boa mma mma =omu=om .m.z .m.z mmm mmH vmm mma mom mom =om1=vm .m.z .m.z 5mm 55H hma wma How mmH =vm|=ma .m.z .m.z mmm mmm mmm mma mmm mmm =manzma m.ma avo.o mmm mmm mmm mam mam mmm =NHI=m .m.z .m.z Hmm ham mmm mmm mum Hmm :o 1:0 Amo.v ..noum «\e q.ov «\9 «.mm ¢\e m.HH a\a m.m ama+mo+oma xumao aflom .o.m.q muscmz muscmz muscmz muscmz Hmuflawuuwm :H m m D U m 4 gamma mucmEummuB .muscma cmxoflno cam umNflHfluHmm an pmuomwmm mm mmaflmoum HHom may GH AEQQV mam>ma Edflmwcmwe wannaflm>¢ll.aa mqmde .muscmfi cmMOfico can umuflawuumm an Umuommmm mm mmaflmoum HHOm may ca Esflmmcmme magmaflm>¢rt.m musmflm Ammnoqav gamma ma mm om «m ma «H o o F — _ _ b b b q _ u 1 W a - .Iom .rooa 4 4. ivoma Iroom 1-0mm //;m Au»\<\a «.mmv musamz u m //. a Am+m+z .mma+om+omav umuaaauumm u m // #0030 u m 0// luoom . O / O //.m -omm (mdd) mnrseubew 45 the soil test levels. It also affects several of the cation ratios that, when extreme, become important in crop production. The K:Mg ratio for the surface soil of the check plots and for the other treatments were 0.48, 0.57, 0.66, 0.98, 1.07, and 1.17 for treatments A, B, C, D, E, and F respectively. At the second depth (6-12 inches) the K:Mg ratio changed even more and ranged from 0.46 in treatment A to 1.36 in treatment F. The increasing K:Mg ratio obtained with increased rates of poultry manure suggest that heavy and/or pro- longed applications of manure could theoretically produce magnesium deficiencies. This would be likely on the more sandy soils which naturally contain less available mag- nesium than reported for the soils in this experiment. Available Sodium Available sodium levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 13 and 14. Poultry manure contains significant quantities of sodium, but commercial fertilizer contains little or no sodium. This is shown in Figure 6, where the curves for the check plots and the fertilizer plots are similar. The available sodium content of the soil profile tended to increase slightly with depth. The level in 46 N.ONN «.mhva m.oomH 0.5HNH m.oooa «.mmm v.mmm =N¢Io v.wm N.mvv m.mm¢ N.mmm w.NmN o.mNN ¢.mmm INHIO Amo.v gamma .D.m.~H Pm m D U m fl mucmEummue .mmao:H «a cam NH mo mnbdmp on mmaflwoum HHom on» ma asapom magmaflm>m mo whom Hod mocsomll.va mqmde .mOHumHumum M NO muflaflnmnoum wOGMOHMHcmHm« .m.z .m.z H.on n.mo m.hm m.~o H.mm m.mm =N¢I=mm .m.z .m.z m.aoa m.Hm «.mm n.45 «.mo H.mn =mmu=om m.mH oao.o m.ooa a.mm H.mm H.m5 o.an m.mn =omuzq~ m.mH mooo.ov N.mHH m.~HH m.mm m.mh H.mn H.mo =qmu=ma H.54 koo.o «.mma o.mmH m.soa m.mh o.mk H.mo =mau=mfl ~.am mooo.ov H.mma a.vma m.mHH «.ms v.vm m.mo =~Hu=m «.mH mooo.ov o.ma m.~m m.om H.mo H.om m.om =6 u=o_ Amo.v ..noum ¢\e «.64 4x9 «.mm a\e o.HH ¢\e m.m mma+oo+oma xomgo HHom . Q . m . .H GHSGMS QHSCMZ deflmz QHSCMZ HGNHHHUHTM CH m m a o m.. a gamma mucmaummue owHSCME GMMOHSO GEM HGNHHHJLHGH an amnommum mm mmaflmond HHom mnu ca ready mHm>mH ssflaOm magmaflm>auu.ma mamas cmxowno cam HmNflHfluHmm an omaommmm mm wmaflmoum HMOm may Nv mm om qp ‘— d— 47 Aum\¢\a ~.m~v muscmz Ax+m+z .wma+oo+omav Hmuwafluumm xomno Illl «mm . mHDQME Amococflv canon am ma «a n _ p _ k\ #.oma ca EDMUOm mannawm>¢rl.m musmwm \ .1 03 I... 3; 11 ooa (mdd) mntpos 48 close proximity to tile lines tended to decrease, probably because of leaching. The use of poultry manure tended to increase the available sodium levels not only in the surface soil but even more so in the subsurface horizons. The increase in general was proportional to the amount of manure used. The data suggest that some sodium was leached from the surface soil down into the profile. The sodium reached deeper depths with increasing rates of manure. The amount of sodium decreased in the seventh depth (36-42 inches) in all treatments. This can be attributed to the effect of the tile drains in the field. In spite of the significant accumulation of sodium in the areas above 36 inches, the concentration did not reach levels that are considered to be toxic to crOps. It cannot be concluded that with the rates of manure used in the field experiment, that accumulations of soluble salts would not reach detrimental levels at some future date. Available Iron Iron availability levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 15 and 16.1qu§rfiiiguc 7 Poultry manure contains relatively small amounts of iron so that great differences from the use of manure 49 .m.z N.mmHH o.m~m m.mwm o.Hmh w.mmm o.omN :m¢lo m z N.mmH N.me m.NbH o.whH m.hma N.ooa =NHIo Amo.v nwmmm .a.m.q a m a o m a mummEpmmHB .mmzocw mv can NH mo mnummc op mmawmoum HHom map CH coma magmaflm>m mo whom mom mccsomll.mH mamfia .moaumaumpm a mo muflaaamaoua woamoamaaaama .m.z .m.z h.m b.a o.H H.oo N.N m.m =N¢I=wm .m.z .m.z N.o¢H m.mm N.NOH h.mm m.m m.H =mmt=om h.om moo.o N.mva m.bm H.Nm ¢.vm m.hm o.NH goml=vm .m.Z .m.z m.mvH H.hm meam m.vm m.HOH N.mm =v~l=wa .m.z .m.z H.mm o.mm N.hm >.mm m.mn o.vm =wH4=NH .m.z .m.z m.hm m.ov v.wv N.Nv H.5m . «.mm =NH130 .m.z .m.z m.ow h.mv m.Hv m.mv m.Hv h.mN zw I=o Ama.v ..aoaa «\a a.aa <\e «.mm «\B a.HH «\a a.m ama+aa+ama xomao Haom .o.m.q muscmz muscwz mndcmz wuscmz HmNHHHuumm cw . a a a o m a gamma mucmfiumwua .muscms,cmxofl£o cam Hmuwawuumm an pmboommm mm mmHHmoum HHom 03» ca Afimmv mHm>wH cOHfl wHQmHfim> 1|.mH mqmfie 50 o mun—DGME cmx0fl£o can HmNflkuHmw an cmuomwww mm moaflmoum aflom may SH coma manmawm>¢ll.h mudmflm Ammsocflv nummo om «N ma NH w c we mm b p _ _ . _ dr- // (j: I/ O I/ O U (mdd) uozl O / \ \ /. o / ololol.\ \ -1, 8 / \ /, \\ # om AH%\¢\B N.MNV mhsnmz H m / \ Ax+m+z .mNH+mm+omHv HwNflHHunh H m \\ OOH xomgo " < < 11 51 would not be expected. Commercial fertilizer also con- tains little or no iron. Any great change in availability of iron within the soil profiles would have to be caused by a change in solubility of the iron already present. The data are variable and difficult to interpret. Even though differences in availability were measured, the differences were not statistically significant except at depth 5 (24-30 inches). Differences in availability of iron were not expected because of the naturally high pH level of the soils within the experimental areas. At such levels, iron normally is relatively insoluble. Available Manganese Available manganese levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 17 and 18. . ’ .:., Statistically significant differences in avail- able manganese were measured only at depths 4 and 5. As in the case of iron the data are difficult to interpret. Most of the differences are considered to reflect varia- tions in soil within the plot area, and not necessarily the treatments despite the fact that there is a tendency for the values to increase with increasing rates of manure. 52 N.NNH v.vmm m.Hm¢ o.mow v.Hov o.mmm c.0vm =N¢Io .m.z N.omH o.vNN N.mNN ¢.mmH o.NhH o.NhH =NHIo Amo.v nummo .Q.m.fl m m D U m fl mucmaumwua .mmaoaa ma cam NH ao mcwmmp ou mmaflmoum aflom may CH mmmcmmcmfi mHQMHHm>m mo muom Hod mpcsomnl.mH mqmda .muaumaumum a mo muaaaamaoua moaneaaaaaam« .m.z .m.z a.>a ¢.ma H.ma a.m~ a.va m.mH =mau=am .m.z .m.z a.mv a.m~ m.aa a.am a.aH m.aa =amu=am a.ma mao.o «.mv H.am m.aa m.H~ 4.5H 5.6H =amu=a~ m.aa oma.o m.ma a.HN H.Hm m.am 4.4m m.aH =amn=aa .m.z .m.z «.mm m.k~ «.mm m.mm m.aa H.H~ =aa4=~H .m.z .m.z m.ma m.mm m.Hm k.am a.oa v.am _=~H1=a .m.z .m.z a.aa m.am ~.~a a.av H.ma a.a¢ za u=o Ama.v *.aoaa a\e a.av ¢\e «.mm «\B a.HH «\a m.m ama+am+ama xowau aflom . Q . m . .H GHSCMZ whfiflmz QHDHHMS. wHSSMS HGNHHHPHmh CH a m a o m 4 gamma mucmfiummua .muscwfi cmeHno paw Hmuwaflunmm an coyommmm mm mmaflmoum HHOm mnu ca Afimmv mam>ma mmmcmmcme magmaflm>¢ll.ha mammfi .muncmfi cmxowno cam umuflafluumm >3 wmuoommm mm mmawmoum HAOm on» cw wmwcmmcmfi wannawm>¢rt.m musmflm Ammaoaav apama ma am am am ma «H a 53 Au»\a\e «.mmv magma: Ax+a+z .ama+aa+omav amaaaauama xumao IIII 4mm _ q _ d HP ‘— OH om om ow om ow (mdd) asauebuew 54 The amount‘of manganese added to the soil with the manure was not high. With high pH levels in the soil, differences in available manganese were not expected. Available Zinc Zinc availability in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 19 and 20. The availability of zinc in general decreased with depth. This was closely associated with an increase in pH. While fertilizer tended to increase the avail— ability of zinc, the differences were not statistically significant. If in the long run zinc availability could be increased on these soils, the change in availability would probably be associated with decrease in pH levels of the soil. The use of the higher rates of manure increased the availability of zinc only in the surface soil. The increase in zinc availability in treatments D, E, and F can be attributed to (l) a decrease in soil pH associated with the treatments, (2) and zinc added to the soil with the manure, and (3) the effect of the chelating agents in the manure. 55 1 \ Inn-I a.~m a.maa a.aoa «.mm 6.5a «.mm .N.Hv =Naua N.HN o.mm N.mh v.00 m.mm 0.0m w.hN =NHlo Amo.v spawn oQomouH m m Q U m AN mucmEummHB .mmcocw mv cam NH mo mcammo Op mmaflmoum aflom map GH ocwu magmawm>m mo muom Hod monsomll.om mqmma mafia maamHam>auu.mH mamas cwxoflco cam umuwawuumm an omuommmm mm mwaawonm HwOm mcu ca ocflu magmaflm>¢tt.m musmflm . QHDCME Ammaoaav auama Nw o L q 11v / 1F m I. m o/ 6 5 0 Mo -faa 0v 0 4 3 AH%\¢\B «.mmv muscmz u m /f// Ax+m+z .wma+wm+omav Hmuflafluumm u m xomau u a o/ O. //o lyam ,/.m a E (mdd) ourz 57 Available Copper Available copper levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 21 and 22.;arf,)." /C’” I The copper contents of the soil profiles did not vary as much as did the other cations. There was a general tendency for the available c0pper content of the soil pro- files to decrease with depth. This is probably associated with the changes in soil reaction. The amount of copper added to the soil in the manure was very small, even where the highest rate of manure was used. The increase in copper availability of the surface soil was probably due to decrease in soil pH as already discussed. Total Carbon Total carbon levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 23 and 24.«« 1' Total carbon is present in the soil in relatively large amounts and occurs in both inorganic and organic forms. Poultry manure contains significant amounts of organic carbon, so that the use of poultry manure should increase the amount of total carbon in the surface soil' rather significantly. ‘58 .maz v.HHH N.mm v.vm m.mm N.Hm m.mm =N¢Io v.5 N.mv v.Nm o.Hm m.mN A m.hN m.mN =NHIo Amo.v Cummo .Q.m..H .m M Q U m 4 mquEumeB .mmCoCH mv pCm NH mo mnummp on mmHHmoum HHOm ms“ CH Hmmmoo mHQmHHm>m mo whom Hmm mCCComna.NN mqmfle .moHumHumum m mo MHHHHQCQOHQ GUCmonHCme« .m.z .m.z a.a m.m m.a m.m a.m a.m .mau=am .m.z .m.z ~.a a.v v.4 o.m a.a H.m =amu=am .m.z .m.z m.a m.m a.a v.a a.a m.m =amn=¢~ .m.z .m.z H.a m.m a.m H.m m.m ~.a =amn=aa .m.z .m.z a.H a.m H.H H.m m.a H.H =aa-.~a H.N aao.a m.oa a.a m.n H.H o.H ~.H =NHI=a a.H Hoo.a H.HH N.a m.a 5.5 a.m «.5 =a u=a gmo.v m.goam «\a a.aa axe ~.m~ «\a a.gg «\e a.m aaa+aa+ama gomgu HHom .o.m.q mHCsz mHCsz oHCCmZ oHCsz CmNHHHHHmm CH . m m a o m .4 gamma mpCmEummHB .mCCCmE meoHCo UCC HmNHHHpHmm an @wuommmw mm mmHHmonm HHom map CH AEmmv mHm>wH Hmmmoo mHQMHHm>CII.HN mHmCB .wHCCmE meoHCo CCm pmNHHHuuwm ha wmuommmm mm mmHHwoua HHOm msu CH nmmmoo mHQwHHm>C|1.OH mquHm AmmgogHv gumma me am am am ma mg a F _ -r— fi- 59 l ll Klimt!!! gam\g\a «.mmv muagmz Ax+m+z .mma+ma+amgvamNHHHummm gomgo IOH (mdd) Jaddoo . mHDGME meOHCo UCm umNHHHuHmm an pmuommmm mm mmHHmoHa HHom may CH Hmmmoo mHQMHHm>¢It.OH mquHm AmmgogHv gamma as am am am ad NH P r g _ _ _ . .fi 59 —-b ll «2mm gmm\g\a ~.m~V maagmz gx+m+z .amg+aa+amgvamNHHHummm gomgo l lrlo-H (mdd) IdeOQ 60 .m.z ooa.aa~ aoo.a~m oaa.ma~ ooa.aam oaa.nom aoo.nam =ma-o ago.kg aom.aga oao.Ha oom.ma oam.aa oaa.am aom.ma y=~Hua Amo.v swmma .a.a.a m a a o a g mquEummCB .mmgmgH as agm NH mo mnpmmo ou mmHHmon HHOm mCH CH Conumo Hmpou mo whom Cmm mUCComll.vm mqmma gogmmm ngoanl.mm mamas .mCCCmE waoHCo UCC CmNHHHuHmm an Umuommwm mm mmHHmoum HHOm on» CH Coaumo Hmuoeul.HH mquHm AmmgogHa gumma ma mm on em mH . fiH w o 1é.H l 6 nuo.m .io.m \ o gms\g\e ~.mmv maagmz u a \\ Ax+m+z .mNH+mm+omHv CmNHHHqum n m xomgu u d (%) UOQIPD I930; 62 High analysis mixed fertilizers are not likely to contain very much carbon. No statistically significant differences were found to be caused by the fertilizer that was used in this experiment. As predicted, the use of large amount of poultry manure increased the total carbon content of the surface soils. While rather large differences in carbon content were observed in the subsurface horizons the differences could not be attributed to the treatments. They were more closely associated with the natural variations in carbo- nate contents of the subsoil. Carbonate The carbonate levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 25 and 26. The values are considerably lower than anticipated especially when one takes into consideration the values reported for total carbon. The soils used in this experiment were derived from calcareous materials. Much of the calcium is in the carbonate form. The soils are relatively young as is shown by the high values for both calcium and carbonates. The fertilizer and manure treatments, from a sta- tistical viewpoint, did not affect the carbonate content of the soil profiles. The variation in carbonate contents 63 .m.z aam.am oaa.oaa oaa.aa aam.aa a-.aaa aaa.vaa =~ano .m.z. aam.a oaq.m omm.m aaa.m aaa.m aaa.a =~asa Amo.v . Camma .a.m.a m .a. a a a m maCmEammHB .mmCOCH mv.UCm NH Ho mCammp oa mmHHmoHQ HHom 03a CH mamCOQamo Ho whom Ham mUCComII.mN mHmCB .moaamaamam m a0 maaaagmaoam mogmoaaagaama .m.z .m.z Ham.a ama.a aaa.a mam.a aaa.a aaa.~ =~qu=am .m.z .m.z amm.a mam.a maa.a aam.a mmm.a Haa.a =amu=om .m.z .m.z Haa.o HHH.H aaa.a oma.a ava.a mam.a =omu=a~ .m.z .a.z aoa.o maa.a aaa.o maa.o Hma.o omm.a =v~u=aa .m.z .m.z aga.o ama.o aao.o ava.a Nma.a Hma.a =aau=aa .m.z .a.z amo.a ama.o aaa.a aao.o maa.a mam.o =NHI=a .m.z .m.z Hao.a aaa.a Nao.a amo.a aaa.a Naa.a =a [go Amo.v *.goam m\a a.aa «\e ~.mm axe a.aa «\a a.m amH+aa+amg gmmgu Haom . Q . m . .H GHSGME GHSGME mHSCME wHDEmS HTNHHHHHGM dun m a a o a a gamma maCmEaamHB .waCCaE meOHCo UCm amNHHHaamm an pmaommmm ma mmHHHOHm HHOm mCa CH va mHm>mH maMConHmUII.mN mqm\4\B N.mmv maCsz u m 1:o.~ Am+m+z .omH+mo+omHv HmNHHHaHmm n m gomgo u a n.v.~ (g) saqeuoqxeg 65 are apparently due to natural variations that occurred within the plot area. Total Nitrogen Total nitrogen levels for the seven depths of sampling as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer treatments are in Tables 27 and 28. Nitrogen in soils is closely associated with the organic matter content. Since the organic matter is located primarily in the surface horizons it is natural that this is also the case for nitrogen. Nitrogen was present in all parts of the profile. It was concentrated in the surface horizons and decreased with depth. The fertilizer that was used had no practical effect upon the content or distribution of nitrogen in the profiles. As would be expected, considering the nitrogen content of chicken manure, the more manure the greater the nitrogen. The data suggest that there was some move- ment of nitrogen down through the soil especially where the highest rate of manure had been used. This is a significant point because there are some people who are concerned about water pollution. The data in Figure 13 suggest that the movement of nitrogen may not be significant in these soils if rates of application of 66 maa.m mv~.ag aam.gg mma.gg aao.gg ama.og mam.og =~vua vomaH m¢0.0H Ohoam Ohmah OMHab OVBsm Nmmaw =NHlo Amo.v CHmmo .Q.m.fl h m D U m d mHCmEummHB .mmCUCH mv UCm NH mnammp 0a mmHHmoum HHom mCa CH CwmoaaHC Hmaoa HO whom Ham mUCComII.mN mqmda / .mogamgamam a mo maggggmgoam mmgmmgaggagmm .m.z .m.z mam gag mag mom gam mag =man=am sag mgo.o aha gmm mam gam mgm omm =amu=am amg ago.a «as agm aga mam mow amm =omu=vm .m.z .m.z gas was «as mas was mam =vmn=mg .m.z .m.z gum mma amp aga mas man =39mg Hum mao.o aka.m aaa.g aaa.g aoa.g gva.g aga.g =~gm=a was mgo.o amm.~ Hmo.~ Hma.g Hma.g mmn.g maa.g =a u=a gma.v a.goam «\a a.av «\a N.m~ g\a a.gg axe a.m amg+aa+omg gmmgu ggom .Q.m.H . mHCsz mHCsz mHCsz wHCsz HmNHHHaHmm CH m a a o a a gamma maCmEammHB .mHCCmE waUHCo UCm HmNHHHaumm an Umaommmm mm mmHHmoum HHOm mCa CH Heady mHm>mH CmmoaaHC Hmaoell.hm mHmCB .mHCCmE meogCo UCm HmNHHHanm >9 omaommmm mm mmHHmon HHOm mga CH CmooaaHC Hmaoell.mH mngHm gmmgoggv gamma . as am am an mg mg . a a F _ — —:b J— .m— .Ioov 100m 1 67 l loomH ToomH CI: 1 gam\m\a «.mma maaamz Ag+m+z .a~g+aa+amgv amagggaama gmmgo ll «mm ofo/ol.a H oaam Toovw i‘L (mdd) usboxqru Tenom 68 manure are restricted to less than that received in treat- ment E (23.2 T/A). The C:N ratio for the first depth (0-6 inches) was approximately 11:1 with small variation in all treat- ments. Exchangeable Ammonium Exchangeable ammonium levels for the seven depths of sampling as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer treatments are shown in Tables 29 and 30. The ammonium levels within the soil profiles generally decreased with depth except that at the greatest depth, the zone in which most of the tile were located, the amount increased very greatly. Undoubtedly many of the samples collected from the 36-42 inch depth contained significant amounts of soil material from below the depth of the tile. At this location, with relative moist con- ditions existing most of the year, it would be possible for nitrate nitrogen to be reduced to the ammonium form. Fertilizer had very little effect upon the ammonium content of the soil in samples collected in the fall. The values obtained from the fertilizer plots were very simi- lar to those obtained from the check plots. The use of high rates of manure, as would be expected, increased the ammonium levels in the surface soil and in the zone where the tile were located. 69 vH.N mH.0H mH.¢ Nm.m NH.¢ wh.v Nm.v :Nvlo NH.H vm.v mm.N mN.m mm.N mm.N om.N =NHIo “mo.v gamma .Q.m.H m G U m fl maCmEammHB .mmCoCH Nv UCm NH Ho mgammp 0a mmHHmogm HHom 03a CH ECHCOEEm anmomCmgoxm mo maom Ham mUCComll.om mqmda .mmgamgamam a 00 maggggmgoam mogmmgaggagma m~.g H00.0 Hm.~ 50.0 00.g 00.0 00.0 00.0 =m0-=0m .0.2 .0.2 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 =001.00 .0.2 .0.2 0g.0 H0.0 0g.0 H0.0 Ng.0 0g.0 =0mu=0m .0.z .0.z 00.0 00.0 mg.0 Ng.0 Ng.0 mg.0 =0mu=0g .0.2 .0.2 0g.0 0g.0 0g.0 gg.0 ~g.0 mg.0 =0gu=mg .0.2 .0.2 0g.g 00.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 =~gu=0 0~.0 000.0 00.g 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 =0 u=0 100.0 ..goam g\e 0.00 «\H «.mm «\s 0.gg «\a 0.0 0~g+00+00g gomgu ggom .Q.m.q wCCsz mHCCmE mHCsz wHCCwZ HmNHHHaCmm CH m a a o a a gamma maCmanwHB .maCCmE meoHCo pCm HmNHHHaamm >3 Umaommmm mm mmHHmoam HHom mna CH AEQQV.mHm>mH ECHCOEEM mHQmmmCmnoxmll.mN mqmda 70 As is shown in Figure 14, there was very little difference in ammonium levels in the zone from the bottom of the plow layer down to near tile depth. Nitrate Nitrate levels for the seven depths of sampling as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 31 and 32.-:»7»p Nitrate levels in soils reflect several condi- tions including treatment of the soil, vegetative cover, recent climatic conditions, and sampling time. While the values for nitrate were higher on the fertilized plots, at all depths, the difference was small enough that little significance can be attributed to this fact. The values for nitrates, where 5.8 T/A of manure had been used were similar to those obtained in the pro- files from the check plots. The nitrates levels had a tendency to increase in the subsurface soil where the higher rates of manure had been used. This strongly suggests a downward move- ment of nitrate nitrogen. Because it is not possible to account for all of the nitrogen that was added in the manure, one naturally wonders about how much of the nitrogen applied in the manure was converted to nitrate nitrogen and was lost . whfifiwfi GmMO H30 UCm HmNHHHammm an cmaommmm mm mmHHmoam HHom mCa CH ECHCOEEM gmmgoggv gamma mHCmmmCmCoxmll.vH mHCmHm N0 00 mg mg 0 p p p 1+1 . gm 4 “Wm. l0 fallow" 1:0.0 1:0.0 l 7 Lu0.0 him.o ha»\m\a «.mma maagmz u a 4.0.g Am+m+z .0~g+00+00g0 amagggaamm u a aomgu u a (mdd) mnruoumrv 72 0.000 0.g00 0.g00 0.g00 0.00 0.0g0 0.00 =00:0 0.ggg 0.000 0.000 0.00g 0.00 0.g0 0.00 =0gu0 A00.v gamma .a.m.g m m a o a g maCmEammHB 0am 0g 00 mgamma .m®COCH N0 0a mmHHmoum HHOm mCa CH mamHaHC mo whoa 0mm mpCComII.Nm mqmfia .mogamgamam m 00 maggggmgoam mmgmmgaggagma 0.0 0000.0v g.00 g.0g 0.0g 0.0 0.gg 0.0 =00:..00 0.0g g00.0 0.00 0.0g 0.0g 0.0 0.0 0.0 =00:..00 g.0g 000.0 0.00 g.00 0.00 0.0 0.0g 0.0 =00.:00 g.00 0g0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 g.0 =00....0g 0.00 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.g0 0.0 =0gu=0g 0.00 g00.0 g.00 g.00 g.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 =0gn=0 0.0g g00.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0g 0.0 :0 u=0 g00.0 0.goam «\0 0.00 «\0 0.00 «\0 0.gg axe 0.0 00g+00+00g gomgo ggom .Q.m.H mgCCaz mHCCmS mHCCaE mHCCmE amNHHHanm CH . m a a o a a gamma maCmEHmmua .maCCmE CmHOHCo UCm HmNHHHaHmH >9 Umaommmm mm mmHHHOHm HHom 0:» CH Hammv mHm>oH mamHaHZII.Hm mqmme .mHCCmE waoHCo 0C0 HmNHHHaamm an cmaowmmm mm mmHHmoum HHOm mCa CH maMHaHzll.mH wHCmHm AmeOCHV sumac N0 0m om 0N mH NH 0 o a 0 r r a _ _ J p 0 i H l» J a; F p g _ 0,0 / \ \ nrllo 111..I In: 1:4: 1|..Iu 1: III. . ,/O// O/ m 11 CV o 0\. n /1/ .\ 0//O O / \ 1] ow O/, o o \n\ //Ar/ 0 0 Au r cm //0 \ II Av ga0\g\a 0.000 maagmz 11 00g Ax+m+z .00H+00+00Hv amNHHHaamm gomgo II II II «tum (mdd) amexmru 74 through the tile drainage system. The data suggest that those who have expressed concern about polluting water as a result of using high rates of manure undoubtedly have a basis for the concerns. Chloride Chloride levels in the soil profiles as affected by chicken manure and fertilizer are shown in Tables 33 and 34. gz‘? ' The tests for chloride did not show any easily observable trends as related to treatments. Chlorides are very mobile anions and therefore had probably moved out of the soil profile before samples were collected. If soil samples had been collected soon after the treat- ments were made, it is assumed that differences would have been measured because the fertilizer contained significant amounts of chloride. Poultry manure also contains measurable amounts of chloride. rim-5': 75 h .. .- 2 . L..........P..~30— .0.00g 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00g =00u0 .m.z 0.00 0.00g 0.00 0.00 0.0gg 0.00 =0g:0 g00.0 gamma .a.m.g m a a o a a manEammHB .meOCH Nv pr NH mo mnamwp 0a mmHHmoum HHom wCa CH mUHHOHCU Ho whom Ham mUCCOmII.vm mHmdB .mOHamHamam m mo maHHHanonm moCCOHmHCmHma omoz .moz O.MH momH NoflN Cow m.wH mov :NVI:©M 0.00 g00. 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.g 0.00 0.0g =00....00 .0.2 .0.2 0.g0 0.0g 0.0g 0.0g 0.0g 0.00 =001.00 .0.2 .0.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0g =00.:0g .0.2 .0.2 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 =0g...0g .0.2 .0.2. 0.0 0.00 0.0g 0.0 0.0g 0.0 =0gu=0 .0.2 .0.2 0.0g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 :0 n=0 g00.0 0.goam «\0 0.00 «\a 0.00 <\0 0.gg <\0 0.0. 00g+00+00g gmmgo gaom . Q. m....H QHDGMZ whdcmz mVHDGmZ wHDCMZ HQNHHHHHGM EH 0 .m a o a a gamma mucwfimmHB , .maCCmE meOHCO pr HmuHHHaamm an pmaommwm mm mMHHHOHm HHOm 0:» CH “Emmv mHm>mH mUHaoHCUII.mm mqmfle o...|.—- .4‘. M‘N'lfu... ”02- ” run >_: v .maCCmE CGMOHCO UCm amNHHHaamm an coaommmm mm mmHHmoam HHom mCa CH ooHaoHCUII.mH masmHm Ammgoagv gamma _ m _ a _ _ 1: ON 6 7 11 00 1... cm ufi om Aa0\g\0 0.000 maaaaz u a g0+m+z .00g+00+00gv amagggaamm u a n .m (mdd) 9PTIOIHD SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Corn was grown in a monoculture system in Huron County, on field experimental plots which involved the use of one rate, 150+66+126 lbs/A (N+P+K), of fertilizer and four rates (5.8, 11.6, 23.2, and 46.4 T/A) of manure from egg producing cage chickens. Soil profile samples were collected at six inch intervals from each plot. They were analyzed by standard soil testing procedures for pH, nitrates, total nitrogen, total carbon, carbonates, chlorides, exchangeable ammonium and available calcium, potassium, magnesium, sodium, iron, manganese, zinc, copper and phosphorus. The distribution of these chemicals in the soil profile were plotted in graph form to suggest movement and distribution as related to fertilizer needs for future crOp production and pos- sible pollution of the water flowing into tile drainage systems. Analysis of variance procedures were used to assist in the interpretation of the effects of fertilizer and poultry manure on some of the chemical characteristics of the soil profiles. (In general, the use of moderate rates of com— mercial fertilizer for the production of high yielding 77 5'01 _ . ._ 0....- 78 corn crOps had little effect upon the chemical character- istics of the soil, either surface or subsurface. The greatest effect the fertilizer had was on the pH which was lowered significantly on the alkaline soils used for this research. The chicken manure, especially when used at the higher rates (up to 46.4 T/A) had the greatest effect I 1’” upon the chemical conditions within the soil profiles. High rates of chicken manure contains many times the nutrients that are frequently used in fertilizer for a given crop. In addition the manure contains many chemi- cal elements not frequently found in commercial ferti- lizers. Of the several chemicals considered in this study only nitrogen and phosphorus have received very much attention from the standpoint of water pollution. The data showed that there is little need for great concern about phosphorus in either fertilizer or manure being able to move down through the soil into drainage waters. The phosphorus from both sources was retained in the surface horizons of the profile. This was not the case in regard to nitrogen. Chicken manure used at rates of 46.4 T/A annually increased the nitrate content of the soil profile at all depths. There was an increase in both nitrate and ammonium levels near the tile drains, suggesting 79 that nitrogen was moving through the soil profile into the tile drains. Other observations are summarized as follows: 1. The greatest effect of both fertilizer and manure was in the surface soil down to a depth of 12 inches. The changes in the chemical condition of the soil caused by the manure was approximately proportional to the amount of manure used. A 5.8 T/A annual application of chicken manure did not produce any significant changes in the chemical characteristics of the soil. The use of either fertilizer or manure did not cause any great changes in the available calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, carbonate, or chloride levels within the soil profile. The use of the higher rates of chicken manure caused the pH levels to decrease signifi- cantly. Also, the available quantities of phosphorus, zinc and copper were increased in the surface 12 inches of soil. Available potassium levels were increased in the surface 18 inches of soil. 10. 80 Sodium levels were increased significantly in the surface 30 inches of soil. The use of chicken manure significantly increased the total carbon content of the surface soil. This was associated without a change in C:N ratio. Increases in total nitrogen levels were observed at the 0-6, 6-12, 24-30 and 30-36 inch depths which proves that nitrogen from manure used at high rates moves downward through the soil and that water pollution from manure is a real possibility. LITERATURE CITED 81 r‘m‘ ~—— . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. LITERATURE CITED Adriano, D. C., Pratt, P. F., and Bishop, S. E. Bishop, Bishop, Brage, -Nitrate and salt in soils and ground water from land disposal of dairy manure. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:759-763. 1971. ,0: R. F., MacLeod, L. B., Jackson, L. P., MacEachern, C. R., and Goring, E. T. A long- term field experiment with commercial ferti— . lizer and mahure. 'II. Fertility levels and ; crop yields in a rotation of potatoes, oats, * and hay. Can. J. Soil Sci. 42:49-60. 1962. R. F., Jackson, L. P., MacEachern, C. R., h--—--- and MacLeod, L. B. A long-term field experi- ment with commercial fertilizer and manure. III. Fertility levels, crop yields, and nutrient levels in corn, oats, and clover. Can. J. Soil Sci. 45:229-237. 1965. B. L., Thompson, M. J., and Caldwell, A. C. Long-time effect of applying barnyard manure at various rates on crop yield and some chemical constituents of the soil. Agron. J. 44:17-20. 1952. Bundy, L. G., and Bremner, J. M. A simple titrimetric method for the determination of inorganic carbon in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 36:273-275. 1972. Carlson, C. W., Grunes, D. L., Alessi, J., and Reichman, G. A. Corn growth on Gardena sur- face and subsoil as affected by applications of fertilizer and manure. SOil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 25:44-47. 1961. Concannon, T. J., Jr., and Genetelli, E. J. Ground water pollution due to high organic manure loading. Livestock waste management and pol- 1ution abatement. Proceedings International Symposium on livestock wastes. American Soc. of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 249-253. 1971. '2’ I" 82 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 83 Cope, J. T., Jr., Sturkie, D. G., and Hiltbold, A. E. Effects of manure, vetch, and commercial nitrogen on crop yields and carbon and nitro- gen contents of a fine sandy loam over a 30-year period. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:524-527. 1958. Elson, J. A comparison of the effect of certain crOpping and fertilizer and manurial prac- tices on soil aggregation of Dunmore silt loam. Soil Sci. 50:339—353. 1940. Elson, J. A 4-year study of the effect of crop, lime, manure, and fertilizer on macro- aggregation of Dunmore silt loam. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 8:87-90. 1944. Guttay, J. R., Cook, R. L., and Erickson, A. E. The effect of green and stable manure on the yield of crops and on the physical condition of a Tappan-Parkhill loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:526-529. 1956. Hass, H. J., Grunes, D. L., and Reichman, G. A. Phosphorus changes in Great Plains soil as influenced by cropping and manure appli- cations. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 25: 214—218. 1961. Haltead, R. L., and Sowden, F. S. Effect of long- term additions of organic matter on crop yields and soil properties. Can. J. Soil Sci. 48:341-348. 1968. Heald, W. R. Agronomy No. 9, part 2. Methods of soil analysis. Chemical and mineralogical. properties. Chapter 68 Calcium and magnesium. Availability indexes. 1008-1009. 1965. Hedlin, R. A., and Ridley, A. 0. Effect of crop sequence and manure and fertilizer treatments on crop yields and soil fertility. Agron. J. Hileman, L. H. Effect of rate of poultry manure application on selected soil chemical pro- perties. Livestock waste management and pollution abatement. Proceedings Inter- national Symposium on livestock wastes. Amer. Soc. of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 247-248. 1971. 17. 18. '19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 84 Jackson, M. L. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1958. Kubota, J., Rhoades, H. F., and Harris, L. C. Effect of different cropping and manurial practices on some chemical properties of an irrigated chesnut soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 12:304—307. 1947. Mann, H. H., and Barnes, T. W. The behavior of nitrogenous manures in the soil: The loss of manurial nitrogen. J. Agron. Sci. 41: 309-314. 1951. Mahendrappa, M. K. Determination of nitrate nitrogen in soil extracts using a specific ion activity electrode. Soil Sci. 108:132-136. 1969. Mazurak, A. P., Zingg, A. W., and Chepil, W. S. Effect of 39 years of crOpping practices on wind erodability and related properties of an irrigated chesnut soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17:181-185. 1953. Mazurak, A. P., Cosper, H. R., and Rhoades, H. F. Rate of water entry into an irrigated chesnut soil as affected by 39 years of cropping and manurial practices. Agron. J. 47:490-493. 1955. Metzger, W. H. The nature, extent, and distribution of fertilizer residues in the soil of some old fertility plots. Soil Sci. 47:15-25. 1939. Miller, M. H., and Ohlrogge, A. J. Water-soluble chelating agents in organic materials: I. Characteristics of chelating agents and their reactions with trace metals in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:225-228. 1958. Miller, M. H., and Ohlrogge, A. J. Water-soluble chelating agents in organic materials: II. Influence of chelate-containing materials on the availability of trace metals to plants. Soil. Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:228-231. 1958. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Muhr, G Muller, Murphy, Olsen, 85 . R., Smith, H. W., and Weldon, M. D. Influ- ence of cropping, manure, and manure plus lime on exchange capacity, exchangeable calcium, pH, oxidizable material, and nitro- gen of a fine textured aoil in eastern Nebraska. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 35:107-113. 1943. J. Influence of manure and mineral fertilizer on the humic balance in a mediterranean calcareous soil. Results of 14 year experi- ments at the Research Garden in Grasse (A.M.) France. VIII International Congress of Soil Science. Abstracts of papers. Soil fertility and plant nutrition IV:60-61. 1964. L. S., Wallingford, G. W., Powers, W. L., and Manges, H. L. Effects of solid beef feedlot wastes on soil conditions and plant growth. Contribution number 1243, Depart- ment of Agronomy and contribution number 182, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Kansas Agr. Exp. Station, Manhattan, Kansas. 1972. (Mimeographed paper.) S. R., and Dean, L. D. Agromy No. 9, part 2. Methods of Soil Analysis. Chemical and mineralogiEal properties. Chapter 73 Phosphorus. Availability indexes. 1040- 1048. 1965. Olsen, R. J., Hensler, R. F., and Attoe, O. J. Parker, Pitman, Pitman, Effect of manure application, aeration, and soil pH on soil nitrogen transformations and on certain soil test values. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 34:222-225.. 1970. M. B., Harris, H. D., and Perkins, H. F. Manganese toxicity of soybeans as related to soil and fertility treatments. Agron. J. 61:515-518. 1969. D. W., and Fonder, J. F. Causes of increased yield of sugar beets following applications of barnyard manure. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 19:167—170. 1927. D. W. The effect of barnyard manure on a calcareous soil. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22:549-552. 1930. 86 Pratt, P. F. Agronomy No. 9, part 2. Methods of Soil Analysis. Chemical and mineralogical properties. Chapter 71 Potassium, avail- ability indexes. 1027-1029. 1965. Pratt, P. F. Agronomy No. 9, part 2. Methods of Robertson, L. S., and Wolford, J. The effect of Soil Analysis. Chemical and mineralogical properties. Chapter 72 Sodium,availabi1ity indexes. 1034. 1965. K. The importance of organic manuring to soil fertility. VIII International Congress r“n of Soil Science. Abstracts of papers. Soil r fertility and plant nutrition IV:64-65. 1964. application rate of chicken manure on the yield of corn. Poultry pollution: problems and solutions. Research report No. 117, . Mich. State University, Agr. Exp. Station. “4 Farm science. 10—15. 1970. Rothwell, D. F., and Hortenstine, C. C. Composted Municipal refuse: its effect on carbon dioxide, nitrate, fungi, and bacteria in Arredondo fine sand. Agron. J. 61:837- 840. 1969. P. J., Berry, G., and Williams, J. B. The effect of farmyard manure on matric suctions prevailing in a sandy loam soil. J. Soil Sci. 18:318-328. 1967. Sarkadi, J., Gyorffy, B., and Balla, H. The fertility of Hungarian chernozem soil as affected by soil nutrition system without farmyard manure. VIII International Congress of Soil Science. Abstracts of papers. Soil fertility and plant nutrition IV:65-67. 1964. H., Leonard, R. A., Bertrand, A. R., and Wilkinson, 8. R. The metal complexing capa— city and the nature of the chelating ligands of water extract of poultry litter. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:265-269. 1971. 42. 43. 44. 45. 87 Tan, K. H., King, L. D., and Morris, H. D. Complex reaction of zinc with organic matter extracted from sewage sludge. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:748-752. 1971. Udo, E. J., Bohn, H. L., and Tucker, T. C. Zinc adsorption by calcareous soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 34:405-407. 1970. Wabersich, R. The effects on the yields and some measurable soil qualities of differentiated fertilizing and manuring for many years. VIII International Congress of Soil Sci- 3”“ ence. Abstracts of papers. Soil fertility " ' and plant nutrition IV:74-75. 1964. R. A., Zubriski, J. C., and Norum, E. B. 1 Influence of long—time fertility management practices on chemical and physical proper- ties of a Fargo clay. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 24:124—128. 1960. APPENDIX 88 TABLE 35.--pH levels in soil in individual plots. 89 Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I. ...II._...III xv....AV?rage Check 1 7.45 7.73 7.47 7.66 7.58 Plot 2 7.49 7.71 7.48 7.70 7.59 3 7.72 8.18 7.40 8.02 7.83 4 7.62 8.39 7.96 8.31 8.07 5 7.76 8.28 8.09 8.43 8.14 6 8.08 8.45 8.25 8.46 8.31 7 8.01 8.42 8.38 8.35 8.29 150 + 66 1 7.35 7.46 7.31 7.58 7.42 + 126 2 7.37 7.44 7.13 7.42 7.34 3 7.54 7.75 7.43 7.61 7.58 N + P + K 4 7.56 '7.73 7.57 7.89 7.69 5 7.78 7.84 7.98 8.02 7.91 6 7.81 8.15 8.33 8.19 8.12 7 7.72 8.17 8.21 8.10 8.05 5.8 T/A 1 7.39 7.69 7.39 7.64 7.53 2 7.32 7.75 7.39 7.58 7.51 3 7.63 8.01 7.42 7.89 7.74 4 7.56 8.08 7.52 8.29 7.86 5 7.74 8.44 7.84 8.35 8.09 6 8.04 8.30 7.79 8.26 8.10 7 7.90 8.21 7.89 8.27 8.07 11.6 T/A 1 7.58 7.35 7.21 7.37 7.38 2 7.54 7.37 7.31 7.28' 7.38 3 7.65 7.59 7.43 7.50 7.54 4 7.66 7.64 7.63 7.64 7.64 5 7.66 7.69 7.95 7.69 7.75 6 7.73 8.00 8.36 7.71 7.95 7 8.13 8.02 8.26 8.16 8.14 23.2 T/A 1 7.28 7.19 7.61 7.41 7.37 2 7.20 7.30 7.37 7.21 7.27 3 7.32 7.53 7.59 7.54 7.50 4 7.37 7.85 8.14 7.63 7.75 5 7.71 8.14 8.39 7.93 8.04 6 7.67 8.22 8.39 8.03 8.08 7 7.78 8.45 8.26 8.26 8.19 46.4 T/A 1 6.88 6.86 7.19 7.19 7.03 2 6.61 6.90 7.09 7.04 6.91 3 7.17 7.11 7.25 7.28 7.20 4 7.14 7.03 7.34 7.57 7.27 5 7.25 7.15 7.46 7.59 7.36 6 7.44 7.77 7.55 7.67 7.61 7 7.67 7.85 7.86 8.05 ..... * See page 28 for key. 90 TABLE 36.-~Available phosphorus levels in soil (ppm) in individual plots. Block Block Block Avera e II III IV 9 Block I Treatment Depth* 4746018 ....... 3867833 32 7710391.. . . O . . . . 1456913 32 9044621 . . . C... 0678833 32 2156r0.21 1234567 Check Plot 9723049 659634AU. o o o 0 5678734 4.3 5387399 0 co. .- 7567n/o44 44 1234567 6 2 l XK 6+ 6 XP 0+ 5 1N 8460682 . . O . O O . 7296534 44 2919327 . . . O . . 0 3193423 54 2047383 0076745“ 43 2253419 4866431 33 4659298 0... 0.. 3956644 651 1234567 5.8 T/A 2291rnw44 _/.2—/._/.r3.33 57 1234567 11.6 T/A 3936712 793 4539014 . . . I .0 8186532 461 1 23.2 T/A 46.4 T/A See page 28 for key. 91 TABLE 37.--Available potassium levels in soil (ppm) in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 162.5 120.0 122.5 130.0 133.8 Plot 2 120.0 112.5 105.0 95.0 108.1 3 80.0 37.5 92.5 72.5 70.6 4 95.0 22.5 91.3 38.8 61.9 5 85.0 31.3 58.8 28.8 51.0 6 63.0 20.0 36.3 21.0 35.1 7 57.5 27.2 40.0 35.0 39.9 150-+ 6-+126 1 162.5 167.5 170.0 130.0 157.5 N + P + K 2 140.0 140.0 185.0 97.5 140.6 3 75.0 72.5 55.0 65.0 66.9 4 90.0 72.5 70.0 35.0 66.9 5 73.8 63.8 58.8 33.8 57.5 6 60.0 28.0 27.5 18.5 33.5 7 60.0 31.0 27.0 29.0 36.8 5.8 T/A 1 227.5 118.0 162.5 170.0 169.5 2 250.0 127.5 115.0 152.0 161.1 3 85.0 32.0 81.5 62.5 65.3 4 71.3 36.3 93.8 22.5 56.0 5 70.0 23.3 92.5 30.0 53.9 6 61.5 25.0 86.0 18.5 47.8 7 66.3 39.2 85.5 27.2 54.6 11.6 T/A 1 177.5 260.0 415.0 432.5 321.2 2 152.5 162.5 350.0 365.0 257.5 3 - 45.0 80.0 85.0 152.5 65.6 4 42.5 75.0 62.5 77.5 64.4 5 41.3 75.0 58.8 67.5 60.6 6 28.0 25.3 28.0 50.5 32.9 7 24.0 45.5 34.0 34.5 34.5 23.2 T/A 1 350.3 495.0 260.0 380.0 371.3 2 267.5 325.0 347.5 455.0 348.8 3 107.5 80.0 152.5 67.5 101.9 4 103.8 32.5 27.5 61.3 56.3 5 113.0 26.3 26.3 41.3 51.7 6 118.0 , 19.5 18.0 26.6 45.5 7 82.0 12.0 29.0 26.5 37.4 46.4 T/A 1 600.0 537.5 302.5 345.0 446.3 2 568.8 506.3 250.0 345.0 417.5 3 155.0 140.0 105.0 140.0 135.0 4 122.5 131.3 110.0 81.3 111.3 5 122.5 141.3 106.3 47.5 104.4 6 107.0 108.8 51.0 57.0 80.9 7 51.0 111.3 47.0 53.0 65.6 See page 28 for key. 92 TABLE 38.--Availab1e calcium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* 1 II III IV Average Check 1 2611 2493 2493 2904 2625 Plot 2 2679 2444 2414 4010 2887 3 4435 3947 2382 5462 4057 4 2189 4476 4283 4672 3905 5 2638 4483 5327 4586 4259 6 4767 3724 4442 3790 4181 7 4737 3870 4427 4485 4380 lSO-+66-+126 1 2556 2484 2008 2289 2334 N + 2 2245 2689 1979 2102 2254 3 2382 1610 1917 5905 2954 4 2014 1630 2174 4726 2636 5 2298 1972 5394 4646 3578 6 2223 2443 4199 3830 3174 7 3202 4157 3830 4256 3861 5.8 T/A 1 2639 2271 2648 2185 2436 2 2484 2246 2404 1951 2271 3 2296 2099 2131 1586 2028 4 1849 4317 1768 4093 3007 5 1767 4498 1760 4297 3081 6 3239 4398 1682 3763 3271 7 2703 4647 1602 4185 3284 11.6 T/A 1 2538 2845 2520 2484 2597 2 2484 2188 2494 2504 2418 3 1172 1929 2672 2085 1965 4 1097 1653 3640 1360 1938 5 1120 1615 5161 1481 2344 6 832 786 3883 1201 1676 7 3080 4514 4199 4241 4009 23.2 T/A 1 3202 2448 2770 2713 2783 2 3077 2344 2669 2794 2721 3 2657 2850 2468 1418 2348 4 2394 4708 4564 1415 3270 5 2955 4616 4368 1903 3461 6 2443 3992 3910 4005 3588 7 4951 3477 4312 4074 4204 46.4 T/A l 3157 2676 2750 3180 2941 2 2710 2848 2710 3033 2825 3 2569 2325 2093 2118 2276 4 2050 2349 2002 1676 2019 5 2110 2149 1910 2081 2063 6 1763 4199 1165 1844 2243 7 2566 5139 4312 2668 3671 * See page 28 for key. . 5! 93 TABLE 39.--Avai1ab1e magnesium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* Average I II III IV Check 1 322 221 281 299 281 Plot 2 247 209 240 249 236 3 250 82 304 264 225 4 246 61 328 137 193 5 315 130 260 101 202 6 200 76 157 77 128 7 171 103 174 145 148 150+66+J26 1 252 287 218 354 278 N + P + K 2 192 272 202 211 219 3 236 186 184 345 238 4 217 236 213 139 201 5 260 262 193 106 205 6 252 122 107 70 138 7 225 121 115 114 144 5.8 T/A l 292 168 344 229 258 2 222 164 280 198 216 3 219 106 251 155 183 4 201 96 270 56 156 5 210 64 295 62 158 6 233 96 276 63 167 7 284 166 282 110 211 11.6 T/A 1 233 396 364 317 328 2 210 271 265 263 252 3 129 261 297 253 235 4 119 235 230 203 197 5 136 262 275 221 224 6 109 148 102 176 134 7 96 173 138 136 136 23.2 T/A. 1 453 333 268 335 347 2 321 226 260 322 292 3 303 208 235 200 237 4 255 107 94 253 175 5 401 84 77 177 185 6 371 68 80 105 156 7 306 37 110 115 142 46.4 T/A 1 433 419 337 366 381 2 268 329 294 303 299 3 303 343 267 230 286 4 297 372 310 209 297 5 331 389 303 328 338 6 272 309 174 307 266 7 191 306 146 233 219 * See page 28 for key. 94 TABLE 40.--Availab1e sodium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV .Average Check 1 51.5 51.5 45.0 55.0 50.8 Plot 2 65.0 67.5 62.5 72.5 66.9 3 65.0 65.0 57.5 85.0 68.1 4 66.3 73.8 71.3 65.0 69.1 5 80.0 65.0 90.0 72.5 76.9 6 83.8 70.0 97.5 65.0 79.1 7 67.5 58.0 68.5 61.3 63.8 150-+66-+126 1 47.5 50.0 51.5 51.5 50.1 N + P + K 2 70.0 70.0 52.5 65.0 64.4 3 60.0 75.0 70.0 95.0 75.0 4 76.3 68.8 72.5 75.0 73.1 5 70.0 65.0 76.3 75.0 71.6 6 63.8 62.5 80.0 67.5 68.4 7 58.0 56.5 63.0 59.0 59.1 5 8 T/A 1 61.0 61.0 57.5 85.0 66.1 2 75.0 77.5 75.0 73.5 75.2 3 77.5 60.0 80.0 72.5 72.5 4 77.5 86.3 72.5 67.5 75.9 5 71.3 76.3 72.5 72.5 73.1 6 78.8 68.8 68.8 82.5 74.7 7 56.5 56.5 75.8 63.0 62.9 11.6 T/A 1 67.5 88.0 77.5 88.0 80.3 2 110.0 122.5 132.5 110.0 118.8 3 85.0 100.0 130.0 115.0 107.5 4 75.0 75.0 88.8 91.3 82.5 5 60.0 86.3 96.3 90.0 83.1 6 60.0 62.5 70.0 81.3 68.4 7 55.0 77.5 64.3 75.0 67.9 23.2 T/A 1 92.5 90.0 85.0 82.5 87.5 2 145.0 195.0 150.0 127.5 154.4 3 122.5 192.5 195.0 110.0 155.0 4 112.5 121.3 98.8 117.5 112.5 5 95.0 90.0 90.0 82.5 89.4 6 82.5 75.0 82.5 87.5 81.9 7 80.8 48.0 75.0 75.0 69.7 46.4 T/A 1 130.0 92.5 65.0 96.5 96.0 2 182.5 107.5 87.5 135.0 128.1 3 175.0 82.5 90.0 157.5 126.2 4 140.0 96.3 91.3 137.5 116.2 5 93.8 102.5 87.5 117.5 100.3 6 80.0 135.0 76.3 113.8 101.3 7 60.8 88.8 59.0 71.8 70.1 * See page 28 for key. 95 TABLE 41.--Avai1ab1e iron levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 34.0 29.2 22.6 21.0 26.7 Plot 2 29.0 28.4 27.6 8.7 23.4 3 55.6 2.9 73.9 3.5 34.0 4 85.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 23.2 5 40.1 2.0 3.1 2.8 12.0 6 3.3 1.0 1.2 1.9 1.9 7 1.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 3.8 150-+ 1 34.8 30.4 56.6 45.3 41.8 N + P 2 31.5 29.3 42.8 44.6 37.1 3 110.0 123.3 57.0 3.6 73.5 4 159.2 155.5 87.5 3.9 101.5 5 65.5 79.0 2.0 2.8 37.3 6 14.8 3.5 3.3 1.9 5.9 7 3.7 2.0 1.2 2.0 2.2 5.8 T/A 1 38.0 69.2 30.8 45.3 45.8 2 35.2 57.3 30.2 46.0 42.2 3 48.4 34.7 72.9 78.6 58.7 4 80.0 3.4 132.0 3.1 54.6 5 91.0 4.2 119.1 3.4 54.4 6 22.2 5.1 210.2 1.4 59.7 7 1.4 1.8 235.0 2.0 60.1 11.6 T/A 1 40.8 36.0 37.6 53.2 41.9 2 43.4 41.2 42.5 50.6 44.4 3 35.7 123.8 33.8 75.4 67.2 4 54.4 145.9 2.6 124.6 81.9 5 77.0 128.0 2.0 121.3 82.1 6 111.3 127.9 3.0 166.6 102.2 7 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.6 23.2 T/A 1 32.0 43.0 34.0 57.9 43.7 2 29.0 45.7 29.9 59.0 40.9 3 100.6 25.9 41.6 63.8 58.0 4 87.0 4.2 3.1 134.2 57.1 5 45.4 2.0 3.4 60.3 27.8 6 130.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 33.8 7 0.5 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 46.4 T/A 1 42.0 40.4 40.0 38.8 40.3 2 42.8 39.6 34.9 31.8 37.3 3 82.2 77.2 107.2 73.9 85.1 4 156.7 115.3 162.2 138.9 143.3 5 153.1 104.0 158.5 157.3 143.2 6 218.9 2.3 200.0 139.7 140.2 7 30.0 1.8 1.0 5.8 9.7 * See page 28 for key. 96 TABLE 42.--Avai1ab1e manganese levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 32.1 42.5 55.0 56.7 46.6 Plot 2 28.3 38.3 43.4 47.7 39.4 3 14.9 27.9 35.9 5.8 21.1 ' 4 15.8 24.5 19.4 12.9 18.2 5 28.0 14.7 8.3 15.8 16.7 6 14.1 12.4 8.5 24.2 14.8 7 14.5 15.2 10.8 12.3 13.2 150-+ 6-+126 1 30.6 37.6 66.5 45.7 45.1 N + P + K 2 30.1 31.2 54.8 47.5 40.9 3 11.9 19.4 33.1 5.7 17.5 4 16.6 28.0 38.7 14.3 24.4 5 22.3 14.5 12.4 20.5 17.4 6 27.8 11.6 13.2 24.8 19.4 7 15.9 17.5 12.0 13.6 14.8 5.8 T/A 1 34.2 45.2 37.3 59.2 44.0 2 34.6 48.0 24.0 48.2 38.7 3 14.0 40.0 17.5 21.8 23.3 4 8.6 21.9 28.0 22.8 20.3 5 11.6 22.6 27.3 24.6 21.5 6 33.2 14.6 38.3 21.7 27.0 7 36.2 8.0 40.5 19.0 25.9 11.6 T/A 1 35.9 37.1 88.3 87.7 62,2 2 35.6 27.2 68.5 76.1 51.9 3 4.8 31.6 15.7 49.4 25.4 4 4.1 15.5 33.9 30.9 21.1 5 6.0 23.5 3.9 24.9 14.6 6 13.7 7.7 16.4 19.2 14.2 7 16.2 14.7 13.4 15.9 15.1 23.2 T/A 1 43.2 62.1 57.0 71.6 58.5 2 30.4 47.7 58.5 77.2 53.5 3 23.7 45.3 22.5 17.8 27.3 4 20.9 23.7 18.0 23.9 21.6 5 31.1 26.1 20.6 34.7 28.1 6 32.9 20.2 17.0 22.6 23.4 7 13.4 25.9 14.3 19.8 18.4 46.4 T/A 1 58.7 44.5 44.1 52.3 49.9 2 45.0 47.3 37.7 50.8 45.2 3 39.1 23.0 37.6 28.9 32.2 4 57.3 28.8 45.8 41.2 43.3 5 45.7 27.4 51.7 48.9 43.4 6 37.7 19.7 28.7 96.2 45.6 7 19.8 11.6 20.4 18.7 17.6 * See page 28 for key. 97 TABLE 43.--Avai1ab1e zinc levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Avera e II III IV 9 Block I Treatment Depth* 6266754 7621100 4155664 7400000 1067512 al.63ooo.o 9077765 6700000 1645854“ 97544nwnU. 1234567 Check Plot 3748410 8634211 0477882 7600000 5497962 8637001 0137686 8644300 7980138 0 O O. O O 0 9746421 1234567 5921362 0743322 6117165 9730100 2032510. l75557rnw 9105933 rum/020000 3421729 4166521 11 1234567 5.8 T/A 9415846 0 O I O O O 0 6353330 11 6297328 0 O O O O O 0 0763540 21 9156662 0 O I O O I O lazqslnunuo 21 2071054 0 O I O O O 0 4064440 11 8234118 0 O I O 0434.5.4nU. 11 1234567 11.6 T/A. 6558065 1742210 2.]. 0100074 I O O O O O 0 0834300 32 9236733 0. O. O 0. 2660000 11 3560879 0 o o o o o 0 2131000 21 0827684 0 O O O O O 0 1255340 21 1234567 23.2 T/A 3541677 0 I O O O O 0 8455441 11 9180785 0.. O O O 0 8045471 12 0109413 0.. O O .0 2954451 1 6593665 o 0.. o o 0 5455400 11 8192823 .. O O 0 6455453 21 1234567 46.4 T/A See page 28 for key. 98 TABLE 44.--Available COpper levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Avera e II III IV 9 Block I Treatment Depth* 2212510 7776555 3635604 6564344 3689891 6577745. 2350703 6744344 1295940 0098676 11 1234567 Check Plot 9033894 6765445 1625617 5564345 7849485 5554434 7785704 7754344 9881070. 887777_/. 1234567 7177403 7765455 6555846 6544344 0203402 9875455 5130211 5555345 8688133 9997666 1234567 5.8 T/A 2314949 8775444 7620665 7765444 0113777 7695534 0259287 9754435 0143935 0 O. 0.. GJQu—Irbfi4r3nn»u 1234567 11.6 T/A 2095983 8855345 1591714 8846344 3966804 6653344 9498709 6643343 5335514 1.0884me 11 1234567 23.2 T/A 7997221 1076666 11 8811533 1234567 46.4 T/A it See page 28 for key. 99 TABLE 45.--Tota1 carbon levels (%) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 2.06 1.98 1.16 2.40 1.90 Plot 2 2.32 2.22 2.14 2.76 2.36 3 1.75 3.39 1.20 4.59 2.73 4 1.19 3.43 1.98 3.94 2.63 5 1.32 2.68 3.46 3.69 2.79 6 2.67 2.20 4.04 3.13 3.01 7 3.47 2.67 4.80 4.76 3.93 150+— 6+-126 1 2.04 2.55 2.12 2.08 2.20 N + P + K 2 2.33 2.43 2.31 2.32 2.35 3 0.90 0.86 1.41 4.69 1.97 4 0.90 0.78 1.12 3.99 1.70 5 1.11 0.94 2.24 2.92 1.80 6 1.27 1.98 2.91 2.64 2.20 7 2.08 3.23 3.35 4.03 3.17 5.8 T/A 1 2.28 1.83 2.60 2.20 2.23 2 2.49 1.92 2.32 2.17 2.23 3 1.72 1.41 1.32 0.99 1.36 4 0.96 3.03 0.86 1.69 1.64 5 0.78 2.87 0.58 2.64 1.72 6 1.74 3.53 0.62 3.40 2.32 7 1.54 4.59 0.88 3.94 2.74 11.6 T/A 1 1.94 2.36 2.31 2.72 2.33 2 2.20. 1.78 2.49 2.75 2.31 3 1.03 1.08 1.79 1.69 1.40 4 0.95 0.98 1.43 0.67 1.01 5 0.74 0.85 3.85 0.68 1.53 6 0.74 0.98 2.93 0.62 1.32 7 2.10 3.94 4.83 2.69 3.39 23.2 T/A 1 2.36 2.28 2.27 2.73 2.41 2 2.48 2.04 2.34 2.90 2.44 3 1.09 1.88 1.28 0.94 1.30 4 1.24 2.92 3.13 0.66 1.99 5 1.14 2.74 2.94 1.16 2.00 6 0.82 3.31 3.02 2.89 2.51 7 3.31 2.64 4.37 3.89 3.55 46.4 T/A 1 2.60 3.11 2.48 3.02 2.80 2 2.82 3.31 2.35 3.15 2.91 3 1.74 1.18 0.92 1.41 1.31 4 1.04 0.96 0.77 0.77 0.89 5 0.74 0.70 0.55 0.72 0.68 6 0.64 2.11 0.63 0.82 1.05 7 1.66 3.24 2.69 2.17 2.44 * See page 28 for key. TABLE 46.--Carbonate levels 100 (%) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average gigik 1 0.044 0.072 0.110 0.221 0.112 2 0.033 0.112 0.120 1.275 0.385 3 0.013 0.475 0.008 2.930 0.857 4 0.002 2.035 1.142 2.222 1.350 5 0.420 1.554 1.701 2.504 1.545 6 1.954 1.266 1.788 2.179 1.797 7 1.802 1.652 2.029 3.281 2.191 150-+ 6-+126 1 0.064 0.053 0.030 0.095 0.061 N + P + K 2 0.044 0.090 0.020 0.038 0.048 3 0.005 0.015 0.023 2.446 0.622 4 0.019 0.045 0.172 2.312 0.637 5 0.247 0.309 1.520 2.087 1.041 6 0.501 1.220 1.851 1.759 1.333 7 0.751 1.854 1.799 2.271 1.669 5.8 T/A 1 0.053 0.089 0.017 0.057 0.054 2 0.028 0.116 0.014 0.038 0.049 3 0.007 0.498 0.005 0.054 0.141 4 0.000 1.393 0.005 1.341 0.685 5 0.016 1.960 0.000 1.744 0.930 6 1.131 2.261 0.002 2.070 1.366 7 0.756 2.093 0.008 2.355 1.303 11.6 T/A 1 0.083 0.017 0.121 0.108 0.082 2 0.083 0.079 0.064 0.089 0.079 3 0.000 0.126 0.031 0.025 0.046 4 0.000 0.013 0.765 0.019 0.199 5 0.000 0.057 0.586 0.031 0.419 6 0.013 0.310 2.122 0.016 0.615 7 1.081 2.107 3.037 1.641 1.967 23.2 T/A 1 0.080 0.154 0.230 0.100 0.141 2 0.050 0.184 0.169 0.112 0.129 3 0.011 0.479 0.126 0.022 0.159 4 0.025 1.684 1.805 0.065 0.895 5 0.394 1.788 1.992 0.532 1.177 6 0.166 2.104 1.995 2.050 1.579 7 1.721 1.425 1.992 2.544 1.921 46.4 T/A 1 0.063 0.028 0.025 0.069 0.047 2 0.013 0.020 0.011 0.074 0.030 3 0.013 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.010 4 0.005 0.003 0.008 0.016 0.008 5 0.005 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.007 6 0.000 1.174 0.045 0.206 0.356 7 1.751 1.871 1.615 0.805 1.511 * See page 28 for key. 101 TABLE 47.--Tota1 nitrogen levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 1955 1554 1551 1747 1702 Plot 2 1987 1663 1441 1765 '1714 3 1307 433 575 586 725 4 688 149 473 287 399 5 644 262 309 185 350 6 347 178 251 142 230 7 270 118 153 170 178 150+— 1 1926 2228 1336 1427 1729 NL+ P 2 1842 1398 1638 1685 1641 3 655 444 732 950 695 4 553 448 477 313 448 5 659 360 357 254 408 6 294 189 175 200 215 7 650 153 204 117 281 5.8 T/A 1 2184 1405 2104 1733 1857 2 2046 1416 1773 1598 1708 3 1099 404 834 528 716 4 659 295 542 204 425 5 535 234 426 175 343 6 375 204 433 153 291 7 270 153 259 129 203 11.6 T/A 1 1649 2002 1977 2118 1937 2 1558 1915 1809 2111 1848 3 411 477 942 1125 739 4 426 440 459 404 432 5 382 433 360 495 418 6 353 207 207 415 296 7 188 253 153 188 196 23.2 T/A 1 2457 1980 1605 2184 2057 2 2202 1572 1813 2326 1978 3 775 863 721 571 733 4 659 389 226 495 442 5 484 291 193 302 318 6 488 164 94 178 231 7 423 123 76 141 191 46.4 T/A 1 2528 2872 2231 2570 2550 2 2522 2781 2009 2584 2474 3 1366 892 655 972 971 4 819 797 553 553 681 5 702 622 477 615 604 6 546 353 415 590 476 7 482 323 182 476 366 * See page 28 for key. 102 TABLE 48.--Exchangeab1e ammonium levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 .69 .47 .73 .73 0.66 Plot 2 .51 .80 .87 .36 0.64 3 .11 .15 .11 .15 0.13 4 .22 .11 .18 .00 0.13 5 .07 .15 .18 .18 0.15 6 .00 .00 .00 .00 0.00 7 1.46 .00 .73 .00 0.55 150+66+126 l .44 .73 .69 .44 0.58 N + P + K 2 .44 .76 .91 .80 0.73 3 .04 .07 .18 .18 0.12 4 .22 .04 .22 .00 0.12 5 .00 .18 .18” .11 0.12 6 .00 .00 .00 .00 0.00 7 1.46 .00 '.00 1.46 0.73 5.8 T/A 1 .62 .36 .66 .76 0.60 2 .22 .69 .91 .91 0.68 3 .15 .07 .07 .15 0.11 4 .18 .00 .29 .00 0.12 5 .00 .00 .18 .11 0.07 6 .07 .00 .00 .00 0.02 7 1.46 .00 .36 .00 0.46 11.6 T/A 1 .51 1.06 .91 .58 0.77 ‘ 2 .51 .55 1.09 1.31 0.87 3 .04 .11 .11 .15 0.10 4 .04 .22 .18 .04 0.12 5 .00 .18 .11 .11 0.10 6 .00 ' .00 .00 .00 0.00 7 .36 1.09 1.46 1.09 1.00 23.2 T/A 1 .69 .55 .76 .80 0.70 2 .40 .66 .87 1.24 0.79 3 .07 .11 .33 .07 0.15 4 .04 .18 .07 .04 0.08 5 .00 .00 .11 .18 0.07 6 .11 .00 .00 .00 0.03 7 1.09 .00 .00 .00 0.27 46.4 T/A 1 .95 1.24 .91 .91 1.00 2 1.20 1.57 .58 1.31 1.17 3 .15 .15 .15 .11 0.14 4 .33 .36 .07 .11 0.22 5 .00 .29 .18 .25 0.18 6 .04 .00 .00 .04 0.02 7 2.91 1.46 .73 4.37 2.37 * See page 28 for key. 103 TABLE 49.--Nitrate levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block Treatment Depth* I II III IV Average Check 1 5.9 4.8 7.3 5.2 5.8 Plot 2 5.1 6.8 8.1 6.5 6.6 3 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.2 3.0 4 1.5 2.3 1.5 3.1 2.1 5 1.6 2.9 2.2 3 9 2.7 6 1.2 1.8 2.7 2.4 2.0 7 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.0 3.0 151+66+126 1 5.8 10.4 17.7 7.0 10.2 N + P + K 2 6.2 17.4 33.5 24.6 20.4 3 2.9 5.0 17.4 62.4 21.9 4 1.7 9.3 32.3 38.9 20.6 5 2.7 8.7 22.2 19.1 13.2 6 3.2 5.5 12.0 9.9 7.7 7 5.5 6.0 15.2 18.5 11.3 5.8 T/A 1 13.0 10.3 8.7 7.0 9.8 2 11.6 11.2 7.9 6.5 9.3 3 4.8 4.0 3.2 3.1 3.8 4 2.0 5.7 2.6 2.4 3.2 5 2.0 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 6 2.5 5.5 3.7 5.7 4.4 7 3.2 6.4 4.2 6.0 5.0 11.6 T/A 1 12.8 36.6 32.7 28.0 27.5 2 18.7 43.3 69.7 64.7 49.1 3 10.4 18.0 60.2 24.1 28.2 4 17.0 17.7 52.6 14.4 25.4 5 13.1 23.0 33.5 19.8 22.4 6 9.1 10.3 8.8 14.6 10.7 7 9.1 18.5 8.8 13.5 12.5 23.2 T/A 1 44.4 60.3 25.0 39.6 42.3 2 80.6 139.5 86.7 77.7 96.1 3 37.4 129.7 96.8 37.4 75.3 4 31.1 85.8 37.5 43.6 49.5 5 27.8 27.8 19.1 25.8 25.1 6 24.3 19.2 14.6 15.8 18.5 7 19.2 7.0 17.8 12.5 14.1 46.2 T/A 1 60.3 33.9 12.8 46.1 38.3 2 122.7 38.8 19.8 67.2 62.1 3 74.9 11.6 8.4 43.3 34.6 4 36.1 10.1 26.7 58.9 33.0 5 23.0 14.6 47.0 76.7 40.3 6 24.3 13.5 35.9 59.5 33.3 7 24.3 17.1 21.6 33.2 24.1 * See page 28 for key. 104 TABLE 50.--Chloride levels (ppm) in soil in individual plots. Block Block Block Block * Treatment Depth I II III IV Average Check 1 112 0 18 28 39.5 Plot 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 4 0 61 0 9 17.5 5 19 5 14 80 29.5 6 0 0 23 19 10.5 7 0 0 9 9 4.5 150+66+126 1 108 14 37 14 43.2 N-+I>+-K 2 0 0 42 ' 9 12.8 3 0 0 47 94 35.2 4 9 28 14 56 26.8 5 0 9 14 47 17.5 6 23 5 42 47 29.2 7 9 28 0 37 18.5 5.8 T/A 1 23 84 23 19 37.2 2 0 0 0 33 8.2 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 4 52 23 61 0 34.0 5 0 23 19 19 15.2 6 5 0 0 0 1.2 7 0 0 19 5 6.0 11.6 T/A 1 98 9 19 5 32.7 2 0 9 47 9 16.2 3 O 0 0 0 0.0 4 0 70 28 0 24.5 5 14 0 42 0 14.0 6 9 14 0 0 5.8 7 5 19 42 19 21.2 23.2 T/A 1 33 37 28 19 29.2 2 0 84 7O 19 43.2 3 0 84 70 0 38.5 4 80 103 47 23 63.2 5 33 0 23 9 16.2 6 61 37 56 126 70.0 7 14 5 19 28 16.5 46.4 T/A 1 33 28 0 9 17.5 2 23 9 0 5 9.2 3 0 0 0 33 8.2 4 42 14 42 80 44.5 5 23 14 28 19 21.0 6 61 14 23 61 39.8 7 19 14 14 5 13.0 * See page 28 for key. PARKHILL SERIES Soil Profile: Parkhill Loam Ap 0-8" LOAM: very dark gray (10YR3/1) to very dark brown (10YR2/2); weak, fine to medium, granular structure; friable; slightly acid to neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. 6 to 10 inches thick. A2g 8-12" LOAM: grayish brown (10YR5/2) to brown (10YR5/3), mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/4 -5/6), mottles are common, medium, and distinct; weak, medium, platy structure; friable; slightly acid to neutral; clear wavy boundary. 3 to 6 inches thick. Bng 12-23" LOAM OR CLAY LOAM: gray (10YR5/1) mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/4 - 5/8), mottles are common, medium, and distinct; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; slightly firm; slightly acid to neutral; gradual wavy boundary. 6 to 16 inches thick. Bg22 23-36" CLAY LOAM OR SILTY CLAY LOAM: grayish brown (10YR5/2) mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/4 - 5/6) and pale olive (5Y6/3), mottles are many, coarse, and distinct; moderate to strong, coarse, sub- angular or blocky structure; firm; slightly acid to neutral; abrupt irregular boundary. 10 to 20 inches thick. C 36"+ LOAM<1R SILT LOAM: olive brown (2.5YR4/4) mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/4 - 5/6) and gray (10YR5/1); massive, to weak, coarse, angular blocky structure; slightly firm; calareous till. Range in Characteristics: Loam and silt loam types have been mapped. The A2g and Bg21 horizons are dominantly gray in the more poorly drained areas. The textures of the Bg21 and Bg22 horizons range from clay loam, silty clay loam, or fine, loam. Depth to calcareous till ranges from 20 to over 42 inches. Colors and consistence refer to moist conditions. 105 106 To 0 ra h : Nearly level to depressional areas in till and IaEe plains. Drainage and Permeability: Poorly to very poorly drained. Runoff is very slow to ponded. Permeability is moderately slow. Natural Vegetation: Chiefly elm, soft maple, ash, hickory, basswood, and swamp white oak. Soil Profile: Ap 0-8" A2g 8-12" B21tg 12-24" B22tg 24-30" II C 30" + BRECKENRIDGE SERIES 'Breckenridge fine sandy loam Fine Sandy Loam: black (10YR 2/1) very dark gray (10YR 3/1) or very dark brown (10YR 2/2) weak, fine to medium, gran- ular structure; friable; high organic matter content; slightly acid to mildly alkaline; abrupt smooth boundary. 6 to 12 inches thick. Fine Sandnyoam: dark, grayish brown (10YR 4/2) with few, fine distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6-5/8) mottles; weak; fine subangular blocky structures friable; slightly acid to mildly alkaline; clear wavy boundary. 0 to 8 inches thick. Sandy Loam or Sandy Clay Loam: gray (10YR 5/1) to grayisthrown_(2.5Y 5/2) mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), yellowish brown (10YR 5/6-5/8) and brownish yellow (10YR 6/6), mottles are common, medium and distinct; weak, medium to coarse, sub-angular blocky structure; friable; slightly acid to mildly alkaline; clear wavy boundary. 8 to 28 inches thick. Sand Loam: light bownish gray (10YR 2-2.5Y 6/2) mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6-5/8), mottles are common, medium, slightly acid to mildly alkaline; abrupt irregular boundary. 0 to 12 inches thick. Subangular structures very friable. Loam or Silty Clay Loam: gray (10YR 5/1) to light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) mottled with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6-5/8) and dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) mottles, mottles are common to many, fine to medium, distinct, massive to very weak, coarse angular blocky structure; firm; calcareous. 107 108 Range in Characteristics: Fine sandy loam, loam, and loamy fine sand types have been recognized. A thin layer of muck or peat 2 to 12 inches thick occurs as 01 and 02 horizons on some profiles. The depth to the IIC horizon ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The B22tg horizon is not present in all profiles. The reaction of the upper 2 to 6 inches of the IIC horizon is mildly alkaline in some profiles. Color notations refer to most conditions. The depth to the IIC horizon varies from 20 to 40 inches. Topography: Nearly level and depressional areas in lake plains. Drainage and Permeability: Poorly to very poorly drained. Surface runoff is very slow to ponded. Permeability is moderate in the solum and slow in the IIC horizon. Natural Vegetation: Dominantly lowland hardwood forest of elm, aSh, and redImaple with some white cedar. 1111111 I111]1111111111111 111 31293 01762 7351