Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Agriculture (Pol'nohospodárstvo)

The Journal of National Agricultural and Food Centre

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.59

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.196
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.360

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Effect of Digestate Application on Herbage Quality and Quantity of Permanent Grassland

Ing. Zuzana Kováčiková PhD.
  • Corresponding author
  • Plant Production Research Center Piešťany, Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute Banská Bystrica, 974 21 Banská Bystrica, Mládežnícka 36, Slovak Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ing. Vladimíra Vargová PhD.
  • Plant Production Research Center Piešťany, Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute Banská Bystrica, 974 21 Banská Bystrica, Mládežnícka 36, Slovak Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ing. Ľubica Jančová
  • Plant Production Research Center Piešťany, Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute Banská Bystrica, 974 21 Banská Bystrica, Mládežnícka 36, Slovak Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2013-07-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/agri-2013-0008

Possibilities were studied for using digested substrate as fertiliser applied to grassland. Over 2008-2009, a research trial consisting of four treatments in four replicates (the non-fertilised control; sward fertilized with digested substrates from 100% slurry; 80% slurry and 20% phytomass; 60% slurry and 40% phytomass) was performed on seminatural grassland at Radvaň site. In the sward utilised by three cuts a year, these parameters were studied: botanical composition, dominant species, herbage production, organic matter and mineral substances. At the fertilized treatments, the proportion of grasses was higher in 2009 than in 2008, but that of legumes and other herbs decreased. Dominant grasses were Poa pratensis L., Festuca rubra L., Lolium perenne L., Trisetum flavescens L. while Trifolium repens L. and Medicago falcata L. dominated among legume species. The application of digested substrate as fertiliser showed positive effects on herbage production, the highest increase was found at Treatment 4 where the digested substrate consisting of 60% slurry and 40% phytomass was applied. The highest amounts of crude protein (CP), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) were recorded at the treatment with the digested substrate composed of 80% slurry and 20% phytomass applied.

Keywords : digested substrate; co-fermentation; dry matter production; herbage quality; herbage quantity; permanent grassland

  • BRAUN, R. 2007. Anaerobic digestion: a multi-faceted process for energy, environmental management and rural development. In RANALLI, P. (Ed.) Improvementof crop plants for industrial end uses. Dordrecht : Springer, pp. 335-416. ISBN-10 1-4020-5486-6.Google Scholar

  • DIETERICH, B. - FINNAN, J. - FROST, P. - GILKINSON, S. - MÜLLER, S. 2012. The extent of methane (CH4) emissions after fertilisation of grassland with digestate. In Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 981-985. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-012-0714-1.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • FIALA, J. 2002. Development of ecological and yield stability of semi-natural grassland by its long-term fertilization and utilization. In Grassland EcologyVI: Proceedings of the International Scientific Con-ference. Banská Bystrica : VÚTPHP, pp.124-137. ISBN 80-968890-7-9.Google Scholar

  • GLĄB, T. - KACORZYK, P. 2011. Root distribution and herbage production under different management regimes of mountain grassland. In Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 99-104.Google Scholar

  • HANÁČKOVÁ, E. - SLAMKA, P. 2008. Vplyv hnojenia fermentovaným biokalom na úrodu a výživnú hodnotu nadzemnej fytomasy kukurice siatej (Zea mays L.) [Influence of fertilization with fermented biosludge on the yield and nutritive value of aboveground maize (Zea mays L.) phytomass]. In Journal of CentralEuropean Agriculture, vol. 9, 2008, no. 3, pp. 609-614.Google Scholar

  • HEJCMAN, M. - SZAKOVÁ, J. - SCHELLBERG, J. - TLUSTOŠ, P. 2010. The Rengen Grassland Experiment: relationship between soil and biomass chemical properties, amount of elements applied, and their uptake. In Plant and Soil, vol. 333, 2010, pp. 163-179. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-010-0332-3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • HOLÚBEK, R. - JANČOVIČ, J. - GREGOROVÁ, H. - NOVÁK, J. - ĎURKOVÁ, E. - VOZÁR, Ľ. 2007. Krmovinárstvo - manažment pestovania a využívaniekrmovín [Forage production - management of cropgrowingand utilisation]. 1. vyd. Nitra : SPU, 420 pp. ISBN 978-80-8069-911-6.Google Scholar

  • HONSOVÁ, D. - HEJCMAN, M. - KLAUDISOVÁ, M. - PAVLŮ, V. - HAKL, J. 2007. Species composition of an alluvial meadow after 40 years of applying nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer. In Preslia, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 245-258.Google Scholar

  • KLAPP, E. 1971. Wiesen und Weiden. Berlin, Hamburg : Paul Parey Verlag, 620 pp. ISBN 3-489-72510-7.Google Scholar

  • LEHTOMAKI, A. - HUTTUNEN, S. - LEHTINEN, T.M. - RINTALA, J.A. 2008. Anaerobic digestion of grass silage in batch leach bed processes for methane production. In Bioresource Technology, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 3267-3278.Google Scholar

  • MALOCH, M. 1953. Krmovinárstvo [Forage production]. Bratislava : SPN, 1953. 616 p.Google Scholar

  • NERUŠIL P. - KOHOUTEK A. - KOMÁREK P. - ODSTRČILOVÁ V. 2008: Effects of utilisation intensity and fertilization level on forage production and quality of permanent grassland on a fluvisoil. In Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae MendelianaeBrunensis, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 153-162.Google Scholar

  • ONDREJČÍKOVÁ, Z. - REŽO, L. - MAREČEK, J. - POSPIŠIL, R. 2009. Vplyv biokalu na kvantitatívne a kvalitatívne parametre slnečnice ročnej [The influence of decayed waste on quantitative and qualitative parameters of sunflower]. In Acta fytotechnicaet zootechnica, vol. 12, no. Mimoriadne - Special, pp. 512-516.Google Scholar

  • POSPÍŠIL, R. - MANO, M. 2007. The influence of application biosledge for production and quality maize for silage. In Súčasnosť a perspektívy krmovinárskehovýskumu a vzdelávania v multifunkčnom využívaní krajiny : proceedings of scientific conference. Nitra : SPU, pp. 231-233. ISBN 978-80-8069-929-1.Google Scholar

  • POSPÍŠIL, R. et al. 2009. Využitie biokalu pri pestovanípoľných plodín [The utilisation of decayed waste ingrowing field crops]. Nitra : SPU, 186 p. ISBN 978-80-552-0289-1.Google Scholar

  • POSPÍŠIL, R. - CANDRÁKOVÁ, E. - ONDREJČÍKOVÁ, Z. 2011. Účinok hnojenia digestátom na energetickú efektívnosť produkcie repy cukrovej [Effect of digestate fertilization on energy of sugar production]. In Listy Cukrovarnické a Řepařské, vol. 127, no. 7-8, pp. 219-222.Google Scholar

  • PROCHNOW, A. - HEIERMANN, M. - PLÖCHL, M. - LINKE, B. - IDLER, C. - AMON, T. - HOBBS, P.J. 2009. Bioenergy from permanent grassland - A review: 1. Biogas. In Bioresource Technology, vol. 100, no. 21, pp. 4931-4944.Google Scholar

  • RAUS, J. - KNOT, P. - HRABĚ, F. 2012. Effect of fertilization and harvest frequency on floristic composition and yields of meadow stand. In Acta Universitatis Agriculturaeet Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 181-186.Google Scholar

  • SALMINEN, E. - RINTALA, J. - HARKONEN, J. - KUITUNEN, M. - HOGMANDER, H. - OIKARI, A. 2001. Anaerobically digested poultry slaughterhouse wastes as fertiliser in agriculture. In Bioresource Technology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 81-88.Google Scholar

  • SILVERTON, J. - POULTON, P. - JOHNSTON, E. - EDWARDS, G. - HEARD, M. - BISS, P.M. 2006. The Park Grass Experiment 1856-2006: its contribution to ecology. In Journal of Ecology, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 801-814.Google Scholar

  • TANI, M. - SAKAMOTO, N. - KISHIMOTO, T. - UMETSU, K. 2006. Utilization of anaerobically digested dairy slurry combined with other wastes following application to agricultural land. In International Congress Series, vol. 1293, pp. 331-334.Google Scholar

  • TILVIKIENE, V. - KADŽIULIENE, Ž. - DABKEVICIUS, Z. 2010. Effect of digestate application on cocksfoot on biomass production and quality. In Treatment anduse of non conventional organic residuesin agriculture, 14th Ramiran International conference. Lisboa, Portugal, October 12.-15., pp. 1-4.Google Scholar

  • TILVIKIENE, V. - KADŽIULIENE, Ž. - DABKEVICIUS, Z. 2011. Digestate application on cocksfoot (Dactylisglomerata L.) swards - effects on yield, N content and C/N ratio. In Grassland Science of Europe, vol. 16, pp. 383-385.Google Scholar

  • VARGOVÁ, V. - KOVÁČIKOVÁ, Z. - MICHALEC, M. 2012. Effects of rates and nutrient ratios on production and quality of phytomass at fertiliser application to an alluvial meadow. In Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1-10. DOI: 10.2478/v10207-012-0001-z.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • VOĆA, N. - KRIČKA, T. - ĆOSIĆ, T. - RUPIĆ, V. - JUKIĆ, Ž. - KALAMBURA, S. 2005. Digested residue as a fertilizer after the mesophilic process of anaerobic digestion. In Plant, Soil and Environment, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 262-266.Google Scholar

  • VOZÁR, Ľ. - JANČOVIČ, J. - KOVÁR, P. - BAČOVÁ, S. 2012. Adaptability of permanent grassland to drought. In Journal of Life Sciences, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 1057-1060.Google Scholar

  • WANG, L. - LI, Y. - CHEN, P. - MIN, M. - CHEN, Y. - ZHU, J. - RUAN, R. R. 2010. Anaerobic digested dairy manure as a nutrient supplement for cultivation of oil-rich green microalgae Chlorella sp. In BioresourceTechnology, vol. 101, no. 8, pp. 2623-2628.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • WHITEHEAD, D.C. 2000. Nutrients elements in grassland:soil - plant - animal relationships. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 369 pp. ISBN 0-85199-437-7.Google Scholar

  • World reference base for soil resources. 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication. No. 103, FAO, Rome, 145 pp. ISBN 92-5-105511-4.Google Scholar

  • WULF, S. - MAETING, M. - CLEMENS, J. 2002. Application technique and slurry co-fermentation effects on ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane emission after spreading: II. Greenhouse gas emission. In Journal ofEnvironmental Quality, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1795-1801.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-07-30

Published in Print: 2013-06-01

Citation Information: Agriculture, Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 88–98, ISSN (Online) 1338-4376, ISSN (Print) 0551-3677, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/agri-2013-0008.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

G. Lencioni, D. Imperiale, N. Cavirani, N. Marmiroli, and M. Marmiroli
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2016, Volume 13, Number 11, Page 2549

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in