This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 20:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Plant NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

EFFECT OF SOIL AMENDMENT WITHALFALFA POWDERS AND DISTILLERSGRAINS ON NUTRITION AND GROWTH OFCANOLAP. Qian a , J. J. Schoenau a , T. King a & C. Fatteicher aa Department of Soil Science , University of Saskatchewan ,Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaPublished online: 04 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: P. Qian , J. J. Schoenau , T. King & C. Fatteicher (2011) EFFECT OF SOILAMENDMENT WITH ALFALFA POWDERS AND DISTILLERS GRAINS ON NUTRITION AND GROWTH OFCANOLA, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34:10, 1403-1417, DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2011.585199

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2011.585199

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 34:1403–1417, 2011Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0190-4167 print / 1532-4087 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01904167.2011.585199

EFFECT OF SOIL AMENDMENT WITH ALFALFA POWDERS AND

DISTILLERS GRAINS ON NUTRITION AND GROWTH OF CANOLA

P. Qian, J. J. Schoenau, T. King, and C. Fatteicher

Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

� Two pot experiments were carried out under controlled environment conditions in the growthchamber to assess the potential use of alfalfa powders and distiller grains as organic fertilizers. Twotypes of dehydrated alfalfa powders (one with canola meal protein extraction by-product and onewithout) and two types of distiller grains (dried distillers grain with distillation solubles added andwet distillers grain without solubles) from wheat-based ethanol production were evaluated. Four dif-ferent nitrogen (N)-based amendment application rates (0, 100, 200 and 400 kg N ha−1) were usedalong with urea applications made at the same N rates to a Brown Chernozem (Aridic Haploboroll)loamy textured soil collected from south-central Saskatchewan, Canada. Canola biomass yield, N,phosphorus (P), potassium (K), zinc (Zn), and cadmium (Cd) uptake were measured along withsoil properties including pH, salinity, organic carbon, total nitrogen, phosphorus and extractablenutrients and cadmium before and after canola growth in each of the treatments. Application of al-falfa powder and distiller grain amendments resulted in significant canola biomass yield increasesalong with increased N, P, and K uptake compared to the unfertilized control. However, only aportion of the N added (∼30% to 50%) in the organic amendments was rendered available overthe five week duration of the experiments. Amendments that had higher N content and lower carbon(C):N ratios such as dried distillers grain with solubles resulted in greater canola N uptake. Reducedgermination and emergence of canola seedlings was observed at high rates of addition of distillersgrain (400 kg N ha−1), the reason for which is unclear but may be due to a localized salt or toxicityeffect of the amendment. The amendment with alfalfa powders and distiller grains resulted in smallincreases in residual soil nutrients. Effects on pH, salinity, organic carbon and extractable metalstended to be small and often not significant. Alfalfa powders and distillers grains appear to be quiteeffective in supplying nutrients, especially N, for plant growth over the short-term.

Keywords: alfalfa powders, distillers grains, canola, yield, uptake, soil N, P and K avail-ability, soil parameters

Received 29 April 2009; accepted 1 February 2011.Address correspondence to Peiyuan Qian, Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan,

51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8, Canada. E-mail: qian@sask.usask.ca

1403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

1404 P. Qian et al.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous substances, such as manure, composts, and other organicwaste, have been widely used as organic fertilizers for crop growth. Amongthem, alfalfa, especially after dehydration, has been considered as organicamendment in agricultural production even though it has been traditionallyused as animal feed (DelCurto et al., 1990; Brandyberry et al., 1992; Estellet al., 2005). Alfalfa has also been used as an amendment in paddy soil asa natural herbicide for weed control due to allelopathic effects (Xuan andTsuzuki, 2001). Alfalfa contains between 15 to 22% crude protein and othernutrients. Dehydration makes the alfalfa easier to handle and it has a highernutrient value than many other fertilizers made from plant matter (Lentz,2001).

Grain ethanol production is an emerging industry in Western Canadaand throughout the world. In Western Canada, it is anticipated that a con-siderable portion of ethanol may be derived from wheat as a feed stock. Itsmajor by-product, distiller grain, usually has two forms: dry distiller grain(DDG) and wet distiller grain (WDG). These products would normally beused as animal feeds (Cromwell et al., 1993; Anderson et al. 2006; Pedersenet al., 2007). The DDG can be considered a more processed form, con-taining solubles from the liquid stillage that is mixed back in with the wetdistillers grain and then dried down. Since it is a dry product, the DDG maybe easily stored, transported and used as animal feed. In addition to use asanimal feeds, ethanol production co-products may also be considered poten-tial organic fertilizer sources as they contain organic matter along with plantmacronutrients and micronutrients (Johnson et al., 2004). In fermentation,proteins in the grains are degraded, leaving behind organic nitrogen (N)that may be readily available to plants as a primary N source through mineral-ization, and were shown to be of benefit in potato nutrition (Moore, 2009).Beyond the benefit of its nutrition value for plant growth, the byproductremaining after ethanol production is reported to have the potential to im-prove soil properties such as humic acid content and water-stable aggregates(Johnson et al., 2004). However, research information on the utilizationof ethanol production co-products as soil amendments and their effect onplant growth and soil properties is limited. The objective of this study wereto assess: (i) the potential for using alfalfa powders and distillers grains asorganic source of nutrient for crop growth and (ii) the impact of alfalfapowder and distillers grains on soil properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experiment Design

Trials were set up in 2008 to investigate the application of amend-ments on canola growth, nutrient uptake and soil properties in a Brown

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1405

Chernozem soil (U.S. equivalent: Aridic Haploboroll) collected from a farmfield in south-central Saskatchewan, Canada in a region where ethanol pro-duction is anticipated to expand. One trial was to investigate the effects ofsoil amendment with two types of dehydrated alfalfa powders and the otherwas to investigate the effects of application of two types of distillers grains.

Alfalfa Powder Experiment TrialsTwo types of dehydrated alfalfa products were tested in comparison with

urea applied at the same rates of N. One was pure dehydrated alfalfa powder,termed “Dehy.” The other was a combination of alfalfa and canola mealprotein extraction by-product named “Sun Cure” powder. Both productswere supplied by MCN BioProducts Inc., Saskatoon, Canada. The N contentis 2.54% N for Dehy and 3.34% N for Sun Cure, so they represent a relativelyconcentrated source of N compared to many other organic sources suchas cattle manure. The phosphorus (P) content is 0.22% P for Dehy, and0.23% P for Sun Cure. The sulfur (S) content is about 0.28% for Dehy, and0.45% for Sun Cure. The carbon (C):N ratio is 17:1 for Dehy, and 13:1 forSun Cure. The C:S is 153:1 and 95:1 for Dehy and Sun Cure respectively.Amendments with C:N and C:S ratios less than 20:1 and 200:1, respectively,result in immediate net mineralization (release) of plant available inorganicN and S upon decomposition (Havlin et al., 2005). The narrower ratio of theSun Cure predicts more rapid release of available N and available S from thisalfalfa powder source compared to the Dehy product. The experiment usedfour application rates (0, 100, 200 and 400 kg N ha−1) with four replicatesof alfalfa powder and urea fertilizer treatment. Four pots were prepared foreach treatment. In each pot, 800 g of air-dried soil was weighed out and200 mL of water was added, followed by application of alfalfa powders orgranular urea on the surface of the soil and then covered with an additional100 g of soil. A 100-mL of blanket P, potassium (K) and S solution was thenapplied at a rate of 25 kg P ha−1, 50 kg K ha−1 and 25 kg S ha−1, so as to allowthe effect of the alfalfa amendment specifically on nitrogen availability to berevealed. Canola (B. napus cv. ‘Invigor 5020’) was the crop grown. After thefertilized soils in the pots were equilibrated for 48 hours, about 10 canolaseeds were placed on the surface of the soil and then covered with another100 g of soil. For germination, soil moisture was kept at approximately 80%of field capacity in all the treatments and temperature was maintained at20◦C.

Distillers Grain Experiment TreatmentsTwo separate experiments were run with distillers grain. One experi-

ment was with dry distillers grain (DDG) containing solubles that was ob-tained from the Feed Resource Center at the University of Saskatchewan.The DDG was produced from distillation using a predominately wheat feedstock, but with a small amount of corn also used (<20%). The wet distillers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

1406 P. Qian et al.

grain (WDG) was obtained from Poundmaker ethanol production facility atLanigan, Saskatchewan. The WDG does not contain solubles, as the solublesare contained in a separate liquid thin stillage fraction that can be added toWDG and dried to produce DDG containing solubles. Urea was applied atthe same rates of N as the distillers grains for comparison. The N contentis 6.31% (C:N ∼ 7:1) for DDG with solubles and 3.65% (C:N ∼ 14:1) forWDG product, all on a dry basis. The S content is 0.93% for DDG and 1.37%for WDG while the P content is 0.66% P for DDG and 0.42% P for WDG.The C:N, C:S for DDG is 7:1, 49:1 and 14:1, 36:1 for the WDG. Based on thenarrower C:N, a more rapid release of available N is predicted from DDGthan WDG. Application rates for both experiments were the same (0, 100,200 and 400 kg N ha−1) with four replicates. Four pots were prepared foreach treatment. In each pot, 800 g of air-dried soil were weighed into a pot.The distillers grain products or urea were then mixed with 10g soil and themixture was spread on the surface of the soil, followed by addition of 200mL deionized water. An additional 100 g of soil was then added to coverthe products and the soils were equilibrated for four days. Then 10 canolaseeds were placed on the soil surface in each pot and an additional 100 mLof water was added. The last 100g soil was added on the soil surface to bringthe total soil weight to 1000 g for each pot. For germination, soil moisturewas kept at approximately 80% of field capacity in all the treatments andtemperature maintained at 20◦C.

Plant Growth and Soil Analysis

After germination, canola seedlings in each pot were thinned to fiveplants and then the pots were moved to the growth chamber. The pots inthe growth chamber were completely randomized and rotated each week.The canola plants were allowed to grow for five weeks following germina-tion. After five weeks, the above—ground canola biomass present in thepots was harvested. Temperature in the growth chamber was 22◦C day and13◦C night, with an 18-h day length and 6-h night length. After harvesting,plants were dried at 50◦C, and weighed for dry matter yield determination.The samples were then ground and digested in a sulfuric acid-hydrogenperoxide mixture using a temperature-controlled digestion block (Thomaset al., 1967). Concentrations of elements in the digest were determined bycolorimetry [ammonium (NH4)-N and phosphate (PO4)-P] and atomic ab-sorption spectroscopy [K, zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd)]. Plant nutrient uptakewas calculated by multiplying the yield by the concentration in the tissue andis expressed as milligrams of nutrient taken up per kilogram of soil.

The soil used in the experiments was collected from the 0–15 cm depthof a wheat stubble field near Central Butte, SK, Canada in the fall of 2007.The soil is mapped as an Orthic Brown Chernozem of the Ardill Association.About 200 kg of soil was collected from the field using a front-end loader.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1407

After collection, the soil was mixed thoroughly in a soil mixer and stored be-fore use. For measuring basic soil properties, a sample was collected from themixed soil, and then air-dried, crushed, and passed through a 2-mm sieve andstored at room temperature. Texture was loamy, estimated by hand. Electri-cal conductivity (EC) and pH were measured using 1:1 soil:water suspension.Organic C was measured using a LECO CR 12 (LECO, St. Joseph, MI, USA)automated combustion carbon analyzer (Wang and Anderson, 1998). Soiltotal N and P concentrations were determined by sulfuric acid peroxide di-gest (Thomas et al., 1967). Concentrations of elements in the digest weredetermined by colorimetry and spectroscopy. Soil available N was calculatedas the sum of NO3-N + NH4-N. Both forms of inorganic N were extractedwith 2 M potassium chloride (KCl), and P and K by a mixed solution of 0.025M acetic acid (HOAc) and 0.25 M ammonium acetate (NH4OAc) as wellas 0.015 M ammonium fluoride (NH4F) with a measured pH of 4.9 (Qianet al., 1994). Soil SO4-S was extracted by 0.01M calcium chloride (CaCl2). Soilavailable Cu, Zn and Cd were extracted by ammonium bicarbonate (AB)-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) (Lipoth and Schoenau, 2007).The mixing resulted in a reasonably uniform soil, as evident by similar an-alytical results from samples collected to represent the soil used to preparepots for each of the experiments (Table 1). Of note, however, is the lowerN, P, and S content of the soil used for the WDG experiment compared tothe DDG and alfalfa powder experiment. At the end of the canola growthperiod, the soil from each pot was removed and prepared for analysis byair-drying and passing through a 2 mm sieve.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of Soil Amendment with Alfalfa Powder and Distillers

Grains on Canola Yield, and Nutrient Uptake

A significant (P < 0.05) increase in canola yield and nutrient uptake wasobserved from the addition of alfalfa powders and urea (Table 2) comparedto the unamended control. In a similar experiment with alfalfa in pelletedform, the biomass yield and nutrient uptake was also found to increasewith addition of alfalfa pellets (Qian et al., 2008). The alfalfa amendmentsproduced canola dry matter yields and plant nitrogen uptake at equivalentrates of added N that were about 30% to 50% of that obtained for urea(Table 2). Since all treatments received a basal application of P, K, and S,differences between the alfalfa and urea amendments are likely mainly dueto differences in N availability, with an estimated availability of N from thealfalfa treatment over the five week period of about 30 to 50% of that fromcommercial urea. Other possible beneficial effects on plant growth may arisefrom the organic matter added in the alfalfa, such as increased microbialactivity and improved soil tilth. These may also contribute to the observed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E1

Init

ialp

rope

rtie

sof

the

soil

used

inth

eco

ntr

olle

den

viro

nm

ente

xper

imen

ts

Tot

alN

Tot

alP

EC

NO

3-N

NH

4-N

SO4-S

Cu

Zn

Cd

Exp

erim

ent

(mg

g−1 )

(mg

g−1 )

OC

(%)

pH(m

Scm

−1)

(gg−

1 )(g

g−1 )

P(g

g−1 )

K(g

g−1 )

(gg−

1 )(g

g−1 )

(gg−

1 )(g

g−1 )

Alf

alfa

1.12

0.48

1.92

8.04

0.29

1.7

6.9

5.6

591

14.3

0.45

6.9

0.05

2D

rydi

still

er1.

180.

501.

948.

000.

301.

75.

56.

060

913

.50.

414.

10.

066

Wet

dist

iller

1.05

0.49

1.87

7.97

0.29

1.7

3.6

5.0

601

11.6

0.49

4.6

0.07

2

1408

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1409

TABLE 2 Yield and nutrient uptake of canola plants grown in alfalfa powder and urea amended soil

UptakeFertilizer rateN Yield N P K Zn Cdkg ha−1 g pot−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 µg kg−1 µg kg−1

0 0.63g 8.4h 2.19f 11.3g 48.6bc 206e100 (Dehy) 1.20fg 11.3h 3.70e 23.1f 40.7c 361de200 (Dehy) 1.83e 17.5gf 5.14d 32.5e 59.4bc 559b400 (Dehy) 3.16d 29.4d 8.47b 55.9d 97.8bc 519bcd100 (Sun Cure) 1.63ef 13.3h 4.53de 30.5ef 86.7bc 372de200 (Sun Cure) 2.66d 22.6ef 6.57c 54.4d 60.0bc 409cd400 (Sun Cure) 4.22c 42.0c 10.98a 94.1c 167.3ab 598b100 (Urea) 2.92d 23.6d 6.74c 57.5d 46.5bc 365de200 (Urea) 5.33b 54.8b 10.38a 106.7b 123.8bc 617b400 (Urea) 6.83a 104.1a 10.83a 192.5a 281.2a 1302a

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05.

yield benefit. The highest dry matter yields were obtained at the 400 kg Nha−1 rate for all amendments. It is important to note that the responsesobserved to rates of N in pot experiments occur at generally higher ratesthan in the field. This is because the root volume is greatly restricted inthe pots such that higher concentrations per unit weight or unit volume ofsoil are needed to see the same yield response. Although both the “Dehy”and “SunCure” amendments were made at the same rates of nitrogen, thehigher yields and N uptake from the “SunCure” can be attributed to thelower C:N ratio of this particular alfalfa dehy product due to the inclusionof canola meal protein extraction by-product. Lower C:N ratios of organicamendments are associated with increased rates of available N release bymineralization. Therefore, there is a need to consider not only the totalconcentration of N in the amendment, but also the C:N ratio when makingpredictions of N availability from organic amendments.

Uptake of other nutrients including P, K, and the micronutrient Zn in-creased with addition of alfalfa or urea, in line with increased N availabilityand plant demand for other nutrients. Uptake of the non-functional ele-ment cadmium also increased with amendment addition, as fertilization willincrease root growth and uptake potential for both functional nutrient andnon-functional, non-nutrient elements (Lipoth and Schoenau, 2007). Thehigh rate of urea resulted in the highest yield and highest Cd uptake.

As the DDG and WDG were from different origin and sources, the effectsof the solubles in DDG cannot be factored out in this study. However, theDDG amendment resulted in very good responses in dry matter yield ofcanola (Table 3) after five weeks, and the responses at equivalent rates oftotal N added as DDG were not significantly different, or in the case of thehigh rate, greater than for urea. Unlike the alfalfa powder experiment, basalapplications of P, K and S were not made such that a lack of nutrients otherthan N is likely a factor restricting the yield of canola especially in the urea

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

1410 P. Qian et al.

TABLE 3 Yield and nutrient uptake of canola plants grown in dried distillers grain (DDG) with solublesand urea amended soil

UptakeFertilizer rateN Yield N P K Zn Cdkg ha−1 g pot−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 µg kg−1 µg kg−1

0 0.74d 7.86f 2.65e 14.4e 40.9a 412 d100 DDG 2.05c 15.42e 4.50c 40.5d 100.5a 436 d200 DDG 3.30b 23.77d 5.60b 53.3bc 166.5a 598 bc400 DDG 5.21a 49.08b 9.67a 101.7a 114.7a 818 a100 (Urea) 2.37c 17.88e 3.51d 41.2d 154.5a 479 cd200 (Urea) 3.13b 33.55c 3.51d 46.0cd 217.2a 716 ab400 (Urea) 3.02b 61.40a 2.61e 56.9b 185.2a 770 a

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05.

amended treatments. One important observation made with both wet anddry distillers grain in this experiment and other preliminary experimentswe conducted in the growth chamber with canola, was apparent reducedgermination and emergence of the canola seedlings at the high rate of DDGor WDG addition (400 kg N ha−1). The appearance of the canola plants wassimilar to plants affected by excessive fertilizer placed in the seed-row. Thisdoes not appear to be related to a salt effect in the bulk soil, as the E.C. waslow for all DDG and WDG treatments measured five weeks after addition.However, a localized salt concentration close to the seed associated withthe high rate of amendment may have been present at the start of theexperiment. The nature of this inhibition deserves further attention and isa cautionary if high rates of DDG are to be applied in the field. It is also notknown if the inhibition might extend to other crops as well. Yakle and Cruse(1983) suggested that autotoxic compounds in the organic materials wereinvolved in causing some inhibition when they were used as fertilizer source.The chemicals can be released directly from the plant residues or indirectlyas microbial by-products of residue decomposition. However, in the currentexperiment it was observed that the canola plants recovered rather quicklyand ultimately responded well at the high rates of addition as shown inTable 3.

At equivalent rates of added N, the N uptake by the canola grown withDDG was about 80% to 90% of that observed for urea, despite similar orhigher yields. As for any organic amendment and similar to observations forthe alfalfa powder, not all the N in the two distillers grain sources was madeavailable for plant uptake over the five week period of high demand. TheN uptake in the urea amended treatments was likely restricted affected bydeficiencies in other elements. The greater uptake of P and K in the DDGtreatments compared to urea (Table 3) is explained by the contribution ofother nutrients like P and S by the distiller’s grain, and thus leads to higheryields in the DDG treatments (Table 3). Moore et al. (2009) reported that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1411

TABLE 4 Yield and nutrient uptake of canola plants grown in wet distillers grain (WDG) and ureaamended soil

UptakeFertilizer rateN Yield N P K Zn Cdkg ha−1 g pot−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 mg kg−1 µg kg−1 µg kg−1

0 0.51e 4.92e 1.56e 8.82e 19.6e 260.8d100 WDG 1.02d 6.49de 1.99de 18.77d 19.4e 216.3d200 WDG 1.44c 10.68bc 2.74bc 26.88c 34.1de 297.7d400 WDG 2.11a 36.57b 4.38a 59.94a 59.9bc 442.4c100 (Urea) 1.65bc 14.10c 2.47cd 27.41c 42.8cd 402.0c200 (Urea) 1.68bc 38.05b 2.53cd 51.06b 75.2ab 602.1b400 (Urea) 1.95ab 59.38a 3.16b 62.49a 84.2a 775.7a

Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05.

distiller grains resulted in higher potato tuber response than urea appliedat the same N rate in a S deficient soil, with greater response attributable tothe ability of the distillers grain to supply needed S in addition to N. Therewas no significant effect of treatment on Zn. The uptake of Cd significantlyincreased with DDG or Urea rate, but there was no significant differencebetween DDG or urea at the same rate. Canola grown in the wet distillersgrain experiment (Table 4) tended to follow similar patterns to that grownwith dry distiller grain. However, yields were lower in all treatments in theWDG experiment (Table 4) compared to the DDG experiment (Table 3).This may reflect lower availability of nutrient in the soil used for the WDGexperiment as suggested by data in Table 1. Also noteworthy is that in mak-ing comparison with the urea treatments in the two experiments, the yieldsand N uptake with the WDG tended to be less in comparison with urea,versus DDG in comparison with urea. It is likely that the solubles that areadded back to the DDG in the drying process narrows the C:N ratios andincreases mineralization due to the contribution of low molecular weight or-ganic nitrogen compounds that are readily decomposed by the soil microbialpopulation. Material with larger C:N ratio is more likely to decompose moreslowly than comparable material (Berg and Matzner, 1997). In our studyapplying a wider C:N ratio WDG with the same amount of total N resultedin a lower apparent rate of N release over the 5 week period in comparisonto DDG. Effects of WDG on other nutrients for canola were similar to DDG.

Effect of Soil Amendment with Alfalfa Powder and Distillers

Grains on Soil Properties

The properties of the soil before and after five weeks of canola growthwith the alfalfa and urea amendments are shown in Table 5. Compared tothe soil before amendment addition and canola growth, the soil at the end ofthe experiment had available nitrogen levels that were only slightly elevated.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E5

Soil

prop

erti

esin

alfa

lfa

pow

der

amen

dmen

ttri

albe

fore

and

afte

rca

nol

ah

arve

st

Fert

ilize

rra

teN

O3-N

NH

4-N

PK

SO4-S

Tot

alN

Tot

alP

pHE

CO

CC

uZ

nC

dN

kgh

a−1

µg

g−1

µg

g−1

µg

g−1

µg

g−1

µg

g−1

mg

g−1

mg

g−1

mS

cm−1

%µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1

Bef

ore

seed

ing

1.7

6.9

5.6

591

14.3

1.12

0.48

8.04

0.29

1.92

0.45

6.9

0.05

2A

fter

har

vest

02.

1cd

5.7b

13.6

bc66

7bc

25.2

a1.

38c

0.52

b7.

86b

0.36

a1.

86bc

d0.

53a

4.8a

0.04

9bcd

100

(Deh

y)3.

1bc

4.9c

21.7

a79

7a24

.4a

1.39

bc0.

53b

8.00

a0.

35ab

1.84

cd0.

43b

4.4b

0.04

6cde

200

(Deh

y)3.

0bc

4.5c

16.2

b71

8ab

19.3

b1.

45ab

c0.

59a

8.03

a0.

34ab

c1.

98ab

0.40

bc4.

6b0.

055a

400

(Deh

y)4.

0ab

6.8a

15.4

b74

5ab

18.7

b1.

52a

0.53

b8.

02a

0.34

abc

2.02

a0.

30e

4.4b

0.05

0abc

d10

0(S

unC

ure)

2.2c

d4.

5c15

.0b

673b

c21

.6ab

1.38

bc0.

53ab

8.04

a0.

32bc

1.85

bc0.

37bc

d4.

8b0.

046d

e20

0(S

unC

ure)

1.3d

4.6c

12.7

bc67

4bc

19.4

b1.

46ab

0.54

ab8.

01a

0.31

cd1.

96ab

c0.

33de

4.8b

0.05

0abc

d40

0(S

unC

ure)

4.6a

6.9a

11.6

bcd

693b

c19

.1b

1.52

a0.

53b

8.05

a0.

34ab

c1.

99ab

0.39

bcd

7.7a

0.05

4ab

100

(Ure

a)1.

3d4.

8c9.

9cd

600c

d18

.2b

1.43

bc0.

51b

8.04

a0.

28de

1.78

d0.

40bc

d5.

6ab

0.04

4e20

0(U

rea)

2.3c

d4.

8c7.

6d53

6de

12.9

c1.

42bc

0.51

b8.

06a

0 .26

e1.

89ab

cd0.

34cd

e5.

5ab

0.04

6de

400

(Ure

a)1.

4d6.

6a7.

3d45

6e10

.0c

1.52

a0.

45c

8.06

a0.

21f

1.85

cd0.

36cd

e6.

0ab

0.05

1abc

Num

bers

ina

colu

mn

follo

wed

byth

esa

me

lett

erar

en

otsi

gnifi

can

tly

diff

eren

tatP

<0.

05.

1412

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1413

There was also relatively little difference among the amendment treatments.The high rates of the alfalfa amendments generally had higher residualinorganic N than the other treatments. This may reflect some additionalmineralization of organic N from the alfalfa amendments towards the endof the experiment. Residual available P, K, and S and total P were generallyhigher in the alfalfa amended treatments compared to the urea treatments,indicating that the alfalfa amendment also contributes significantly to P, Kand S fertility, although the effect of this contribution on yield was maskedin this experiment by the addition of basal P, K and S to all treatments. Allthe amendments tended to increase soil total N content with increasing rateof addition to a similar magnitude, not surprising given that the same ratesof total N were used. The amendments had little or no influence on soil pH.Any effects on electrical conductivity (EC) were also small. Organic carbonconcentrations tended to be slightly higher in alfalfa amended treatmentsthan for urea, especially at high rates of addition, although the differenceswere not great, and not much different from the control. It is anticipatedthat a single application of the alfalfa amendment would have relatively littleeffect on soil organic carbon content, as even four years of application of cat-tle manure at similar N rates was found to have no significant effect on totalorganic carbon levels (Assefa et al., 2004). Amendment with alfalfa or ureatended to have very little biologically significant effect on concentrations ofCu, Zn and Cd in the soil at the end of the experiment, although effects weresometimes statistically significant. There was a tendency for the amendmentsto be lower in residual soil micronutrient content, perhaps because of littleadded in the residue along with enhanced plant growth resulting in greaterremoval.

The DDG and WDG treatments (Tables 6 and 7) all had low content ofplant available inorganic N at the end of the experiments. The high rates ofurea had elevated nitrate nitrogen content, indicating some unused fertilizerurea N at these rates. The soil extractable P and K contents were not greatlyaltered, comparing initial content to those measured at the end after 5 weeksof canola growth. Treatment also had relatively little effect, but with DDGand WDG amendments generally resulting in slightly, although not alwayssignificantly, higher residual extractable P and K. Soil sulfate levels appearedto be little affected by treatment.

Consistent with the experiment for alfalfa powder, the total N levels wereelevated to about the same extent for the distillers grain and urea amend-ments, with the highest rates of either one producing significantly highertotal soil N contents. This residual N appears to exist mainly in the organicform and may be anticipated to contribute to increased N availability tosubsequent crops. The effects of the distillers grain amendments on totalP content compared to urea were small and often not significant. The ef-fects on soil pH were small and variable. Effects on salinity as revealed inE.C. measurements were also generally non significant for DDG and WDG.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E6

Soil

prop

erti

esin

drie

ddi

still

ers

grai

nam

endm

entt

rial

befo

rean

daf

ter

can

ola

har

vest

Fert

ilize

rra

teN

O3-N

NH

4-N

PK

SO4-S

Tot

alN

Tot

alP

EC

OC

Cu

Zn

Cd

Nkg

ha−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1m

gg−

1m

gg−

1pH

mS

cm−1

%µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1

Bef

ore

seed

ing

1.7

5.5

6.0

609

13.5

1.18

0.50

8.00

0.30

1.94

0.41

4.1

0.06

6A

fter

har

vest

0D

DG

2.2b

9.6a

5.7a

626a

9.1a

1.04

d0.

49c

8.08

ab0.

28b

1.88

a0.

47a

2.9b

0.07

1a10

0D

DG

1.9b

8.6a

5.0b

589b

8.9a

1.07

cd0.

49c

8.05

b0.

26c

1.86

a0.

42a

3.4a

0.07

0a20

0D

DG

1.3b

4.1c

4.7b

c57

0b8.

6a1.

16ab

c0.

50bc

8.08

ab0.

25cd

1.87

a0.

48a

2.9b

0.07

0a40

0D

DG

1.3b

5.5b

5.1b

532c

9.0a

1.21

ab0.

53a

8.07

ab0.

24de

1.94

a0.

38a

2.9b

0.06

5a10

0(U

rea)

1.5b

5.6b

4.3c

564b

9.0a

1.14

bcd

0.52

ab8.

10ab

0.24

de1.

89a

0.45

a3.

0ab

0.06

9a20

0(U

rea)

2.4b

5.0b

c4.

3c56

7b8.

9a1.

15ab

cd0.

50bc

8.06

ab0.

23e

1.88

a0.

44a

2.9b

0.06

9a40

0(U

rea)

35.9

a6.

0b4.

5bc

569b

8.9a

1.27

a0.

49c

7.99

c0.

35a

1.92

a0.

46a

2.8b

0.07

1a

Num

bers

ina

colu

mn

follo

wed

byth

esa

me

lett

erar

en

otsi

gnifi

can

tly

diff

eren

tatP

<0.

05.

1414

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E7

Soil

prop

erti

esin

wet

dist

iller

sgr

ain

amen

dmen

ttri

albe

fore

and

afte

rca

nol

ah

arve

st

Fert

ilize

rra

teN

O3-N

NH

4-N

PK

SO4-S

Tot

alN

Tot

alP

EC

OC

Cu

Zn

Cd

Nkg

ha−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1m

gg−

1m

gg−

1pH

mS

cm−1

%µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1µ

gg−

1

Bef

ore

seed

ing

1.7

3.6

5.0

601

11.6

1.05

0.49

7.97

0.29

1.87

0.49

4.6

0.07

2A

fter

har

vest

01.

7bc

4.8a

b5.

4b62

8a5.

4bc

1.10

d0.

52a

8.08

a0.

27b

1.88

bc0.

44a

3.7a

0.06

1b10

0W

DG

1.1c

4.9a

b5.

6b62

3a4.

9cd

1.22

abc

0.51

a8.

01b

0.27

b1.

95ab

0.46

a3.

2b0.

068a

b20

0W

DG

1.2c

5.2a

5.6b

619a

3.9c

d1.

16bc

d0.

55a

8.03

bc0.

27b

1.93

ab0.

46a

2.9b

c0.

069a

b40

0W

DG

1.8c

3.9c

7.1a

592b

8.7a

1.29

a0.

55a

7.96

c0.

27b

1.98

a0.

46a

3.0b

c0.

069a

b10

0(U

rea)

1.1c

5.3a

4.6b

588b

3.5d

1.14

dc0.

51a

7.99

b0.

24b

1.92

abc

0.46

a3.

0bc

0.07

4a20

0(U

rea)

15.2

b5.

4a5.

2b59

3b4.

2cd

1.08

d0.

50a

7.96

bc0.

29b

1.84

c0.

44a

2.8c

0.07

3a40

0(U

rea)

83.6

a4.

2bc

4.8b

556c

6.5b

1.24

ab0.

51a

7.84

d0.

57a

1.93

ab0.

45a

3.0b

c0.

071a

Num

bers

ina

colu

mn

follo

wed

byth

esa

me

lett

erar

en

otsi

gnifi

can

tly

diff

eren

tatP

<0.

05.

1415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

1416 P. Qian et al.

However, the highest urea rate treatment (400 kg N ha−1) generally had aslightly elevated EC compared to all other treatments and the initial soil. Asfor the alfalfa amendments, effects of DDG and WDG on soil organic carbonwere small and often not significant. Effects on soil residual extractable cop-per, zinc and cadmium concentrations in the soil were also small and withfew significant differences among treatments. These results indicate that sim-ilar to alfalfa, DDG and WDG amendment does not appear to be associatedwith any significant enhancement of functional and non-functional metaluptake or accumulation in soil compared to commercial fertilizer. Althoughresponse of soil properties to amendments varies with the characteristics ofthe amendment (Tejada and Gonzalez, 2006), in our study, the impact ofapplication of both alfalfa powders and distiller grains on soil propertiesis limited in most of soil variables measured. In general, the high rate oforganic amendment that is needed to effect a change in soil properties ismuch greater than the rate tested for effects on plant growth. This is par-ticularly true in our study where only one application of alfalfa powder ordistiller grains was made. Long-term effects, encompassing applications ofthese amendments made over several years, deserves further attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Amendment of soil with alfalfa powders and distiller grains was found tobe effective for increasing canola biomass yield. Per unit of nitrogen added,yields were less than that of urea when nitrogen was the only limitation,due to only a portion of the nitrogen in the amendment becoming availableover the five week period. However, when nutrients other than nitrogenwere limiting, canola dry matter yields with organic amendment approachedor exceeded that of urea, due to the ability of the amendments to supplyother nutrients in addition to nitrogen. The amendments did not haveany biologically significant effects on soil chemical parameters measuredincluding soluble metals, pH or salinity, but did contribute to some smallincreases in residual soil nutrients. Some initial reduction in germinationand emergence of canola plants at the highest rate of distillers grain wasobserved, the nature of which was not identified.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The financial support of Agriculture Development Fund is greatly ap-preciated.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. L., D. J. Schingoethe, K. F. Kalscheur, and A. R. Hippen. 2006. Evaluation of dried and wetdistillers grains included at two concentrations in the diets of lactating dairy cows. Journal of DairyScience 89: 3133–3142.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Use of Biosolids on Canola Growth 1417

Assefa, B., J. J. Schoenau, and M. C. J. Grevers. 2004. The effects of four annual applications of manureon Black Chernozem Soils. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 46: 639–646.

Berg, B., and E. Martzner. 1997. Effect of N deposition on decomposition of plant litter and soil organicmatter in forest ecosystems. Environmental Reviews 5: 1–25.

Brandyberry, S. D., T. Delcurto, and R. F. Angel. 1992. Physical form and frequency of alfalfa supplemen-tation for beef cattle winter grazing in Northern Great Basin rangeland. Proceedings, Western Section,America Society of Animal Science 43: 47–50.

Cromwell, G. L., K. L. Herkelman, and T. S. Stahly. 1993. Physical, chemical, and nutritional char-acteristics of distillers dried grains with solubles for chicks and pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71:679–686.

DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, T. G. Nagaraja, L. R. Corah, A. A. Beharka, and E. S. Vanzant. 1990. Com-parison of soybean meal/sorghum grain, alfalfa hay and dehydrated alfalfa pellets as supplementalprotein sources for beef cattle consuming dormant tallgrass-prairie forage. Journal of Animal Science68: 2901–2915.

Estell, R. E., E. L. Fredrickson, D. M. Anderson, and M. D. Remmenga. 2005. Effects of γ -terpinene,terpinolene, α-copaene, and α-terpinene on consumption of alfalfa pellets by sheep. Journal ofAnimal Science 83: 1967–1971.

Havlin, J. L., J. D. Beaton, S. L. Tisdale, and W. L. Nelson. 2005. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers, 7th ed. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, J. M. E., D. Reicosky, B. Sharratt, M. Lindstrom, W. Voorhees, and L. Carpenter-Boggs. 2004.Characterization of soil amended with the by-product of corn stover fermentation. Soil Science Societyof America Journal 68: 139–147.

Lentz, S. F. 2001. Method of application organic fertilizer. US patent No. US 6,325,837B1.Lipoth, S. L., and J. J. Schoenau. 2007. Copper, zinc and cadmium accumulation in two prairie soils and

crops as influenced by repeated applications of manure. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science170: 1–9.

Moore, A., A. Alva, H. Collins, and R. Boydston. 2009. Biofuel byproducts as nitrogen sources for crops.Proceeding of the Western Nutrient Management Conference 8: 51–55.

Pedersen, C., M. G. Boersma, and H. H. Stein. 2007. Digestibility of energy and phosphorus in ten samplesof distillers dried grains with solubles fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 85: 1168–1176.

Qian, P., J. J. Schoenau, and R. E. Karamanos. 1994. Simultaneous extraction of available phosphorusand potassium with a new test: A modification of Kelowna extraction. Communications in Soil Scienceand Plant Analysis 25: 627–636.

Qian, P., J. J. Schoenau, T. King, and C. Fatteicher. 2008. Effect of soil amendment with alfalfa pellets andglycerol on nutrition and growth of wheat. Soils and Crops Workshop. Saskatoon, Canada: Universityof Saskatchewan (CD).

Tejada, M., and J. L. Gonzalez. 2006. The relationships between erodibility and erosion in a soil treatedwith two organic amendments. Soil Tillage Research 91: 186–198.

Thomas, R., R. W. Sheard, and I. P. Moyer. 1967. Comparison of conventional and automated proceduresfor nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium analysis of plant material using a single digest. AgronomyJournal 99: 240–243.

Wang, D., and D. W. Anderson. 1998. Direct measurement of organic carbon content in soils by the LecoCR-12 carbon analyzer. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 29: 15–21.

Xuan, T. D., and E. Tsuzuki. 2001. Effects of application of alfalfa pellet on germination and growth ofweeds. Journal of Crop Production 4: 303–312.

Yakle, G. A., and R. M. Cruse. 1983. Corn plant residue age and placement effects on early corn growth.Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63: 871–877.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

23 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014