ORI GI NAL ARTI CLE

Effects of organic wastes digestion for biogas production
on mineral nutrient availability of biogas effluents
Kurt Mo¨ller

Walter Stinner
Received: 6 November 2009 / Accepted: 7 January 2010 / Published online: 20 January 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract Organic farming systems are character-
ized by the strong regulation of the import of
nutrients into the farming system to replace nutrient
losses via sold products. In the present study mineral
nutrient flows and balances of P, K and magnesium
(Mg) were analysed for a mixed organic cropping
system with dairy husbandry and for a stockless
organic farming system. Also the influence of biogas
digestion of farmyard residues (stable wastes, crop
residues, etc.) as well as the effect of the import of
substrates for biogas digestion on plant mineral
nutrient uptake and farmgate nutrient balances was
analysed. The objectives of the current study were;
(1) to study the effects of anaerobic digestion of cattle
manure and crop residues on plant mineral nutrient
uptake; and (2) to model nutrient flows and balances
related to the input of different kind of substrates for
biogas digestion at the farmgate. Results indicated
that slurry digestion did not influence plant P and K
uptake. Import of single allowed substrates for
digestion would lead to large imbalances in nutrient
inputs compared to withdrawals. Most of the suited
substrates for biogas digestion were associated with
large K surpluses and insufficient P returns in
comparison to mineral nutrient outputs via sold
animal and plant products.
Keywords Organic farming Á Nutrient cycles Á
Phosphorus Á Potassium Á Magnesium
Abbreviations
K Potassium
DS Digested slurry treatment
DS ? FER Digestion of slurry, crop residues and
purchased substrates treatment
DS ? FR Digestion of slurry and crop residues
treatment
FYM Farmyard manure treatment
Mg Magnesium
N Nitrogen
P Phosphorus
US Undigested slurry treatment
wL Usual stockless management treatment
without livestock
wL-FR Stockless management with digestion
of field residues treatment
wL-FER Stockless management with digestion
of field residues and purchased
substrates treatment
K. Mo¨ller (&)
Department of Plant Nutrition, Universita¨t Hohenheim,
70593 Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: kurt.moeller@alumni.tum.de
W. Stinner
Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum, Torgauer Straße
116, 04347 Leipzig, Germany
1 3
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
DOI 10.1007/s10705-010-9346-8
Introduction
The literature on anaerobic manure digestion mainly
focuses on the influence of digestion on (1) manure
plant N availability after field spreading (Mo¨ller et al.
2008, and references therein), (2) manure dry matter
reduction (e.g., Koriath et al. 1985), (3) trace gas
emissions (e.g., Clemens et al. 2006; Mo¨ller and
Stinner 2009), (4) odour reduction (e.g., Powers et al.
1999), and (5) pathogen removal (e.g., Besson et al.
1987). During anaerobic digestion, bacteria break
down organic matter resulting in more inorganic
nutrient forms. While there is evidence that anaerobic
digestion may help alleviate some of the environ-
mental concerns associated with animal agriculture
(Clemens et al. 2006; Michel et al. 2010), there is
little research on the potential influences of biogas
digestion on P mobility in manure. Biological
decomposition during storage or during anaerobic
digestion contributes to the transfer of nutrients,
especially N and P, between different fractions and
chemical forms in manure (Henze et al. 1996).
Microbial decomposition or anaerobic digestion may
also change the pH and the chemical form of salts and
metals, such as Fe, Ca and Mg, which may affect the
amount of suspended phosphates, as a result of
precipitation processes (Henze et al. 1996; Sommer
and Husted 1995). Gu¨ngo¨r and Karthikeyan (2008)
reported that it appeared that the fraction of dissolved
P mineralized during anaerobic digestion became
subsequently associated with particulate-bound sol-
ids. The water-extractable P fraction in undigested
manure ranged from 45% to 70% of total P, which
reduced substantially after anaerobic digestion to
25–45% of total P. Anaerobic digestion of dairy
manure appears to reduce the fraction of P that is
immediately available by increasing the stability of
the solid phases controlling P solubility (Gu¨ngo¨r and
Karthikeyan 2008). Gooch et al. (2007) collected
samples from dairy farms and found that orthophos-
phate concentrations were generally higher in
digested effluent than influent. Their data show
orthophosphate making up 48–61% of total P in
undigested and 52–74% in digested manure. How-
ever, limited information is available whether
changes in immediately available P during anaerobic
digestion affect the in situ plant P nutrient availability
of manures. There are reports that anaerobic digestion
does not substantially affect manure P supply (Mo¨ller
and Vogt 2003; Loria and Sawyer 2005), other reports
found a significant influence (Messner and Amberger
1987). Due to a potential increase in the use of
anaerobic digestion systems for energy production,
and the problems in organic farming arising from the
exclusive use of fertilisers with low solubility, there is
a need for a reliable estimate of the effect of digestion
on crop mineral nutrient availability.
Currently, the use of sewage sludge within organic
farming systems is prohibited in Europe (EC regula-
tion 2092/91) due to concerns about pathogens and
viruses and levels of potentially toxic elements
(Schnug et al. 1996; Stockdale et al. 2000; Kirchmann
and Ryan 2004). Furthermore, the use of organic
municipal wastes is also restricted. Therefore, in
organic farming the cycles of nutrients are not closed
as postulated by the basic ideas of organic farming.
The import of substrates to enhance methane-yields of
a biogas digester allows organic farms to increase crop
yields (Mo¨ller et al. 2008; Stinner et al. 2008) and to
substitute nutrients losses by sold animal and plant
products (Mo¨ller 2009). The introduction of purchased
manures, either for digestion or for a direct application
on soils is regulated according to EC regulation (EC
regulation 2092/91) mainly by N inputs (max.
40 kg N ha
-1
year
-1
) but not by mineral macronutri-
ent flows. However, the different kinds of substrates
for digestion differ largely in their composition,
affecting the nutrient inputs and the achievable energy
yields (Table 1). Whole-farm budgets and field bal-
ances can indicate potential problems arising from
either a nutrient surplus, or froma deficit in a long term
run. To quantify nutrient cycles it is necessary to know
the amounts of nutrients crossing those boundaries.
In the period 2002–2005, field experiments were
carried out to study the effects of different manuring
treatments and of biogas digestion of farm residues on
the nutrient cycles and on the yields of two organic
farming systems: an organically managed mixed dairy
farming system with arable land and grassland (for
more details: Mo¨ller et al. 2008) and an arable organic
farming system without animals (for more details:
Stinner et al. 2008). The objectives of the current
study were (1) to study the effects of anaerobic
digestion of cattle manure and of crop residues on
plant P uptake as an indicator for plant P availability
of applied manures, and (2) to model nutrient flows
and balances related to the input of different kind of
substrates at the farm gate.
396 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
Materials and methods
Experimental site
The experiments were carried out between 2002/03
and 2004/05 on the Agricultural Research Station of
the University of Giessen, which is located near the
city of Wetzlar (latitude 50°24
0
N, longitude 8°15
0
E,
altitude 210 m). The soils are silty loams derived
from loess with pH values of 6.6–6.9 and are
classified according to the standard international
FAO soil classification system as Calcic Luvisols.
Extractable soil P and K contents were determined
from each of the plots by extraction with a solution of
CAL (calcium, acetate, lactate) at pH 4.1 (Schu¨ller
1969; Hoffmann 1991). The P
CAL
content of arable
land was rated as intermediate and averaged about
5.02 mg P and the soil K
CAL
content was rated as
low-intermediate and averaged about 10.6 mg K per
100 g soil. Both, the soil P
CAL
content (0.86 mg P
per 100 g soil) and the soil K
CAL
content (3.79 mg K
per 100 g soil) on grassland were very low.
In trial series I, the field experiments were designed
as a mixed system with dairy husbandry and with the
11.4 ha of farmland subdivided into eight fields of
arable land (70%, or 8 ha) and one field of grassland
(30%, or 3.4 ha), in accordance to the situation found
in the experimental research station. All primary
(plant) production required to feed the dairy cows was
included and no feeds were purchased (with exception
of mineral feed). The stock of the research station
consisted of 84 Holstein cows ? replacement (0.8
livestock units’ ha
-1
) with a milk yield of approxi-
mately 7,700 kg milk per cow per year. The stable
was divided into two compartments, one based on
solid farmyard manure with high straw additions and
one with low straw additions resulting in liquid slurry
as stable wastes. The system conforms to a holistic
approach and allows the quantification of all nutrient
flows and pathways. The designed arable 8-year crop
rotation includes: (1–2) clover/grass-ley (2 years); (3)
winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) ? cover crops; (4)
potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), and silage maize (Zea
mays) on a separate field; (5) winter rye (Secale
cereale) ? cover crops; (6) spring peas (Pisum
sativum) ? cover crops; (7) spelt (T. aestivum
ssp. spelta) ? cover crops, and (8) spring wheat
(T. aestivum) with undersown clover/grass-ley
(Table 2). In position 4 of the crop rotation two crops
were scheduled: maize at 80% of the area and potatoes
at 20% of the area. For technical reasons—it was not
possible to crop both crops within the same plots—
and to test both crops as an integral part of the whole
system, a field experiment was carried out on a nearby
field to assess the effect of the treatments on maize
growth. Therefore, on arable land trials consisted of
nine field experiments. Eight of them were carried out
in the same place over the whole period of experi-
ments. One of them (maize) was carried out on
separate fields. Furthermore, to consider grassland as
part of the farming system, a supplemental field
experiment took place on grassland, also fixed in place
over the entire period of investigations. Maize and
grassland field trials included non-manured reference
plots. Some more details of the agricultural manage-
ment were presented by Mo¨ller et al. (2008). Five
manuring treatments (Table 3) were implemented in
trial series I (in parenthesis: used abbreviations).
Table 1 Mineral nutrient inputs of different substrates for digestion related to the import of 40 kg N ha
-1
(kg ha
-1
), own values,
supplemented by a recompilation of Sommers and Sutton (1980) for municipal wastes
Winter rye Potatoes Silage maize Grassland Clover/
grass-ley
Municipal
wastes
P 9.33 8.04 8.30 4.27–4.84 4.07 8.46
K 13.3 57.8 40.3 30.6–44.0 37.2 20.6
Mg 3.20 2.81 5.49 4.24–3.56 3.02 –
Methane yields
(Nm
3
CH
4
per 40 kg N)
a
842 881 1,047 480 345 715
a
Estimated according to methane yields reported by Keymer (2004); Nm
3
= normalized cubic meter of methane (1 Nm
3
CH
4
is
equivalent to approximately 1 l diesel fuel)
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 397
1 3
Table 2 Crop rotation
Year Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Field 8
Trial series I
2001
a
CG 1 CG 2 WW ? CC Pot/Sil WR ? CC SP ? CC Splt ? CC SW ? CG
2002
a
CG 2 WW ? CC Pot/Sil WR ? CC SP ? CC Splt ? CC SW ? CG CG 1
2003 WW ? CC Pot/Sil WR ? CC SP ? CC Splt ? CC SW ? CG CG 1 CG 2
2004 Pot/Sil WR ? CC SP ? CC Splt ? CC SW ? CG CG 1 CG 2 WW ? CC
2005 WR ? CC SP ? CC Splt ? CC SW ? CG CG 1 CG 2 WW ? CC Pot/Sil
Trial series II
2001
a
CG 1 Pot WW ? CC SP ? CC WW ? CC SW ? CG
2002
a
Pot WW ? CC SP ? CC WW ? CC SW ? CG CG 1
2003 WW ? CC SP ? CC WW ? CC SW ? CG CG 1 Pot
2004 SP ? CC WW ? CC SW ? CG CG 1 Pot WW ? CC
2005 SW ? CG
a
Implementation period of the field trials
CG 1, clover/grass-ley year 1; CG 2, clover/grass-ley year 2 (only trial series I); WW ? CC, winter wheat ? cover crop; Pot/Sil,
potatoes and silage maize (trial series I); Pot, potatoes (trial series II); WR ? CC, winter rye ? cover crop; SP ? CC, spring
peas ? cover crop; Splt ? CC, spelt ? cover crop; SW ? CG, spring wheat underseeded with clover/grass-ley
Table 3 Manuring treatments
Treatment Abbreviation Stable wastes Management of crop residues and
cover crops
Series I
Solid farmyard manure FYM Straw-based solid farmyard
manure, stored in covered
boxes
Cereal straw was harvested and the
cover crops were incorporated on
field
Liquid undigested slurry US Liquid slurry, not digested,
stored in closed boxes
Wheat straw was harvested and the
straw of the other crops as well as
the cover crops biomass were
incorporated on field
Liquid digested slurry DS
Digestion of slurry and field residues DS ? FR Liquid slurry, digested, after
digestion stored in closed
boxes
The straw of all crops as well as the
cover crops were harvested,
digested, and after digestion
reallocated as manure within crop
rotation
Digestion of slurry, field residues
and external substrates at
40 kg N ha
-1
DS ? FER
Series II
Usual stockless management without
livestock
wL Not available Remained on field (ploughed in,
mulched), inclusive clover/grass-ley
and cover crops
Stockless management with
digestion of field residues
wL-FR Not available Harvested (inclusive clover/grass-ley),
digested, effluents reallocated as
manure within crop rotation
Stockless management with
digestion of field residues, and
external substrates at 40 kg N ha
-1
wL-FER Not available Harvested (inclusive clover/grass-ley),
digested, effluents reallocated as
manure within crop rotation
398 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
Manure treatments in the mixed farming system
Solid farmyard manure (FYM)
Waste from stable (urine and faeces) with high
additions of straw from animal bedding (daily use of
approximately 6.7 kg straw per livestock unit)
results in solid farmyard manure with little amounts
of dung water/urine running off (3% of circulating
P). The manures were stored in covered boxes. The
straw for animal bedding was harvested from all
cereal crops. Cover crop biomass was mulched and
ploughed in.
Undigested liquid slurry (US)
Liquid cattle slurry was collected from the stable and
stored in closed boxes until field spreading. Bedding
consisted of a mixture of daily use of 0.6 kg straw
and 2 kg of lime (DM content: 94%, CaCO
3
: 60%,
MgCO
3
: 25%) per livestock unit. Straw of winter and
spring wheat was removed (harvested) for animal
bedding in the stable. The remaining crop residues
and the cover crop biomass in the field were mulched
and ploughed in.
Digested liquid slurry (DS)
Liquid cattle slurry was collected as described for the
US system and digested. After digestion, effluents
were stored in closed boxes. The management of crop
residues and cover crops matches the description of
the US treatment.
Digestion of liquid slurry and field
residues (DS ? FR)
Liquid cattle slurry was collected and digested as
described in the DS system. Straw not needed for
animal bedding (straw of peas, rye and spelt) and the
cover crop biomass were also harvested for diges-
tion, in comparison e.g., to DS, where the residues
not needed for animal bedding were left on the field
and incorporated directly. The effluents of the
digester were stored, returned and reallocated within
the crop rotation as mobile manures for the non-
legume crops.
Digestion of liquid slurry, field residues
and external substrates (DS ? FER)
As in DS ? FR, stable wastes and crop residues were
collected, digested and reallocated within the crop
rotation. Additionally, external substrates (a mixture
of clover/grass and maize silage) were digested in
amounts according to the EC guideline for organic
farming, resulting in an additional N input
(40 kg N ha
-1
year
-1
). The effluents of the digester
were spread within the crop rotation as mobile
manures for the non-legume crops.
Treatments in the stockless system
In the trial series II, representing a crop rotation of a
stockless organic farming system, three manuring
treatments were performed (Table 3). The cropping
system consisted of a 6-year crop rotation which
includes: (1) clover/grass-ley; (2) potatoes; (3) winter
wheat ? cover crops; (4) spring peas ? cover crops;
(5) winter wheat ? cover crops; (6) spring wheat
with undersown clover/grass-ley (Table 2). For
more details consult Stinner et al. (2008). The imple-
mented treatments were (in parenthesis are the used
abbreviations):
Stockless system without livestock husbandry
with the common mulching practice (wL)
The plant biomass of the clover/grass-ley, cover
crops and the crop residues remained on the field as
immobile manures, broadcasted and ploughed into
the soil. No mobile manure was available. The
clover/grass-ley was cut with a mulching machine,
which chops the plant material into small pieces.
Stockless system with digestion of field
residues (wL-FR)
The clover/grass-ley, cover crops, and crop residues
(straw of wheat and pea crops) were harvested,
removed and digested. The effluents of the digester
were returned and reallocated within the crop rotation
as mobile manures.
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 399
1 3
Stockless system with digestion of field residues
and external substrates (wL-FER)
The clover/grass-ley, cover crops, and crop residues
were harvested, removed and digested, as described
for wL-FR. External substrates (a mixture of clover/
grass and maize silage) were digested in amounts
according to the EC guideline for organic farming,
resulting in an additional N input of 40 kg N ha
-1
year
-1
. The effluents of the digester were returned
and reallocated within the crop rotation as mobile
manures.
All field experiments were carried out with four
replicates in a randomized block design with a plot
size of 72 m
2
(6 m 9 12 m). Each crop was harvested
annually. This means that in each of the eight fields of
the crop rotation in trial series I and in each of the six
fields in trial series II a field experiment was
established for measuring the particular effects of
the treatments on the specific crop. The results
presented in trial series I were obtained between
2003 and 2005. The results presented in trial series II
were derived from the seasons 2002/03 (1st year) and
2003/04 (2nd year). Because of delays in digestion
and technical problems with the biogas digester in the
period 2001/02, manuring of winter wheat and potato
crops took place too late in the season. Some technical
problems with the biogas digester in 2003 and 2004
resulted in losses of liquid effluents in both years for
trial series II, with the consequence, that the spring
wheat did not get the designated amounts of liquid
effluents. Thus, the results of spring wheat obtained in
2002 (1st year) and 2005 (2nd year) were used to
estimate the effect on spring wheat nutrient supply
and growth, because in those years the crop manage-
ment of spring wheat met the full system approach
with precrop and manuring. Results obtained with
spring wheat in 2003 and 2004 were omitted.
The plots in both trial series were set at fixed
places over the whole period of the experiments (with
exception of maize). This means, for example in trial
series I, that after harvest of the maincrop peas, spelt
was sown in exactly the same place where the peas
were cropped the previous year.
In trial series II, the plant products harvested on
arable land were sold as grains, tubers, etc. In trial
series I, the plant products harvested on arable land
were partially fed to animals and partially sold as
grains, tubers, etc. Feeding of the cattle was based on
the fodder harvested from grassland and the clover/
grass-ley, the silage maize, 50% of the harvested
grain peas and 100% of the harvested rye and
spring wheat, 10% of the harvested potato tubers
and purchased mineral feed (the equivalent of
253 g P ha
-1
year
-1
or 316 g P year
-1
per livestock
unit). This matches with the composition of the entire
diet and the rest of the feed used, which did not come
directly from the experiments. Also the used amount
and composition of the bedding material matches
with the straw which did not come from the
experiments.
The term ‘‘manure’’ was used in the present study
as ‘‘all kind of organic residues left on the field’’:
‘‘immobile manures’’ were mulched clover/grass-ley,
crop residues and cover crops incorporated directly
into the soil. ‘‘Mobile manures’’ were added as stable
wastes or effluents of biogas digestion. The estima-
tion of the total amounts of available stable wastes as
mobile manures was carried out according to the P
cycle related to feed and straw for animal bedding
produced the year before (for more details: Mo¨ller
et al. 2008). Therefore, the reference period for
manuring in trial series I was 2002–2004. The P
contained in the manures is neither very mobile nor
leachable (Sommers and Sutton 1980; Petersen et al.
1998; Lambert et al. 2004). Therefore, it can be used
as a reference for assessing the amounts of manure.
Approximately 18% of the supplied P was absorbed
by the cattle and the rest was excreted in the faeces
(Fleischer 1998; Steinshamn et al. 2004). Therefore,
calculations of the available mobile manure have
been done using the following formula:
Total mobile manure-P in stable wastes
¼ 0:82 Âfeed ÀP þP in bedding material
Phosphorus exported with sold plant products was
not considered in manure calculations. The partition-
ing of the available manures on grassland and on
arable land was carried out exclusively according to
the respective contribution on the P supplied to the
stable by the feeds and bedding material (straw).
The distribution of the available mobile manures to
the non-legume arable crops was based on the type of
manure (solid or liquid) and on crop N needs (for
more details: Mo¨ller et al. 2008). Total mineral
nutrient (P, K, Mg) additions by immobile and mobile
manures are presented for trial series I in Tables 4
and 5, and for trial series II in Table 6. For more
400 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
T
a
b
l
e
4
T
o
t
a
l
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
o
f
P
,
K
a
n
d
M
g
f
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
r
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
a
n
d
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
,
m
e
a
n
v
a
l
u
e
s
2
0
0
3

2
0
0
5
)
,
s
e
r
i
e
s
I
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
F
Y
M
U
S
D
S
D
S
?
F
R
D
S
?
F
E
R
F
a
r
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
a
r
e
a
I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
b
M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
c
S
u
m
I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
S
u
m
I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
S
u
m
I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
S
u
m
I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
S
u
m
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
(
i
n
k
g
)
R
a
r
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
(
8
h
a
)
8
7
.
2
1
3
0
2
1
8
1
0
3
1
1
8
2
2
0
1
0
3
1
1
6
2
2
0
2
5
.
9
1
7
5
2
0
1
2
6
.
4
2
3
7
2
6
4
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
4
0
.
1
5
9
.
9

4
6
.
6
5
3
.
4
4
7
.
1
5
2
.
9
1
2
.
9
8
7
.
1
1
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
R
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
(
3
.
4
h
a
)
0
4
1
.
8
4
1
.
8
0
3
7
.
4
3
7
.
4
0
3
9
.
1
3
9
.
1
0
3
9
.
1
3
9
.
1
0
6
1
.
2
6
1
.
2
R
f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
(
1
1
.
4
h
a
)
8
7
.
2
1
7
2
2
5
9
1
0
3
1
5
5
2
5
8
1
0
3
1
5
5
2
5
9
2
5
.
9
2
1
4
2
4
0
2
6
.
4
2
9
9
3
2
5
P
o
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
(
i
n
k
g
)
R
a
r
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
(
8
h
a
)
7
3
2
1
,
0
3
5
1
,
7
6
7
9
1
8
9
0
8
1
,
8
2
6
9
2
3
9
2
1
1
,
8
4
4
2
5
3
1
,
5
9
6
1
,
8
4
9
2
6
9
2
,
0
6
5
2
,
3
3
4
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
4
1
.
4
5
8
.
6
5
0
.
3
4
9
.
7
5
0
.
1
4
9
.
9
1
3
.
7
8
6
.
3
1
1
.
5
8
8
.
5
R
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
(
3
.
4
h
a
)
0
3
5
5
3
5
5
0
2
8
4
2
8
4
0
2
6
7
2
6
7
0
2
6
7
2
6
7
0
5
4
0
5
4
0
R
f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
(
1
1
.
4
h
a
)
7
3
2
1
,
3
9
0
2
,
1
2
2
9
1
8
1
,
1
9
2
2
,
1
1
0
9
2
3
1
,
1
8
8
2
,
1
1
1
2
5
3
1
,
8
6
3
2
,
1
1
6
2
6
9
2
,
6
0
5
2
,
8
7
4
M
a
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
(
i
n
k
g
)
R
a
r
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
(
8
h
a
)
5
2
.
5
1
3
7
1
8
9
6
0
.
0
3
1
7
3
7
7
6
1
.
7
3
2
3
3
8
5
2
0
.
8
3
4
3
3
6
4
2
0
.
9
4
2
5
4
4
6
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
2
7
.
8
7
2
.
2
1
5
.
9
8
4
.
1
1
6
.
0
8
4
.
0
5
.
7
9
4
.
3
4
.
7
9
5
.
3
R
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
(
3
.
4
h
a
)
0
4
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
0
1
0
6
1
0
6
0
1
0
5
1
0
5
0
1
0
5
1
0
5
0
1
3
7
1
3
7
R
f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
(
1
1
.
4
h
a
)
5
2
.
5
1
7
7
2
3
0
6
0
.
0
4
2
4
4
8
4
6
1
.
7
4
2
8
4
9
0
2
0
.
8
4
4
8
4
6
9
2
0
.
9
5
6
1
5
8
2
M
i
n
e
r
a
l
n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
i
n
k
g
p
e
r
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
/
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
a
r
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
(
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
t
o
8
h
a
)
,
f
o
r
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
o
n
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
(
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
t
o
3
.
4
h
a
)
a
n
d
f
o
r
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
/
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
(
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
t
o
1
1
.
4
h
a
)
a
A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
m
a
n
u
r
i
n
g
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
3
b


I
m
m
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s


w
e
r
e
m
u
l
c
h
e
d
c
l
o
v
e
r
/
g
r
a
s
s
-
l
e
y
,
c
r
o
p
r
e
s
i
d
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
c
r
o
p
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
c


M
o
b
i
l
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s


w
e
r
e
a
d
d
e
d
a
s
s
t
a
b
l
e
w
a
s
t
e
s
o
r
e
f

u
e
n
t
s
o
f
b
i
o
g
a
s
d
i
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 401
1 3
details about the experimental design see Mo¨ller et al.
(2008) and Stinner et al. (2008). A more detailed
insight on internal farm nutrient flows is given by
Mo¨ller (2009).
Sampling of organic manures and plant biomass
Manures were sampled twice, at the time of collec-
tion before storing and just before field spreading.
The plant straw samples of cereals and peas at harvest
time were taken prior to grain harvesting. Grain
harvesting took place on an area of 15 m
2
using a
Wintersteiger harvester. The final tuber yield of
potatoes was measured by harvesting 15 m
2
by hand.
Yields of grassland and clover/grass-ley were mea-
sured by cutting an area of 15 m
2
at a height of
approximately 6–7 cm. More details are presented by
Mo¨ller et al. (2008).
Chemical analysis
Manure and plant samples were analysed for their
total N, P, K and Mg concentration. More details are
presented by Mo¨ller et al. (2008).
Statistical evaluation
The statistical evaluation was carried out by the SPSS
statistic package, Version 12.5. Results of field trials
were analysed by multiple analysis of variance. The
Tukey post-hoc test was used to test differences
among means when the F test (P B 0.05) was
significant. Statistical differences (P B 0.05) were
indicated by means sharing different small characters.
More details of the statistical model are presented for
trial series I by Mo¨ller et al. (2008) and for trial series
II by Stinner et al. (2008).
Quantification of mineral nutrient flows and balances
The farmgate balance was calculated as the differ-
ence between input and output flows of nutrients, and
the respective agricultural area or the amount of a
product produced at the farm scale. Mineral nutrient
element balances were firstly calculated for individ-
ual crops included in the crop rotation over a period
of 3 years for the trials in series I, and secondly over
a period of 2 years for the trials presented in series II.
Inputs at the field level were solid farmyard manure
and liquid dung water, liquid slurry (digested or not),
and effluents of the biogas digestion as liquid and
solid effluents. The output flows were the sold plant
and animal products. Element fluxes were estimated
by multiplication of dry matter flow with the element
concentrations. No leaching and no atmospheric
deposition were taken into account. The total element
balances of arable land were calculated by aggregat-
ing all individual crop balances obtained during the
reference time. Differences of the reference area in
series I between arable land and grassland were taken
in account by weighing according to the respective
surface area. Therefore, in series I the farmgate
balances were calculated by aggregating the values of
arable land and grassland according to their respec-
tive surface area. For calculations presented there
were eight fields in arable land representing an area
of 8 ha or 70% of the farmland area. Grassland area
represented 30% of the farmland area (i.e., 3.4 ha).
Table 5 Partitioning of mobile manures on arable land based on mineral nutrient flows (% of the circulating nutrient amounts), mean
of the experimental years 2003–2005, series I
Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium
Treatments
a
FYM US DS DS ?
FR
DS ?
FER
FYM US DS DS ?
FR
DS ?
FER
FYM US DS DS ?
FR
DS ?
FER
Winter wheat 3 21 21 16 13 10 21 22 23 20 4 21 19 14 12
Potatoes/silage maize 45 27 27 30 26 43 25 25 23 21 39 21 26 30 27
Winter rye 15 15 15 16 20 14 17 16 14 19 12 17 16 15 20
Spelt 15 15 15 16 19 14 18 18 20 17 13 18 14 15 18
Spring wheat 22 22 22 22 22 19 19 19 21 23 32 23 25 26 24
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
402 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
By this the ‘‘reference model farm’’ (for calculations)
includes a total of 11.4 ha.
Nutrient outputs from sold products obtained from
livestock husbandry were obtained by multiplication
of the total nutrient contained in feeds by the
retention in cattle rumen. The P retention was set as
18% of the fed P (Fleischer 1998; Steinshamn et al.
2004). The K output via the dairy husbandry (sold
milk) was assumed as 1.55 g K kg milk
-1
(Murthy
and Rhea 1967; Mallone´e et al. 1985; Lindmark-
Mansson et al. 2003; Fangueiro et al. 2008), which is
equivalent to approximately 12% of the total K intake
by feeds (Stewart et al. 1965; Ward 1966). The Mg
output via the dairy husbandry (sold milk) was
assumed as 0.12 g Mg kg milk
-1
(Murthy and Rhea
1967; Lindmark-Mansson et al. 2003) which is
equivalent to approximately 7% of the total Mg
intake by feeds.
The data about the nutrient composition of differ-
ent kind of substrates were obtained from different
sources to model the putative effect of different types
of substrates on farmgate mineral nutrient balances.
For winter rye, potatoes, silage maize, clover/grass-
silage and cereal straw the data obtained in the
present field trials were used. For the assessment of
nutrient flows related to the import of municipal
wastes the recompilations made by Ko¨rner et al.
(1999) and Sommers and Sutton (1980) were used.
Modelling the possible effects of the introduction of
sludge as substrate for biogas digestion on the
nutrient flow balances was carried out according to
data of Sommers and Sutton (1980).
Results
Mineral nutrient application in trial series I
The amounts of P circulating in organic manures
(mobile and immobile manures) did not differ
between the four treatments FYM, US, DS and
DS ? FR (Table 4) and ranged between 240 and
Table 6 Mineral nutrient additions to arable crops (kg ha
-1
) with immobile and mobile manures (MV 2003–2004), series II
Treatment
a
wL wL FR wL FER
Immobile
manures
b
Mobile
manures
c
Sum Immobile
manures
Mobile manures Sum Immobile
manures
Mobile manures Sum
Main crops Solid
effluents
Liquid
effluents
Solid
effluents
Liquid
effluents
Phosphorus
Clover/grass-ley 15.4 0 15.4 4.0 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 4.0
Potatoes 39.6 0 39.6 1.8 22.8 0 24.6 1.8 30.8 4.7 37.3
Winter wheat 3 6.6 0 6.6 6.2 0 6.9 13.1 6.5 0 10.8 17.3
Spring peas 18.8 0 18.8 3.7 0 0 3.7 3.8 0 0 3.8
Winter wheat 5 17.6 0 17.6 2.7 0 10.6 13.3 2.9 0 15.7 18.6
Spring wheat 18.0 0 18.0 3.2 13.7 8.5 25.4 3.5 14.3 25.6 43.4
Mean value 19.4 0 19.4 3.6 6.1 4.3 14.0 3.7 7.5 9.5 20.7
Potassium
Clover/grass-ley 64 0 64 15 0 0 15 13 0 0 13
Potatoes 363 0 363 11 87 0 98 11 154 28 193
Winter wheat 3 93 0 93 92 0 160 252 87 0 237 324
Spring peas 171 0 171 41 0 0 41 44 0 0 44
Winter wheat 5 162 0 162 28 0 259 287 30 0 293 323
Spring wheat 145 0 145 35 85 223 343 39 81 330 450
Mean value 166 0 166 37 29 107 173 38 39 148 225
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
b
‘‘Immobile manures’’ were mulched clover/grass-ley, crop residues and cover crops incorporated directly into the soil
c
‘‘Mobile manures’’ were added as stable wastes or effluents of biogas digestion
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 403
1 3
259 kg P year
-1
for the whole reference area (21.1–
22.7 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
). Due to digestion of pur-
chased substrates the absolute amounts of P in mobile
manures increased approximately by 30% (DS ?
FER, Table 4). Concerning K, no differences in total
amounts of added K were found between the four
treatments FYM, US, DS and DS ? FR (Table 5).
The total amounts of K circulating on the entire
reference farm in mobile and immobile manures
varied between 2,100 and 2,200 kg K year
-1
(184–
193 kg K ha
-1
year
-1
). Due to the inclusion of
external substrates, the total amounts of K added to
the soil as mobile manures increased by about
760 kg K year
-1
for the total reference area
(DS ? FER, Table 4). As shown by results presented
in Table 7, K concentration of feeds harvested on
arable land was only slightly influenced by the
additional K manuring via the effluents derived from
purchased substrates. Therefore, the sum of total K
intakes into the stable from feed produced on arable
land in the reference period 2002–2004 was approx-
imately 820 kg K year
-1
, as previously reported by
Mo¨ller (2009). The K flows in straw for bedding were
about 147 kg K year
-1
. Furthermore, K concentra-
tion and K uptake (Table 8) in grassland biomass was
significantly higher due to additional organic manur-
ing (total intake into the stable: 510 kg K year
-1
).
Therefore, the total K intakes from the reference area
into the stable were 1,506 kg K year
-1
(Mo¨ller 2009).
Mineral nutrient application in trial series II
In trial series II, there were no nutrient flows in a
field—stable—field chain and no nutrient absorption
by animals. Furthermore, no nutrient transfers
between grassland and arable land have to be taken
in account (no grassland present). In the control
treatment wL, no additions of mineral nutrient via
spread manures were performed. On the other hand,
biogas digestion of residues and reallocation of
effluents within the same crop rotation establish a
field—digester—field chain. No nutrient losses arose
from the passage through the digester (Field et al.
1984; Asmus et al. 1988; Kirchmann and Witter
1992). As shown by Stinner et al. (2008) for N,
digestion of field residues in the treatments DS-FR,
DS-FER, wl-FR and wL-FER resulted in a realloca-
tion of all nutrients within the cropping system via
the effluents (Table 4, 5 for the treatments DS-FR
and DS-FER and Table 6 for the treatment wl-FR and
wL-FER), to the advantage of some crops (e.g., trial
series II: wheat crops) and to the disadvantage of
other crops (e.g., trial series II: clover/grass-ley, peas,
potatoes).
Mineral nutrient content and uptake
In trial series I, the P concentration of the above-
ground biomass did not differ between the treatments,
neither in the main products (grains, tubers, etc.) nor
in the crop residues (Table 7). Therefore, the P
uptake was correlated to the DM yield (data not
shown). Regarding the K concentration of the
aboveground biomass, there were some differences
between treatments in specific crops. The application
of additional amounts of external digested manures
(DS ? FER) increased the K concentration of the
potato tubers and of the straw of winter wheat and
spelt significantly. Furthermore, reallocation of K in
effluents derived from harvested field residues
(DS ? FR) to the winter wheat crop enhanced the
straw K concentration significantly. The total above-
ground biomass K uptake (grains, tubers, field
residues, silage maize and clover/grass-ley) through-
out the entire crop rotation on the arable land
(182 kg K ha
-1
) was in DS ? FER approximately
7.5% higher than in the other four treatments
(169 kg K ha
-1
) (data not shown). Significant differ-
ences were measured exclusively for the K uptake in
the crop residues (data not shown). Lowest uptake
was found in FYM (a mean of 63.4 kg K ha
-1
in the
straw of cereals and peas), intermediate K uptake was
found for US, DS and DS ? FR (about
74.6 kg K ha
-1
) and highest K uptake was found in
DS ? FER (87.2 kg K ha
-1
).
Differences in the Mg concentration in the above-
ground biomass depending on the treatment were
found only for winter rye grains and straw, indicating
lowest values for FYM (Table 7). The mean Mg
uptake by the aboveground biomass did not differ
between the treatments and accounted for approxi-
mately 15.0–16.3 kg Mg ha
-1
(data not shown).
In grassland, the P concentration mainly differed
between the unmanured control treatment and the
other treatments. Any addition of manure resulted in
a significant increase in P concentration in each of the
four cuts (Table 8). Addition of manures led to a
significant increase of the K concentration in those
404 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
cuts that immediately followed manure application in
spring. A particular increase was found for the plots
amended with additional amounts of external sub-
strates (DS ? FER). In the second half of the season
the concentrations decreased in all treatments, result-
ing in an equalization of the values measured. Solely
in DS ? FER, higher concentrations until the end of
the season were recorded. Mg concentrations were
Table 7 Mineral nutrient (P, K, Mg) concentration (%) of
main products and crop residues in trial series I (mean value
2003–2005), statistical differences (P B 0.05) between
treatments within single crops and as a mean of some crops
were indicated by means sharing different small characters
Main product (e.g., grains, tubers, etc.) Crop residues (straw)
Treatment
a
FYM US DS DS ? FR DS ? FER FYM US DS DS ? FR DS ? FER
P concentration
Clover/grass-ley 1 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.34 – – – – –
Clover/grass-ley 2 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 – – – – –
Winter wheat 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Potatoes 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 – – – – –
Maize 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 – – – – –
Winter rye 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13
Spring peas 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.52 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10
Spelt 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.39 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10
Spring wheat 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08
Mean value non-legumes 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 – – – – –
Mean value legumes 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.40 – – – – –
K concentration
Clover/grass-ley 1 2.94 2.88 2.91 2.84 2.87 – – – – –
Clover/grass-ley 2 2.64 2.60 2.62 2.55 2.67 – – – – –
Winter wheat 0.49 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.84a 1.03b 1.00b 1.17c 1.32d
Potatoes 2.32ab 2.22a 2.31ab 2.23a 2.49b – – – – –
Maize 1.12 1.05 1.01 1.06 1.05 – – – – –
Winter rye 0.57 0.59 0.55 0.56 0.56 1.49 1.48 1.46 1.48 1.65
Spring peas 1.34 1.25 1.15 1.14 1.13 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.72
Spelt 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.88ab 1.02b 0.86a 0.83a 0.98b
Spring wheat 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.80 0.87 0.88 0.79 0.79
Mean value non-legumes 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.67 – – – – –
Mean value legumes 2.31 2.24 2.22 2.18 2.22 – – – – –
Mg concentration
Clover/grass-ley 1 0.232 0.226 0.234 0.243 0.233 – – – – –
Clover/grass-ley 2 0.244 0.234 0.231 0.235 0.227 – – – – –
Winter wheat 0.121 0.111 0.121 0.122 0.121 0.063 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.060
Potatoes 0.108 0.109 0.113 0.111 0.114 – – – – –
Maize 0.136 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.143 – – – – –
Winter rye 0.097a 0.101b 0.097ab 0.102b 0.101ab 0.042a 0.042a 0.048ab 0.047ab 0.049b
Spring peas 0.128 0.135 0.124 0.125 0.125 0.101 0.103 0.107 0.102 0.103
Spelt 0.129 0.129 0.130 0.130 0.132 0.046 0.049 0.051 0.046 0.052
Spring wheat 0.113 0.115 0.118 0.116 0.117 0.058 0.052 0.055 0.054 0.058
Mean value non-legumes 0.118 0.118 0.120 0.121 0.121
Mean value legumes 0.201 0.198 0.196 0.201 0.195
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 405
1 3
generally larger in later cuts, and the Mg concentra-
tions were negatively affected through the application
of additional manures in DS ? FER. The P uptake in
the grassland biomass was lowest in the unmanured
control treatment (12.8 kg P ha
-1
) and highest in
DS ? FER (20.7 kg P ha
-1
). Similarly, the K uptake
was lowest in the unmanured plots (96 kg K ha
-1
) and
highest with DS ? FER (188 kg K ha
-1
). No differ-
ences were found between the other treatments
(approximately 140 kg K ha
-1
). No significant differ-
ences were found regarding the Mg uptake by the total
aboveground biomass, in spite of significant differ-
ences in dry matter yields (Mo¨ller et al. 2008). The Mg
uptake ranged fromapproximately 13–16 kg Mg ha
-1
across treatments. The relations between the nutrients
N, P and K varied largely in the grassland biomass
depending on the treatments. The K/P ratio was
significantly influenced only through the input of
additional substrates (DS ? FER). The grassland in
unmanured plots was able to take more Nup in relation
to P and K than the manured plots.
In trial series II, no differences between the
treatments in mineral nutrient concentration (P, K,
Mg) were found in the saleable products (tubers and
grains) (results not shown). No effects were found on
Mg concentration and only minimal effects on P
concentration of the crop residues. The K concentra-
tion of crop residues (cereal and pea straw, clover/
grass-ley) was significantly, but not uniformly
affected by the treatment. Concerning the total plant
P uptake, the highest P uptake was found for the
clover/grass-ley, the lowest for spring wheat, and
intermediate values for the remaining crops (Table 9).
No differences, as a mean of all crops, were found
between the treatments. The mean total plant P uptake
in the aboveground biomass ranged from 23.4 to
24.4 kg P ha
-1
. As found for trial series I, the P
uptake by saleable products in non-legume crops
correlated to the DMyield. Mean P uptake of all crops,
and therefore also P outputs via sold plant products,
were found lowest in wL (13.3 kg P ha
-1
) and highest
in wl-FR (14.2 kg P ha
-1
). No differences in P uptake
were recorded for the mean of crop residues.
No differences in K uptake were found between
the treatments, neither for the saleable products, nor
for crop residues and the total aboveground biomass
(Table 9). However, significant differences between
the treatments were found in some of the single crops.
In potatoes, where large amounts of K fixed in the
biomass of the clover/grass-ley were removed for
digestion the previous year in both biogas treatments,
the highest K concentration were found in wL, where
the clover/grass-ley high in K were left on field. High
amounts of effluents were reallocated in wL-FR and
wL-FER to positions 5 and 6 of the crop rotation
(winter and spring wheat), as described in Table 6,
resulting in a significant increase of the K uptake by
grains, by straw and as a sum of both.
Table 8 Mineral nutrient concentration (%) and mineral nutrient uptake (kg ha
-1
) of grassland, trial series I (mean value 2003–
2005), statistical differences (P B 0.05) between treatments were indicated by means sharing different small characters
P concentration K concentration Mg concentration
Treatment
a
Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4
Unmanured 0.232a 0.252a 0.231a 0.227a 1.89a 1.87a 1.50a 1.54a 0.189 0.247b 0.319b 0.304b
FYM 0.277b 0.296b 0.281c 0.253b 2.23b 2.26b 1.80b 1.70ab 0.185 0.238ab 0.317b 0.304b
US 0.257b 0.280b 0.252b 0.266b 2.25b 2.20b 1.64ab 1.73ab 0.181 0.239ab 0.317b 0.311b
DS 0.258b 0.297b 0.265bc 0.264b 2.25b 2.24b 1.63ab 1.74ab 0.183 0.246b 0.313b 0.334b
DS ? FER 0.263b 0.290b 0.273c 0.276b 2.50c 2.67c 2.16c 1.93b 0.170 0.214a 0.266a 0.232a
N uptake K uptake N/K ratio P uptake N/P ratio K/P ratio Mg uptake
Unmanured 125a 95.7a 1.31c 12.8a 9.76b 7.48a 13.2a
FYM 155b 141b 1.10b 18.6c 8.33a 7.58a 15.7a
US 150b 132b 1.14b 16.7b 8.98a 7.90a 15.4a
DS 155b 142b 1.09b 18.2bc 8.52a 7.80a 16.0a
DS ? FER 171c 188c 0.91a 20.7d 8.26a 9.08b 15.2a
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
406 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
The mean plant Mg uptake in the aboveground
biomass significantly differed between the treatments
(Table 9). The presented results also show differ-
ences in the mean Mg uptake by the saleable
products, which correlated to the DM yields. No
differences in Mg uptake were found for the crop
residues.
Farmgate mineral nutrient balances
Total yearly nutrient inputs at the farmgate in trial
series I for the entire reference area (11.4 ha) were
the inputs via purchased mineral feed (2.9 kg P,
1.74 kg Mg), seed potatoes (0.14 kg P, 2 kg K and
0.44 kg Mg) and seeds (3.5 kg P, 8.5 kg K and
1.45 kg Mg). In the treatments based on liquid slurry
(US, DS, DS ? FR and DS ? FER) additionally
480 kg Mg were introduced for the entire reference
area via the lime, which was used for bedding animals.
In trial series II, nutrient inputs for the entire reference
area (6 ha) were seed potatoes (0.7 kg P, 10 kg K and
2.2 kg Mg) and seeds (5.8 kg P, 7.1 kg K and
1.36 kg Mg). In the treatments DS ? FER and wL-
FER additionally nutrient inputs via purchased
Table 9 Mineral nutrient (P, K, Mg) uptake (kg ha
-1
) of the
aboveground biomass, in the saleable main products (=outputs)
and in crop residues, trial series II (mean value 2003–2004),
statistical differences (P B 0.05) between treatments within
single crops and as a mean of all crops were indicated by
means sharing different small characters
Main saleable products
(tubers and grains)
b
Crop residues
(clover/grass-ley and straw)
R aboveground biomass
Treatments
a
wL wL-FR wL-FER wL wL-FR wL-FER wL wL-FR wL-FER
P uptake
Clover/grass-ley – – – 40.0 39.9 38.7 40.0 39.9 38.7
Potatoes 22.8 23.0 21.0 – – – 22.8 23.0 21.0
Winter wheat 3 19.0 21.2 19.5 5.62 6.46 5.90 24.6 27.7 25.4
Spring peas 14.7 13.6 14.5 4.85 4.04 4.80 19.6b 17.6a 19.3b
Winter wheat 5 15.4 17.7 16.0 6.53 6.81 6.73 21.9 24.5 22.7
Spring wheat 7.69a 9.73b 10.6b 3.74a 4.12ab 4.40b 11.4a 13.9b 15.0b
Mean value 13.3a 14.2b 13.6ab 10.1 10.2 10.1 23.4 24.4 23.7
K uptake
Clover/grass-ley – – – 380 369 379 380 369 379
Potatoes 160b 155ab 141a – – – 160b 155ab 141a
Winter wheat 3 21.3 23.2 21.7 57.3a 84.9b 79.9b 78.6a 108b 102ab
Spring peas 30.8 28.2 30.6 52.9 32.0 41.4 83.7 60.2 72.0
Winter wheat 5 18.2a 19.2a 21.4b 48.8a 84.5b 72.9b 67.0a 104c 94.3b
Spring wheat 10.6a 13.2b 13.9b 28.7a 32.8a 41.4b 39.3a 46.0a 55.3b
Mean value 40.2 39.8 38.1 94.6 101 102 135 140 141
Mg uptake
Clover/grass-ley – – – 31.3 35.3 32.9 31.3a 35.3b 32.9ab
Potatoes 7.42b 7.55b 6.73a – – – 7.42b 7.55b 6.73a
Winter wheat 3 6.04 6.65 6.09 4.60 5.55 4.78 10.6 12.2 10.9
Spring peas 3.76 3.58 3.80 5.47 4.59 5.58 9.23 8.17 9.38
Winter wheat 5 4.79a 5.51b 5.11ab 4.46a 5.57b 5.24b 9.25a 11.1b 10.4ab
Spring wheat 2.53a 3.07b 3.32b 2.90a 3.33b 3.84c 5.43a 6.40b 7.16c
Mean value 4.09a 4.39b 4.18ab 8.12 9.06 8.72 12.2a 13.5b 12.9ab
Total nutrient inputs via seeds: 6.5 kg P, 17 kg K and 3.6 kg Mg. In wL-FER via purchased substrates additionally: 39.6 kg P,
306 kg K and 41.3 kg Mg
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
b
Equivalent to mineral nutrient outputs, if all harvested saleable main products are sold
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 407
1 3
substrates were considered in farmgate balances. In
trial series II nutrient outputs coincide with the
nutrient uptake measured in saleable cash products
(Table 9) because no internal flows through the stable
has to be taken into account.
In order to quantify the nutrient outputs from the
different farm compartments in trial series I, the crops
were weighted statistically according to their respec-
tive percentage of the total area covered by each
particular crop. The P inputs in the treatments without
purchased substrates were very low (only the mineral
feeds), whereas substantial P inputs were measured for
the DS ? FER treatment (Table 10). The average P
withdrawal for the whole reference farmland in the
treatments without the use of external substrates was
approximately 82 kg P year
-1
(or ca. 7.2 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
). Approximately 47% of the P outputs were
related to the sold animal products. The remaining
53% was lost via the sold plant products. The
following situation arose for both farm compartments
grassland and arable land:
1. The net total P withdrawal via animal products
which derived from grassland in the treatments
without the use of external substrates was
approximately 10.2–11.4 kg P year
-1
(or about
3.0–3.25 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
).
2. The net P offtake of ca. 9.0 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
(or
approximately 72 kg P year
-1
) from the arable
land resulted from outputs of about 3.5 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
from sold animal products and approxi-
mately 5.5 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
from sold plant
products (grains, tubers).
The farmgate input–output balance showed high
net P outtakes for treatments without purchased
substrates. Even the P outtakes in the DS ? FER
treatment were not balanced completely by the
purchased substrates.
Table 10 Total P, K and Mg inputs via seeds and mineral feed, and outputs (kg) via sold animal and plant products from the total
reference area of arable land and grassland, trial series I (MV 2003–2005), data based on respective reference area
R inputs
a
Outputs via animal husbandry Outputs via plant products R output
Arable land Grassland R Cereal grains Potatoes
b
Grain peas R
Reference area (ha) 11.4 5.3 3.4 8.7 2.0 0.2 0.5 2.7 11.4 1
P inputs and outputs (kg)
FYM
a
6.4 27.8 11.4 39.2 33.9 3.30 7.5 44.7 83.9 7.36
US 6.4 27.2 10.2 37.4 33.0 3.23 7.1 43.3 80.7 7.08
DS 6.4 27.5 11.1 38.6 34.4 3.26 7.1 44.8 83.4 7.32
DS ? FR 6.4 27.8 11.1 38.9 37.2 3.22 6.9 47.3 86.2 7.56
DS ? FER 73.4 28.8 12.7 41.4 37.0 3.20 6.7 46.9 88.3 7.75
K inputs and outputs (kg)
FYM 10.5 94 54 148 42 24 19 85 233 20.4
US 10.5 94 51 145 42 22 18 82 227 19.9
DS 10.5 94 51 145 44 24 16 84 229 20.1
DS ? FR 10.5 96 51 147 46 23 16 85 232 20.4
DS ? FER 730 98 61 159 44 24 15 83 242 21.2
Mg inputs and outputs (kg)
FYM 3.6 4.8 3.6 8.4 10.9 1.1 1.8 13.9 22.3 1.96
US 454 4.7 3.5 8.2 10.9 1.1 1.9 13.9 22.1 1.94
DS 454 4.7 3.6 8.3 11.4 1.2 1.6 14.3 22.6 1.98
DS ? FR 454 4.9 3.6 8.5 11.9 1.1 1.7 14.8 23.3 2.04
DS ? FER 555 4.9 4.1 9.0 11.8 1.1 1.7 14.6 23.6 2.07
a
Abbreviations of manuring treatments are described in Table 3
b
Farmgate nutrient inputs via mineral feeds and seeds (all treatments), lime for bedding (in treatments based on liquid slurry), and in
DS ? FER additionally via purchased substrates
c
Eighty percent of tuber yield, the rest accounted as non-saleable waste and feed potatoes
408 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
The K inputs in the treatments without purchased
substrates were very low, whereas very high K inputs
were measured for the DS ? FER treatment. Con-
cerning K, 227–242 kg K was lost via sold products
at the farmgate level, related to a reference area of
11.4 ha (approximately 21 kg K ha
-1
farmland).
From the grassland, approximately 16 kg K ha
-1
was sold via the animal products (Table 10). The total
K withdrawals from arable land of approximately
179 kg K year
-1
(22 kg K ha
-1
year
-1
) resulted
from K outputs via animal products which were
derived from inputs harvested on arable land (about
95 kg K year
-1
) and from K offtakes via sold plant
products (approximately 84 kg K year
-1
). Particu-
larly high K outputs were measured via sold potato
tubers. Potatoes covered about 2.5% of the farmland
area (20% of one field in an eight field crop rotation),
but they accounted for approximately 10% of the total
K sold via products.
The Mg inputs in the FYM treatment were very
low. The use of lime for animal bedding in the
treatments with liquid slurry strongly increased Mg
inputs at the farmgate. A further increase was found
for the use of purchased substrates in DS ? FER. The
average Mg withdrawal for the whole reference
farmland in the treatments without the use of external
substrates was approximately 22.5 kg Mg year
-1
(or
about 2.00 kg Mg ha
-1
year
-1
). Approximately 37%
of the Mg outputs were related to the sold animal
products. The use of purchased substrates only
slightly influenced total Mg withdrawals. The
input–output balance showed high surpluses for
treatments with liquid slurry.
Nutrient balances as influenced by purchased
substrates
As far as the P cycle at the farmgate is concerned,
only the use of grains of winter rye would allow full
compensation for P losses via sold products in trial
series I. Most of the allowed substrates were not able
to compensate for P withdrawals completely
(Table 11). Only the use of sewage sludge, currently
not allowed, with a narrow N/P ratio would introduce
more P into the system than lost via sold products. If
the purchased substrates were used evenly over the
entire farmland area, as done in present experiments,
a different situation arises. In grassland the use of
substrates with a narrow N/P ratio like grains of
winter rye, silage maize and municipal wastes would
overcompensate for the P and N outputs via sold
products, whereas on arable land most of the suited
substrates would not be able to compensate for P
losses via the sold products. Only the use of sewage
sludge would allow compensation for such losses on
arable land.
Regarding the K cycle in trial series I, an inverse
situation as shown for P emerged for the arable land
(Table 11). At the farmgate level, the inputs related
to the import of the enumerated and allowed
substrates would overcompensate for the K losses
via sold products, with exception of purchased winter
rye grains. On arable land, those substrates which
would not be able to compensate for P losses, would
overcompensate, several fold (1.5–4 times), for the K
losses via sold products. The use of sewage sludge
alone would not compensate for all K losses from
Table 11 Comparison of potential nutrient inflows through the import of purchased substrates for biogas digestion, depending on the
kind of substrate and nutrient outputs via sold products (kg ha
-1
)
Nutrient inputs related to the import of substrates R nutrient outputs
a
Winter
rye
Potatoes Silage
maize
Cereal
straw
Grass Clover/
grass-
ley
Municipal
wastes
Sewage
sludge
b
Series I:
arable
land
Series I:
grassland
Series I: R arable
land ? grassland
Series II:
arable
land
c
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 59.8 27.4 50.1 75.2
P 9.34 8.04 8.30 7.39 4.26–4.84 4.06 8.46 16.0 9.45 3.74 7.75 13.6
K 13.4 57.9 40.3 81.4 30.6–44.0 37.3 20.6 4.63 22.6 17.9 21.2 38.1
Mg 3.20 2.81 5.49 4.71 4.24–3.55 3.03 – 6.00 2.39 2.65 2.46 4.18
a
Total nutrient outputs via sold products (cereal grains, tubers, products of animal husbandry)
b
Currently not allowed by organic farming legislation
c
As calculated in Table 9 for wL-FER
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 409
1 3
arable land. On the grassland area, most of the
substrates would overcompensate many times for the
K losses. K was provided (with exception of rye
grains) 2–4.5 times more than lost via sold products.
All enumerated substrates would introduce more Mg
into the system in trial series I than exported via sold
products, in each of the considered scales.
In trial series II the mineral nutrient surpluses due
to the import of substrates were much lower than in
trial series I, due to much higher nutrient offtakes via
sold products (Table 11). However, imbalances in
mineral nutrient inputs, related to outputs, were also
found. A complete replacement of P outputs would be
achieved with none of the enumerated allowed
substrates suited for digestion. Only with the addition
of P rich manures like sewage sludge would entire
replacement of P losses be possible. A more balanced
situation arises for K in comparison to trial series I.
With the use of municipal wastes such as sewage
sludge, and cereal grains like rye would not fully
replace K outputs. The use of purchased leys, grass or
silage maize as substrates with subsequent spreading
of the effluents would allow full replacement of K
outputs, while with purchased potatoes or purchased
cereal straw high surpluses arose.
Discussion
Effects of biogas digestion on mineral nutrient
uptake
Digestion of slurry did not influence the in situ plant
uptake of P, in spite of the low soil P levels on the
experimental fields, indicating that digestion does not
influence plant P availability of liquid slurry. This
agrees with results from Loria and Sawyer (2005)
obtained under laboratory incubation conditions and
from Mo¨ller and Vogt (2003) based on greenhouse
pot experiments, who reported that anaerobically
digested liquid slurry can provide similar plant-
available P for undigested liquid slurry. This was
indicated by similar P concentrations measured in the
aboveground biomass in all crops of trial series I
(Table 7). K uptake in present trials was limited by
the soil K availability. This was indicated by the fact
that manuring additional amounts of K in DS ? FER
led to an increase of K concentrations in potato tubers
and in the straw of winter wheat and spelt (Table 7).
Furthermore, we found some indication that the
short-term availability of K in solid farmyard manure
was lower than the availability in digested or
undigested slurry. Much more K was applied directly
to potatoes via solid farmyard manure (FYM) than
via liquid slurry (US, DS) (Table 5). Nevertheless,
the K concentration in potato tubers did not differ
between these treatments (Table 7).
Digestion of crop residues and cover crops led to
much higher field nutrient outputs. Much more
nutrients are available in a mobile way for realloca-
tion within the farming system, enabling a more
targeted allocation of the available nutrient within the
farming system and affecting nutrient availability of
specific crops within the crop rotation. For example,
differences in straw K concentrations (Table 7) and K
uptake in DS ? FR as well as in wL-FR (Table 9), in
comparison to the references US and wL, were
related to the reallocation of K within the cropping
system. This was indicated by the fact that where K
was removed via the harvested crop residues and
cover crops for digestion, lower K concentrations and
K uptake were found, e.g., in spelt in trial series I
(Table 7) or potatoes in trial series II (Table 9).
Where K was reallocated via effluents (e.g., winter
wheat in both trial series) higher straw K concentra-
tions (Table 7) and K uptake (Table 9) were mea-
sured. A comparison to the effects on N availability
presented by Mo¨ller et al. (2008) and by Stinner et al.
(2008) indicated that K uptake was boosted by liquid
effluents more strongly due to digestion and reallo-
cation of the nutrients via field spreading of the
effluents than the N availability to crops.
The Mg uptake of grassland was negatively
influenced by additional effluent amendments in
DS ? FER, as indicated by significantly lower Mg
concentrations in grassland biomass (Table 8). This
agrees with Grunes et al. (1992) and Early et al.
(1998), they stated that high inputs of K can result in
reduced uptake of Ca and Mg by plants.
Effects of purchased substrates on farmgate
nutrient balances
Recently, nutrient budgets in organic farming, espe-
cially with regard to potassium (K) and phosphorus
(P), have gained interest. Organic farming without
purchase of feed may result in a nutrient depletion of
410 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
soils, as shown by present results and stated by Nolte
and Werner (1994). The effect of P and K depletion is
especially detrimental to the productivity of organi-
cally farmed soils, as P deficiency limits crop
production in general, and legume crops, a key
element of organic rotations, in particular (Frame and
Newbould 1986; Ro¨mer and Lehne 2004; Wivstad
et al. 2005). The comparison of the results of both
trial series indicated that in systems without animal
husbandry the total withdrawals per area were much
higher than in systems with animal husbandry. The
presently open nutrient cycle between rural and urban
areas may become more closed, if nutrients of
municipal organic wastes can be used in agricultural
production. Also the use of purchased substrates for
biogas digestion would enable the substitution of
nutrient withdrawals via sold animal and plant
products, at the expense of other agricultural fields.
At the farmgate level in trial series I, the use of a
single allowed substrate enumerated in Table 11
would lead mostly to a disproportionate high replace-
ment of K, compared to the mineral nutrient offtakes
via sold products. The P outputs were scarcely
compensated for by some of the enumerated sub-
strates (cereal grains like rye, potatoes, silage maize,
etc.), and did not compensate for P losses with others
(e.g., grass biomass). The reason was that nutrient
composition of the outputs did not match with the
nutrient composition of the inputs. Therefore, focus-
ing attention only on N can lead to nutrient imbal-
ances, e.g., too low returns of P to fully replace P
outputs and some excess applications especially of K.
High inputs of K can have important implications as
they can affect uptake of Ca and Mg by plants,
negatively affecting forage quality, and lead to
accelerated leaching of Ca and Mg (Grunes et al.
1992; Early et al. 1998). Furthermore, high K levels
in soils and subsequently in forages may lead to
animal disease, namely milk fever in dairy cattle
(Wang et al. 1999). To get long-term balanced
nutrient flows, substrates low in P are especially
suited for use on grassland. Whereas on arable land
the nutrient inputs via substrates should be supple-
mented by fertilizers rich in P to get balanced nutrient
returns. None of the enumerated substrates should be
used solely. However, if the site is prone for K
leaching (e.g., sandy soils) the imbalance between K
inputs and K outputs found for most of the substrates
commonly used for biogas digestion would decrease.
The current EC guideline which regulates manure
importation into organic farming only in terms of N,
is not appropriate for balancing the nutrient inputs
and outputs at the farmgate. The static regulation of
maximum N inputs of 40 kg N ha
-1
farmland could
lead to exorbitant mineral macronutrient returns to
organic dairy farming systems with a high stocking
rate, and to insufficient mineral nutrient returns on
organic farming systems with high nutrient outputs
via sold plant products and a low stocking rate or
without animal husbandry. Therefore, a more appro-
priate regulation based on mineral nutrient balances
(inputs and outputs) should be used for dimensioning
amounts of allowed nutrient inputs. This would mean
that farms with a high stocking rate, and therefore,
with high amounts of nutrients circulating within the
system and low nutrient withdrawals could introduce
fewer amounts of organic manures. And stockless
farms with high nutrient withdrawals could introduce
higher amounts of organic manures, enabling balanc-
ing for the nutrient losses. A further aspect is that
farms with animal husbandry often introduced nutri-
ents via purchased feeds, further reducing the needs
for nutrient supplements.
Kirchmann et al. (2005) reported that nutrient flow
analyses in developed countries indicate a withdrawal
of 3 kg P ha
-1
year
-1
from arable land because of
non-return of organic human wastes. Furthermore,
the worldwide mineral P reserves for production of P
fertilisers are limited (Cathcart 1980), P is a finite,
non-renewable resource. Especially for organic farm-
ing systems it is a challenge to recycle the nutrients,
to match the idea of closed nutrient cycles and reality.
Furthermore, a balanced return of the nutrients P and
K would only be achieved, if wastes with high P
concentration (e.g., sewage sludge, bonemeal) are
added to wastes high in K. Maybe, a further reduction
of toxic substances in sewage sludge, combined with
pasteurization and subsequent digestion, would
enable the use of nutrients from sewage sludge to
manure fields with dedicated energy crops for
digestion in a biogas plant (cover crops, silage maize,
etc.). The subsequent use of the effluents of digestion
to manure crops assigned for production of animal
feed should be an environmentally friendly way of
recycling and recirculation of nutrients contained in
human wastes, also for organic farming systems. This
would allow a multi-stage ‘‘cleaning/sanitation pro-
cess’’ and would meet the ideas of some founders of
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 411
1 3
organic farming in the 1920s, who propagated
farming with low animal stocks and recycling of
municipal and human wastes (Howard 1940; Vogt
1999), with concerns about hygiene and organic
contaminants.
Conclusions
Digestion of slurry and crop residues does not
influence the short-term availability of mineral nutri-
ents like P and K. The import of purchased substrates
for digestion according to current EC regulation for
organic farming systems would lead, in most cases, to
an imbalanced return of the mineral nutrients P and
K. Depending on the farming systems and the
nutrient withdrawals, organic inputs for biogas
digestion overcompensate for K outputs and often
are not able to compensate for P offtakes via sold
products. Balanced P and K recycling is possible only
if manures/wastes rich in P are used in combination
with manures/wastes rich in K. Another option is to
supplement organic inputs with allowed mineral P
and K fertilizers. It can be concluded that the current
EC guidelines which regulate manure import into
organic farming only in terms of N, is not appropriate
for balancing the macronutrient inputs and outputs at
the farmgate. Therefore, a regulation based on
balances of all main nutrients is more appropriate
for organic farming systems.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the
‘‘Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt’’.
References
Asmus F, Linke B, Dunkel H (1988) Eigenschaften und Du¨n-
gerwirkung von ausgefaulter Gu¨lle aus der Biogasgewin-
nung. Arch Acker- Pflanzenbau Bodenkd Berl 32:527–
532
Besson JM, Schmitt R, Lehmann V, Soder M (1987) Unter-
schiede im Keimverhalten von Unkrautsamen nach Be-
handlung mit gelagerter, belu¨fteter und methanvergorener
Gu¨lle. Mitt Schweiz Landw 35:73–80
Cathcart JB (1980) World phosphate reserves and resources.
In: Khasawneh FE, Sample EC, Kamprath EJ (eds) The
role of phosphorus in agriculture. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison
Clemens J, Trimborn M, Weiland P, Amon B (2006) Mitiga-
tion of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion
of cattle slurry. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112:171–177
Early MSB, Cameron KC, Fraser PM (1998) The fate of
potassium, calcium, and magnesium in simulated urine
patches on irrigated dairy pasture soil. N Z J Agric Res
41:117–124
Fangueiro D, Pereira J, Coutinho J, Moreira N, Trindade H
(2008) NPK farm-gate nutrient balances in dairy farms
from Northwest Portugal. Eur J Agron 28:625–634
Field JA, Caldwell JS, Jeyanayagam S, Reneau RB, Kroontje
W, Collins ER (1984) Fertilizer recovery from anaerobic
digesters. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 27:1871–1876
Fleischer E (1998) Nutztierhaltung und Na¨hrstoffbilanzen in
der Landwirtschaft. Analytica Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin
Frame J, Newbould P (1986) Agronomy of white clover. Adv
Agron 40:1–88
Gooch CA, Inglis SF, Wright PE (2007) Biogas distributed
generation systems evaluation and technology transfer.
NYSERDA Project No. 6597 Interim Report. http://www.
manuremanagement.cornell.edu/Docs/NYSERDA%20
Interm%20Report%20Final.pdf. Accessed 20 August
2009
Grunes DL, Huang JW, Smith FW, Joo PK, Hewes DA (1992)
Potassium effects on minerals and organic acids in three
cool-season grasses. J Plant Nutr 15:1007–1025
Gu¨ngo¨r K, Karthikeyan KG (2008) Phosphorus forms and
extractability in dairy manure: a case study for Wisconsin
on-farm anaerobic digesters. Bioresour Technol 99:425–
436
Henze M, Harremoes P, Jansen JLC, Arvin E (1996) Waste-
water treatment: biological and chemical processes, 2nd
edn. Springer, Berlin
Hoffmann G (1991) VDLUFA-Methodenbuch Band I: Die
Untersuchung von Bo¨den. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt
Howard A (1940) An agricultural testament. Oxford University
Press, London
Keymer U (2004) Biogasausbeuten verschiedener Substrate.
Available at http://www.lfl.bayern.de/ilb/technik/. Acces-
sed 17 March 2006
Kirchmann H, Ryan MH (2004) Nutrients in organic farming—
are there advantages from the exclusive use of organic
manures and untreated minerals? In: Fischer T, Turner N,
Angus J, McIntyeare L, Robertson M, Borrell A, Lloyd D
(eds) New directions for a diverse planet. Proceedings of
the 4th international crop science congress, 26 Sept–1 Oct
2004, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: http://www.crop
science.org.au/icsc2004/pdf/828_kirchmannh.pdf
Kirchmann H, Witter E (1992) Composition of fresh, aerobic
and anaerobic farm animal dungs. Bioresour Technol
40:137–142
Kirchmann H, Nyamangara J, Cohen Y (2005) Recycling
municipal wastes in the future: from organic to inorganic
forms? Soil Use Manag 21:152–159
Koriath H, Herrmann V, Vollmer GR, Franz J (1985) Na¨hrst-
offdynamik wa¨hrend der anaeroben Fermentation von
Gu¨lle und Wirkung auf den Ertrag und Inhaltsstoffe von
Mais im Gefa¨ßversuch. Arch Acker- u Pflanzenbau u
Bodenkd 29:741–747
Ko¨rner I, Ritzkowski M, Stegemann R (1999) Na¨hrstoff-
freisetzung bei der Kompostierung und Verga¨rung. In:
Umweltbundesamt (ed) Verbundvorhaben ,,Neue Tech-
niken der Kompostierung’’. Teil 1 des Teilvorhabens 10:
,,Stickstoffdynamik in Komposten und bei der
412 Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413
1 3
Kompostanwendung’’, Na¨hrstofffreisetzung bei der
Kompostierung und bei der Verga¨rung. Abschlussbericht,
Hamburg
Lambert R, Toussaint B, Peeters A (2004) Estimating nitrogen
losses from animal manures using their phosphorus bal-
ance. In: Hatch DJ, Chadwick DR, Jarvis SC, Roker JA
(eds) Controlling nitrogen flows and losses. Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 518–519
Lindmark-Mansson H, Fonde´n R, Pettersson H-E (2003)
Composition of Swedish dairy milk. Int Dairy J 13:409–
425
Loria ER, Sawyer JE (2005) Extractable soil phosphorus and
inorganic nitrogen following application of raw and
anaerobically digested swine manure. Agron J 97:879–
885
Mallone´e PG, Beede DK, Collier RJ, Wilcox CJ (1985) Pro-
duction and physiological responses of dairy cows to
varying dietary potassium during heat stress. J Dairy Sci
68:1479–1487
Messner H, Amberger A (1987) Composition, nitrification and
fertilizing effect of anaerobically fermented slurry. Pro-
ceedings of 4th CIEC symposium, Braunschweig-Vo¨l-
kenrode, vol 1, pp 125–130
Michel J, Weiske A, Mo¨ller K (2010) The effect of biogas
digestion on the environmental impact and energy bal-
ances in organic cropping systems using the life cycle
assessment methodology. Renew Agric Food Syst (sub-
mitted for publication)
Mo¨ller K (2009) Inner farm mineral nutrient flows between
arable land and grassland via the stable in organic crop-
ping systems. Eur J Agron 31:204–212
Mo¨ller K, Stinner W (2009) Effects of different manuring
systems with and without biogas digestion on soil mineral
nitrogen content and on gaseous nitrogen losses (ammo-
nia, nitrous oxides). Eur J Agron 30:1–16
Mo¨ller K, Vogt N (2003) Einfluss der Zugabe von Rohphos-
phat in den Biogasfermenter auf die Du¨ngewirkung fer-
mentierter Rindergu¨lle. In: Freyer B (ed) Beitra¨ge zur 7.
Wissenschaftstagung zum O
¨
kologischen Landbau.
Vienna, February 24–26 2003, pp 519–520. Available at:
http://orgprints.org/1002/01/moeller-2003-biogasguelle-
rohphosphat.pdf
Mo¨ller K, Stinner W, Deuker A, Leithold G (2008) Effects of
different manuring systems with and without biogas
digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed
organic dairy farming systems. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst
82:209–232
Murthy GK, Rhea U (1967) Determination of major cations in
milk by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J Dairy Sci
50:313–317
Nolte C, Werner W (1994) Investigations on the nutrient cycle
and its components of a biodynamically-managed farm.
Biol Agric Hortic 10:235–254
Petersen SO, Lind A-M, Sommer SG (1998) Nitrogen and
organic matter losses during storage of cattle and pig
manure. J Agric Sci 130:69–79 (Cambridge)
Powers WJ, van Horn HH, Wilkie AC, Wilcox CJ, Nordstedt
RA (1999) Effects of anaerobic digestion and additives to
effluent or cattle feed on odor and odorant concentrations.
J Anim Sci 77:1412–1421
Ro¨mer W, Lehne P (2004) Neglected P and K fertilization in
organic farming reduces N
2
fixation and grain yield in a
red clover-oat rotation (in German). J Plant Nutr Soil Sci
167:106–113
Schnug E, Oswald P, Haneklaus S (1996) Organic manure
management and efficiency: role of organic fertilizers and
their management practises. In: Rodriguez-Barrueco C
(ed) Fertilizers and environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp
259–265
Schu¨ller H (1969) Die CAL-Methode, eine neue Methode zur
Bestimmung des pflanzenverfu¨gbaren Phosphates in
Bo¨den. Z Pflanzenerna¨hr u Bodenkd 123:48–63
Sommer SG, Husted S (1995) The chemical buffer system in
raw and digested animal slurry. J Agric Sci 124:45–53
Sommers LE, Sutton AL (1980) Use of waste materials as
sources of phosphorus. In: Khasawneh FE, Sample EC,
Kamprath EJ (eds) The role of phosphorus in agriculture.
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 515–544
Steinshamn H, Thuen E, Azzaroli Bleken M, Tutein Brenøe
UK, Ekerholt G, Yri C (2004) Utilization of nitrogen (N)
and phosphorus (P) in an organic dairy farming system in
Norway. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:509–522
Stewart HF, Ward GM, Johnson JE (1965) Availability of
fallout Cs137 to dairy cattle from different types of feed. J
Dairy Sci 48:709–713
Stinner W, Mo¨ller K, Leithold G (2008) Effects of biogas
digestion of clover/grass-leys, cover crops and crop resi-
dues on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in organic stockless
farming systems. Eur J Agron 29:125–134
Stockdale EA, Lampkin NII, Hovi M, Keatinge R, Lennartsson
EKM, MacDonald DW, Padel S, Tatersall FII, Wolfe MS,
Watson CA (2000) Agronomic and environmental impli-
cations of organic farming systems. Adv Agron 70:261–
327
Vogt G (1999) Entstehung und Entwicklung des o¨kologischen
Landbaus im deutschsprachigen Raum. Dissertation, Ju-
stus Liebig-Universita¨t Giessen
Wang SJ, Fox DG, Cherney DJR, Klausner SD, Bouldin DR
(1999) Impact of dairy farming on well water nitrate level
and soil content of phosphorus and potassium. J Dairy Sci
82:2164–2169
Ward GM (1966) Potassium metabolism of domestic rumi-
nants—a review. J Dairy Sci 49:268–276
Wivstad M, Dahlin AS, Grant C (2005) Perspectives on
nutrient management in arable farming systems. Soil Use
Manag 21:113–121
Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2010) 87:395–413 413
1 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful