Trade‐offs associated with surface application or injection of manure pose important environmental and agronomic concerns. Manure injection can conserve nitrogen (N) by decreasing ammonia (NH 3 ) volatilization. However, the injection band also creates conditions that potentially favor nitrous oxide (N 2 O) production: an abundant organic substrate–promoting microbial activity, anaerobic conditions favoring denitrification, and large local concentrations of N. We assessed differences in NH 3 volatilization and N 2 O emissions with broadcast application versus shallow disk injection of dairy slurry during the 2011 to 2013 growing seasons on a well‐drained silt loam that received average manure‐N application rates of 180 kg N ha −1 via injection or 200 kg N ha −1 via broadcast. Ammonia emissions were measured using a photoacoustic gas analyzer and chambers, and N 2 O emissions were measured using syringes to draw timed samples from vented chambers with analysis by gas chromatograph. Results point to a 92 to 98% (3.02–11.05 kg NH 3 –N ha −1 ) reduction in NH 3 volatilization (for the initial sampling) with injection compared with broadcasting manure but also reveal 84 to 152% (725.9–3187.8 g N 2 O–N ha −1 ) greater cumulative N 2 O emissions. Although losses of N via N 2 O emission were at least three orders of magnitude less than NH 3 volatilization, their potential role as a greenhouse gas is of concern. Despite the potential greenhouse gas trade‐offs associated with shallow disk injection of manure, decreasing NH 3 volatilization provides a substantial benefit, especially to farmers who are trying to conserve N and improve the N/P ratio of soil‐applied manure. Core Ideas Manure injection decreases NH 3 volatilization but increases N 2 O emissions. Shallow disk manure injection reduced ammonia emissions by 92–98%. Manure injection increased cumulative N 2 O emissions by 84–152% compared with broadcast. N 2 O emissions are at least three orders of magnitude lower than NH 3 volatilization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duncan et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: