Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The experiment rationale was to determine forage micromineral concentrations as effected by biosolids fertilization. We determined the effects of two exceptional quality biosolids on bahiagrass trace mineral concentrations as related to beef cattle requirements. Twenty‐five 0.8‐ha pastures were divided into five blocks. Two biosolids were applied as normal and double agronomic rates. The control received NH4NO3. Forages were analyzed for total copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), molybdenum (Mo), cobalt (Co), and selenium (Se), and soils were analyzed for Mehlich I extractable Cu, Mn, and Zn. Some significant increases (P<0.05) in forage Co, Cu, Fe, Zn, and Se were observed at various sampling times, but the increases were generally small and biologically insignificant. Although forage Mo samples from pastures with the Tampa biosolids applied were consistently higher than the control (P<0.05), at no time did they approach levels considered toxic. Similar results were seen in forage Mn concentrations, with treatment Baltimore‐2X elevating (P<0.05) Mn concentrations as well. Deficiencies of Co, Cu, Zn, and Se are common in this Florida region and slight elevations due to biosolids treatment could be beneficial. Biosolids applied at the highest rates improved soil Cu and Zn concentrations above control soils and soil Mn was increased over the control at both sampling times for Baltimore‐2X. In relation to beef cattle requirements, the majority of forages were deficient in Co, Cu, Se, and Zn. In summary, biosolids fertilization slightly improved the micromineral status of forage and soil, without creating toxicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tiffany et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: