Results

The mixture of MBM and BWA gave the highest barley yield (Table 3.5), which was significantly higher than for MBM alone. The barley yield of the MBM and different combinations of MBM and crushed rock was at the same level as for mineral NPK. All treatments with MBM or mineral NPK gave significantly higher yields of both barley and wheat compared with the unfertilized control (treatment 1). The yield of wheat was at the same level for mineral NPK and MBM with or without K addition (Table 3.5), but there was a significantly lower yield for MBM pellets (treatment 4) and MBM plus Altagro plus Olivin compared with MBM powder alone (treatment 2).

Different additions of K did not influence the concentrations of K in the wheat grain (Table 3.6). The unfertilized control had a significantly lower concentration of N and a higher concentration of P in wheat grain than obtained for treatment with MBM plus K, Mg and S, and mineral NPK gave a significantly lower P concentra­tion than the unfertilized control. The concentrations of plant nutrients taken up in barley grain were not analyzed.

Table 3.5 Grain yield of spring barley and spring wheat (means followed by the same letter are not statistically significant, P = 0.05)

Treatment

Fertilizer type

Yield (g DM pot!) Barley

Wheat

1

Control, no fertilizer

3,00d

1.93c

2

MBM

7.36c

10.04a

3

MBM + K, Mg, S

7.88c

7.83ab

4

MBM (pellets) + K, Mg, S

8.78abc

5.2b

5

MBM + Altagro

7.70c

7.27ab

6

MBM + Altagro + Olivin

9.20abc

6.62b

7

MBM + Oxaal

7.33c

7.35ab

8

MBM + Oxaal + Olivin

8.07abc

7.89ab

9

MBM + Rpyneberg

10.07abc

7.56ab

10

MBM + Rpyneberg + Olivin

10.94ab

7.80ab

11

Mineral NPK

10.19ab

7.97ab

12

MBM + BWA

11.46a

7.67ab

Table 3.6 Estimated effect of NPK, uptake of NPK in wheat grain and nutrient balance (means followed by the same letter are not statistically significant, P = 0.05)

Fertilizer

Estimated NPK effect (mg per pot)

NPK uptake in grain (g 100 g-1 DM)

NPK uptake in grain (mg per pot)

NPK balance (mg per pot)

N

P

K

N

P

K

N

P

K

N

P

K

Control, no fertilizer

0

0

0

1.90b

0.41a

0.49a

37

8

9

-37

-8

-9

MBM

450

90

30

2.47ab

0.27b

0.51a

247

27

51

203

63

-21

MBM + K, Mg, S

450

90

240

2.73ab

0.25b

0.46a

214

20

36

236

70

204

MBM (pellets) + K, Mg, S

450

90

240

3.12a

0.30ab

0.48a

162

16

25

288

74

215

MBM + Altagro

450

90

230

2.95ab

0.31ab

0.50a

214

23

36

236

67

194

MBM + Altagro + Olivin

450

90

230

2.95ab

0.29ab

0.49a

195

19

32

255

71

198

MBM + Oxaal

450

90

230

2.91ab

0.29ab

0.47a

214

21

35

236

69

195

MBM + Oxaal + Olivin

450

90

230

2.87ab

0.31ab

0.50a

226

24

39

224

66

191

MBM + Rpyneberg

450

90

230

2.87ab

0.29ab

0.49a

217

22

37

233

68

193

MBM + Rpyneberg + Olivin

450

90

230

2.94ab

0.28ab

0.50a

229

22

39

221

68

191

Mineral NPK

450

80

210

2.87ab

0.23b

0.44a

229

18

35

221

62

175

MBM + BWA

450

90

230

2.84ab

0.32ab

0.54a

218

25

41

232

65

189

The efficiency of the N applied was high and at the same level for the treatments with MBM or mineral NPK, whereas relatively small amounts of the P and K applied were taken up in the wheat grain (Table 3.6). On the basis of the nutrient uptake in wheat, the unfertilized control had a negative balance for N, P and K, whereas addition of MBM alone caused a negative K balance (Table 3.6). All the other treatments had a positive balance of P and K. The MBM treatment lowered the amount of readily available K in the soil, but the difference from the other treatments was not statistically significant. There was no significant change in the level of nonexchangeable K (KHNO3) for any of the treatments compared with the unfertilized control. MBM plus BWA gave a significantly increased amount of readily available P compared with use of MBM pellets plus K, Mg and S and the

Table 3.7 Mean pH and means of readily available plant nutrients in soil after harvest of cereals (means followed by the same letter are not statistically significant, P = 0.05)

Fertilizer

pH

P-AL (mg per pot)

K-AL (mg per pot)

K-HNO3 (mg per pot)

Mg-AL (mg per pot)

Ca-AL

(mgper

pot)

Control, no fertilizer

7.20b

218b

803a

2,618a

315a

3,045ab

MBM

6.90b

348ab

593a

2,505a

270a

2,873b

MBM + K, Mg, S

6.93b

330ab

698a

2,880a

308a

3,165ab

MBM (pellets) + K, Mg, S

6.90b

236b

810a

2,693a

360a

2,873b

MBM + Altagro

6.95b

330ab

780a

2,835a

345a

3,435ab

MBM + Altagro + Olivin

7.13b

345ab

705a

2,723a

278a

3,045ab

MBM + Oxaal

7.15b

361ab

638a

2,670a

255a

3,780ab

MBM + Oxaal + Olivin

7.20b

335ab

728a

2,693a

263a

3,863ab

MBM + Rpyneberg

7.05b

323ab

750a

2,820a

330a

3,285ab

MBM + Rpyneberg + Olivin

6.98b

359ab

668a

2,895a

503a

3,345ab

Mineral NPK

7.03b

267ab

765a

2,880a

278a

2,535b

MBM + BWA

7.63a

386a

743a

2,595a

345a

5,220a

control. MBM plus BWA also increased the amount of readily available Ca in the soil significantly compared with the treatments with MBM, MBM pellets plus K, Mg and S and mineral NPK. The only treatment that significantly increased soil pH was the MBM plus BWA treatment. The pH increase was around 0.5 (Table 3.7).

The BWA used in this experiment had a high concentration of Ca relative to K (Ca-to-K ratio, 8.6; Table 3.3). To find ash with a stronger effect as a K fertilizer than liming material, analyses of the chemical properties of bottom ash from other plants were performed (Table 3.8). BWA Akershus (Table 3.8) had a high concen­tration of K and a low concentration of Ca (Ca-to-K ratio, 1.8) and low concen­trations of heavy metals. The wood used originated from a timber terminal at Gardermoen, where bioenergy wood from a large district in eastern Norway is collected. The ash of cereal waste had high concentrations of P and K and low concentrations of heavy metals. The analyses indicated differences in the Ca-to-K ratio between ash of spruce and ash of pine (Table 3.8). The wood used at Reinsvoll was dominated by spruce and the ash had properties similar to those of the ash of pure spruce wood.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *