Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-09-07T00:39:31.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The manurial value of sewage sludge applied to fen peat soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Siân E. Dawson
Siân E. Dawson
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Previous research has shown that sewage sludge can act as a source of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer. Fen peat soils are organic soils derived from plant material and are known to differ from mineral soils in their plant-nutrient availability. The work reported in this paper compares the effects of liquid digested, liquid raw and dewatered digested sludge with inorganic nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers on a typical fenland rotation of winter wheat, sugar beet and potatoes.

It is concluded that sludge can replace inorganic nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer on fen soil, and it appears that applications of sludge containing large amounts of fresh organic matter can act as a soil conditioner and produce higher yields than can be obtained from the use of fertilizer alone.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 523 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bunting, A. H. (1963). Experiments on organic manures, 1942–1949. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 60, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1966 a). The value of liquid digested sewage sludge. I. The effect of liquid sewage sludge on the growth and composition of grass–clover swards in southeast England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 67, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1966 b). The value of liquid digested sewage sludge. II. Experiments on rye-grass in south-east England, comparing sludge with fertilizers supplying equivalent nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and water. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 67, 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, E. G. (1966 c). The value of liquid digested sewage sludge. III. The results of an experiment on barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 67, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of the Environment–National Water Council 1981). Report of the sub-Committee on the Disposal of Sewage Sludge to Land. Standing Technical Committee Report No. 20. London.Google Scholar
Dexter, S. T., Frakes, M. G. & Snyder, F. W. (1967). A rapid and practical method of determining extractable white sugar as may be applied to the evaluation of agronomic practices and grower deliveries in the sugar beet industry. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 14, 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, C. A. & Seale, R. S. (1966). The soils of the district around Cambridge. Memoirs of the Soil Survey of Great Britain, England and Wales.Google Scholar
Kelling, K. A., Walsh, L. M., Keeney, D. R., Ryan, J. A. & Peterson, A. E. (1977 b). A field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge. II. Effect on soil N and P. Journal of Environmental Quality 6, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelling, K. A., Keeney, D. R., Walsh, L. M. & Ryan, J. A. (1977 c). A field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge. III. Effect on uptake and extractability of sludge-borne metals. Journal of Environmental Quality 6, 352–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1982). Techniques for measuring soil physical properties. In Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Reference book 441, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar
Sommers, L. E. (1977). Chemical composition of sewage sludges and analysis of their potential use as fertilizers. Journal of Environmental Quality 6, 225–232.Google Scholar