Use of phosphorus fertiliser for increased productivity of legume-based sown pastures in the Brigalow Belt region – a review

The Brigalow Belt bioregion of southern and central Queensland supports a large percentage of northern Australia's sown pastures and beef herd. The Brigalow soils were widely thought to have adequate phosphorus (P) for cropping, sown pastures and grazing animals, which has led to almost no use of P fertiliser on sown pastures. The majority of pastures established in the region were sown with tropical grasses only (i.e. no legumes were sown). Under grass-only pastures, nitrogen (N) mineralisation rates decline with time since establishment as N is 'tied-up' in soil organic matter. This process leads to a significant decline in pasture and animal productivity and is commonly called 'pasture rundown'. Incorporating pasture legumes has been identified as the best long-term solution to improve the productivity of rundown sown grass pastures. Pasture legumes require adequate P to grow well and fix large amounts of N to increase the productivity of rundown sown grass pastures. Producers and farm advisors have traditionally thought that P fertiliser is not cost-effective for legume-based improved pastures growing on inland areas of Queensland despite there being little, if any, data on production responses or their economic outcomes. Recent studies show large and increasing areas of low plant available soil P and large responses by pasture legumes to P fertiliser on Brigalow soils. The economic analysis in this scoping study indicates potential returns of 9–15% on extra funds invested from the application of P fertiliser, when establishing legumes into grass pastures on low P soils (i.e. lower than the critical P requirement of the legume grown). Higher returns of 12–24% may be possible when adding P fertiliser to already established grass/legume pastures on such soils. As these results suggest potential for significant returns from applying P fertiliser on legume pastures, it is recommended that research be conducted to better quantify the impacts of P fertiliser on productivity and profit. Research priorities include: quantifying the animal production and economic impact of fertilising legume-based pastures in the sub-tropics for currently used legumes; quantifying the comparative P requirements and responses of available legume varieties; understanding clay soil responses to applied P fertiliser; testing the P status of herds grazing in the Brigalow Belt; and quantifying the extent of other nutrient deficiencies (e.g. sulphur and potassium) for legume based pastures. Development and extension activities are required to demonstrate the commercial impacts of applying P fertiliser to legume based pastures.

Clays Can Decrease Gaseous Nutrient Losses from Soil-Applied Livestock Manures

Clays could underpin a viable agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement technology given their affinity for nitrogen and carbon compounds. We provide the first investigation into the efficacy of clays to decrease agricultural nitrogen GHG emissions (i.e., N2O and NH3). Via laboratory experiments using an automated closed-vessel analysis system, we tested the capacity of two clays (vermiculite and bentonite) to decrease N2O and NH3 emissions and organic carbon losses from livestock manures (beef, pig, poultry, and egg layer) incorporated into an agricultural soil. Clay addition levels varied, with a maximum of 1:1 to manure (dry weight). Cumulative gas emissions were modeled using the biological logistic function, with 15 of 16 treatments successfully fitted (P < 0.05) by this model. When assessing all of the manures together, NH3 emissions were lower (×2) at the highest clay addition level compared with no clay addition, but this difference was not significant (P = 0.17). Nitrous oxide emissions were significantly lower (×3; P < 0.05) at the highest clay addition level compared with no clay addition. When assessing manures individually, we observed generally decreasing trends in NH3 and N2O emissions with increasing clay addition, albeit with widely varying statistical significance between manure types. Most of the treatments also showed strong evidence of increased C retention with increasing clay additions, with up to 10 times more carbon retained in treatments containing clay compared with treatments containing no clay. This preliminary assessment of the efficacy of clays to mitigate agricultural GHG emissions indicates strong promise.

A novel and effective technology for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from land-applied manures

Land-applied manures produce nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas (GHG). Land application can also result in ammonia (NH3) volatilisation, leading to indirect N2O emissions. Here, we summarise a glasshouse investigation into the potential for vermiculite, a clay with a high cation exchange capacity, to decrease N2O emissions from livestock manures (beef, pig, broiler, layer), as well as urea, applied to soils. Our hypothesis is that clays adsorb ammonium, thereby suppressing NH3 volatilisation and slowing N2O emission processes. We previously demonstrated the ability of clays to decrease emissions at the laboratory scale. In this glasshouse work, manure and urea application rates varied between 50 and 150 kg nitrogen (N)/ha. Clay : manure ratios ranged from 1 : 10 to 1 : 1 (dry weight basis). In the 1-year trial, the above-mentioned N sources were incorporated with vermiculite in 1 L pots containing Sodosol and Ferrosol growing a model pasture (Pennisetum clandestinum or kikuyu grass). Gas emissions were measured periodically by placing the pots in gas-tight bags connected to real-time continuous gas analysers. The vermiculite achieved significant (P ≤ 0.05) and substantial decreases in N2O emissions across all N sources (70% on average). We are currently testing the technology at the field scale; which is showing promising emission decreases (~50%) as well as increases (~20%) in dry matter yields. This technology clearly has merit as an effective GHG mitigation strategy, with potential associated agronomic benefits, although it needs to be verified by a cost–benefit analysis.