Transport of Testosterone and Estrogen from Dairy-Farm Waste Lagoons to Groundwater

2008 ◽  
Vol 42 (15) ◽  
pp. 5521-5526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Arnon ◽  
Ofer Dahan ◽  
Sara Elhanany ◽  
Keren Cohen ◽  
Irena Pankratov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 267 ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Unnati Rao ◽  
Roy Posmanik ◽  
Lindsay E. Hatch ◽  
Jefferson W. Tester ◽  
Sharon L. Walker ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 901-910 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.A. Horton ◽  
L.P. Randall ◽  
V. Bailey-Horne ◽  
K. Heinrich ◽  
M. Sharman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Angayarkanni, A ◽  

A field experiment was conducted to know the response of crops to combined application of co compost and lignite fly ash. Field experiments were conducted in experimental farm (rice and maize) and farmers holding (groundnut and brinjal) to study the response of certain crops to the application of co composts and lignite fly ash grown in clay loam and sandy clay loam soil, respectively. The treatment consisted of Dairy Farm Waste + Crop Residues, Pressmud+ Crop Residues, Dairy Farm Waste + Crop Residues + LFA @5 t ha-1, Dairy Farm Waste + Crop Residues + LFA @10 t ha-1, Dairy Farm Waste + Crop Residues + LFA @15 t ha-1, Pressmud + crop residues + LFA @5 t ha-1, Pressmud + crop residues + LFA @10 t ha-1and Pressmud + crop residues + LFA @15 t ha-1 .The grain and straw yield in rice and maize, pod and haulm yield in groundnut and fruit yield of brinjal were recorded during harvest. Differences in yield of crops between the treatments indicate significantly different effects on soil fertility and crop yield after long-term fertilization. The uptake of nutrients increased linearly with levels of LFA tried and it was higher when it was applied with co compost of pressmud and crop residue. The addition of co composts alone or with graded dose of lignite fly ash significantly improved the physical properties of the soil.


2000 ◽  
Vol 42 (10-11) ◽  
pp. 195-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Craggs ◽  
C. C. Tanner ◽  
J. P. Sukias ◽  
R. J. Davies-Colley

Dairy farm waste stabilisation ponds are a major source of ammoniacal-N to surface waters in New Zealand. Ammoniacal-N is of particular concern in New Zealand where native aquatic invertebrates appear to be very sensitive to ammonia toxicity. This paper investigates improvement of ammoniacal-N nitrification in dairy farm facultative ponds with mechanical aeration and provision of biofilm attachment surfaces. Biofilm was grown on surfaces at different depths (0.1 m, 0.2 m and 0.6 m) under three mechanical aeration regimes (no aeration, night-only aeration and continuous aeration). Nitrification potential of biofilm was determined as the rate of ammoniacal-N removal in bioassays with ammoniacal-N spiked pond water or culture medium under controlled conditions (20°C, pH 7.0, constant stirring, DO 2–3 g m−3, dark). The nitrification potentials (0.30 g N m−2 biofilm d−1 to 2.17 g N m−2 biofilm d−1) of biofilm-coated surfaces were largely controlled by oxygen availability and consistency of supply in the pond. Nitrification potentials were high where oxygen availability was high, such as close to the pond surface where atmospheric re-aeration and algal photosynthesis were prevalent. Nitrification potentials of biofilms incubated at depth were enhanced by mechanical aeration, with higher values achieved under the continuous aeration regime and at more turbulent sites closer to the aerator.


Author(s):  
W.N. Reynolds

Following the 2007/08 drought, we experienced poor pasture production and persistence on our dairy farm in north Waikato, leading to decreased milksolids production and a greater reliance on bought-in feed. It is estimated that the cost of this to our farming operation was about $1300 per hectare per year in lost operating profit. While climate and black beetle were factors, they did not explain everything, and other factors were also involved. In the last 3 years we have changed our management strategies to better withstand dry summers, the catalyst for which was becoming the DairyNZ Pasture Improvement Focus Farm for the north Waikato. The major changes we made were to reduce stocking rate, actively manage pastures in summer to reduce over-grazing, and pay more attention to detail in our pasture renewal programme. To date the result has been a reduced need for pasture renewal, a lift in whole farm performance and increased profitability. Keywords: Focus farm, over-grazing, pasture management, pasture persistence, profitability


Author(s):  
C. Van der Geest

I am a 30-year-old sharemilker on my parent's 600 cow developing farm near Blackball on the western side of the Grey Valley. Earlier this year I competed in the National Young Farmer of the Year competition and finished a close third. So what is information? There are two types of information that I use. There is data gathered from my farm to help fine tune the running of the day to day operations on the farm And directional information This is the information that arrives in papers and directs the long-term direction and plans of the farm and farming businesses. Due to the variability in weather on the Coast there is a greater need to monitor and adjust the farming system compared to an area like Canterbury. This was shown last year (2001/02) when the farm was undergoing a rapid period of development and I was under time restraints from increasing the herd size, building a new shed as well as developing the farm. The results of the time pressure was that day to day information gathering was lower resulting in per cow production falling by 11% or around $182 per cow. So what information was lacking that caused this large drop in profit. • Pasture growth rates • Cow condition • Nitrogen requirements • Paddock performance • Milk production • Pre-mating heat detection As scientists and advisers I hear you say that it is the farmer's responsibility to gather and analyse this information. You have the bigger topics to research and discover, gene marking, improving pasture species, sexing of sperm and ideas that I have not even contemplated yet. This is indeed very valuable research. Where would farming be without the invention of electric fences, artificial breeding and nitrogen research? But my problem is to take a farm with below average production to the top 10% in production with the existing technology and farming principles. I have all the technical information I need at the end of a phone. I can and do ring my consultant, fertiliser rep, vet, neighbour and due to the size and openness of New Zealand science, at present if they do not know I can ring an expert in agronomy, nutrition, soils and receive the answer that I require. I hope that this openness remains as in a time of privatisation and cost cutting it is a true advantage. I feel that for myself the next leap in information is not in the growing of grass or production of milk but in the tools to collect, store and utilise that information. This being tied to a financial benefit to the farming business is the real reason that I farm. Think of the benefits of being able to read pasture cover on a motorbike instantly downloaded, overlaying cow intake with milk production, changes in cow weight, daily soil temperature and predicted nitrogen response. Telling me low producing cows and poor producing paddocks, any potential feed deficits or surpluses. This would be a powerful information tool to use. The majority of this information is already available but until the restraints of time and cost are removed from data gathering and storage, this will not happen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document