@article{kulesza_leon_sosinski_kilroy_meis_castillo_wilson_2024, title={Risk of weed seed and seedling emergence from poultry litter}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2639-6696"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20479}, DOI={10.1002/agg2.20479}, abstractNote={AbstractIn areas surrounding large poultry industries, poultry litter is often an alternative nitrogen fertilizer for crop production. However, farmers who have not used poultry litter in the past have concerns regarding potential weed seed contamination. A survey was conducted to determine the occurrence of germinable weed seed in poultry litters (n = 61) submitted by growers and industry representatives across North Carolina. In a 9:1 potting media:poultry litter mix, a single grass seed germinated from the 61 surveyed poultry litters, equating to 0.3 viable seeds 100 g−1 poultry litter. Viable seed content averaged 1.1 seeds 100 g−1 litter using the extractable seedbank method on 25% of the litters from the survey, much higher than the grow out method, and the majority of seeds found were Amaranthaceae. A growth chamber experiment was then conducted and demonstrated that there was a negative relation between poultry litter application and weed seedling emergence. There was a 65%, 75%, and 85% reduction in Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby, Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult., and Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson germination, respectively, from the control to highest application rate of poultry litter (26.9 Mg ha−1). A laboratory study showed that poultry litter leachates can decrease seed radicle length and integrity and is likely due to osmotic or salinity stress. The weed seed content in litter as well as the negative impact of poultry litter and its leachates on weed seedling emergence make it unlikely that poultry litter applications will significantly increase seedbanks above levels commonly observed in agricultural fields.}, number={1}, journal={AGROSYSTEMS GEOSCIENCES & ENVIRONMENT}, author={Kulesza, Stephanie B. and Leon, Ramon G. and Sosinski, Stephanie C. and Kilroy, Grace M. and Meis, Brittani and Castillo, Miguel S. and Wilson, Melissa L.}, year={2024}, month={Mar} } @article{sosinski_castillo_kulesza_leon_2022, title={Poultry litter and nitrogen fertilizer effects on productivity and nutritive value of crabgrass}, volume={9}, ISSN={["1435-0653"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20815}, DOI={10.1002/csc2.20815}, abstractNote={AbstractCrabgrass (Digitaria spp.) is deemed as a productive and nutritious warm‐season annual forage for livestock in the U.S. transition zone. However, there is limited information about nitrogen (N) source and rate effects on productivity and nutritive value of crabgrass in North Carolina. Herbage accumulation (HA), N removal, crude protein (CP), total digestible nutrients (TDN), and tissue nitrate (NO3−) concentrations were evaluated for 2 yr (2020 and 2021) in two physiographic regions (Piedmont and Coastal Plain). Treatments were five rates of chemical N fertilizer (up to 480 kg N ha−1), five rates of plant‐available N from broiler poultry litter (up to 472 and 399 kg N ha−1 in 2020 and 2021, respectively), and one control (zero N). Overall crabgrass responses were not different between N sources. At Coastal Plain, HA increased from 4,990 kg dry matter (DM) ha−1 and plateaued at 7,136 kg DM ha−1 at an agronomic optimum N rate (AONR) of 198 (SE = 49) kg N ha−1. At Piedmont, HA responses were erratic, estimation of an AONR was not possible, and HA values were approximately half or less to those at Coastal Plain. Removal of N was linearly associated with HA. Increasing N rate had a marginal positive effect on CP (ranged from 126 to 154 g kg−1) and no effect on TDN (averaged 626 g kg−1). Tissue NO3− values were below the toxic threshold for feeding livestock. Poultry litter is an effective N source for crabgrass. Nitrogen rate effects were more apparent on crabgrass’ productivity; nutritive value was generally high regardless of N rate and source.}, journal={CROP SCIENCE}, author={Sosinski, Stephanie and Castillo, Miguel S. and Kulesza, Stephanie and Leon, Ramon}, year={2022}, month={Sep} } @article{spearman_castillo_sosinski_2021, title={Evaluation of five bermudagrass cultivars fertigated with swine lagoon effluent}, volume={113}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.1002/agj2.20633}, abstractNote={AbstractBermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] hay is an important output from land receiving swine (Sus scrofa) effluent application (also known as spray fields); however, there is limited information about cultivar differences in the upper Southeast United States. Herbage accumulation, nutritive value, tissue nitrate concentration, and stem maggot damage were evaluated for five bermudagrass cultivars (‘Coastal’, ‘Midland 99’, ‘Ozark’, ‘Tifton 44’, and ‘Tifton 85’) fertigated with swine effluent throughout three growing seasons (2016, 2017, and 2018). All cultivars achieved canopy height ≥35 cm by July and cover of 100% by August of year of planting. Based on 3‐yr averages, Tifton 85 (9.3 Mg ha–1) had greater herbage accumulation than cultivars Coastal, Ozark, and Tifton 44 (≈7.9 Mg ha–1), and Midland 99 was intermediate (8.5 Mg ha–1). Bermudagrass stem maggot (Atherigona reversura) damage was consistently lower for Tifton 85 and resulted in larger differences in herbage accumulation in 2017 (11.2 vs. 8.4 Mg ha–1 for Tifton 85 and the other cultivars, respectively). There were moderate differences in crude protein concentration (ranged from 179 to 212 g kg–1) and no difference in total digestible nutrients (622 g kg–1). Tissue nitrate concentrations ranged from 3,433 to 16,168 mg NO3– kg–1. Differences in productivity and nutritive value were moderate among cultivars; however, in areas with potentially high bermudagrass stem maggot damage, greater utilization of Tifton 85, if adapted, is warranted. Hay production from spray fields results in high yields and high nutritive value forage. Frequent nitrate testing, if possible by harvested hay lot, is advised.}, number={3}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Spearman, Rebecca L. and Castillo, Miguel S. and Sosinski, Stephanie}, year={2021}, month={May}, pages={2567–2577} }