University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Database of Dairy, Poultry, and Swine Manure/Litter Chemical and Physical Properties

Nathan A. Slaton, Uzair Ahmad, Cheri Villines, Russell Delong, and Otis RobinsonThe database contains select properties of more than 16,000 dry and liquid dairy, poultry, and swine manure samples submitted between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2023 by to the University of Arkansas Division of Agricultures’ Fayetteville Agricultural Diagnostic Laboratory (FADL). Most samples were submitted by clients with active animal production farms to determine manure properties for nutrient management planning. Most samples are from farms within Arkansas and Oklahoma. Metadata describing the production system, manure collection and storage, age, and bedding was provided by clients and assumed to be reasonably accurate. Animal type, Bedding type, and Manure type metadata not provided by the client was listed as “Unknown”. Metadata for Date received, Sample Age (Days), State, County, and some analytes are sometimes missing and were left as blank cells.We could find no single literature source that describes all production systems and manure/litter types, but the information in Malone (1992), Key et al. (2011), and USDA-NRCS (2012) describes animal production systems, manure forms, and the factors that influence litter/manure production in animal production systems in the USA that may help understand the types of litter/manure forms included in this database.Poultry litter (Dry) SamplesThe database includes information for >13,000 poultry samples submitted from 1 January 2005 through 31 December 2023. Samples represented in the database include Broiler, Hen, Pullet, Turkey, Unknown (no animal-specific production system noted), Cornish, and Rooster. An example manure submission form is shown in Figure 1 (document attached). Manure types include Cake, Cleanout, Compost, Dead bird compost, Deep stack, Dry stack, Fresh litter, In-house, Lagoon liquid, Lagoon sludge, Loose, Pellets, Sludge, and Unknown. Bedding materials include Rice hulls (Oryza sativa L.), Sawdust, Wood shavings, and mixtures of Rice hulls and Sawdust, Rice hulls and Wood shavings, Wood shavings and Sawdust, Straw, and Wood shavings and Unknown.Arkansas clients usually deliver samples directly to the FADL or a local county Extension office where a sample submission form (Figure 1: document attached) is completed, and the sample is shipped to the laboratory. Samples from Oklahoma were often delivered directly to FADL. When a sample arrives at the lab, the date received and the lab identification number are added to the sample’s submission form, which is filed for record-keeping. The lab numbers contain 5-6 digits, are numbered sequentially in the order received at the lab, and represent information including (from left to right): Letter M (Manure; note some samples include M and others do not because “M” was omitted when entered into the database); first or second number (1-10 or 20) stands for the year; and the last 4 numbers in the lab number are the order the sample was logged in at the FADL. The dataset also includes columns for the year and date received.Using a scoop or spatula, representative portions or the bulk sample are split into two subsamples (~100 mL or cm3 each) which are placed into plastic bags. The as-received subsamples are refrigerated at 4°C if the analysis is performed on another day. One subsample is homogenized, ground using a coffee bean grinder, and used for pH, electrical conductivity, and total nutrient determinations. For high moisture content samples, a spatula is used to mix the sample when the subsamples are collected. The second subsample remains unaltered (as-received) and is used for moisture determination and water-extractable phosphorus (WEP) analysis. Any remaining bulk sample is stored at room temperature until analysis is complete and the results are delivered to the client. The FADL has participated in the Minnesota Manure Proficiency Program as part of the quality assurance and control program (https://www.mda.state.mn.us/manure-testing-laboratory-certification-program-faqs) for all the years represented in this database.The database includes two columns of data for WEP. Water-extractable P was originally performed using the 10:1 water/litter (v:w) ratio identified as the Arkansas method (Wolf et al., 2009). The Universal WEP method (Spargo, 2022; Wolf et al., 2009) is now used to determine water-extractable nutrients in manure samples. After 2009, the Arkansas WEP method was used on poultry litter samples since this was required for samples submitted from the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed (Sharpley et al., 2009; 2010). Beginning in 2010, the laboratory switched all WEP analyses to the Universal WEP method. The Universal water-extraction method (100:1) is the only method used for the determination of water-extractable potassium (WEK) which was started in 2009.The counties and states of sample origin were not recorded in the original poultry litter dataset but were added for samples submitted beginning 1 January 2023. The county and state were added to random samples that were checked for accuracy of analytical information. Note that even when the county and state are provided, the county of litter origin may not be accurate since the county Extension office that received the sample may not be consistent with the county of production. Information included in the column identified as “Clients” has two levels: “ESWMT” (Eucha-Spavinaw Watershed Management Team) and “Other”. Samples with the client identified as ESWMT were submitted from poultry farms located within the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed (DeLaune et al., 2006; Sharpley et al., 2009). The ESWMT label identified these samples for the analysis requirements set by the watershed regulations requiring that all poultry litter samples be analyzed for WEP (OCCWQD, 2021).Dairy and Swine Liquid Manure SamplesThe database includes dairy and swine manure properties and metadata for >650 dairy and 1800 swine samples submitted from 1 January 2007 through 31 December 2023. The dairy and swine data include samples of dry and liquid manure forms. Most samples include geographic origin metadata at the state and county levels. Metadata for dairy and swine sample manure types include Cleanout, Compost, Dry stack, Holding pond, Lagoon, Lagoon liquid, Milk wash water, Pit, Pond, Settling basin, Settling pond, Settling basin sludge, Sludge, Tank, Wash water, and Unknown metadata were provided by the client. Sample age metadata should be used with caution since some values are low (e.g., 1-7 days) and may misrepresent the requested information.Clients are provided with 500 ml (16.9 oz; 73×164 mm D×H: 53 mm cap) leakproof bottles and shipping boxes. Upon delivery, samples are refrigerated until the analyses are completed (Figure 2: document attached). The analyses performed are based on client requests and include the percent solids for liquid samples or percent moisture for dry samples.ReferencesDeLaune, Haggard, B.E., Daniel, T.C., Chaubey, I., & Cochran, M. (2006). The Eucha/Spavinaw phosphorus index: A court mandated index for litter management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 61(2), 96-105. https://www.jswconline.org/content/61/2/96Key, N., McBride, W.D., Ribaudo, M., & Sneeringer, S. (2011) Trends and developments in hog manure management: 1998-2009. EIB-81. USDA-ERS. September 2011. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44579/6018_eib81_1_.pdf?v=4967.6Malone, G.W. (1992). Nutrient enrichment in integrated broiler production systems. Poultry Science, 71(7), 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0711117Oklahoma Conservation Commission Water Quality Division (OCCWQD). (2007). Watershed based plan for the lake Eucha/lake Spavinaw watershed. Oklahoma Conservation Commission, 1–56. July 2021. https://conservation.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Eucha_Spavinaw-Watershed-Based-Plan-2009.pdfSharpley, A., Herron., S., West, C., & Daniel, T. (2009) Outcomes of the phosphorus-based nutrient management in the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed. In A.J. Franzluebbers (ed), Farming with grass: Achieving sustainable mixed agricultural landscapes (pp. 192-204). Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA. https://www.swcs.org/resources/publications/farming-with-grass-onlineSharpley, A., Moore, P., VanDavender, K., Daniels, M., Delp, W., Haggard, B., Daniel, T., & Baber, A. (2010). Arkansas phosphorus index. FSA 9531. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Printing Services. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/PDF/FSA-9531.pdfSpargo, J.T. (2022). M-6.1 Water extractable phosphorus, 100:1 solution to solids ratio. In M. L. Wilson & S. Cortus (Eds.), Recommended Methods of Manure Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 83-86). University of Minnesota: Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24926/9781946135858United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). (2012). Chapter 4: Agricultural waste characteristics. In Part 651: Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/31475.wbaWolf, A.M., Moore, P.A., Jr., Kleinman, P.J.A., & Sullivan, D.M. (2009). Water-soluble water-extractable phosphorus in animal manure and biosolids. In J.L. Kovar & G.M. Pierzynski (Eds.), Methods of Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, Sediments, Residuals, and Waters (Revised Edition, pp. 76-80). Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No 408. https://sera17.wordpress.ncsu.edu/publications/作者：Nathan A. Slaton、Uzair Ahmad、Cheri Villines、Russell Delong与Otis Robinson 本数据集收录了2005年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间，由阿肯色大学农业分部费耶特维尔农业诊断实验室（Fayetteville Agricultural Diagnostic Laboratory, FADL）接收的逾16000份干燥、液态奶牛、家禽及猪粪样本的精选属性数据。大多数样本由拥有活跃畜禽养殖场的客户提交，用于开展粪肥属性检测以制定养分管理规划。样本主要来自阿肯色州与俄克拉荷马州的养殖场。 客户提供了生产系统、粪肥收集与储存方式、样本陈化时间以及垫料类型等元数据，默认上述信息具备合理准确性。若客户未提供畜禽类型、垫料类型与粪肥类型的元数据，则统一标注为"Unknown（未知）"。接收日期、样本陈化天数（天）、州、县以及部分分析物数据存在缺失情况，以空白单元格保留。 目前尚未发现单一文献可涵盖所有生产系统与粪肥/垫料类型，但Malone（1992）、Key等人（2011）以及美国农业部自然资源保护局（United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA-NRCS, 2012）的相关研究描述了美国畜禽生产系统、粪肥形式以及影响垫料/粪肥生产的因素，有助于理解本数据集收录的垫料/粪肥类型。 ## 家禽干燥垫料样本 本数据集收录了2005年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间提交的逾13000份家禽样本数据。数据库中涵盖的样本包括肉鸡、母鸡、青年母鸡、火鸡、Unknown（未标注具体畜禽生产系统的样本）、科尼什鸡与公鸡。图1展示了一份粪肥提交表单（附件文档）。 粪肥类型包括饼肥、清粪物、堆肥、死禽堆肥、深层堆垛、干燥堆垛、新鲜垫料、舍内粪肥、泻湖液态物、泻湖污泥、松散物、颗粒料、污泥以及未知。垫料材料包括稻壳（*Oryza sativa* L.）、锯末、木屑，以及稻壳与锯末、稻壳与木屑、木屑与锯末、秸秆、木屑与未知的混合物料。 阿肯色州的客户通常会将样本直接送至FADL或当地县级推广办公室，在此完成样本提交表单（图1：附件文档），随后将样本运送至实验室。俄克拉荷马州的样本通常直接送至FADL。当样本送达实验室后，工作人员会将接收日期与实验室编号添加至样本提交表单中，用于存档备案。实验室编号由5至6位数字组成，按接收顺序依次编号，其含义从左至右依次为：字母M（代表粪肥；注：部分样本包含M，部分未包含，因数据库录入时省略了"M"）；首位或第二位数字（1-10或20）代表年份；最后四位数字为样本在FADL的登录顺序。数据集同时包含接收年份与接收日期两列数据。 使用勺子或刮刀，将代表性试样或批量样本分为两份副样（每份约100 mL或cm³），装入塑料袋中。若需隔日开展分析，则将副样置于4℃冰箱冷藏。将其中一份副样均质化，使用咖啡豆研磨机研磨后，用于pH值、电导率以及总养分含量测定。对于高含水量样本，在采集副样时需使用刮刀搅拌样本。另一份副样保持原始状态（未处理），用于含水量测定以及水提取态磷（water-extractable phosphorus, WEP）分析。剩余的批量样本置于室温储存直至分析完成并将结果交付客户。在本数据集涵盖的所有年份中，FADL均参与了明尼苏达州粪肥能力验证项目（https://www.mda.state.mn.us/manure-testing-laboratory-certification-program-faqs），作为其质量保证与质量控制体系的一部分。 本数据集包含两列WEP相关数据。水提取态磷最初采用阿肯色州方法（Wolf等人，2009）所规定的10:1水/垫料（体积/质量）比进行测定。目前通用WEP方法（Spargo, 2022; Wolf等人，2009）已用于粪肥样本的水提取态养分测定。2009年后，针对来自尤查-斯帕维诺流域的样本，因相关要求需采用阿肯色州WEP方法进行家禽垫料样本检测（Sharpley等人，2009; 2010）。自2010年起，实验室将所有WEP分析切换至通用WEP方法。通用水提取方法（100:1比例）是目前用于测定水提取态钾（water-extractable potassium, WEK）的唯一方法，该方法于2009年开始启用。 最初的家禽垫料数据集未记录样本来源的县与州信息，仅为2023年1月1日起提交的样本补充了该信息。同时为部分经核查分析信息准确性的随机样本补充了县与州信息。需注意，即便提供了县与州信息，垫料来源的县信息可能并不准确，因为接收样本的县级推广办公室所在地可能与实际生产所在地并不一致。 "Clients"列的信息包含两个层级："ESWMT（尤查-斯帕维诺流域管理团队）"与"其他"。客户标识为ESWMT的样本，均来自尤查-斯帕维诺流域内的家禽养殖场（DeLaune等人，2006; Sharpley等人，2009）。ESWMT标签用于标识符合流域管理条例要求的样本，该条例要求所有家禽垫料样本必须开展WEP分析（俄克拉荷马州保护委员会水质部, 2021）。 ## 奶牛与猪液态粪肥样本 本数据集收录了2007年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间提交的逾650份奶牛样本与1800份猪样本的粪肥属性与元数据。奶牛与猪数据涵盖了干燥与液态两种粪肥形式的样本。大多数样本包含州、县级的地理来源元数据。 奶牛与猪样本的粪肥类型元数据包括清粪物、堆肥、干燥堆垛、贮液池、泻湖、泻湖液态物、洗奶废水、粪坑、池塘、沉淀池、沉降塘、沉淀池污泥、污泥、贮槽、冲洗水以及未知，均由客户提供。样本陈化时间元数据需谨慎使用，因为部分数值过低（如1-7天），可能无法准确反映所要求的信息。 客户将获得500 mL（16.9盎司；尺寸：73×164 mm 直径×高度；瓶盖直径53 mm）的防漏瓶与运输箱。样本送达后，将被冷藏直至分析完成（图2：附件文档）。开展的分析项目根据客户需求确定，包括液态样本的固体百分比或干燥样本的水分百分比。 ## 参考文献 1. DeLaune, Haggard, B.E., Daniel, T.C., Chaubey, I., & Cochran, M. (2006). 尤查/斯帕维诺磷指数：法庭强制实施的垫料管理指数. 《土壤与水保护杂志》, 61(2), 96-105. https://www.jswconline.org/content/61/2/96 2. Key, N., McBride, W.D., Ribaudo, M., & Sneeringer, S. (2011). 1998-2009年猪粪肥管理的趋势与发展. EIB-81. 美国农业部经济研究服务局（USDA-ERS）. 2011年9月. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44579/6018_eib81_1_.pdf?v=4967.6 3. Malone, G.W. (1992). 一体化肉鸡生产系统的养分富集现象. 《家禽科学》, 71(7), 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0711117 4. 俄克拉荷马州保护委员会水质部（Oklahoma Conservation Commission Water Quality Division, OCCWQD）. (2007). 尤查湖/斯帕维诺湖流域流域规划. 俄克拉荷马州保护委员会, 1–56. 2021年7月. https://conservation.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Eucha_Spavinaw-Watershed-Based-Plan-2009.pdf 5. Sharpley, A., Herron, S., West, C., & Daniel, T. (2009). 尤查-斯帕维诺流域基于磷的养分管理成果. 载于A.J. Franzluebbers（编）. 《种草耕作：实现可持续混合农业景观》(pp. 192-204). 土壤与水保护学会, 安肯尼, 艾奥瓦州. https://www.swcs.org/resources/publications/farming-with-grass-online 6. Sharpley, A., Moore, P., VanDavender, K., Daniels, M., Delp, W., Haggard, B., Daniel, T., & Baber, A. (2010). 阿肯色州磷指数. FSA 9531. 阿肯色大学合作推广服务部印刷服务. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/PDF/FSA-9531.pdf 7. Spargo, J.T. (2022). M-6.1 水提取态磷：100:1固液比. 载于M. L. Wilson与S. Cortus（编）. 《推荐粪肥分析方法（第2版）》(pp. 83-86). 明尼苏达大学: 明尼苏达图书馆出版部. https://doi.org/10.24926/9781946135858 8. 美国农业部自然资源保护局（USDA-NRCS）. (2012). 第4章：农业废物特征. 载于《第651部分：农业废物管理现场手册》. 美国农业部土壤保护局, 华盛顿特区. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/31475.wba 9. Wolf, A.M., Moore, P.A. Jr., Kleinman, P.J.A., & Sullivan, D.M. (2009). 动物粪便与生物固体中的水溶性水提取态磷. 载于J.L. Kovar与G.M. Pierzynski（编）. 《土壤、沉积物、残留物与水体的磷分析方法（修订版）》(pp. 76-80). 南部合作系列公报第408号. https://sera17.wordpress.ncsu.edu/publications/