Using animal manure as organic fertilizer to grow fodder crops is causing public health concerns because animal manure is the major reservoir of veterinary antibiotics. In this study, we used a mathematical model to estimate the risk of human exposure to veterinary antibiotics when using swine manure as organic fertilizer to grow alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Alfalfa was planted in a greenhouse and fertilized with swine manure spiked with oxytetracycline (OTC, at 0, 150, and 1500 mg/kg of manure), ofloxacin (OFL, at 0, 15, and 150 mg/kg), or sulfamonomethoxine (SMM, at 0, 5, 15 and 150 mg/kg). Alfalfa was harvested at the budding stage and ensiled for 60 days. Results showed that OTC and OFL could be detected in the alfalfa root, stem, and leaf with a concentration ranging from 8.85 to 59.17 μg OTC /kg and from 1.50 to 4.10 μg OFL/kg dry matter, but SMM could only be detected in the root ranging from 29.10 to 63.75 μg/kg dry matter. The ensiling for 60 days decreased the OFL concentration by 68.7% but only slightly decreased the OTC concentration. The maximum daily exposures of humans to OTC and OFL through liquid milk consumption were estimated to be 5.84E-8 and 1.63E-8 μg, respectively, both of which are well below the intake levels of OTC (72 μg) and OFL (54 μg) mandated by the European Union. The results of the present study indicate that using swine manure as organic fertilizer to grow alfalfa poses a limited risk for human exposure to veterinary antibiotics through the consumption of liquid milk. © 2021
Tag: Fertilizer applications
Mismatch between soil nutrient deficiencies and fertilizer applications: Implications for yield responses in Ethiopia
Lack of accurate information about soil nutrient deficiencies coupled with limited access to appropriate fertilizers could lead to mismatch between soil nutrient deficiencies (requirements) and fertilizer applications. Such anomalies and mismatches are likely to have important implications for agricultural productivity. In this article we use experimental (spectral soil analysis) data from Ethiopia to examine farmers’ response to soil nutrient deficiencies and its implications for yield responses. We find that farmers’ response to macronutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) deficiencies is not always consistent with agronomic recommendations. For example, we find that farmers in our sample are applying nitrogen fertilizers to soils lacking phosphorus, potentially due to lack of information on soil nutrient deficiencies or lack of access to appropriate fertilizers in rural markets. On the other hand, farmers respond to perceivably poor-quality and acidic soils by applying higher amount of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. We further show that such mismatches between fertilizer applications and soil macronutrient deficiencies are potentially yield-reducing. Those farmers matching their soil nutrient deficiencies (requirements) and fertilizer application are likely to enjoy additional yield gains. Marginal yield response associated with nitrogen (phosphorus) application increases with nitrogen (phosphorus) deficiency in soils. Similarly, we find that farmers’ response to acidic soils is not yield-enhancing. These findings suggest that such mismatches may explain heterogeneities in marginal returns to chemical fertilizers and the observed low adoption rates of chemical fertilizers in sub-Saharan Africa.