CROPS AND SOILS RESEARCH PAPER Effect of storage conditions on losses and crop utilization of nitrogen from solid cattle manure G. M. SHAH 1,2 * , G. A. SHAH 1,3 , J. C. J. GROOT 1 , O. OENEMA 4 , A. S. RAZA 5 AND E. A. LANTINGA 1 1 Farming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 563, Wageningen 6700 AN, The Netherlands 2 Department of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Vehari, Pakistan 3 Department of Agronomy, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 4 Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands 5 Department of Agronomy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan (Received 17 January 2014; revised 27 November 2014; accepted 3 December 2014) Summary The objectives of the present study were to quantify the effects of contrasting methods for storing solid cattle manure on: (i) total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) balances during storage, and (ii) crop apparent N recovery (ANR) following manure application to arable land, with maize as a test crop. Portions of 10 t of fresh solid cattle manure were stored for 5 months during 2009/10 in three replicates as: (i) stockpiled heaps, (ii) roofed heaps, (iii) covered heaps and (iv) turned heaps at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Surface emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) were measured regularly using a static flux chamber connected to a photo-acoustic gas monitor. Total C and N losses during storage were determined through the mass balance method. After storage, the manures were surface-applied and incor- porated into a sandy soil, and maize ANR was measured as a proportion of both N applied to the field (ANR F ) and N collected from the barn (ANR B ). During the storage period, the average losses of initial total N (N total ) were 6% from the covered, 12% from the roofed, 21% from the stockpiled and 33% from the turned heaps. Of the total N losses, 2–9% was lost as NH 3 -N, 1–4% as N 2 O-N and 16–32% through leaching. However, the greatest part of the total N loss from the four storage methods was unaccounted for and constituted in all probability of harmless dinitrogen gas. Of the initial C content, c. 13, 14, 17 and 22% was lost from the covered, stockpiled, roofed and turned heaps, respect- ively. Maize ANR F was highest from covered (39% of the applied N) followed by roofed (31%), stockpiled (29%) and turned manure (20%). The respective values in case of maize ANR B were 37, 27, 23 and 13%. It is concluded that from a viewpoint of on-farm N recycling the storage of solid cattle manure under an impermeable plastic cover is much better than traditional stockpiling or turning heaps in the open air. INTRODUCTION Solid cattle manure is a valuable source of nitrogen (N) for plants, but may cause agro-environmental pro- blems if its utilization is inefficient due to poor man- agement. Nitrogen can be lost from the manure either as ammonia (NH 3 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) in the air, or as nitrate (NO 3 - ) in the surface and ground- water. The NH 3 and greenhouse gases such as N 2 O, methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from livestock farming systems are a concern due to their possible/potential adverse environmental effects (Groot Koerkamp et al. 1998; Jeppsson 1999; Amon et al. 2001; Oenema et al. 2005). High NH 3 emissions can cause acidification and eutrophication of oligo- trophic ecosystems, and enhanced deposition of NH x together with sulphate particles, which may alter the net irradiance among the various atmospheric layers (Sutton & Fowler 2002). Furthermore, it can react with other complex compounds to form particulate matter that may cause haze and reduce natural visi- bility. Nitrous oxide and CH 4 emissions contribute to global warming by destroying the stratospheric ozone layer (Crutzen 1981). Emission of all these * To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: gmshah1985@yahoo.com Journal of Agricultural Science, Page 1 of 14. © Cambridge University Press 2015 doi:10.1017/S0021859614001348