Abstract
Meat and bone meal (MBM) is a by-product of the meat industry and is an important pathway for recycling of N and P. MBM contains about 8% N, 5% P, 1% K and 10% Ca. Field trials compared the effects of MBM and mineral fertilizer on yield and quality of sugar beet (2008-2009) and carrot (2010-2011) in Finland. MBM fertilisation of sugar beet grown on clay loam and sandy clay soil gave 11.4% (2008) and 19.6% (2009) lower yields than mineral fertilizers. The lower root yield in 2008 was compensated by higher extractable sugar content and lower amino-N, K and Na in root but no such compensation in root quality was detected for 2009. Mixing MBM with mineral NPK fertilizers had similar effects as MBM-alone. MBM (80 kg N ha-1 2010 and 60 kg N ha-1 2011) together with K fertilizer (Patentkali®, 180 kg K ha-1) were applied for carrot to a fine sandy till soil in 2010 and sandy loam in 2011. MBM alone gave 14% lower total and marketable root yield than mineral fertilization. The lower yield was compensated by improved quality, lower NO3- content in the carrot and good storability. Adding extra fertilizer during growth or separating fertilization applications had no effect on root yield or quality. MBM performed in these cases mainly as an organic N fertilizer. The N supply from MBM is not sufficient for achieving same yields as with mineral fertilizers. The relative N efficiency of total N of MBM was 83% that of mineral fertilizers. MBM should be targeted on soils with low P status.We conclude that MBM is a reasonably competitive alternative to mineral fertilizers, and as a recycled fertilizer it is a good option for organic production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar beet yield under MBM was 11.4% lower than mineral fertilizer in 2008.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- MBM fertilisatione1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 11.4%e1
- Qualifier
- 2008e1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet”
e1“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet grown on clay loam and sandy clay soil gave 11.4% (2008) and 19.6% (2009) lower yields than mineral fertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar beet yield under MBM was 19.6% lower than mineral fertilizer in 2009.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- MBM fertilisatione1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 19.6%e1
- Qualifier
- 2009e1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet”
e1“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet grown on clay loam and sandy clay soil gave 11.4% (2008) and 19.6% (2009) lower yields than mineral fertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM sugar beet had higher extractable sugar content in 2008.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- MBMe2
- Outcome
- extractable sugar contente1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- 2008e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet”
e1“The lower root yield in 2008 was compensated by higher extractable sugar content and lower amino-N, K and Na in root”
e2“MBM fertilisation”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM sugar beet had lower root amino-N, K and Na in 2008.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- MBMe2
- Outcome
- amino-N, K and Na in roote1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Qualifier
- 2008e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet”
e1“The lower root yield in 2008 was compensated by higher extractable sugar content and lower amino-N, K and Na in root”
e2“MBM fertilisation”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM provided no compensating sugar beet root quality in 2009.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- no such compensation in root qualitye1
- Qualifier
- 2009e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MBM fertilisation of sugar beet”
e1“no such compensation in root quality was detected for 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Mixing MBM with mineral NPK gave similar effects to MBM alone.
- Taxon
- sugar beet and carrotBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Daucus carotae0 - Treatment
- Mixing MBM with mineral NPK fertilizerse1
- Outcome
- similar effectse1
- Direction
- similare1
- Comparator
- MBM-alonee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet and carrot”
e1“Mixing MBM with mineral NPK fertilizers had similar effects as MBM-alone”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM alone reduced carrot total and marketable root yield by 14% versus mineral fertilization.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- MBM alonee1
- Outcome
- total and marketable root yielde1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 14%e1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied for carrot”
e1“MBM alone gave 14% lower total and marketable root yield than mineral fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM reduced carrot NO3- content.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- MBMe2
- Outcome
- NO3- contente1
- Direction
- lowere1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied for carrot”
e1“The lower yield was compensated by improved quality, lower NO3- content in the carrot and good storability”
e2“MBM alone gave 14% lower total and marketable root yield”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM improved carrot quality and storability.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- MBMe2
- Outcome
- qualitye1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Qualifier
- good storabilitye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied for carrot”
e1“The lower yield was compensated by improved quality, lower NO3- content in the carrot and good storability”
e2“MBM alone gave 14% lower total and marketable root yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Extra fertilizer or split application did not affect carrot root yield or quality.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- Adding extra fertilizer during growth or separating fertilization applicationse1
- Outcome
- root yield or qualitye1
- Direction
- no effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied for carrot”
e1“Adding extra fertilizer during growth or separating fertilization applications had no effect on root yield or quality”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM supplied insufficient N to match mineral fertilizer yields.
- Taxon
- sugar beet and carrotBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarisDaucus carotae0
- Outcome
- N supply from MBMe1
- Direction
- not sufficiente1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet and carrot”
e1“The N supply from MBM is not sufficient for achieving same yields as with mineral fertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
Total N in MBM had 83% relative N efficiency versus mineral fertilizers.
- Taxon
- sugar beet and carrotBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarisDaucus carotae0
- Outcome
- relative N efficiency of total N of MBMe1
- Value
- 83%e1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizerse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet and carrot”
e1“The relative N efficiency of total N of MBM was 83% that of mineral fertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
MBM should target soils with low P status.
- Taxon
- sugar beet and carrotBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarisDaucus carotae0
- Outcome
- MBM should be targeted on soils with low P statuse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet and carrot”
e1“MBM should be targeted on soils with low P status”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider MBM a competitive recycled option for organic production.
- Taxon
- sugar beet and carrotBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarisDaucus carotae0
- Outcome
- a good option for organic productione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sugar beet and carrot”
e1“MBM is a reasonably competitive alternative to mineral fertilizers, and as a recycled fertilizer it is a good option for organic production”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: general · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 237 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.