Agricultural students presented the results of a campus-wide survey Nov. 27

    Senior Miranda Franco and senior Josh Rawls conducted a poultry litter versus chemical fertilizer survey to get the thoughts and concerns of the general public regarding substituting poultry litter for chemical fertilizer. Sixty-nine participants took the survey: 42 females and 27 males. Surveyors broke down the different age groups and the number of staff, administration, faculty and students who participated.

    Other questions on the survey include:        

• fertilizer knowledge level,

• whether they support or oppose poultry litter to chemical fertilizer,

• benefits of poultry litter,

• concerns of poultry litter,

• likely to purchase poultry litter,

• who supports or opposes the American Farm Industry and

• poultry litter as a possible answer to rising chemical prices.

   Franco said she found one part of the survey interesting  

   “I guess that people chose poultry litter over chemical fertilizer,” Franco said.

  Senior Randy Cox, senior Jill Forrest, Franco, senior Jared Hall, senior Clayton Howell, senior Brad Johnston, senior Whitney Leach, Rawls, senior Keith Sowell and senior Seth Tucker worked for a month on a class project in their Economics of Environmental Management class.  Each person worked on individual parts and then put the project together.

    “I really didn’t know chicken litter was as beneficial as it is and that it’s sitting there for use and no one’s using it,” Leach said. 

   The group presented:

• supply and demand for chemical fertilizers;

• chemical fertilizer demands for corn, wheat, rice, cotton and soy beans;

• supply and demand for poultry litter fertilizers;

• how much poultry litter Arkansas produces a year;

• crop acreage planted annually and how many tons of litter needed;

• price of chemical fertilizer;

• price of poultry litter including prices and custom application;

• efficiency of chemical fertilizers nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium;

• efficiency of poultry litter and micro and macro nutrients;

• macro nutrients provide nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium;

• micro nutrients provide magnesium, manganese, boron, zinc and sulfur;

• environmental effects of chemical fertilizer;

• the use of chemical by farmers and homeowners;

• problems with chemical fertilizers;

• effort to decrease negative effects;

• the environmental effects of poultry litter: the pros and cons; and

• poultry litter versus chemical fertilizer survey.

   “I thought they did a good job. There are always more aspects they could go into,” said Bob Sparks, associate professor Agriculture. “I was well pleased with their answers in the question-and-answer session.”