Values are means of quintuplicate determination and the values with (±) are the standard deviation. Mean values within each column followed by the same subscript are not significant different (P>0.05).
|
Samples |
% sand |
% silt |
%clay |
PH |
P(mg/kg) |
N% |
%OC |
% OM |
|
ControlT1) |
76.17b±0.120 |
1465a±0.112 |
9.25b±0.112 |
4.77ab±0.224 |
14.65d±0.112 |
0.075±0.011 |
0.663a0.321 |
1.38b±0.014 |
|
Goat urine (T2) |
75.17c±0.120 |
14.64a±0.129 |
10.25a±0.112 |
4.67b±0.086 |
17.55c±0.0112 |
0.117b±0.079 |
0.662a±0.320 |
1.37b±0.013 |
|
Cattle Urine (T3) |
76.15b0.112 |
13.47b±0.492 |
10.27a±0.104 |
4.85a±0.016 |
26.11b+0.503 |
0.150a±0.016 |
0.649a±0.005 |
1.14c±0.062 |
|
Human urine (T4) |
72.22a±0.135 |
13.52b±0.415 |
9.29b±0.082 |
4.63b.0.079 |
28.35a±0.112 |
0.156a±0.002 |
0.927a±0.005 |
1.64a±0.096 |
|
Samples |
Ca |
Mg |
K |
Na |
EA |
ECEC |
%BS |
|
Controls (T1) |
1.61c±0.097 |
0.84b±0.099 |
0.187b±0.001 |
0.09d±0.002 |
0.49c±0.011 |
3.17d±0.002 |
86.00b±1.581 |
|
Goat urine (T2) |
3.27b±0.120 |
1.25b±0.112 |
0.186b±0.066 |
0.10c±0.001 |
0.88b±0.0017 |
5.59c±0.056 |
85.00b±1.581 |
|
Cattle Urine (T3) |
5.00a ± 1.581 |
3.00a±1.581 |
0.33a±0.120 |
0.13b±0.002 |
0.16d±0.011 |
6.55b±0.088 |
98.00a± 1.581 |
|
Human urine (T4) |
4.45a±0.112 |
1.65b±0.112 |
0.33a±0.016 |
0.15a ±0.001 |
0.97a.±0.011 |
7.45a±0.031 |
87.20b± 2.387 |
Percentage(%) Sand
The values of % sand ranged from 72.22% to 76.17% with control (T1) having the highest value of 76.17% and Human urine (T4) having the lowest value of 72.22%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that their was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T2 and T4 while there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between samples T1 and T3. It may be due to the influence of the type of feel and its content. It may be due to the content or organic matter present in the soil.
Percentage(%)Silt
The values of % silt ranged from 13.47% to 14.65% with control(T1) having the highest value of 14.65% and cattle urine(T3) having the lowest value of 13.47%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that their was a significant difference (p<0.05) between samples T1 and T3 while there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between samples T2 and T4. It may be due to unusual hormonal “stress relaxation” response in prisoners with conviction for assault.
Percentage Clay
The values of % clay ranged form 9.25% to 10.27% with cattle urine (T3) having the highest value of 10.27% and control (T1) having the lowest value of 9.25%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T1T3, while there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between samples T2 and T3. It may be due to the influence of nitrogen and sulfur intake on bovine uterine pH throughout the luteal phase.
Percentage pH
The values of percentage % pH ranged from 4.63% to 4.85% with cattle urine (T3) having the highest value of 4.85% and Human urine (T4) having the lowest value of 4.63%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T3 and T4, while there was no significant difference between samples T2 and T1. It may be due to the metabolism of progesterone by human lecukocyctes. (Scully C, et al. Clin Immunil. Immuno Pittol & 1982).
Percentage p(Mg/Kg)
The values of percentage p(mg/kg) ranged form 14.65% to 28.35%, with Human urine (T4) having the highest value of 28.35% and control (T1) having the lowest value of 14.65%. From the analysis of variance carried out, It was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T1 and T4, while there was no significant difference between sample T2 and T3. It may be due to it composition of P. Ethylpheny/sulphmic acid. (Grant JK, et .al J. Ani. Sci. 2013).
Percentage (%) N
The values of %N ranged from 0.075% to 0.156 with Human urine (T4) having the highest value of 0.156% and control treatment (T1) having the lowest value of 0.075%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant (P>0.05) between treatments T1 and T4, while there was no significant different (P>0.05) between treatment T2 and T3. It may be due to the type of bedding materials used.
Percentage (%) O.C
The values of % OC ranged form 0.649% to 0.927% with Human urine (T4) having the highest value of 0.927% and cattle urine (T3) having the lowest values of 0.649%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between sample T3 and T4, while there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between samples T1 and T2.
Percentage(%) O.M
The values of % O.M ranged from 1.14% to 1.64%, with Human urine (T4) having the highest values 1.64%% and cattle urine (T3) having the lowest values of 1.14%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T3 and T4, while there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between samples T1 and T2. It may be due to the environment they are kept and the type of feed given to them.
Percentage (%) Ca
The values of % Ca ranged from 1.64% to 5.00%, with cattle urine (T3) having the highest values of 5.00% and control (T1) having the lowest values 1.64%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between samples T1 and T3, while there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between sample T2 and T4.
Parentage (%) Mg
The values of % magnesium (mg) ranged from 0.84% to 3.00% with cattle urine (T3) having the highest value of 3.00% and control (T1) having the lowest value of 0.84%. From the analysis of variance carried out. It was observed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between sample T1 and T3, while there was no significant difference (p>0.5) between samples T2 and T4. It may be due to their environment tap condition or the type of water they take.
Percentage (%) Potassium (K)
The values of % potassium (k) ranged from 0.186% to 0.33% with cattle urine (T3) having the highest values of 0.33% and goat urine (T2) having the lowest value of 0.186%. From the analysis of variance carried out. It was observed that there was a significant difference (P< 0.05) between sample T3 and T2, while there was no significant difference (p> 0.05) between samples T4 and T1. It may be due to their housing materials or the way they are kept.
Percentage (%) Soduim (Na)
The values of % Na ranged from 0.09% to 0.15% with human urine (T4) having the highest value of 0.15%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between samples T4 and T1, while there was no significant difference (p<0.05) between samples T2 and T3.
Percentage (%) Exchangeable Acidity (Ea)
The values of % EA ranged from 0.16% to 0.97% with human urine (T4) having the highest value of 0.97% and cattle urine (T3) having the lowest value of 0.16% from the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between samples T3 and T4, while there was no significant difference (>0.05) between sample T1 and T2.
Percentage (%) ECEC
The values of the % ECEC ranged from 3.17% to 7.45% with human urine (T4) having the highest value of 7.45% and control (T1) having the lowest value of 3.17%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (<0.05) between sample T1 and T4 while there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between samples T2 and T3. It may be due to the type grazing given to them. Lanter et al: Hanks 1991.
Percentage (%) Base Saturation (BS)
The values of % BS ranged from 85% to 98% with cattle urine (T3) having the highest value of 98.00% and Goat urine (T2) having the lowest value of 85%. From the analysis of variance carried out, it was observed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between samples T2 and T3 while there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between samples T1and T4. It may be due to the nutrient content of the feed. Arthur, 0. (1984)
Be the first to comment