Planning underway for the next Waste to Worth Conference

While exact dates have not been nailed down, the next Waste to Worth Conference will be held in North Carolina in Late March or Early April of 2027.

waste to worth conference logoSince the W2W conference in North Carolina in 2017, the area of animal manure management has seen significant innovations and development that warrant revisiting. Anaerobic digestion technologies have seen rapid growth with over 50 ADs on swine and dairy farms now in operation in the state. Additionally, late spring weather in North Carolina is pleasantly warm and will make for positive experiences for attendees during the tours and throughout the duration of the conference.

As plans continue to develop, watch for more information at wastetoworth.org.

Key NRCS Resources for Manure Professionals

The LPELC has collected key NRCS resources that support those in Animal Manure Management roles in one place for easy access. By doing so, we hope to help maintain access to valuable resources developed to assist farmers, conservationists, and technical professionals in managing manure nutrients responsibly and effectively.

In the event that any of these pages are lost, check out the Wayback Machine to see if you can find them.  Users should note that a direct URL is generally needed to search for and retrieve archived content.

Note: If you have a suggested resource for this page, reach out to LPELCstaff@unl.edu to get that resource added.

Careers in Manure

manure careers listed inside silhouette of manure spreaderManure isn’t just a byproduct – It’s a powerful tool in sustainable agriculture, energy production, and environmental stewardship. Careers in manure management are critical for food systems, soil health, water quality, and climate solutions.

Current Openings We’re Aware Of:

Livestock Inspector, Environmental Specialist II at the Nebraska Department of Water, Energy, and Environment – Lincoln office

Nutrient Management Specialist at the Idaho Dairymen’s Association

Graduate Research Assistantship (related to weed seed in manure) in Manure Management and Water Quality at University of Minnesota

Concise Composting

Purpose

Timber Creek Recycling has operated a turned windrow composting operation using manure and food waste processing by-products and green waste for over a decade in Meridian, Idaho. Pressure from suburban encroachment and the availability of increasingly difficult feedstocks that had excessive odor, created the need to move operations from a farm to an industrial site. Land costs were greater, and potential odor impacts would increase in this move. The owner also requested that the number of touches be reduced to minimize the current workload for compost operators. There are some essential operational & design considerations to manage manure composting on a concise footprint and a limited budget. This presentation describes the operation and design considerations that can apply to any composting operation.

What Did We Do?

Green Mountain Technologies considered three different models of concise composting. Radial stacker bunkers, using a central pivot telescopic conveyor to place and cover active compost piles. Also inwardly turned circular aerated piles, which use a side discharge compost turner to turn the compost towards the center of a large circle. Timber Creek Recycling decided to use a narrow profile rectangular shaped turned aerated pile composting approach. This form uses a long concrete aeration floor that allows the owner to build capacity in six phases and increase the operating efficiencies with each additional phase. This approach kept the expansions in line, so that delivery trucks could unload directly in front of the piles and so that side discharge compost turners could be used to mix feedstocks into one side of the pile and move the composting material through different aeration floor capacities and finally to a long collection belt that directly fed a compost screener. This and the aeration floor reduced touches from 12 to 9, compared to non-aerated windrows, and provided a once a week turning frequency, reducing compost, and curing time from 90 to 45 days.

Steps taken to reach this point.

Industrial land was purchased in Nampa, Idaho, permits received and phase one of construction has been completed and operated for over 9 months. The design compacted a 30-acre operational site to a 12-acre operational site with significantly more capacity than the original. Odor reduction steps were taken to reduce the odor of cheese whey waste activated sludge being delivered to the site by using a lime additive during the screw press step at the cheese manufacturer. A small straddle windrow turner was used to mix the delivered feedstocks, and a food waste de-packager was installed to manage out-of-date or off-specification foods.

What Have We Learned?

The use of reversing direction aeration was not necessary when using positive aeration using a cap of wet wood chips or screened compost covers on top of the piles for the first 7 to 10 days. Odors have not been a problem at the new site using forced aeration compared with turned windrows (un-aerated) at the old site. The higher horsepower side discharge conveyor compost turners do not make economic sense just for phase one but will for all three phases. Wastewater collection and reuse is difficult to manage and needs to be incorporated into the mixing and turning process using an underground main and hose reel located at the far end of the aeration pads.

Take home messages

Aeration using blowers and airpipes below a concrete floor can effectively keep composting operations with challenging feedstocks from smelling bad and increase the biological efficiency and throughput. Use of a woody moist bio cover over the top of the pile is essential for the first 7-10 days for these feedstocks.

Force air through a compost pile at least 6 times per hour using on/off timers to control pile temperatures between 125° and 145° F and to keep oxygen above 13% using a rate of 3-5 CFM/cubic yard. Automated temperature feedback controllers make this simpler and more dependable.

Turn and re-water at least 2 times in the first month, either by top irrigation within 30 minutes before turning, or using a hose reel and spray bar connected to the turner (better) or simply turn piles at least 30 minutes after a big rain event.

Piles shrink over time- Double up the piles after 2 weeks and cure with less forced air at 1-2 CFM/cubic yard for an additional 2 weeks.

Adding capacity over time without increasing travel distances requires delivery directly to the initial composting area and collection from the distant piles using conveyors. On-farm generated feedstocks and the composting operations should be placed together as close as possible. Have delivery and storage of outside amendments be alongside your manure or processing waste discharge locations.

Each touch of the material should be limited, and with each touch involving several key feedstock preparation actions while entering a composting system, such as metering materials together in the correct proportions, and mixing thoroughly while watering and delivering into the first composting stage. Examples include building windrows proportionally with loaders and turning and watering with a windrow turner that can apply pond wastewater as it turns. Second example, if a conveyor is used to collect and discharge a manure in a CAFO, add bulking materials prior to the last conveyor and place into an in-line pug mill before stockpiling or placement on an aeration floor. The third example when using side dump delivery trucks, have trucks unload manure in a long low windrow, and then place the amendment in another long low windrow alongside about 22 feet apart, then use a side discharge windrow turner with a spray bar to apply wastewater to combine and then mix the windrows together using the turner in 2 passes. Large loaders move about 500 cubic yards per hour, compost turners move over 4000 cubic yards per hour. So each touch is cheaper per unit.

Future Plans

Phases two and three are under development to move the entire windrow operation from Meridian Idaho to the new site within 2 years.

Authors

Presenting authors

    • Jeffrey Gage, Director of Consulting, Green Mountain Technologies, Inc.
    • Mike Murgoitio, President, Timber Creek Recycling
    • Caleb Lakey, Vice President, Timber Creek Recycling, LLC

Corresponding author

Jeffrey Gage, Director of Consulting, Green Mountain Technologies, Inc., jeff@compostingtechnology.com

Additional author

Caleb Lakey, Vice President, Timber Creek Recycling, LLC.

Additional Information

A USDA multi-location project monitoring ammonia deposition near animal production sites

Animals excrete a lot of nitrogen as they grow with a large fraction escaping into the air as ammonia. What happens to that ammonia, and can we predict how that excess nitrogen might be beneficial to nearby crop production? This webinar will present pilot-scale research for manure and food waste treatment. This presentation was originally broadcast on May 16, 2025. Continue reading “A USDA multi-location project monitoring ammonia deposition near animal production sites”

Distillers grains impact on feedlot pen surface material

Purpose

Distillers grains (DGs) have been heavily researched as a diet additive for cattle since the early 2000s. Research has considered the nutritional value, optimization, and even how it impacts odors and greenhouse gases emitted from the surface of the pens that house cattle fed these diets. However, no work has been conducted to determine if there are changes in pen surface material properties after exposure to manure from diets containing DGs. Recent conversations with producers highlighted changes in pen surface characteristics such as significant loss in material and inability to maintain mounds in the pen. after DGs were fed for prolonged periods. Research has shown that manure from distillers diets contain excess proteins which we hypothesized could cause interruptions in soil particle interactions thus leading to a loss in integrity of the pen surface. The purpose of this work was to investigate if excess excreted protein in urine was the cause of changes in the properties of pen surface material.

What Did We Do?

This work was comprised of a large-scale study at a feedlot and a lab-scale study. In the feedlot study, cattle were fed either control (no DGs), wet DGs (40%) or dry DGs (40%) for 180 days. Once cattle were finished and removed from their pens, pen surface material (PSM) was collected from 4 general locations within each pen: behind the apron, on top of the mound, the side of the mound and the bottom of the pen. Samples from each pen with the same treatment were pooled into one single composite to represent each of the treatments. Samples were divided into two sets and analyzed by a commercial laboratory as either soil or manure. Soil analysis included pH, soluble salts, organic matter, nitrate nitrogen, potassium, sulfate, zinc, copper, calcium, sum of cations, % saturation of calcium and magnesium, and Mehlich-III phosphorus. Manure analysis included organic nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, sodium, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, boron, soluble salts pH, and moisture

For the lab-scale study, PSM was collected from a feedlot that does not feed DGs. Material was dried, ground, and sieved. Synthetic urine was added daily to bottles containing 300 g of PSM for 3 weeks to simulate prolonged addition of urine to feedlot pen surface. Samples were then shaken for 30 minutes and left at room temperature unsealed overnight. Synthetic urine contained either 0, 8, 16, or 32% additional protein. At the end of the study, samples were dried and sent to a commercial lab to be tested as soil in which the same properties listed above were again reported.

What Have We Learned?

In the feedlot study, differences (p < 0.05) in soluble salts were observed between all three treatments. Differences (p<0.05) were observed between the control and  DGs diets for soluble salts, organic matter, potassium, sulfate, magnesium saturation, Mehlich P, pH, ammonium nitrogen, organic N, total N, phosphate, total phosphorus, and sulfur.

For the lab-scale study, properties in which differences (p<0.05) were measured between the control and treatments include: nitrate N, cation exchange capacity, magnesium, sodium, zinc, calcium saturation and magnesium saturation. Analysis which resulted in differences (p < 0.05) between control and all three added protein treatments include Mehlich P, potassium, calcium, and copper. No significant differences were determined between the control and the treatments for zeta potential and conductivity. Results of the feedlot study compared to the lab scale study suggest that changes in PSM are not solely caused by excess soluble protein excretion.

Future Plans

The lab scale study will be used to determine if fiber has any contribution to the observed changes in PSM properties. The results of this study will help us determine how best to manage feedlot pens when varying forms and concentrations of DGs are fed to the cattle. It may also provide insight into potential pen surface amendments that may be used to mitigate the negative effects of feeding DGs to cattle.

Authors

Corresponding author

Bobbi Stromer, Research Chemist, US Meat Animal Research Center, Bobbi.stromer@usda.gov

Additional authors

Mindy Spiehs, Research Nutritionist, US Meat Animal Research Center

Bryan Woodbury, Research Engineer, US Meat Animal Research Center

Additional Information

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Victor Gaunt for assistance with data collection.

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions when chicken litter is added to beef pen surface material

Purpose

One of the big challenges in animal agricultural waste management is reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Pen surface material (PSM) from beef feedlots has been characterized for its GHG emission profile and research has now shifted to focus on emission-reducing treatments for pen surfaces. Chicken litter (CL) has a nutrient and microbial profile unique from beef manure which was hypothesized to cause a change in GHG emissions.  This study was conducted to determine if the addition of CL to beef PSM would reduce methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH3), and nitrous oxide (NO2) emissions.

What Did We Do?

A lab scale study was conducted in which 24 stainless steel pans (12.75 x 20.75 x 2.5 in, L x W x H) were filled with PSM (3000 g, control) that had been collected from USMARC feedlot in August. Twelve pans of PSM had chicken litter (20% wt/wt) added to the top of the pan and gently raked into the PSM. All pans had 1000 g of water added. All samples were kept in an environmentally controlled chamber at 25 C for 18 days and watered after each measurement to keep sample moisture consistent. Sample pH and loss in water were recorded throughout the experiment. Flux measurements of CH4, CO2, N2O and NH3 were measured on days 0, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 18 using Thermo Scientific gas analyzers. Data was analyzed for statistical differences in emissions as a function of time (days), treatment (control vs chicken litter), and time*treatment. At the conclusion of emission measurements, samples were pooled and sent to a commercial lab for nutrient analysis.

What Have We Learned?

All measured gases showed significant changes over the time of the experiment (p < 0.05). Significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05) were recorded for N2O with a higher emission recorded for PSM+CL.  Significant treatment* day interactions were observed for CH4, NH3, and N2O (p < 0.05). Methane and NH3 emissions peaked on day 1 and steadily decreased over the 18 days; N2O emissions steadily rose from day 0 to day 8 and then steadily decreased through day 18. Nutrient analysis determined PSM with chicken litter contained significantly higher levels of organic N, ammonium N, and total nitrogen. There was no significant difference of N2O in control vs treated samples. Chicken litter treated samples showed higher levels of P2O5, K2O, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, sodium, zinc, copper, boron, soluble salts, and organic matter. From this work, we conclude that addition of chicken litter to PSM did not favorably alter emissions of greenhouse gasses. Mixing the manures may be beneficial for land application to cropland or for composting.

Future Plans

Future research will evaluate different sources of composted CL, the emission profile of CL, and consideration of how mixtures of PSM and CL impact nutrient retention and composting.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Bobbi Stromer, Research Chemist, US Meat Animal Research Center, Bobbi.stromer@usda.gov

Additional authors

Mindy Spiehs, Research Nutritionist, US Meat Animal Research Center

Bryan Woodbury, Research Engineer, US Meat Animal Research Center

Additional Information

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Victor Gaunt for assistance with data collection

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Seasonal greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure slurry storages in New York State

Due to a technical glitch, the beginning of the recorded presentation was not recorded. Please accept our apologies.

Purpose

As the adoption of dairy manure storage systems has increased as a best management practice for protecting water quality, the anaerobic conditions in these systems has inadvertently led to an increase in emission of the greenhouse gas methane. Current inventory and modeled estimates of this potent greenhouse gas are based on limited datasets, and there is a need for methodologies to better quantify these emissions so that the impacts of storage conditions, manure treatments and seasonality can be better assessed, mitigation strategies can be implemented, and greenhouse gas reduction estimates can be correctly accounted for.

What Did We Do?

We are developing a ground-based, mobile measurement approach where manure storage systems are circled with a backpack methane gas analyzer and measurements are integrated with on-site wind measurements to calculate emission flux rates. Twelve commercial dairy farm manure storage systems, representing a range of herd sizes and pre-storage manure treatments are collaborating on the research. Once per month, each manure storage structure at each site is circled 10 consecutive times with a methane gas analyzer. A drone equipped with a separate methane analyzer is also used to verify ground-based measurements amidst the methane plumes. Divergence (Gauss’s) theorem is then applied to concentration measurements and anemometer wind data to estimate the net rate of methane flux. These observed methane emission fluxes are compared to International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) modeled emissions as well as state inventories.

What Have We Learned?

We find that this methodology provides a reliable, cost-effective way to estimate methane emissions from manure storages. Observed emissions track modeled emissions with similar magnitudes, though models may be overestimating emissions during the growing season and underestimating during the winter months in this region (Figure 1). While emissions patterns are generally similar for each of the farm sites, with some farms and some individual monthly observational estimates there can be substantial deviation from predicted emission rates.

Figure 1. Modeled and measured cumulative methane emissions from a dairy manure storage system over a 12-month period.
Figure 1. Modeled and measured cumulative methane emissions from a dairy manure storage system over a 12-month period.

Future Plans

Evaluation of 2024 field data is ongoing, and we will continue to measure methane around storages with ground-based and drone measurements into the summer of 2025. We will explore plume dynamics and the effects of pre-storage treatments on measured methane emission flux. For select sites, measurements will be expanded to include continuous, open-path laser absorption spectroscopy to verify this novel measurement approach, footprint emissions, and explore the implications of pre-storage manure treatments.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Jason P. Oliver, Dairy Environmental Systems Engineer, Cornell University | PRO-DAIRY, jpo53@cornell.edu

Additional authors

Lauren Ray, Agricultural Sustainability and Energy Engineer, Cornell University | PRO-DAIRY

Eric Leibensperger, Associate Professor, Physics and Astronomy, Ithaca College

Additional Information

https://cals.cornell.edu/pro-dairy/our-expertise/environmental-systems/climate-environment/greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://leibensperger.github.io/

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Agreement #  CM04068CO

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 711, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Augmenting sustainability through bioenergy generation using aquaponics production wastes

Purpose

With a rapid increase in global population, food security has become a significant concern. This has led to a significant rise in the demand for protein rich sustainable food. Therefore, worldwide tilapia cultivation is being seen as one of the most economical paths to meet the demand of protein rich food. Moreover, with increasing urbanization and pressing need of nutrient circularity, cost reduction and sustainability has driven the concept of aquaponics system, integrating aquaculture with hydroponics.

Aquaponics has gained significant demand both in the USA and globally and is postulated to reduce overall cost and land footprint, while simultaneously recycling the nutrients in a closed system. Further integration of an anaerobic digestion (AD) system for biogas production using aquaponics waste can make the aquaponic system energy resilient and environmentally sustainable. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the potential of various aquaponics waste for biogas production, and their fate under co-digestion.

What Did We Do?

In this study, aquaponics waste viz., aquaponic sludge, and lettuce roots and leftover leaves after harvesting were obtained as AD substrate from the aquaponic test bed, running under controlled conditions at Purdue University. A centroid simplex design was created to test the biochemical methane potential (BMP) of the substrate under co-digestion. The BMP test was performed in 1.2-L BMP anaerobic digesters, which have a working volume of 1 L. Dairy manure-based digestate obtained from a continuously running industrial digester was used as an inoculum. For all the test groups, substrate to inoculum ratio was maintained at 1:3. All the test groups were set up in triplicates, and the digesters were incubated in the water bath at 37 °C for 30 days. Biogas volume was measured daily using a syringe method.

What Have We Learned?

The study results showed that the aquaponic sludge and lettuce leaves fed in the anaerobic digesters at a ratio of 50:50 on volatile solids (VS) basis had the highest specific methane yield of 0.525 m3 kg-1 VS. However, the lettuce roots showed an antagonistic effect on co-digestion, giving a specific biogas yield of 0.173 m3 kg-1 VS. The results indicate that enhanced methane yields can be achieved by co-digesting aquaponic sludge with farm residues in an appropriate ratio.

Future Plans

This study is part of a USDA research project to develop sustainable blue food systems driven by integrated aquaponics. Further efforts in AD of aquaponics waste are planned to mitigate the inhibitory effect of lettuce roots on co-digestion, so all aquaponics farm residues can be optimally utilized, simultaneously addressing waste management and generating nutrient-rich digestate as a biofertilizer for aquaponic crops. This approach can transform organic waste from aquaponics and plant harvesting into renewable energy, offsetting external energy needs and reducing the environmental footprint.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Ji-Qin Ni, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, Jiqin@purdue.edu

Additional authors

Mohit Singh Rana, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Purdue University

Rajesh Nandi, Ph.D. student, Purdue University

Additional Information

Web: https://ag.purdue.edu/department/foodsci/big-project/index.html

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/whenblueisgreenproject?igsh=MTF5a2xsdmppbWE0

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/whenblueisgreen-project/?_ga=2.238273088.1743284210.1739498857-1469780589.1739498857

X: https://twitter.com/WBlueIsGreen?_ga=2.200172589.2080482534.1739499225-1469780589.1739498857

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61572948809162&_ga=2.60082990.2080482534.1739499225-1469780589.1739498857

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the intramural research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative grants no. 2023-68012-39001.

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date. 

Can Manure Application Offset Tillage Impact on Soil Health Metrics in Organic Systems?

Purpose

Organic farming systems rely on internal, biologically mediated processes that can provide plants essential nutrients and suppress pests and disease. While reliance on soil biology to produce healthy plants is at the heart of the soil health concept, little research has been conducted in certified organic systems. Organic growers in Idaho and elsewhere need greater access to information on building soil health to enhance long-term productivity and sustainability on their farms. The overall goal of this project was to provide tools and targets to guide soil management during the transition to organic operation, thereby increasing soil health and internal function of certified organic systems.

Specifically, we assessed how key soil health indicators and soil organisms changed under combinations of three different tillage and nutrient management strategies during the transition to organic farming.

What Did We Do?

Replicated plots were established at two sites each in two growing regions of Idaho (North and South), to determine the impact of different levels of tillage and organic matter additions on soil health indicators and crop growth during the organic transition phase. Both sites in Northern Idaho, GDF and SSF, were located near Moscow while both sites in Southern Idaho, KF and TF, were in Twin Falls County. All sites can be broadly characterized as having silt loam soils. However, Northern Idaho is rainfed with 27 inches of rainfall per year while Southern Idaho receives an average of 8 inches of precipitation. The sites in Southern Idaho were irrigated while those in Norther Idaho were not.

For all sites, alfalfa was established in year one and maintained for three years before it was terminated then feed barley was planted. For the two sites in Northern Idaho, alfalfa did not establish and was replanted in year 2. Each site had three levels of disturbance (tillage): high, medium, and low and three levels of organic additions: high, medium, and low for a total of nine plots per site (Figure 1). Treatment combinations were not replicated within site but instead replicated across sites (4 sites total). High tillage intensity included several passes of a rototiller and/or chisel plow with harrow. Medium intensity included one pass of a rototiller and/or chisel plow; while the low intensity only had harrow. Organic amendments were added every year; the medium rate of organic addition was designed to provide crop uptake of phosphorus for alfalfa and nitrogen for barley while the high rate was doubled. The low rate was bone meal (phosphorus) or blood meal (nitrogen) to meet crop uptake of the alfalfa and barley, respectively.

Yield was measured via hand sampling at all sites in September 2024. A wide range of soil physical, chemical, and biological soil health indicators were assessed in June 2024. Due to space limitations, only active carbon, also known as POxC, will be reported here. POxC is generally considered an indicator that is sensitive to management changes, especially those that increase soil carbon. It provides a quicker response than soil organic matter because POxC only indicates a small fraction of the soil carbon pool.

Figure 1. Example site layout. F= low organic amendment, 1C = medium organic amendment, and 2C = high organic amendment.
Figure 1. Example site layout. F= low organic amendment, 1C = medium organic amendment, and 2C = high organic amendment.

What Have We Learned?

In Northern Idaho, upon harvest, total above ground biomass of spring barley was nearly double at GDF (1.72 tons/acre) compared to SSF (0.91 tons/acre) (Figure 2). Across both Northern Idaho sites, higher barley yield was associated with higher tillage with one of the sites having no harvestable barley in the low tillage treatment due to high weed and volunteer alfalfa pressure. Barley yields in Southern Idaho were higher than in Northern Idaho; KF had average yields of 3.45 tons/acre with TF averaging 2.20 tons/acre. Yields in Southern Idaho were the highest in the high tillage plots and lowest in the medium tillage. Organic amendment addition made little difference compared to tillage intensity for yields (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Spring barley yield (tons/acre) for sites in Northern (GDF and SSF) and Southern (TF and KF) Idaho by tillage intensity where H=high tillage intensity, M= medium tillage intensity, and L = low tillage intensity.
Figure 2. Spring barley yield (tons/acre) for sites in Northern (GDF and SSF) and Southern (TF and KF) Idaho by tillage intensity where H=high tillage intensity, M= medium tillage intensity, and L = low tillage intensity.
Figure 3. Spring barley yield (tons/acre) for sites in Northern (GDF and SSF) and Southern (TF and KF) Idaho by organic amendment addition levels where F= low organic amendment (bone meal), 1C= medium organic amendment addition where dairy compost applied to meet barley nutrient uptake, and 2C= high organic matter amendment addition at double the rate of 1C.
Figure 3. Spring barley yield (tons/acre) for sites in Northern (GDF and SSF) and Southern (TF and KF) Idaho by organic amendment addition levels where F= low organic amendment (bone meal), 1C= medium organic amendment addition where dairy compost applied to meet barley nutrient uptake, and 2C= high organic matter amendment addition at double the rate of 1C.

In terms of soil health indicators, POxC averaged higher at GDF plots (833.19 mg/kg soil) when compared to SSF plots (452.95 mg/kg soil). POxC was substantially lower in Southern Idaho than in Northern Idaho; plots at KF averaged 331.46 mg/kg soil while the TF site averaged 404.35 mg/kg soil. POxC decreased with depth across all sites. In Northern Idaho, there were no consistent trends for tillage or fertilizer across both sites. Treatment effects of tillage and fertilizer application depended on location. For example, GDF plots had an inverse relationship of POxC levels and increasing tillage. At SS, higher levels of POxC were associated with higher levels of tillage. Unlike Northern Idaho, POxC increased with decreasing tillage intensity at both sites in Southern Idaho. Across both Southern Idaho sites, POxC averaged 390.17 mg/kg soil in the lowest tillage intensity, 372.68 mg/kg soil for medium tillage intensity, and 340.87 mg/kg soil in the highest tillage intensity. There was no consistent effect of organic matter addition, however.

Future Plans

We are still analyzing data from this four-year study for other soil health indicators, such as the , earthworm species, and soil infiltration rates. This robust data set (over a dozen indicators total) will help guide which indicators of soil health are most suitable for organically managed systems.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Linda Schott, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Idaho, Lschott@uidaho.edu

Additional authors

Kendall Kahl, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Idaho

Jodi Johnson-Maynard, Department Head and Professor, University of Georgia

Glen Stevens, Research Technician, University of Idaho

Ed Lewis, Professor, University of Idaho

Additional Information

Soil Health | University of Idaho Extension

Acknowledgements

Dan Temen, Will Romano, Kevin Kruger, Cami Ditton

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.