Watershed Management Resources DVD

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Develop a Watershed DVD?

The cover of the Watershed Management Resources DVD

The Watershed Management Resources DVD is an interactive e-learning tool created by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.  It was created for a wide variety of audiences including watershed groups, government and non-government organizations, post-secondary students , agricultural producers and any others who wish to learn more about water quality, water sampling and integrated watershed management.  This tool promotes a synergistic approach to watershed management and increases leadership capacity by encouraging all members of a watershed community to work together to reduce harmful impacts to watersheds and to monitor their watershed for improvements.

What Did We Do?

A screen shot of the Welcoming page in the Surface Water Sampling section of the DVD

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canda used past experiences and current information to create a trilingual (English, French and Spanish) set of educational modules.  This self-paced DVD provides users with interactive flash animations, video clips and text screens which educates about issues of water quality, beneficial management practices (BMPs) and watershed management.  The DVD is available free of charge to any interested parties. 

What Have We Learned?

A screen shot of the Hydrologic Cycle Animation that is found on the DVD.

Integrated watershed management is a complex topic and involves all types of people with varying levels of knowledge.  Any type of educational tool that can be used to help stakeholders better understand their watersheds and how to appropriately monitor and manage them are very useful.

Future Plans

To continue to find ways to extend our knowledge to the sector.

Authors

Serena McIver, Senior Water Quality Engineer, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, serena.mciver@agr.gc.ca               

Additional Information

More information on the organization and agriculture in Canada can be found at www.agr.gc.ca

 

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Supporting Small-Scale Poultry and Livestock Businesses

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Work With Small Poultry and Livestock Operations?

Understand the business planning and development issues confronting small-scale livestock and poultry producers.

What Did We Do?

Colorado State University has been building educational programming to benefit small-scale crop and livestock producers across the state since 2007.  The Colorado Building Farmers and Ranchers program uses a classroom, experiential learning and community-building approach to help smaller-scale and new agricultural producers build their businesses in a profitable, safe and sustainable manner. To date, we have graduated more than 300 producers, 65% of whom have completed business plans to expand or develop their agricultural business. These producers are primarily characterized by their focus on direct marketing, and many are located relatively close to urban areas; locations that provide both marketing opportunities as well as production constraints. The classroom education takes place over 8 weeks and helps producers build sustainable business plans, and develop a network of producers and technical assistance providers (e.g. NRCS, FSA, county planning staff).  Topics covered include developing a production plan, recordkeeping, pricing, risk management, and on-farm food safety.  In addition, since small-scale livestock production is a more complex business model, we have built a curriculum that guides producers through all the business planning considerations necessary to start and operate a profitable livestock operation: from acquiring poultry, sheep or goats, to health and environmental issues, to processing and creating a unique market niche.

What Have We Learned?

Given that smaller or more diversified poultry and small ruminant operations may be trying to maintain a greater number of enterprises on one farm or operation, it may be more difficult for those producers to stay on top of good management practices, as well as any requirements necessary to remain in good standing with local government and marketing partners. For example, these small-scale operations may be maintained on a limited number of acres, thus requiring very careful land and animal management.  Additionally, many smaller-scale operations are located in areas where agriculture is not the primary land use.  Such operations may be in the urban-rural interface, the suburbs or even in towns or cities.  The research for this curriculum provided a basic overview of production, management and marketing considerations and opportunities for smaller-scale poultry and small ruminant production, and a means to discuss the relationship between resource stewardship and long-term business viability. We examined, in particular, emerging niche market opportunities and some of the costs and benefits inherent to pursuing those newer markets, finding that the costs and management skills required make it extremely difficult to operate a commercially viable small-scale livestock business in an urban area.

Future Plans

Next steps involve developing enterprise budgets with different numbers of poultry and small ruminants to understand the point at which these businesses become financially viable. This is important for helping prospective new livestock enterprises to truth their business plans, based on realistic assumptions.

Raising Poultry for Profit Video

Raising Sheep and Goats for Profit Video

Authors

Martha Sullins, Extension Regional Specialist, Colorado State University Extension, Martha.sullins@colostate.edu

Additional Information

Acknowledgements

David Weiss and Dawn Thilmany (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU), Blake Angelo (Urban Ag Educator, Denver/Jefferson Counties, CSU Extension),  Marisa Bunning (Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, CSU); Thomas Bass (Montana State University).

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Feasible Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion – Case Study of EUCOlino Digestion System.

 

* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

While large-scale farms have typically been the focus of anaerobic digestion systems in the U.S., an emerging need has been identified to serve smaller farms with between 50 and 500 head of cattle. Implementing such a small, standardized, all-in-one system for these small farm applications has been developed. Small-scale digesters open the playing field for on-farm sustainability and waste management.

Unloading the first biodigester unit.

This presentation on small-scale digestion would discuss the inputs, processing, function, and outputs of BIOFerm™ Energy Systems’ small agitated plug flow digester (EUCOlino). This plug-and-play digester system has the ability to operate on dairy manure, bedding material, food waste, or other organic feedstocks with a combined total solids content of 15-20%. A case study would be presented that describes the site components needed, the feedstock amount and energy production, as well as biogas end use. Additional details would include farm logistics, potential sources of funding, installation, operation, and overall impact of the project.

This type of presentation would fill an information gap BIOFerm™ has discovered among dairy farmers who believe anaerobic digestion isn’t feasible on a smaller scale. It would provide farmers who attend with an understanding of the technology, how it could work on their specific farm and hopefully reveal to them what their “waste is worth”.

Why Study Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion

To inform and educate attendees about small-scale anaerobic digestion surrounding the installation and feasibility of the containerized, paddle-mixed plug flow EUCOlino system on a small dairy farm <150 head.

Biodigester unit being installed at Allen Farms.

What Did We Do?

Steps taken to assist in financing the digestion system include receiving grants from the State Energy Office and Wisconsin Focus on Energy. Digester installation includes components such as feed hopper, two fermenter containers, motors, combined heat and power unit, electrical services, etc…

What Have We Learned?

Challenges associated with small project implementation regarding coordination, interconnection, and utility arrangements.

Future Plans

Finalize commissioning phases and optimize operation.

Authors

Amber Blythe, Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems blya@biofermenergy.com

Steven Sell, Biologist/Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems

Gabriella Huerta, Marketing Specialist, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems

Additional Information

Readers interested in this topic can visit www.biofermenergy.com and for more information on our plants, services and project updates please visit us on our website at www.biofermenergy.com. You will also see frequent updates from us in industry magazines (BioCycle, REW Magazine, Waste Age). BIOFerm will also be present at every major industry conference or tradeshow including the Waste Expo, Waste-to-Worth and BioCycle– stop by our booth and speak with one of our highly trained engineers for further information.

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Impacts of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is a holistic approach to environmental protection. It helps farmers evaluate their entire operation, regardless of size or commodity, and make sustainable management decisions balancing society’s needs, the environment, and economics. MAEAP is a partnership effort that aims to protect natural resources and build positive communities by working with farmers on environmentally responsible agricultural production practices.

To become MAEAP verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, an on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). MAEAP benefits Michigan by helping to protect the Great Lakes by using proven scientific standards to improve air, water, and soil quality. Annual phosphorus reduction through MAEAP is over 340,451 pounds per year which is enough to grow almost 85,104 tons of algae in lakes and streams.  Farming is an environmentally intense practice and the MAEAP-verification process ensures farmers are making choices that balance production and environmental demands. The measures aimed at protecting air, soil, water, and other environmental factors mean that MAEAP-verified farmers are committed to utilizing farming practices that protect Michigan’s natural resources.

Purpose

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an innovative, proactive program that assists farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. MAEAP is a collaborative effort of farmers, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, universities, conservation districts, conservation groups and state and federal agencies. MAEAP teaches farmers how to identify and prevent environmental risks and work to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Farmers who successfully complete the three phases of a MAEAP system (Farmstead, Cropping or Livestock) are rewarded by becoming verified in that system.

What Did We Do?

To become MAEAP-verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, a thorough on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices. To retain MAEAP verification, a farm must repeat all three steps including MDARD inspection every three years.

Local MAEAP farm verified in the Cropping System

What Have We Learned?

The MAEAP program is positively influencing Michigan producers and the agriculture industry. Annually, an average of 5,000 Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and MAEAP verification. To date, over 10,000 farms are participating with over 1,500 MAEAP verifications. On a yearly basis, over $1.2 million is spent for practice implementation by producers working towards MAEAP verification. In 2012; the sediment reduced on MAEAP-verified farms could have filled 28,642 dump trucks (10 yards each), the phosphorus reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 138,056 tons of algae in surface waters, and the nitrogen reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 45,515 tons of algae in surface waters.

An example of the partnership between MAEAP and Michigan Farm Bureau

Future Plans

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a vested interest in the value of the MAEAP program. In March of 2011, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 1 and 2 which codify MAEAP into law. This provides incentives and structure for the MAEAP program. It is a goal of Governor Snyder’s to have 5,000 farms MAEAP-verified by 2015. Most importantly, through forward thinking MAEAP strives to connect farms and communities, ensure emergency preparedness and protect natural resources.

Authors

Jan Wilford, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development – Environmental Stewardship Division,    wilfordj9@michigan.gov

Shelby Bollwahn, MAEAP Technician – Hillsdale Conservation District

shelby.bollwahn@mi.nacdnet.net

Additional Information

www.maeap.org – MAEAP Website

http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_25432—,00.html – MDARD MAEAP Website

http://www.facebook.com/mimaeap – MAEAP Facebook Page

Acknowledgements

MDARD MAEAP Program Office Communications Department

Michigan Farm Bureau

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts

Hillsdale County Farm Bureau

Hillsdale Conservation District

Handout version of the poster (8.5 x 11; pdf format)

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Farm-System Modeling to Evaluate Environmental Losses, Profitability, and Best Management Practice Cost-Effectiveness

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

To meet Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for agricultural pollution, conservation districts and farmers are tasked with implementing best management practices (BMPs) that reduce farm losses of nutrients and sediment. The importance of the agricultural industry to the regional economy highlights the need for determining cost-effective BMP solutions given the geographical and operational characteristics of these farms. This study evaluated both the environmental risk and farm profitability of common farm-level management practices for three major farm types in the region: crop, tractor-based (“English”) dairy, and horse-drawn (“Amish”) dairy.

Whole-farm simulations were conducted with the Integrated Farm System Model, a multi-year, process-based simulation model, to facilitate a broader understanding of the challenges for the farmers in finding financially feasible and environmentally sustainable solutions. Strip cropping, conservation tillage, cover cropping, and nutrient management BMPs generally reduced nutrient and sediments losses from all three farm types. However, scenarios that reduced phosphorus and sediment losses generally promoted more leaching of nitrogen. Double cropping corn with winter wheat combined with improved nutrient management was the most profitable practice for the crop farm, increasing average farm profitability by 92% over the baseline condition, while reducing combined nitrogen and total phosphorus losses by 13% and 23%, respectively.

Net profitability of the dairy farm was increased only by decreasing manure storage or using improved nutrient management. For the horse-drawn dairy, cover-cropping and harvest of rye silage combined with increased nutrient management provided the greatest increase in farm profit (+8%) and also reduced phosphorus and nitrogen losses.

Horse-drawn machinery through puts and increased human labor hours were required to simulate a typical Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy operation in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Why Study Farms As a System?

Because southeastern Pennsylvania is a significant environmental contributor of the Chesapeake Bay, agricultural land management is under intense scrutiny by restoration groups. It is imperative to improving water quality that economically and culturally acceptable nonpoint source control practices be explored, developed, and evaluated. This is true for “contemporary” crop and dairy farms in the region as well as those that are more conservative in their use of electrical- or gas-powered farming equipment, described in this study as “Lancaster Old Order Amish”. Evaluation from a whole-farm perspective enables practical assessments of tradeoffs among management practice combinations and is particularly relevant when effectiveness relies on the willingness and dedication of the farm operators.

What Did We Do?

The expertise of regional conservationists and pooled results from farmer surveys were used to determine three major farm types in southeastern Pennsylvania and design potentially acceptable management combinations for each type. Three baseline farms were described: 400 ha corn-soy-wheat crop farm; 100 cow, 120 ha contemporary dairy; and 24 ha Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy. Whole-farm impacts were assessed with the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM), a multi-year, process-based simulation model. Environmental tradeoffs between nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses were evaluated and financial cost-benefits through change in annual net return for the farmer were analyzed.

What Have We Learned?

Strip cropping, conservation tillage, cover cropping, and improved nutrient management generally reduced nutrient and sediment losses from all three farm types. However, scenarios that reduced phosphorus and sediment runoff losses generally increased nitrogen leaching to groundwater. Double cropping corn and winter wheat under improved nutrient management was the most profitable combination for the crop farm, increasing average farm profitability by 92% over the baseline while reducing combined nitrogen and total phosphorus losses by 13% and 23%, respectively. Net profitability of the contemporary dairy farm was increased only by decreasing manure storage or using improved nutrient management. For the Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy, cover-cropping and harvest of rye silage combined with increased nutrient management provided the greatest increase in farm profit (+8%) and also reduced phosphorus and nitrogen losses.

Future Plans

Cost-effective recommendations from a whole farm perspective that account for unique characteristics of particular farm types can aid officials in determining locally agreeable methods for efficiently addressing regional priority pollutants. As farms adopt and implement suggested management changes, additional management practices of interest can be evaluated. Also, IFSM is being expanded to consider air emissions and carbon sequestration effects of the management practices.

Authors

Tamie L. Veith, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, tamie.veith@ars.usda.gov

Andrew D. McLean, Water Resources Designer, McCormick Taylor, Inc.

C. Alan Rotz, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS

James M. Hamlett, Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University

James S. Shortle, Distinguished Professor of Agricultural and Environmental Economics, The Pennsylvania State University

Additional Information

Integrated Farm System Model: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=8519

McLean, A. D., 2012. Modeling best management practices on representative farms in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Master’s thesis, PA State University, University Park, PA. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/14093/, available Dec. 05, 2012.

Acknowledgements

This work contributes to the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), jointly funded, coordinated, and administered by United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, and National Institute for Food and Agriculture. We would like to thank Mike Hubler and Larry Baum from Dauphin County Conservation District and officials at Lancaster and Lebanon County Conservation Districts for their advice and guidance categorizing and characterizing farms of Dauphin County and southeastern Pennsylvania. Thanks also to Kristen Saacke-Blunk and Matt Royer from Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative for their time and input.  Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Small and Backyard Poultry Flocks

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Because of their size, it is possible to raise most poultry species (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pigeon, etc.) with only a minimal amount of acreage. This has made them increasingly popular in rural, suburban, and urban areas throughout the United States. They are suitable for 4-H/classroom projects, backyard flocks, as well as small- and medium-sized production flocks. Many of those who have started raising poultry have limited experience with poultry production.

What Topics Will Be Covered In This Presentation?

Example of a small layer flock (3 Buff Orpingtons) in a backyard

An overview of the situation with small and backyard flocks with regards to waste management

What Did We Do?

Visits to different small and backyard flocks, as well as information provided during presentations and webinars.

What Have We Learned?

Poultry production in the US started out as small farm operations. Over the decades poultry production has evolved from farming to an industry. World War II created a huge demand for poultry products. As farm workers were drafted into the army production become more mechanized. After the war ended many of the returning soldiers did not return to a life on the farm. New urban markets for poultry products developed, furthering fueling the modernization of poultry production. Today we have come full circle. It is becoming more common to see small chicken flocks raised in backyard poultry flocks. Niche markets have also been developed for organic and pasture poultry production.

The front yard of a home with a backyard chicken flock

Although flock size is small, chickens kept in backyards still produce a considerable amount of manure that needs to be managed. Many backyard flock owners also raise their own vegetables and use the manure produced as a valuable fertilizer. For others, however, the manure can be allowed to accumulate and, when not properly stored, can become an odor nuisance. Pasture-raised poultry flocks, given sufficient acreage, spreads the manure over a large area reducing, or eliminating, odor problems.

For both backyard and confined small poultry flocks, composting of both manure and any dead birds has become common.

Future Plans

Use of composted manure as fertilizer for raised garden beds

In the 1950s more than 40 state colleges and universities had poultry science departments. Discoveries in nutrition, genetics, physiology, health and food science helped poultry production become an important food industry.  Today only 6 universities have poultry departments. With the loss of university poultry depeartments and retirmements of key extension people, there has been a loss of updated extension publications to provide guidance to small and backyard poultry flock owners. Since very little information is available addressing the management needs of these smaller poultry flocks, many producers have turned to outdated books as well as non-science-based and anecdotal information for their education needs. A new eXtension community of practice for small and backyard poultry has been developed to fill this information void.

Author

Dr. Jacquie Jacob; Poultry Extension Associate; University of Kentucky, 906 Garrigus Building; Lexington, KY; 40546-0215, jacquie.jacob@uky.edu

Additional Information

www.eXtension.org/poultry

 

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Smartphone Apps for Manure Management

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

graph

The home screen of the Manure Calculator app.

Abstract

Technology is driving many exciting possibilities in agriculture. The increase in use of smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices is changing the way people consume information and interact with each other. One exciting opportunity is to utilize smartphone apps to make farm record keeping easier.  With that in mind, two apps were created for livestock and poultry farms, “Manure Calculator” and “Manure Monitor”.

Why Create Apps for Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship?

Concerns about the digital divide and access to technology often mean that educators try to ensure educational materials are available in paper or other common formats. The creation of apps seems like a tool that would be available only to a select group. The reality is that mobile technologies are leapfrogging the traditional use of computers or laptops and many are gaining access to digital information through mobile devices of their own or those accessed through an adviser or educator. We believe that mobile apps have potential to actually increase the reach of credible, research-based information to audiences that may be underserved through traditional educational outreach.

One of the problems with record-keeping is that these are seen as an ‘add-on’ or additional chore beyond what a farmer would normally do. Incorporating records or planning processes into mobile devices can lower this inconvenience factor since users usually keep their mobile devices with them all the time and are comfortable using them.

Last, but not least, farmers are becoming more aware of the need to communicate their actions and stewardship ethics to audiences not familiar with agriculture. Social media, blogs, and crowdsourcing sites (like Reddit or Wikipedia) make it more possible than ever for farmers to interact with people that have questions or are skeptical about certain farming practices. Keeping records or developing plans on a mobile device makes it easier to share actions and activities and potentially counteract negative or misleading information that is circulated through the same media.

graph

Home screen for the Manure Monitor app.

What Did We Do?

“Manure Calculator” has three sections. 1) calculate the amount of manure spread (calibrate your spreader) 2) calculate the amount of nutrients applied by using either your own manure test or using book values and 3) calculate the economic value of that manure. The app keeps a history of past entries and allows the user to email a single entry or an entire history to themselves for record keeping purposes. The value section was based on an existing spreadsheet from the University of Nebraska. The book values section was based on the ASABE 384.2 Manure Production and Characteristics standard.

Future Plans

We believe that two of the concerns for app development are:

1) The cost to develop apps. When looking at such a specific topic as manure management or environmental records, the cost is usually the first question asked by other educators or agency staff and it can be substantial. Our plan is to make this app code available to others that would like to customize or build on the app for their clientele (specific species or specific state). This will hopefully lower the cost of development for others AND lead to app versions that are more useful to farmers. It is also important to recognize that creating both of these apps was actually less expensive than funds needed to develop some of the traditional educational modules in this same project.

2) Integration into software. We believe apps can be even more useful if they provide a simple way to enter data into software being used for comprehensive planning or record keeping procedures. Software companies interested in integrating these apps into data entry will be welcomed.

Author

Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska jheemstra@unl.edu

Acknowledgements

This program originated thanks to funding from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project is a joint effort between University of Nebraska, Montana State University, Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center and the National Young Farmers Educational Association (NYFEA).

App developer: Jeff Abele from Move Creative http://movecreative.com

We would like to thank the following people for their feedback and reviews of the apps:

Leslie Johnson, Charles Shapiro, William Kranz, Larry Howard, and Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska; Mark Risse and Melony Wilson, University of Georgia; Laura Pepple, University of Illinois; Amanda Douridas, Ohio State University; Thomas Bass, Montana; Saqib Mukhtar, Texas AgriLife Extension; Rhonda Miller, Utah State University; and many others.

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Evaluation of a Trickle Flow Leach Bed Reactor for Anaerobic Digestion of High Solids Cattle Waste

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion?

Colorado is the second highest producer of high solids cattle waste (HSCW) in the United States. Despite the available resources, Colorado currently has only one operational anaerobic digester treating manure (AgSTAR EPA 2011), which is located at a hog farm in Lamar. Arid climate and limited water resources in Colorado render the implementation of high water demanding conventional AD processes. Studies to date have proposed high solids AD systems capable of digesting organic solid waste (OSW) not more than 40% total solids (TS). Lab tests have shown that HSCW produced in Greeley (Colorado) has an average of 89.4% TS. Multi-stage leach bed reactor (MSLBR) system proposed in the current study is capable of handling HSCW of up to 90% TS.

What Did We Do?

Hydrolysis is carried out in a trickle flow leach bed reactor (TFLBR) and methanogenesis can be carried out in a high rate anaerobic digester (HRAD) like an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor or a fixed film reactor. The objective of this research is to evaluate and optimize the performance of the TFLBR. The system was operated as a batch process and the organic leaching potential of a single pass TFLBR configuration was evaluated. The organic leaching potential was measured in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD).

Three series’ of reactor experiments were carried out in total. Each subsequent experiment was based on the results on the previously conducted experiment. First set of reactor experiments included three TFLBRs (triplicate) loaded with HSCW. The difficulty encountered during the operation of this experiment was that the flow rate of water through the TFLBR slowed down over time and eventually dropped to zero within the first 24 hrs. This caused water build-up on top of the manure bed, resulting in the failure of hydrolysis. Second set of reactor experiments included six TFLBRs (two sets of triplicates). One set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW and the other set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW bulked with straw (5% by mass) to improve the porosity through the reactor. A layer of fine sand was added on top of the manure bed to facilitate water dispersion through the reactor.

The third set of reactor experiments included the comparison between nutrient dosed and non-nutrient dosed reactors (each carried out in triplicates). The idea behind dosing nutrients to an operational TFLBR was to check if the reactors were nutrient limited during the digestion process. Composite sampling technique was adopted so as to capture the exact leaching potential from each of the reactors.

What Have We Learned?

The first set of reactor experiments helped in identifying the clogging issues in operational TFLBRs handling HSCW. The second set of reactor experiments validated the use of fine sand as a better alternative to improve hydraulic flow when compared to the use of bulking agents. The third set of reactor experiments indicated that the addition of nutrient solution to a single-pass TFLBR operation is essential in improving the overall system yield. Leachate collection by composited sampling method instead of the instantaneous sample method improved the system efficiency by approximately 50%. The average TS reductions in the non-nutrient dosed and nutrient dosed TFLBRs were 23.18% and 22.67% respectively. The non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 66.32% of COD reduction and the nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 73.51% of COD reduction due to COD leaching during hydrolysis, over the period of six weeks. Biochemical methane potential (BCMP) test results indicate high biogas yields from the weekly composited leachate from the reactor experiments proving successful system operation. Approximately 0.43 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs and 0.57 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the nutrient dosed TFLBRs.

Future Plans

The proposed MSLBR system recommends TFLBRs operating under leachate recirculation. The addition of nutrient solution in a leachate recirculated TFLBR would not be unnecessary since the nutrients in the system would be conserved. The success of hydraulic conductivity and leaching quality in a leachate recirculated TFLBR is unknown. More research is required to completely understand the operation and success of the MSLBR system treating HSCW. Pilot scale reactor experiments should be conducted to monitor the operation of the TFLBRs under leachate recirculation.

Authors

Asma Hanif, Graduate Student in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University,  asmahanif1988@gmail.com

Dr. Sybil Sharvelle, Assistant Professor in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Sybil.Sharvelle@colostate.edu

 

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Youth Ag Greenhouse Gas Educational Lab Materials Via Pork Production Scenarios

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Many of today’s high school students have little insight into the basic day-to-day operational decisions and challenges faced by Agricultural producers. Therefore, there is a need for the development of ag-centric and dynamic educational material. Furthermore; there is an even greater need to provide high-school instructors with innovative classroom materials and instructional tools that are conducive to the structured conveyance of ag principles. Targeting the need for these innovative ag educational materials within Arkansas classrooms, this project presents an dynamic lab activity with emphasis on introductory level subject matter about Arkansas swine production systems and the related greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the particular nature of the subject matter, the activity materials were crafted into two complementary products for practicality. The first product is a compilation of swine production reference materials including: terminology and layman definitions of Arkansas swine management strategies and the basic dynamics of greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4) as they relate to swine production. The second product is a scenario based critical thinking exercise, implemented from a manipulative decision-tree platform.

Purpose

  1. Educate students within the state of Arkansas about the various management systems intrinsic to swine production operations within their state.
  2. Provide students insight into the management obstacles that Arkansas swine producers are challenged with through balancing Carbon footprints, economic resources, natural resources, and legal compliance with production profitability and productivity

What Did We Do?

This project presents an dynamic lab activity with emphasis on introductory level subject matter about Arkansas swine production systems and the related greenhouse gas emissions. The activity materials were crafted into two complementary products for practicality. The first product is a compilation of swine production reference materials including: terminology and layman definitions of Arkansas swine management strategies and the basic dynamics of common greenhouse gasses (CO2, N2O, CH4) as they relate to this activities scope of swine production. The reference material serves as both an introduction to basic ideas and practices native to swine production and GHGs, and as a guide which aids the students in completion of the second product (lab activity).

The second product is a scenario based critical thinking exercise, implemented from a manipulative decision-tree platform. Flashcards are used to represent three specific swine management systems using a three tier hierarchy. This hierarchy is distinguished by the allocation of Categories, Components, and Options. The “Categories” are the designated ranking class and will represent three major swine production management systems: Housing Management, Waste Management, and Feed Management. The “Components’ are the first sub-order class, and are used to represent various functions/considerations that comprise each “Category” of production system. The “Options” class holds the lowest position within the hierarchy and represents the different configurations/settings for the individual “Components”. For the context of this exercise the students will act as consultants hired by a producer to design the three management systems (via the flashcards) to “best match” the producer’s desired specifications, as defined within by a supplied catalog of unique scenarios.

Graphical reference to the hierarchical structure of the manipulatives used within this project’s lab activity.

Future Plans

Implementation of this project’s developed lab-activity within Arkansas’ high school classrooms via the Arkansas Farm Bureau supported (Ag-In-the-Classroom) program.

Authors

Szymanski “Rick” Fields II, Program Associate, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Extension rfields@uaex.edu

Karl VanDevender, Professor-Engineer, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Extension

Additional Information

http://www.extension.org/pages/65635/integrated-resource-management-tool-to-mitigate-the-carbon-footprint-of-swine-produced-in-the-united

Acknowledgements

This is a NIFA funded project (Proposal # 2010-04269; Title of Proposal “Integrated Resource Management Tool to Mitigate the Carbon Footprint of Swine Produced in the U.S”)

Special thanks to Donna VanDevender (High School Science Teacher-Bauxite Arkansas) for her insight into the development of the materials and for providing the opportunity to conduct trial runs of the lab-activity.

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Fate of Barbiturates and Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs During Carcass Composting

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Are We Concerned About Drug Residues in Animal Mortality Compost?

With disease issues, the decline of the rendering industry, a ban on use of downer cows for food, and rules to halt horse slaughter, environmentally safe and sound practices for disposal of horses and other livestock mortalities are limited. Improper disposal of carcasses containing veterinary drugs has resulted in the death of domestic animals and wildlife. Composting of carcasses has been performed successfully to reduce pathogens, nutrient release, and biosecurity risks. However, there is concern that drugs used in the livestock industry, as feed additives and veterinary therapies do not degrade readily and will persist in compost or leachate, threatening environmental exposure to wildlife, domestic animals and humans.

Two classes of drugs commonly used in the livestock and horse industries include barbiturates for euthanasia and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for relief of pain and inflammation. Sodium pentobarbital (a barbiturate) and phenylbutazone (an NSAID) concentrations in liver, compost, effluent and leachate were analyzed in two separate horse carcass compost piles in two separate years. Horse liver samples were also buried in 3 feet of loose soil in the first year and drug concentrations were assessed over time.

What did we do?

Year 1- On 9/22/09 a 6 x 6 m piece of 10 mil plastic sheeting was laid on bare soil with a 2% slope, at the edge of Cornell University’s compost site in Ithaca, NY. Water was poured on the plastic to check the direction of flow. A hole was dug at the low end of the pad, under the plastic, large enough to fit a 76 l galvanized garbage can. A stainless steel canner was placed in the garbage can to collect effluent. A hole was cut in the plastic over the canner for collection. A 0.6 m high base (3.7 x 3.7 m) of coarse carbon material (woodchips) was laid on the plastic. A 27 year old Appaloosa mare, weighing approximately 455 kg that had been dosed with 1 gram phenylbutazone at midnight on 9/22/09 and again at 8:00 am was led onto the base and euthanized for severe lameness by a qualified veterinarian with 120 ml Fatal Plus® solution (active ingredient 390 mg/ml Pentobarbital Sodium). After the horse had been euthanized and the veterinarian ensured there were no signs of life, the carcass was maneuvered onto the wood chips with the head on the upward slope of the pad. The liver was removed from the horse and cut into 48 pieces, each weighing approximately 100 grams, and nylon mesh bags were then placed in whiffle balls. A 2 m length of nylon twine was attached to each ball. Twenty-three balls were inserted in the horse’s gut cavity and 22 balls were placed in a 1 m hole in the ground (burial hole) which was dug approximately 1.5 m from the pad. Pieces of the intestine and some blood were also placed in the hole to help mimic the presence of a carcass. The remaining 3 nylon mesh bags with liver were packaged for delivery to Cornell University’s Animal Health Diagnostic Center (AHDC) to determine initial NSAID and barbiturates concentrations. Two Hobo U12 data loggers with 4 temperature probes each were set up to record hourly temperatures. Five of the probes were placed in the compost pile: under the horse’s chest, in the horse’s hind gut, in the horse’s chest cavity, under the horse’s spine and under the horse’s right hind quarter. Two of the probes were placed in the burial hole and one probe was left out to record ambient temperature. The hole was covered with loose soil. The horse was covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. The plastic liner was tightened by rolling it over and under wooden fence posts.

Year 2- In year 1, the collection of “leachate” included precipitation that diluted the leachate. In year 2, to target only the liquids that leached out of the horse and through the pile, two 3 m long troughs with a 1% slope were built out of 15 and 10 cm diameter PVC pipe attached to 5 x 15 cm untreated lumber. The troughs were placed on the pad from the centerline to the edge of the pile end-to-end with slopes going toward the outside of the pile. Leachate drained via gravity into 2-liter polyethylene bottles attached to the troughs. The exposed ends of the troughs were covered with 1 m length of aluminum flashing to keep rainwater out of the collection bottles.

On 8/10/10 the leachate collection troughs were laid on bare soil with a 2% slope at the edge of Cornell University’s compost site in Ithaca, NY. A 0.6 m high base (3.7 x 3.7 m) of coarse carbon material (woodchips) was laid on top of the troughs. A 22 year old horse weighing approximately 590 kg, that had been dosed with 1 gram phenylbutazone at midnight on 08/10/10 and again at 7:30 am, was led onto the base and euthanized by a qualified veterinarian with 300 mg xylazine as a sedative, then with 120 ml Fatal Plus® solution (active ingredient 390 mg/ml Pentobarbital Sodium). After the horse had been euthanized and the veterinarian ensured there were no signs of life, the carcass was maneuvered on the wood chips with the head on the upward slope of the pad. The veterinarian took 4 tubes of blood from a vein in the nose and a vein in the front leg of the horse in heparinized Vacutainer® tubes for initial concentrations of pentobarbital and phenylbutazone. Twenty-six whiffle balls that had been pre-filled with wood chips (the base material of the compost pile) were placed such that they would be under the horse and liquids coming from the horse would be absorbed by the chips inside the balls, as well as in the surrounding base material, while the excess would drain down the leachate collection troughs and be captured in the 2 liter bottles at the end of the troughs (Figure 1). One Hobo U12 data logger with 4 temperature probes was set up to record hourly temperatures. The probes were placed under the horse’s neck and rump, on top of the horse’s abdomen, and one was left out to record ambient temperature. The horse was covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. Additional woodchips were added to the pile on August 13 and the pile was covered with a breathable polyester compost cover to collect only what was leaching from the animal.

Figure 1 Cross-section of horse compost pile showing placement of leachate collection troughs and woodchip-filled whiffle balls.

On 8/10/10 a 0.6 m high base (3.5 x 3.5 m) of coarse carbon material was laid near the horse compost pile. A 455 kg 3 year, 7 month old, 2nd lactation Holstein cow was euthanized, due to a lung abscess, in the same manner as the horse (300 mg xylazine, followed by 120 ml Fatal Plus®). Four tubes of blood were withdrawn from her milk vein as described for the horse. One Hobo U12 data logger with 4 temperature probes was set up to record hourly temperatures. The probes were placed under the cow’s udder and rear leg, on top of the cow’s back, and one was left out to record ambient temperature. The cow was then covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. Additional woodchips were added to the pile the following day before the pile was covered with a compost cover.

What did we learn?

In year one, phenylbutazone concentrations in the liver of the horse were undetectable (< 10 ppb) by 20 days of composting or burial in loose soil and were undetectable in effluent from the pile at the time of first sampling on day 6. Pentobarbital concentrations were undetectable (< 10 ppb) in liver samples retrieved from both the compost pile and loose soil by day 83. Rate of decay was faster in the soil, exponentially decreasing by 18% per day, with a half-life of 3 days, than in the compost pile where there was a 2% decrease per day and a half-life of 31 days, but occurred at the same rate of 1% and a half-life between 55 and 67 mesophilic degree days when calculated on the number of mesophilic degree days to which it was exposed. This suggests that breakdown of pentobarbital is not initiated by the heat of composting, but by the biological degradation that occurs in both soil and compost at mesophilic temperatures. Pentobarbital in the effluent decreased by 20% per day with a half-life of 3.1 days but was still detectable (0.1 ppm) at 223 days of composting.

In year 2, phenylbutazone was not detected in any of the samples analyzed (compost and leachate) other than blood taken from the jugular vein of the horse immediately after euthanasia. Pentobarbital concentrations in the compost were still detectable after 224 days of composting, but had decreased from 79.2 (initial) to 5.8 ppm. Pentobarbital in leachate was 2.2 ppm at day 56 of composting, after which no additional fluids leached into the leachate collection containers.  Rate of decay in the leachate was 35.2% per day with a half-life of 1.6 days. When managed properly, composting will deter domestic and wild animals from scavenging on treated carcasses while they contain the highest drug concentrations providing an effective means of disposal of euthanized and/or NSAID treated livestock. The resulting compost contains either no or very low concentrations of both NSAIDs and barbiturates rendering it safe for use in agriculture.

Barbiturate poisoning in domestic and wild animals has occurred from ingestion of tissue from animals euthanized with pentobarbital. Many of the reported cases have occurred from direct feeding on improperly disposed livestock in which little or no degradation or biotransformation of pentobarbital has occurred.  During the time period in which carcasses would be desirable to domestic and wild animals as a food source, composting creates sufficient heat to deter them from digging in to the pile. In addition, when covered properly, the smell of decomposition is minimized, also reducing attraction. The diverse community of microorganisms in the compost pile aids in the degradation and biotransformation of pentobarbital, especially after the thermophilic phase of composting is over. Properly implemented composting, as a means of disposal of euthanized or NSAID treated livestock, will deter domestic and wild animals from scavenging for carcasses when they contain the highest drug concentrations. The resulting compost contains either no or very low concentrations of either NSAIDs or barbiturates, rendering the compost safe for use in agriculture.

Future Plans

Education and implementation work continues in this area nationally and internationally. A 5th International Symposium on Depopulation and Disposal of Livestock is in the planning stages. A study on the Fate of anthelmintics (drugs that expel parasitic worms from the body) in livestock manure has just been completed.

Authors

Jean Bonhotal,  Mary Schwarz,  Cornell University, Cornell Waste Management Institute, Ithaca, NY

Karyn Bischoff, Joseph G Ebel, Jr. Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, NY

Additional Information

Visit Cornell Waste Management Institute Web site: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/mortality.htm

Trends in Animal & Veterinary Sciences Journal article http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/fate.pdf

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.