Economics of Manure – Page 4 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Inclusion of the Environment Bottom Line in Waste to Worth: The Interaction Between Economics, Environmental effects, and Farm Productivity in Assessment of Manure Management Technology and Policy

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

In a global context, the pork industry constitutes a huge economic sector but many producers operate on very thin margins. In addition, pork is one of the largest and most important agricultural industries in North Carolina and the United States but faces a number of challenges in regards to waste management and environmental impacts.On more local scales, swine producers face a number of additional constraints including land availability, waste management options (technical and regulatory), nutrient management costs, profits, risk, and return on investment. In the face of increasingly stringent environmental regulations, decreasing land availability, and higher costs for fertilizer, it is necessary to consider alternative technologies with the potential for improving environmental conditions and creating value added products. Technology assessments generally focus on technical performance as the measure of “utility” or usefulness. Primary physical performance measures such as efficiency, production rate, and capacity, while necessary may not be sufficient for capturing the overall value of a technology. A significant amount of research has evaluated the feasibility of technology adoption based on traditional economic measures but far less research has attempted to “value” environmental performance either at farm-scale or in the larger context (e.g. supply chain response to changes in technology or policy and regulation). Considering response over time, the extent to which environmental and economic policies and regulations positively or negatively affect technology innovation, emission and nutrient management, competitiveness, and productivity, remains largely unknown.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental and economic tradeoffs between current swine waste management practices in North Carolina and alternative scenarios for future on-farm decision making that include new technologies for waste removal, treatment, and nitrogen recovery. In addition, we begin to understand these economic and environmental tradeoffs in the context of various environmental policy and regulation scenarios for markets of carbon, electricity, and mineral fertilizer.

What did we do?

Using waste samples from swine finishing farms in southeastern NC, laboratory and bench scale experiments were conducted to determine the quantity and quality of biogas generation from anaerobic digestion and nitrogen recovery from an ammonia air stripping column. Based on these data as well as information from literature, six trial life cycle assessment scenarios were created to simulate alternatives for annual manure waste management for one finishing barn (3080 head) on the farm. Materials, energy, and emissions were included as available for all system components and processes including but not limited to waste removal from barns (flushing or scraping), treatment (open air lagoon or covered lagoon digester), nitrogen recovery (ammonia air stripping column), and land application (irrigation). A description of the scenarios as well as processes that are included/excluded for each can be found in Table 1. All scenarios were modeled over a one year operational period using a “gate to gate” approach where the mass and energy balance begins and ends on the farm (i.e. production of feed is not included and manure is fully utilized on the farm). It was assumed that each scenario included an existing anaerobic treatment lagoon with manure flushing system (baseline, representative of NC swine farms). In the remaining scenarios, the farm had an option of covering the lagoon and using it as a digester to produce biogas (offsetting natural gas); covering the digester and ammonia air stripping column for nitrogen recovery (offsetting mineral ammonium sulfate); installing a mechanical scraper system in the barn (replaces flushing); and/or different combinations of these. Open LCA, an open source life cycle and sustainability assessment software, was used for inventory analysis and the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI 2.0) was used to characterize environmental impacts to air, water, and land. From Table 2 preliminary results indicate that all scenarios had a similar pattern in terms of impact for the assessed categories. The open air lagoon had the highest overall environmental impact followed by scraping manure with digestion and recovery and scraped slurry digestion with no nutrient recovery. Flushed manure to the digester with nutrient recovery had the lowest overall environmental impact, followed closely by scraped whole slurry to the digester with nutrient recovery.

Using energy and emissions data from the initial life cycle assessment on alternative scenarios for swine waste management systems we have started to characterize the environmental and economic outcomes arising from selected on farm technologies. More specifically we began to examine the regulatory, institutional, and market barriers associated with technology adoption within the swine industry. We provide a theoretical model to support quantification of the change in revenues and expenses that result from changes in three major markets connected to swine production – carbon, electricity, and fertilizer. We examine some of the economic characteristics of environmental benefits associated with changes to farm practices. Finally, we discuss implications for innovation in technology and policy.

What have we learned?

Preliminary results are somewhat mixed and further research is needed to see how sensitive the life cycle assessment inputs and outputs are to system components. While there is a clear indication that covering lagoons, with or without additional nutrient recovery, reduces environmental impact – farm scale systems can be quite expensive and no further determination can be made until a full economic analysis has been conducted. Modeling secondary effects, such as increased ammonia emissions in barns from flush water recirculated from digesters, remains to be included. Besides farm level cost and returns, review of literature has pointed to additional barriers to adoption of reduced environmental impact technologies. Examples of barriers include deficient or non-existent markets for environmental benefits, and various state and federal regulations and policies related to renewable energy, carbon offsets, new farm waste management technology, etc. Solutions such as better cooperation between energy firms, regulatory agencies, and farmers as well as increased financial incentives such as carbon credits, renewable energy credits, net metering options, and enabling delivery of biogas to natural gas pipelines can greatly increase the profitability and implementation of this technology on NC hog farms.

Future Plans

As this is an ongoing multi-disciplinary project, future plans include the expansion of existing data to form a more comprehensive life cycle inventory with options for both new and existing swine farms, which include additional options for waste treatment, nutrient recovery, and land application/fertilizer methods, etc. Energy and emissions data from the life cycle model will continue to be utilized as inputs into a more fully integrated model capable of reflecting the true “cost” and “values” associated with waste management treatment systems. In addition, it is expected that the integrated model will include the flexibility to simulate overall costs and returns for various sizes of operations within the county, region, and if possible state-wide.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Shannon Banner, Graduate Student, North Carolina State University

Corresponding author email

sbcreaso@ncsu.edu

Other authors

Dr. John Classen, Dr. Prince Dugba, Mr. Mark Rice, Dr. Kelly Zering

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from Smithfield Swine Production Group

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. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Valorization of Manure Treatment for Poultry and Swine Operators

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Current practices for nutrient removal or recovery of phosphorus focus on chemical precipitation technologies, where the recovered products are low-grade, slow-release, low-value land applied fertilizers. Three significant deficiencies re this process – the cost of recovery is greater than the market value as commercial P fertilizer; the land application of such materials perpetuates the current cycle of pollutant nutrient “leakage” into surface waters; and the approach is not viable to address non-point source pollution or the legacy P present in impaired water bodies. Hence, research was initiated based on commercially available Hybrid Ion Exchange Nanomaterials (HIX-Nano), which remove naturally occurring arsenic from drinking water, and apply it to remove, recover, reconcentrate, reuse and recycle soluble reactive phosphorus from diverse organic waste and wastewaters.

What did we do?

The infusion of high surface area nano iron oxide into conventional ion exchange resins, HIX-(Fe) Nano makes it possible to remove phosphates from wastewater and this has been proven by Lehigh U., ESSRE Consulting and others. Thus, residual dissolved phosphorus not chemically precipitated is captured and removed to supplement and complement the current P recovery processes or capture all of the dissolved P where nutrient recovery does not occur. The key to nutrient recovery is regeneration of the spent media and the conventional chemistry to achieve this is with a weak alkaline (caustic soda) rinse to desorb captured phosphate. The end product is a phosphate solution with a peak concentration of about 1600 mg/L. However, Na does not add any nutrient value whereas potassium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide or both will add N and K to desorbed P and allow the custom formulation of N-P-K liquid products for hydroponic growers and greenhouse horticulturists. Moreover, when the source of concentrated N and P is livestock manures, there is a way to impart the micronutrients, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc. into the liquid formulations that will result in an N-P-K Plus product.

What have we learned?

We know that making liquid fertilizer products from manures will help valorize manure treatment because hydroponic growers will pay a premium for a premixed N-P-K product and such an approach will limit the recycled nutrients “leakage” when direct land application is avoided. We also know that commercial synthetic fertilizer production is energy intensive and that any form of pollutant nutrient recovery/reuse will reduce GHG emissions via avoided fertilizer production.

We have also learned that we can do better in terms of manure valorization, if we take the view that even small amounts of soluble reactive phosphorus serve as a “biocatalyst” for intense and frequent harmful algae blooms in fresh and coastal waters. Hence, why not convert recovered nutrients into non-fertilizer products that are more highly valued in the marketplace. In mind are inorganic chemical catalysts that contain P and happen to be widely used in the Oil & Gas sector and Energy Storage sector, as follows:

1) Fluidized Catalytic Catalysts (FCC) – Phosphate-Zeolites (Oil Refineries)

2) Li-ion Battery Cathode Materials – LiFePO4 (Energy Storage)

Finally, we have also learned of recent advances in HIX-Nano technology, where the oxide of Nano Fe particles are replaced with that of Zirconium (Zr) particles. The HIX-(Zr) Nano resin exhibits enhanced P removal/regeneration potential and concurrent removal/recovery of pollutant nutrient N-Nitrate.

The attributes of the HIX-nanomaterial capabilities in manure treatment manifest in the advancement of 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship for fertilizers including land application of manure – Right type, Right place, Right rate and Right time – into “5Rs” of livestock manure management of the dissolved nutrient losses: Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle.

The HIX-Nano can be configured and operated with equal efficiency for wastewater streams with high concentrations of nutrients (direct manure treatment after liquid/solids separation) or dilute runoff concentrations or very dilute legacy concentrations in surface or groundwater sources. A commercial business model of HIX 5Rs treatment is established as a “hub” and “spoke” system. The spokes are all of the pollutant nutrient pathways to surface waters shown in Figure 1, adapted from Wind’s version (2007).

Thus, the application of HIX-Nano technology serves as a barrier to pollutant nutrient leakage from all sources. Hence, each farm, wastewater treatment plant, each urban stormwater runoff source within the watershed is a “spoke”. Spent HIX-Nano is transported to a nearby Regeneration Center (Hub) and “refreshed” media is sent (i.e., recycled) back to the source (Spoke) for continued removal of nutrients. At the Regeneration Center, the further processing of recovery via regeneration and reconcentration generates custom liquid fertilizer products and the aforementioned inorganic chemical catalysts and materials. Hence, the Regeneration Center also serves as a Product Distribution Center – an all-purpose Hub. Moreover, regardless of the location of the Hub within or outside the watershed, the recycling of nutrients in products that are not land applied fertilizer in essence “export” pollutant nutrients out of the watershed irrespective of the location of use. Add the quantification of recycled nutrients to manufacture specific formulations, the HIX-Nano Hub-Spoke model becomes an additional revenue stream to producers for nutrient trading credits, where these programs exist, and a useful tool to develop trading credit programs where they do not exist.

Future Plans

The potential to simultaneously Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle pollutant nutrients N and P from manures doubles the work ahead. For the reuse/recycle of fertilizer products confirmation is needed that N-P-K products will be free of impurities and commercially accepted after fertilization testing; similar confirmation path for N (NH4+ and N-NO3)-P-K products. Once established for reuse, HIX-Nano filters can be applied to the flushing discharge of spent fertilizer/nutrient solution for capture of N or P, thus closing the pollutant overload loop and recycling recycled pollutant nutrients.

For the reuse/recycle of treated water deficient in P when removing soluble P only, this needs to be tested for spray application onto soils oversaturated with P to assure compliance with the Nutrient Management Plans for N and P and thus safe reuse and reclamation of this water.

For the catalytic products thorough testing of composition (impurities), stability and performance testing needs to be carried out to gain acceptance as “green” catalysts or solution precursors for “green” catalysts. In either case, reconcentration must be carried out (thermal or mechanical) in a cost-effective way and in a way that carries out manure pathogen total destruction when the source of removed nutrients is from livestock manures .Similar research efforts are needed for battery cathode material manufactured from recycled pollutant P. Moreover for both catalysts and battery materials, if the final disposition of these materials is landfilling, the application of HIX-Nano on landfill leachate containing P will close the nutrient pollution loop by applying 5Rs treatment principles.

Lastly, to address the Food-Energy-Water nexus challenge the future plans will favor HIX-Nano application on manure digestate after liquid/solids separations. Nutrient recycling using HIX-Nano will also come into play with biomass to energy technologies such as Anaerboic Digestion and Hydrothermal Liquefaction, where the output is biofuels or biofuels and biochemical.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Ed Weinberg, PE, President, ESSRE Consulting, Inc.

Corresponding author email

edweinberg_essre@verizon.net

Additional information

Ed Weinberg can be reached at (215) 630-0546. Additional key people:

Dr. Mark Snyder, Lehigh U.; Dr. Raul Lobo, U of Delaware.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1LYFVS7wY8

Acknowledgements

Dr. Arup K. SenGupta, Lehigh U.

March 5, 2019September 4, 2020

Poultry Mortality Freezer Units: Better BMP, Better Biosecurity, Better Bottom Line.

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Why Tackle Mortality Management? It’s Ripe for Revolution.

The poultry industry has enjoyed a long run of technological and scientific advancements that have led to improvements in quality and efficiency. To ensure its hard-won prosperity continues into the future, the industry has rightly shifted its focus to sustainability. For example, much money and effort has been expended on developing better management methods and alternative uses/destinations for poultry litter.

In contrast, little effort or money has been expended to improve routine mortality management – arguably one of the most critical aspects of every poultry operation. In many poultry producing areas of the country, mortality management methods have not changed in decades – not since the industry was forced to shift from the longstanding practice of pit burial. Often that shift was to composting (with mixed results at best). For several reasons – improved biosecurity being the most important/immediate – it’s time that the industry shift again.

The shift, however, doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, i.e., mortality management can be revolutionized without developing anything revolutionary. In fact, the mortality management practice of the future owes its existence in part to a technology that was patented exactly 20 years ago by Tyson Foods – large freezer containers designed for storing routine/daily mortality on each individual farm until the containers are later emptied and the material is hauled off the farm for disposal.

Despite having been around for two decades, the practice of using on-farm freezer units has received almost no attention. Little has been done to promote the practice or to study or improve on the original concept, which is a shame given the increasing focus on two of its biggest advantages – biosecurity and nutrient management.

Dusting off this old BMP for a closer look has been the focus of our work – and with promising results. The benefits of hitting the reset button on this practice couldn’t be more clear:

Greatly improved biosecurity for the individual grower when compared to traditional composting;
Improved biosecurity for the entire industry as more individual farms switch from composting to freezing, reducing the likelihood of wider outbreaks;
Reduced operational costs for the individual poultry farm as compared to more labor-intensive practices, such as composting;
Greatly reduced environmental impact as compared to other BMPs that require land application as a second step, including composting, bio-digestion and incineration; and
Improved quality of life for the grower, the grower’s family and the grower’s neighbors when compared to other BMPs, such as composting and incineration.

What Did We Do?

We basically took a fresh look at all aspects of this “old” BMP, and shared our findings with various audiences.

That work included:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
2. Freezer unit capacity,
3. Power consumption, and
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors,
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects;
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
3. Biosecurity measures
4. Nutrient management comparisons
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Ensuring the results of the above topics/tests were communicated to
1. Growers
2. Integrators
3. Legislators
4. Environmental groups
5. Funding agencies (state and federal)
6. Veterinary agencies (state and federal)

What Have We Learned?

The breadth of the work at times limited the depth of any one topic’s exploration, but here is an overview of our findings:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Farm visitation by scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, that previously dined in the composting shed daily slowly decreased and then stopped entirely about three weeks after the farm converted to freezer units.
  2. The fly population was dramatically reduced after the farm converted from composting to freezer units. [Reduction was estimated at 80%-90%.]
2. Freezer unit capacity
  1. The test units were carefully filled on a daily basis to replicate the size and amount of deadstock generated over the course of a full farm’s grow-out cycle.
  2. The capacity tests were repeated over several flocks to ensure we had accurate numbers for creating a capacity calculator/matrix, which has since been adopted by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine the correct number of units per farm based on flock size and finish bird weight (or number of grow-out days) in connection with the agency’s cost-share program.
3. Power consumption
  1. Power consumption was recorded daily over several flocks and under several conditions, e.g., during all four seasons and under cover versus outside and unprotected from the elements.
  2. Energy costs were higher for uncovered units and obviously varied depending on the season, but the average cost to power one unit is only 90 cents a day. The total cost of power for the average farm (all four units) is only $92 per flock. (See additional information for supporting documentation and charts.)
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
  1. It was determined that the benefits of installing the units under cover (e.g., inside a small shed or retrofitted bin composter) with a winch system to assist with emptying the units greatly outweighed the additional infrastructure costs.
  2. This greatly reduced wear and tear on the freezer component of the system during emptying, eliminated clogging of the removable filter component, as well as provided enhanced access to the unit for periodic cleaning/maintenance by a refrigeration professional.
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
  1. After tracking two years of full farm collection/hauling data, we were able to increase the per unit capacity number in the calculator/matrix from 1,500 lbs. to 1,800 lbs., thereby reducing the number of units required per farm to satisfy that farm’s capacity needs.
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Both farms reported improved quality of life, largely thanks to the elimination or reduction of animals, insects and smells associated with composting.
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Both farms reported elimination or reduction of the scavenging animals and disease-carrying insects commonly associated with composting.
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects
  1. With the benefit of two years of actual use in the field, we entirely re-designed the sheds used for housing the freezer units.
  2. The biggest improvements were created by turning the units so they faced each other rather than all lined up side-by-side facing outward. (See additional information for supporting documentation and diagrams.) This change then meant that the grower went inside the shed (and out of the elements) to load the units. This change also provided direct access to the fork pockets, allowing for quicker emptying and replacement with a forklift.
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. More research confirming the connection between farm visitation by scavenger animals and the use of composting was recently published by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center:
    1. “Certain wildlife species may become habituated to anthropogenically modified habitats, especially those associated with abundant food resources. Such behavior, at least in the context of multiple farms, could facilitate the movement of IAV from farm to farm if a mammal were to become infected at one farm and then travel to a second location. … As such, the potential intrusion of select peridomestic mammals into poultry facilities should be accounted for in biosecurity plans.”
    2. Root, J. J. et al. When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources. Sci. Rep. 5, 14354; doi:10.1038/ srep14354 (2015) at page 6 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
  1. Animals and insects have long been known to be carriers of dozens of pathogens harmful to poultry – and to people. Recently, however, the USDA National Wildlife Research Center demonstrated conclusively that mammals are not only carriers – they also can transmit avian influenza virus to birds.
    1. The study’s conclusion is particularly troubling given the number and variety of mammals and other animals that routinely visit composting sheds as demonstrated by our research using a game camera. These same animals also routinely visit nearby waterways and other poultry farms increasing the likelihood of cross-contamination, as explained in this the video titled Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits.
    2. “When wildlife and poultry interact and both can carry and spread a potentially damaging agricultural pathogen, it’s cause for concern,” said research wildlife biologist Dr. Jeff Root, one of several researchers from the National Wildlife Research Center, part of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services program, studying the role wild mammals may play in the spread of avian influenza viruses.
3. Biosecurity measures
  1. Every day the grower collects routine mortality and stores it inside large freezer units. After the broiler flock is caught and processed, but before the next flock is started – i.e. when no live birds are present, a customized truck and forklift empty the freezer units and hauls away the deadstock. During this 10- to 20- day window between flocks biosecurity is relaxed and dozens of visitors (feed trucks, litter brokers, mortality collection) are on site in preparation for the next flock.
    1. “Access will change after a production cycle,” according to a biosecurity best practices document (enclosed) from Iowa State University. “Empty buildings are temporarily considered outside of the [protected area and even] the Line of Separation is temporarily removed because there are no birds in the barn.”
4. Nutrient management comparisons
  1. Research provided by retired extension agent Bud Malone (enclosed) provided us with the opportunity to calculate nitrogen and phosphorous numbers for on-farm mortality, and therefore, the amount of those nutrients that can be diverted from land application through the use of freezer units instead of composting.
  2. The research (contained in an enclosed presentation) also provided a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various nutrient management BMPs – and a finding that freezing and recycling is about 90% more efficient than the average of all other ag BMPs in reducing phosphorous.
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Local and county governments in several states have been compiling a lot of research on the various approaches for ensuring farmers and their residential neighbors can coexist peacefully.
  2. Many of the complaints have focused on the unwanted scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, as well as the smells associated with composting.
  3. The concept of utilizing sealed freezer collection units to eliminate the smells and animals associated with composting is being considered by some government agencies as an alternative to instituting deeper and deeper setbacks from property lines, which make farming operations more difficult and costly.

Future Plans

We see more work on three fronts:

First, we’ll continue to do monitoring and testing locally so that we may add another year or two of data to the time frames utilized initially.
Second, we are actively working to develop new more profitable uses for the deadstock (alternatives to rendering) that could one day further reduce the cost of mortality management for the grower.
Lastly, as two of the biggest advantages of this practice – biosecurity and nutrient management – garner more attention nationwide, our hope would be to see more thorough university-level research into each of the otherwise disparate topics that we were forced to cobble together to develop a broad, initial understanding of this BMP.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Victor Clark, Co-Founder & Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Corresponding author email address

victor@farmfreezers.com

Other Authors

Terry Baker, Co-Founder & President, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Additional Information

https://rendermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Render_Oct16.pdf

Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits

One Night in a Composting Shed

www.farmfreezers.com

—

Transmission Pathways

Avian flu conditions still evolving (editorial)

USDA NRCS Conservation fact sheet Poultry Freezers

Nature.com When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources

How Does It Work? (on-farm freezing)

Influenza infections in wild raccoons (CDC)

Collection Shed Unit specifications

Collection Unit specifications

Freezing vs Composting for Biosecurity (Render magazine)

Manure and spent litter management: HPAI biosecurity (Iowa State University)

Acknowledgements

Bud Malone, retired University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist and owner of Malone Poultry Consulting

Bill Brown, University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist, poultry grower and Delmarva Poultry Industry board member

Delaware Department of Agriculture

Delaware Nutrient Management Commission

Delaware Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Maryland Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

EPA’s Nutrient Recycling Challenge

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Come to this session to learn about the Nutrient Recycling Challenge and meet some of the involved partners and experts, as well as some innovators who are competing to develop nutrient recovery technologies that meet the needs of pork and dairy farmers. This session will begin with an overview of the challenge. Next, innovators will provide snapshot presentations about the technology ideas they are working on, followed by live feedback/Q&A sessions on each technology where we can harness the buzzing brainpower at Waste to Worth. Finally, we will move into a “workshop” designed to support innovators participating in the Nutrient Recycling Challenge as they refine their designs before they build prototypes.

What did we do?

Background on the Nutrient Recycling Challenge

At Waste to Worth 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a brainstorm session about developing technologies that livestock farmers want to help manage manure nutrients. That session sowed the seeds for the Nutrient Recycling Challenge—a global competition to find affordable and effective nutrient recovery technologies that create valuable products farmers can use, transport, or sell to where nutrients are in demand. Pork and dairy producers, USDA, and environmental and scientific experts saw the tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits, and partnered with EPA to launch the challenge in November 2015 (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What have we learned?

There is a tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits from manure by-products, but further innovation is needed to develop more effective and affordable technologies that can extract nutrients and create products that farmers can use, transport, or sell more easily to where nutrients are in demand.

In the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, innovators have proposed a range of technology systems to recover nitrogen and phosphorus from dairy and swine manure, including physical, chemical, biological, and thermal treatment systems. Some such systems may also be compatible with manure-to-energy technologies, such as anaerobic digesters. Farms of all sizes are interested in nutrient recovery, and there is demand for diverse types of technologies due to a diversity in end users. To improve the adoptability of nutrient recovery systems, it is critical that innovators are mindful of the affordability of technologies, and work to lower capital and operations and maintenance costs, and improve the potential for returns on investment. A key factor for offsetting the costs of a technology and improving its marketability will be in its ability to generate valuable nutrient-containing products that are competitive in the market.

Future Plans

The challenge has four phases, in which innovators are turning concepts into designs, and eventually to pilot these working technologies on livestock farms. Thirty-four innovator teams whose concepts were selected from Phase I are refining technology designs in Phase II. Design prototypes will be built in Phase III. This workshop is designed to help innovators maximize their potential for developing nutrient recovery technologies that meet farmer needs.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Session Agenda

Overview of the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, Hema Subramanian and Joseph Ziobro of EPA
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partner Introductions, Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partners (including National Milk Producers Federation, Newtrient, Smithfield Foods, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Energy, and Water Environment & Reuse Foundation)
Showcase of Innovators’ Technology Ideas
- Decanter Centrifuge and Struvite Recovery for Manure Nutrient Management, Hiroko Yoshida
- Manure Solids Separation BioFertilizer Produccion Drinking Water Efluente, Aicardo Roa Espinosa
- Nutrient Recovery from Anaerobic Digestates, Rakesh Govind
- Organic Waste Digestion and Nutrient Recycling, Steven Dvorak
- Manure Treatment with the Black Solder Fly, Simon Gregg
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Workshop for Innovators
- Developing technologies: From concept to pilot (to full-scale), Matias Vanotti
- Waste Systems Overview for Dairy and Swine and Innovative Technologies: What Steps Should be Taken (Lessons Learned), Jeff Porter

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Spotlight on Manure Management in North Carolina and the Atlantic Coastal Plains

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

To provide information about commonly-found manure management systems and approaches in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains, and discuss opportunities for technological innovation in the areas of manure management and nutrient recovery/utilization. Hear from a diverse panel of researchers, animal agriculture producers, and agency representatives who will provide background on the environmental conditions of the region and discuss specific technical considerations for innovative research and development. Learn about what has and hasn’t worked in past attempts to recover nutrients at animal agriculture farms in the area, and about the exciting possibilities for innovation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Nutrient Recycling Challenge (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What did we do?

N/A

What have we learned?

N/A

Future Plans

N/A

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Other authors

Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

Dr. Kelly Zering, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Additional information

Session Agenda

Background, history, and technical information about manure management in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains

Presenter: Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

Lessons Learned from the Smithfield Agreement

Presenter: Dr. Kelly Zering, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Panel: Challenges and Opportunities around Manure Management Systems

Moderator: Hema Subramanian

Panel to include the above speakers plus representatives from the local animal agriculture industry, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

March 5, 2019March 4, 2021

Closing Abandoned Livestock Lagoons Effectively to Utilize Nutrients and Avoid Environmental Problems

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

In Nebraska alone, nearly 400 earthen manure storage structures are in operation; approximately four dozen requests to cease operation of permitted lagoons were received by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in the prior decade with many more non-permitted storage structures being in need of proper closure. Abandoned livestock lagoons, earthen manure storage basins, and other manure storages (e.g. concrete pits) need to be decommissioned in a manner that controls potential environmental risk and makes economical use of accumulated nutrients. Currently, limited guidance is available to support lagoon closure planning and implementation and few professionals who support livestock producers have experience planning or participating in the manure storage closure process. The main focus of this project was to produce two videos that document the processes for planning and executing a lagoon closure.

What did we do?

The University of Nebraska Haskell Ag Laboratory, located near Concord, NE, had an anaerobic lagoon that was operated for over 20 years, but has not received swine manure additions since 2009 when the swine unit was depopulated. The decommissioning of this storage structure was proposed in 2014 and provided our team an opportunity to plan, implement and document the procedures necessary to properly close this structure. When we went to find material on how to accomplish this properly, we did not find suitable material. Two grants were secured in 2016 from the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence (USPCE) to fund our team efforts to document the closure process – from planning to completion – with two separate videos. The first video is focused on the planning activities necessary to prepare for removal and utilization of stored liquid and sludge. The second is focused on the liquid and sludge removal and utilization activities, decommissioning of conveyance structures, and deconstruction of the lagoon berm to return the site to a natural grade.

Activities conducted to execute the lagoon closure have included:

1) Mapping of sludge levels with sonar and analyzing sludge samples to estimate volume and nutrient content of sludge, which enabled development of a land application plan for utilizing the products

Figure 1. Sonar sludge mapping

Figure 1. Sonar sludge mapping.

2) De-watering the lagoon (effluent used for sprinkler irrigation and flood irrigation)

3) Hosting a demonstration event during which participants:

a. observed sludge removal and land application processes,

b. participated in a manure spreader calibration,

c. inspected the soil beneath the lagoon liner,

d. viewed the abandoned production buildings and heard about options for eliminating conveyance of liquid from the building to the lagoon,

e. explored alternative sludge removal methods, and

f. participated in a classroom session where presenters shared details of the closure planning process, cost-share opportunities for closure of manure storage structures, and expectations for re-grading and re-seeding the site following removal of sludge.

Figure 2. Participants learned about planning land application of the sludge

Figure 2. Participants learned about planning land application of the sludge.

Figure 3. Land application of the sludge and calibration of the manure spreader

Figure 3. Land application of the sludge and calibration of the manure spreader.

4) Removing the sludge and applying it to cropland following the demonstration event.

Documentation of all planning, demonstration, and closure execution activities have been captured via extensive video footage, still photos, and participant interviews. Production of the videos is in process with completion and release of videos anticipated in summer 2017.

What have we learned?

Although every manure storage closure process is expected to present its own unique challenges and opportunities for learning, the process documented during this project has provided a number of insights:

1) While this process involved pumping liquid from the lagoon prior to attempting sludge removal in order to observe the sludge layer and document the volume present, a more appropriate, and likely more effective, process is to agitate the storage prior to and during pumping activities to enable handling all of the material as a slurry;

2) Dewatered sludge volume (nearly 200,000 gallons) and nutrient content (44.2 lbs. TKN, 37.5 lbs. organic N, 89.3 lbs. P2O5 and 7.6 lbs. K2O per 1,000 gallons) for this system yielded enough nutrients to apply to 80-100 acres, based on a phosphorus removal rate. It is unknown what the release of the organic N component of the sludge will be, but using just the phosphorus content, application of 1000 gallons per acre would provide enough phosphorus for what would be removed from 220 bushels of corn, which is worth approximately $35 with winter 2017 prices.;

3) Given the high phosphorus content in the sludge and that the nearby fields at the Haskell Ag Lab were not in need of phosphorus, an appropriate application rate for the sludge was determined as 8-10 tons/acre;

4) Soil beneath the lagoon liner yielded a phosphorus concentration of 556 ppm, likely a result of an inadequate liner in the lagoon as originally constructed in the 1960s; and

5) Installation of a bentonite clay liner during renovation of the structure in 1992 appeared to be effective as the liner was fully intact when observed during closure activities.

Pre-post surveys completed by 33 attendees of the demonstration event revealed that attendees improved their confidence in performing six key tasks identified by the team as being impactful. Results are summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Impacts of the lagoon closure demonstration event

Figure 4. Impacts of the lagoon closure demonstration event.

Future Plans

We plan to continue the decommissioning process by:

1) Completing sludge removal and application to cropland;

2) Deconstructing the berms, leaving the liner intact, and returning the area to natural grade;

3) Seeding the area to establish ground cover and mitigate runoff and erosion; and

4) Plugging the inlet pipes in manure pits within the animal housing in lieu of removing buried conveyance pipes.

The two videos are in production and will be made available through the Pork Information Gateway (www.porkgateway.org) during summer 2017.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Leslie Johnson, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Corresponding author email

ljohnson13@unl.edu

Other authors

Charles Shapiro and Amy Schmidt, University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Additional information

https://water.unl.edu/article/animal-manure-management/lagoon-closure-and-your-environmental-responsibility

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognize the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence (USPCE) for funding the development of the videos documenting this process and enabling us to complete this project. We would also like to acknowledge that without the support of the industry, who provided equipment and advice, we would not have been able to get this project off the ground. Also a special thanks to the Agricultural Research Division for their support.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Recovery of Ammonia and Production of High-Grade Phosphates from Digester Effluents

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Conservation and recovery of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal wastes and municipal effluents are important because of economic and environmental reasons. This paper presents a novel technology for separation and recovery of ammonia and phosphorus from liquid swine manure, which has significant amount of nutrients but also contains relatively high moisture content.

What Did We Do?

Phosphorus recovery via magnesium (MgCl2) precipitation was enhanced by combining it with ammonia recovery through gas-permeable membranes and low-rate aeration. Detailed procedures used in the research are provided in Vanotti et al. (2017).

Graphic of gas-permeable membrane

What Have We Learned?

The combination of low-rate aeration and gas-permeable membrane N recovery destroyed the natural carbonate alkalinity in the wastewater and increased pH values, which accelerated ammonia uptake in the gas-permeable membrane system and improved the phosphate recovery. The process provided 100% phosphorus recovery efficiencies. Surprisingly, the magnesium phosphates produced contained very-high phosphate grade (46% P2O5 ) similar to commercial superphosphate fertilizer and consistent with the composition of a rare biomineral called newberyite that is found in guano deposits. This is an important finding because we were able to produce from wastes a valuable phosphate product with high P2O5 content favored by the fertilizer industry.

Future Plans

Research will be summarized showing consistent results obtained with municipal side-stream effluents. Economic considerations are provided in Dube et at. (2016).

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Matias Vanotti, USDA-ARS

Corresponding author email address

matias.vanotti@ars.usda.gov

Other Authors

M.B. Vanotti, P.J. Dube, A.A. Szogi, M.C. Garcia-Gonzalez

Additional Information

Dube, P. J., Vanotti, M. B., Szogi, A. A., and García-González, M. C. (2016): Enhancing recovery of ammonia from swine manure anaerobic digester effluent using gas-permeable membrane technology. Waste Management 49:372–377.

Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A., and Dube, P.J. (2016): Systems and methods for recovering ammonium and phosphorus from liquid effluents. U.S. Patent Application 15/170,129. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Vanotti, M.B., Dube, P.J., Szogi, A.A., M.C. Garcia-Gonzalez (2017): Recovery of ammonia and phosphate minerals from swine wastewater using gas-permeable membranes. Water Research 112:137-146

Acknowledgements

This article is part of USDA-ARS Project 6082-12630-001-00D “Improvement of Soil Management Practices and Manure Treatment/Handling Systems of the Southern Coastal Plains.” We acknowledge the field and laboratory assistance of William Brigman and Chris Brown, USDA-ARS, Florence, SC, and the field sampling assistance of Diana Rashash, North Carolina Extension Service/ North Carolina State University.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Assessment of Coordinated Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Improving the economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion projects for processing dairy manure.

What did we do?

We completed a study that evaluated the economics of dairy manure granulation as means to export phosphorus from P-sensitive watersheds. To achieve this goal we developed a techno-economic optimization model that considers all dairy farms within the watershed simultaneously to determine the minimum break-even price for the granulated manure.

A second study was developed to assess the economics of anaerobic digestion using a techno-economic optimization model. We incorporated different revenue sources (power sale, methane destruction credits, renewable energy certificates (RECs) and tipping fee (if co-substrate is available). The model evaluated the project feasibility over ranges of values for technical and economic parameters to quantify the project resilience to uncertainty in process conditions.

What have we learned?

The results from the first study indicated that multi-farm participation can significantly improve feasibility and overall economics of manure granulation. Herd sizes were found to be a critical parameter in deciding whether a farm can economically participate in coordinated management. For manure granulation projects, liquid-solid separation followed by transportation of separated solids was always more economical than transporting raw manure from satellite farm to central processing facility. In the second study, electricity sale price was found to be the key parameter that determines the feasibility of anaerobic digesters. The hub-spoke configuration, where a large central farm hosts the digester and smaller surrounding farms contribute to it was found to be the most favorable arrangement. The size of the hub farm was critical to the feasibility of the project. Similarly, transportation distance was a critical factor that constrained the extent of cooperative digesters.

Future Plans

The information generated from these studies is being written into peer-review publications and factsheets to share insights of collaborative manure management with a wider audience.We are currently expanding the model by adding the option for manure transportation via pipelines. Furthermore, we are also incorporating additional biogas utilization technologies,i.e., natural gas sale over pipelines and also the utilization of power/heat on-site in manure upgrading and processing.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Troy M. Runge, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email

trunge@wisc.edu

Other authors

Mahmoud A. Sharara, Rebecca Larson

Additional information

1. http://www.are.wisc.edu/

2. Sharara, Mahmoud, Apoorva Sampat, Laura W. Good, Amanda S. Smith, Pamela Porter, Victor M. Zavala, Rebecca Larson, and Troy Runge. “Spatially explicit methodology for coordinated manure management in shared watersheds.” Journal of Environmental Management 192 (2017): 48-56.

3. Sharara, Mahmoud, Qiang Yang, Thomas L. Cox, and Troy Runge. “Techno-economic assessment of dairy manure granulation.” In 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting, p. 1. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2016.

Acknowledgements

This work is based on research supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture for its financial support (USDANIFABRDI Grant No. 2012-10006-19423) and funding from Dane County, Wisconsin under Award Number 12486.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Monetizing Environmental Benefits Associated with Dairy Manure Management Systems that Include Anaerobic Digestion – Challenges, Opportunities, and Values

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

A large agricultural lender reported in August 2016 that the current 20-month milk price low is not part of the typical three-year milk price cycle (which is marked by a year where the milk price is below the cost of production, followed by a year of recovering prices, and ending with a year where prices are well above the cost of production) that has been taking place since the late 1990’s, but rather is a correction of the dairy industry. That same report stated, that at the conclusion of the correction, milk prices will be more in-line with those of the early 2000’s, when the cost of production, on average, was close to the milk price, albeit with some variation. Overall, it is predicted to be a deviation from the recent three-year cycle pattern. To survive, dairy farms of the future will be compelled to even more carefully evaluate capital investments, including advanced manure treatment technologies, to assess their returns, both tangible and non-tangible, as they address regulatory and society-based environmental concerns.

Estimating the value of greenhouse gas reductions will be important to farms anticipating efforts to regulate carbon emissions in the future or to take advantage of carbon credits. Recognizing the value of water quality can also inform manure management system decisions. An economic value may help when comparing alternatives that have off-setting impacts across air and water environments.

What did we do?

This effort attempted to look at the economic values of the environmental benefits that a manure management system can provide, focusing specifically on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions (both direct and indirect), air quality improvements, and water quality improvements. The resulting values can then be used as additional inputs in manure management system decisions on the farm. The U.S. EPA has put an economic value on the “Social Cost of Carbon”, which was incorporated into the process of putting a value on a manure treatment system. Careful nutrient recycling impacts GHG emissions and also yields societal benefits from water quality improvements downstream. Reductions of both phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations in water bodies can be valued for the impact on drinking water treatment, habitat changes, and recreational use.

What have we learned?

Through a rigorous process, we have been able to show the positive impact that anaerobic digestion systems (ADS) in New York State (NYS) can have on GHG reductions; the relevant work is presented in the accompanying paper. We learned that a focused outreach effort is needed to show multiple target audiences the possible GHG reduction values for NYS farms and to explain policy ideas that would help achieve reductions on-farm, therefore contributing to the State’s ambitious renewable energy and GHG reduction goals.

Future Plans

Future plans in this area include continued work in quantifying the environmental benefits of anaerobic digestion (AD) and in collaborating with our industry and State partners to find ways to monetize those benefits. Immediate plans include 1) a day-long program to expose and educate key NYS legislators and government officials on the benefits of farm-based ADS and the need to find ways to pay for these benefits, and 2) collecting data from additional farm-based ADS for use in further validating or changing the assumptions needed to develop reduction values.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Curt Gooch, Dairy Environmental Systems and Sustainability Engineer, Cornell University

Corresponding author email

cag26@cornell.edu

Other authors

Peter Wright, Cornell University

Additional information

http://www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Innovative Business Models for On-farm Anaerobic Digestion in the U.S.

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

AgSTAR is a collaborative voluntary program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). AgSTAR promotes the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) systems to advance economically and environmentally sound livestock manure management. AgSTAR has strong ties to industry, government, non-profit and university stakeholders and assists those who enable, purchase or implement anaerobic digesters by identifying project benefits, risks, options and opportunities.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) continues to be a sustainable manure management opportunity with growing interest in innovative business models for project development. AD systems provide a number of benefits, including improved nutrient management, locally sourced renewable energy, and diversified revenue streams for farmers. As energy prices remain low across the country, and interest grows in managing food waste and organics outside of landfills, new business models have been implemented to make these on-farm AD projects viable. This presentation will provide a national overview of the livestock AD sector, explore new AD projects across the U.S., and highlight successful projects with innovative business models.

The presentation will cover several case studies of AD projects on topics including:

Third-party ownership and development of projects;
Food waste collection and boosting project profitability through tip fees and increased biogas production;
Eco-market products from dairy manure fibers; manure-based alternatives to peat moss for the horticulture industry; and
Biogas to vehicle fuel; opportunities and financial considerations.

With only 244 operating on-farm AD projects across the U.S., there exists a great opportunity for market share growth at the approximately 8,000 farms that could support a project. This, coupled with the desire for alternative management of organic waste streams, provides a unique opportunity for this sector to grow in the near future.

Pigs in a field Cows in a field