Economics of Manure – Page 9 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019September 4, 2020

Next Generation Technology Swine Waste-to-Energy Project

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

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

The Loyd Ray Farms project is the first swine waste project in the State of North Carolina to generate and transfer renewable energy credits (RECs) to a public utility. Utilizing an anaerobic digester as primary treatment, this waste treatment system is designed to meet the Environmental Performance Standards set forth by NC law for new and expanded swine facilities through the use of nitrification/denitrification and further treatment. The system implemented at this farm utilizes anaerobic digester technology to turn raw animal waste into biogas. The biogas is used to fuel a microturbine, generating electricity to power the environmental treatment system, and about half of the farm. Related: Manure value & economics

The farm is a finishing swine operation that houses approximately 9,000 pigs near Yadkinville, NC. The concept for this approach was conceived by the team in 2006, followed by economic and performance modeling, permitting, and construction of the commercial-scale system. The project was commissioned on May 27, 2011. Funding for construction was provided by Duke Energy and Duke University, with support from USDA-NRCS and the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Google provides operational funding support in exchange for a portion of the carbon offsets created.

Loyd Ray Farms is the only innovative Swine waste system in North Carolina that generates Renewable Energy Credits for an electric utility, which generates enough power for the treatment system and has enough surplus electricity to power about half of the farm. Cavanaugh collaborated in this study with Duke University, Duke Energy, and Google with funding from NC Soil & Water Conservation and USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Forefront: Tatjana Vujic of Duke University views the meter readings

The project began as a conversation about greenhouse gas emissions, sources for renewable energy, and sustaining the state’s swine industry among Duke Energy, Duke University, Google, and Cavanaugh. That conversation led to a project that is getting attention around the world, for its successes in combining strategies to address the concerns for generating renewable energy from agricultural sources, sustaining agriculture, and addressing farming’s relationship to climate change.

The system’s goals: generating about 500 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually, reducing ammonia and odor emissions from the farm, and improving the quality of treated wastewater on the farm.”

Is Manure to Energy Important?

We will discuss the successes and challenges in partnered efforts by farmers, electric utilities, and other stakeholders in the marrying of renewable energy generation with enhanced environmental treatment and green house gas emissions reduction, including the economics of such effort.

What Did We Do?

Waste generated by the animals is flushed into an anaerobic digester where bacteria consume the waste and respire energy-rich biogas. The biogas fuels a microturbine that generates electricity, and excess gas is flared. After digestion, the liquid waste is further treated to achieve the Environmental performance Standards set forth by North Carolina for Innovative Swine Waste Treatment Systems.

The process by which the stakeholders came together in a partnership, the technologies and approaches selected, and the successes/challenges that can be gleaned for advancing future projects. The Loyd Ray Farms project is the first Swine Waste-to-Energy project in the State of North Carolina to place RECs on the North Carolina Utilities Commission REC Tracking System, and is the first swine farm in North Carolina to transfer RECs to Duke Energy. Coupling techniques to improve the environmental treatment system employed at the farm, the Loyd Ray Farm project is also the first ‘Innovative Swine Waste Treatment System’ permitted that utilizes an anaerobic digester as a primary form of waste treatment.

Presenters

William G. “Gus” Simmons, Jr., P.E. Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A., gus.simmons@cavanaughsolutions.com

Gus Simmons, lead designer, M. Steve Cavanaugh, Jr., and Marvin Cavanaugh, Sr. during the commissioning of the system. Cavanaugh developed the concept for Duke University in an effort to create a cost-effective solution that converts swine waste into renewable energy while achieveing a superior level of waste treatment and a reduction in the carbon footprint created by the conventional waste management system.

Gus Simmons, P.E., is the Director of Engineering at Cavanaugh & Associates, a consulting firm specializing in stewardship through innovation. An NC State University graduate with a BS in Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Gus has worked for a major agricultural producer where he was Director of Environmental Affairs and Engineering Services, managing engineering and construction for facilities in the US and Europe. Gus has designed, permitted, and managed over 5,000 acres of wastewater irrigation in NC, and thousand of acres of wastewater irrigation in the Western US. He has assisted many municipalities and private entitites with the development and implementation of reclaimed water systems and reuse irrigation systems, and has actively participated in alternative wastewater management strategies for the NC Pork Industry. His recent sucessess include the engineering design of an anaerobic digester for animal waste to energy project in Yadkinville, NC which has gained world-wide recognition for its successes in generating RECs and greenhouse gas credits.

Additional 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.

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG)

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG) was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information. It is hard to imagine, but at that time web pages were just beginning to be used as vehicles to share information, and even harder to imagine is the fact that while information on manure management existed, it was difficult to access, and it was just not a topic that garnered much positive attention.

IMMAG began as state-level technical committee comprised of public and private-sector entities with the objectives to 1) provide access to comprehensive information on manure management issues; 2) develop relevant educational materials and 3) provide them in a format that could be easily accessible.

Now, 15 years later, what was supposed to be short-term, one-year effort, has turned into a major outreach and education effort for Iowa State University Extension and Outreach and their partners. In addition to the web page, IMMAG has hosted many field days and training workshops over the years as well as coordinated the development of countless fact sheets, newsletters and other educational pieces.

Why Was the IMMAG formed?

As the livestock sector in Iowa changed in the 1990’s it became apparent that a mechanism for information delivery was needed that could quickly evolve to keep livestock producers in tune with changing regulations, up-to-date with current research and understand best management practices to help assure manure’s value as a crop nutrient resource and help protect Iowa’s natural resources.

IMMAG was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information, develop and deliver educational programs, and design tools and resources that could be used by producers, technical agencies, educational institutions, researchers, consultants and the general public. IMMAG originated as a state-level technical committee under the leadership of the Iowa NRCS that brought together the state agencies, land-grant institution, commodity groups, environmental groups and private sector interests who proceeded to identify challenges and needs for manure management information.

What Did We Do?

After an initial needs assessment was completed, members of IMMAG agreed the highest priority was the development of an integrated Web site for all manure management information. A Web page would allow the most flexibility in keeping materials up-to-date. The members also agreed that producers and others not having internet access would be able to request printed materials from the site made available through the commodity organization. Once all existing materials were organized and included on the IMMAG Web page, a needs assessment was conducted by ISU Extension and the commodity group to determine information gaps and the kinds of new material that needed to be developed. Materials were not limited to print resources, but also included development and delivery of nutrient planning workshops, field days and tools. Along with a needs assessment, the Web site was thoroughly evaluated by members of the environmental groups and the general public to determine how accessible the information was and how easy it was to use and comprehend.

During the past 15 years, the Iowa Manure Management Action Group has distributed monthly newsletters (originally printed, now e-newletters); created 40 fact sheets; hosted over 50 field days and workshops, coordinated 3 multi-day manure clinics for producers and professionals; written over 200 popular press articles, supported and developed material for nearly 600 Extension meetings; and developed 9 video presentations.

What Have We Learned?

The biggest lesson learned from this educational outreach program was and is the success of integrating the state agency, land-grant university and livestock commodity group message to assist livestock producers. This partnership allowed the development of a consistent message among all involved when it came to manure management so producers and their technical staff were using the same recommendations and planning processes across all programs. Other important things learned include 1) longevity of programs are crucial to producer awareness and success; 2) a defined mechanism for intergrating research into extension programming is crucial for producers to make informed choices related to best management practices; 3) leveraging financial support to serve all clients helps level the playing field in terms of client access to educational materials, events and access to technical assistance and 4) when provided with appropriate training and resource materials, it is possible to develop an entire service industry to assist producers with manure nutrient management planning.

Future Plans

Many internal discussions have identified the need to continue to support this effort even with the availability of other national programs that serve as clearinghouses for manure management information. Future needs for program implementation include coordinating long-term financial support for continued programming and a needs assessment that is relevant to current production practices. Future needs for program delivery include more field days and hands-on type experiences for producers and their service providers.

Authors

Angela Rieck-Hinz, Extension Program Specialist, Iowa State University, amrieck@iastate.edu

Additional Information

IMMAG Home Page

Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG) from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Cellulose-Based Industrial Wastewater By-Product as Broiler Bedding Material

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The increased cost and decreased availability of traditional poultry bedding material, such as pine shavings, has facilitated the need to identify alternative bedding materials for poultry growers. The objective of this study was to evaluate a cellulose by-product from the paper manufacturing industry on its comparability to pine shavings on broiler production performance standards and litter quality parameters.

The experimental design consisted of 25 pens (3.7 m2 each) containing 55 Cobb broilers (0.07 m2/bird) per pen. Five treatments with five replicate pens per treatment were set up to evaluate varying levels of cellulose inclusion as bedding. The five cellulose treatments consisted of 0% (Control, 100% pine shavings), 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% cellulose by-product. The first phase of the experiment included litter moisture, litter pH, and footpad dermatitis (FPD) scores at Day 7. At Day 7, the mean litter moisture (%) of the Control (23.9) and 25% (23.9) treatments were not significantly different from the 50% (16.9) treatment, but were significantly greater than the 75% (15.0) and 100% (14.8) treatments. At Day 7, the mean percentage (%) of birds with no footpad downgrades in the 100% (99) and 75% (95) treatments were not significantly different from the 50% (87) treatment, but were significantly greater than the 25% (76) and Control (66) treatments. An evaluation of litter moisture versus FPD scores produced a correlation coefficient of 0.73, indicating a strong cause-and-effect relationship between increasing litter moisture and incidence of FPD.

Based on phase one results, the cellulose by-product is at least comparable if not superior to pine shavings as a broiler bedding material based on litter moisture and subsequent incidence of FPD during the brooding phase of broiler production.

Why Explore New Sources of Broiler Bedding?

Paper mill wastewater cellulose residuals are a solid waste accumulation concern for the paper manufacturing industry and for local municipalities. Traditional bedding material supplies for the commercial broiler industry in the southeastern United States, namely pine wood shavings, has declined in availability with the drop in new housing starts and competition for the material from other wood product manufacturing and landscaping industries. With the decline in availability comes an increase in cost of the remaining material that is available for broiler growers to utilize as bedding material. The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of utilizing a cellulose-based wastewater by-product from a large paper manufacturing plant as a bedding material for commercial broiler production housing.

What Did We Do?

Paper mill wastewater cellulose by-product (residual short fibers) was tested at the University of Georgia Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia, in a live-bird pen trial wherein the suitability of the wastewater material as a poultry bedding was determined by evaluating: 1) broiler performance as indicated by body weight gain, feed efficiency, and footpad (paw) scores, and 2) material performance as influenced by bulk density, moisture content, ammonia evolution, and accumulation of compacted litter or “litter cake”. The experimental design consisted of 25 pens (3.7 m²each) containing 55 Cobb broilers (0.07 m²/bird). Five treatments consisted of approximately 8 cm depth of 0% (Control, 100% pine shavings), 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% cellulose by-product with five repetitions. The study was designed to replicate commercial conditions of stocking density and water delivery as closely as possible to compare the pine shaving control to the varying levels of cellulose inclusion.

What Have We Learned?

Following the 6-week trial, wherein the broilers were raised to standard market age, it was determined that there were no significant differences in body weight or feed efficiency between the bedding treatments. This would indicate that the cellulose material did not impede bird growth or performance. The wastewater material did tend to compact or cake more readily than the pine shavings, though it was not indicative of any change within the final litter moisture content within each treatment. An evaluation of litter moisture versus footpad score produced a correlation coefficient of 0.73, indicating a strong cause-and-effect relationship between increasing litter moisture and decreasing footpad quality. Early in the trial, footpad scores were significantly better within the higher level cellulose treatments than the control, though by the end of the trial there were no differences between the treatments. No differences in ammonia generation were notable between the treatments. The wastewater by-product is at least as comparable if not superior to pine shavings on the incidence of footpad dermatitis. Final conclusions on the trial would indicate that the wastewater cellulose by-product is comparable to pine shavings as a bedding material for broiler production and would perhaps be best utilized as a blending product to reduce the amount of pine shavings needed for optimal bedding depth. The initial raw material is high in moisture at over 50%, and will need to be preconditioned to a level below 20% total moisture before placement into broiler housing before it can be considered suitable for use as bedding.

Future Plans

Future plans will include assisting the paper milling industry in preparing the by-product for commercial-scale field tests under standard production environmental conditions and to assess the economic potential for reduced bedding costs and improved sale of higher grade paws through use of the cellulose-based material.

Authors

C.W. Ritz, Professor, The University of Georgia, critz@uga.edu

B.H. Kiepper, Assistant Professor, The University of Georgia

B.D. Fairchild, Professor, The University of Georgia

March 5, 2019March 28, 2019

Overview of Solid-Liquid Separation Alternatives for Manure Handling and Treatment Document

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Is Solid-Liquid Manure Separation Worthwhile?

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

Solid-liquid separation of animal manures and other agricultural products can be an integral part of a livestock operation ranging from improved facility performance to enhanced nutrient management. A document entitled “Solid-Liquid Separation Alternatives for Manure Handling and Treatment” is being created through work by Clemson University and funding from USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. The purpose of this document is to assist in solid-liquid separation technology selection, evaluation of separation performance, and quantifying the impact of solid-liquid separation on manure management. This presentation will provide an outline of this document including methods of solid-liquid separation, influence of manure characteristics and handling methods, fundamentals of solid-liquid separation, performance of various solid-liquid separation technologies, separation enhancement methods, and design considerations. An overview of various farm scale separation technologies is also presented in the solid-liquid separation document.

What Did We Do?

Geobag used with metal salt and polymer to separate solids and nutrient partitioning of swine manure

In this document we have provided a detailed compilation of empirical, theoretical, and practical information related to the performance and design of solid-liquid separation systems for animal manure treatment. The information is divided into the following chapters: Methods of Solid-Liquid Separation, Fundamentals of Solid-Liquid Separation, Measures of Solid-Liquid Separation Performance, High-Rate Solid-Liquid Separation, Unique Applications of Solid-Liquid Separation Technology, and Design Considerations. Within these chapters detailed information is provided on: the influence of entrainment on the performance of mechanical separators, design of gravity settling using discrete particle settling and hindered settling theory, efficacy of combining separator methods in a single machine, benefits of using coagulants and flocculants, benefits of solid-liquid separation, and a summary of the solid-liquid separation methods that have been used with sand-laden dairy manure. The publication also provides twenty-one detailed examples such as: design of settling basins based on hindered settling velocities, calculation of the performance of a variety separator options using field data, calculation of dimensions for sand lanes, determination of chemical need to enhance mechanical solid-liquid separation, and sizing of storages for separated solids. Numerous system design diagrams are also provided to demonstrate the wide variety of ways that solid-liquid separation can be implemented into an animal manure treatment system.

What Have We Learned?

Sand settling lane for flush dairy operation

This work brings together fundamental information about solid-liquid separation, benefits and limitations of many separation technologies, performance measurement techniques along with design considerations into one document.

Future Plans

This document will be published as a USDA-NRCS technical note or as part of the National Engineering Handbook, Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.

Authors

Jeffrey P. Porter, P.E. Environmental Engineer Manure Management Team USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service; e-mail – Jeffrey.Porter@gnb.usda.gov

Dr. John P. Chastain, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer School of Agricultural, Forestry, and Environmental Sciences Clemson University; email – jchstn@clemson.edu

Additional Information

Screw presses used on a dairy farm following anaerobic digestion

John Perkins Chastain, PhD Homepage

East National Technology Support Center Directory

NRCS on Livestock

Solid Separation Technologies for Animal Manure Webinar

Acknowledgements

A special thank you goes out to the Piedmont-South Atlantic Coast Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU). This Cooperative and Joint Venture Agreement allowed for this work to take place.

Additional support was provided by the Confined Animal Manure Managers Program, Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Solid liquid separation alternatives for manure handling and treatment from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Alternative Poultry Litter Storage for Improved Transportation and Use As a Soil Amendment

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Transportation of poultry litter out of nutrient limited watersheds such as the Illinois River basin (eastern Oklahoma) is a logical solution for minimizing phosphorus (P) losses from soils to surface waters. Transportation costs are based on mass of load and distance transported. This study investigated an alternative litter storage technique designed to promote carbon (C) degradation, thereby concentrating nutrients for the purpose of decreasing transportation costs through decreased mass. Poultry litter was stored in 0.90-Mg conical piles under semipermeable tarps and adjusted to 40% moisture content, tested with and without addition of alum (aluminum sulfate).

An additional study was conducted using 3.6-Mg piles under the same conditions, except tested with and without use of aeration pipes. Samples were analyzed before and after (8 wk) storage. Litter mass degradation (i.e., loss in mass due to organic matter decomposition) was estimated on the basis of changes in litter total P contents. Additional characterization included pH, total nutrients, moisture content, total C, and degree of humification. Litter storage significantly decreased litter mass (16 to 27%), concentrated nutrients such as P and potassium (K) and increased proportion of fulvic and humic acids. The addition of aeration pipes increased mass degradation relative to piles without aeration pipes. Nitrogen volatilization losses were minimized with alum additions. Increases in P and K concentrations resulted in greater monetary value per unit mass compared with fresh litter. Such increases translate to increased litter shipping distance and cost savings of $17.2 million over 25 yr for litter movement out of eastern Oklahoma.

Why Study Alternative Poultry Storage

Due to the specialization and integration of the modern poultry industry, poultry farms have the potential to import more nutrients than what is exported from the farm in the form of animal and plant products. In the past, phosphorus (P) imported in poultry feed often remained on-farm in the form of poultry litter, a mixture of bedding material and manure. This litter was often land applied at rates to meet crop nitrogen (N) needs which resulted in soil (P) buildup on some farms.

Because the nutrient ratio in litter is different from that of plant nutrient requirements, careful consideration must be taken when land applying to avoid over-application of certain nutrients, primarily P. If poultry litter land application is not properly managed, excess P application could degrade water quality through runoff into surrounding surface water resources. These concerns have led to environmental regulations, litigation, and successful efforts to move poultry litter outside of critical watersheds. However, since poultry litter nutrients are not as concentrated as commercial fertilizer, transportation cost is the most limiting factor for exporting poultry litter away from nutrient sensitive watersheds.

The alternative litter storage technique described below promotes degradation of litter carbon, which appreciably reduces the total mass of the litter and also increases the phosphorus and potassium concentrations compared to fresh or normally stored litter. The advantage of this process is that the final product (degraded litter) can be transported at a lower cost per lb of nutrients, or put another way, it can be transported greater distances before the transport cost exceeds manure value.

What Did We Do?

We developed a process for degrading litter, particularly organic C, with little monetary and labor inputs. Decreasing litter mass and retaining nutrients means more efficient transport and application of litter. In order for the process to be effective only two requirements are necessary: adjustment of litter dry matter to 0.60 (weight solids/total weight) and covering with a suitable tarp. The process was designed to use little time, money, and effort compared to a traditional composting system that involves addition of bulking agents that would increase litter mass and dilute phosphorus concentration.

Step 1. Uniformly add enough water to decrease dry matter content to 0.60. The amount of water (gallons) to be added per ton of litter is calculated as:

For example, poultry litter with a dry matter of 0.70 (30% moisture content) would require 57 gallons of water per ton of litter. The water can be applied with a hose after the flow rate of the hose (in gallons per minute) is determined. Knowing the total weight of litter to be treated and the necessary volume of water from the previous equation, the necessary “spray time” (in minutes) can be determined by:

For example, a 25 ton litter pile with 0.70 dry matter (from the previous example) would require 1,225 gallons of water that can be provided by spraying a hose with a flow rate of 20 gpm for 71 minutes.

Water can be applied as the litter pile is being mixed with a front end loader or while being dumped at a new location. You could estimate the litter weight in a bucket load and apply the amount of water necessary for that amount of litter while it is slowly being dumped in forming the new pile. Typical poultry litter at cleanout has a density of 35 lbs/ft³. You could also apply water while litter is being directly poured out of a dump-bed.

Step 2. Cover the pile with a semi-permeable tarp. We used a typical polyethylene tarp (6 mil thickness and 10 mesh) considered low to medium weight purchased from a local hardware store. The purpose of the tarp is to prevent the pile from drying too quickly, allow some oxygen to diffuse into the pile (preventing anaerobic conditions), prevent rainfall contact, and reduce the amount of ammonia volatilization. According to Oklahoma regulations all litter piles must be covered or bermed.

Step 3: Choose one of the following options:

Option 1: Never turn or mix the litter and simply allow the pile to remain covered for two months. Although this method is effective at degrading litter and reducing mass, research shows that the piles turned after one month will degrade more than piles not turned (Table 1).

Option 2: Mix the litter after one month using a front end loader or some type of heavy equipment. This introduces more oxygen into the system and mixes the inner portion of the pile with the outer portion. Re-cover the pile with the tarp and allow further degradation for an additional month.

Option 3: Construct a framework of perforated pipe within the pile (no pile turning). For our 6 ton piles, we used 4 inch diameter perforated PVC pipe laid on the ground in the shape of a cross with a single vertical pipe extending from the center. Litter was dumped directly on top of this pipe framework with the vertical pipe extending out from the top of the pile. The tarp is still necessary for this process. The perforated pipe system allows for greater aeration of the pile without the need for turning or mixing. We found that this system resulted in greater litter degradation (i.e. mass reduction) compared to the static piles with no pipes (option 1; Table 1).

What Have We Learned?

Table 1. Impact of the litter degradation storage process on percent mass reduction, nutrient content, and litter value after a two-month period. Nutrient content is shown on a dry mass basis. Litter value is expressed on both a dry and wet mass basis.

Litter Treatment	Dry matter (w/w)	% mass reduction	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	Value Dry	Value Wet
	Lb/lb		—Lbs/ton—			–$/ton–
Initial	0.66	–	88	82	82	144	111
No turnover (option 1)	0.67	14.9	80	94	94	152	119
One month turnover (option 2)	0.65	19.6	80	103	100	160	123
Aeration pipes (option 3)	0.77	23.0	74	104	101	157	134

Economic Savings

As a result of the litter carbon degrading to carbon dioxide, the storage techniques are able to reduce litter mass from 15 to 23% and concentrate the nutrients (Table 1). This concentration of nutrients increases litter value per ton. Also notice that although the process involves adding water to reduce dry matter to 0.6, the litter does dry out to levels similar to the original litter. The aeration pipes allowed the litter to dry more than the original litter. This drying effect also increases the litter value on a wet weight basis. Litter value was based on the concentration of N, P₂O₅, and K₂O and current fertilizer prices. Based on the value of the wet litter shown in Table 1, a standard tractor-trailer load (24 tons) of normal (non-degraded) litter is worth $2,664 while degraded litter from our research piles varied from $2,856-$3,216. The higher economic value of the degraded litter means that it can be transported greater distances than normal litter before the transport cost exceeds the litter value (i.e. break even distance). For example, assuming a purchase cost of $15/ton litter, $24/ton for loading, unloading, and application, and transport cost of $0.16/ton/mile, the normal litter can be transported 398 miles while degraded litter can move 444 to 525 miles. If all poultry litter from Eastern Oklahoma was stored using these degradation techniques, the increased economic benefit would be about 10 million dollars after 5 years and about 32 million dollars after 25 years, compared to transporting normal litter (Figure 3).

The higher nutrient density (P₂O₅ and K₂O) of the degraded litter will also reduce application costs since less litter will be required to bring soil test phosphorus concentrations to agronomic optimum levels. In addition, degraded litter was more uniform in particle size, darker in color, and had less offensive odors compared to normal poultry litter.

Figure 2. Oklahoma economic benefit of transportation of degraded poultry litter resulting from an alternative storage technique, relative to fresh litter.

Poultry litter haulers and those receiving poultry litter will gain the most benefit from this process since haulers can transport more nutrients per load and the receivers need not purchase as much degraded litter as normal litter due to greater nutrient density.

Future Plans

Study the impact of land application of the degraded litter on crop growth and soil quality.

Authors

Chad J. Penn, associate professor of soil & environmental chemistry, Oklahoma State University; chad.penn@okstate.edu

Jeff Vitale, associate professor of agricultural economics, Oklahoma State University

Josh Payne, area animal waste management specialist, adjunct associate professor, Oklahoma State University

Additional Information

Penn, C.J., J. Vitale, S. Fine, J. Payne, J.G. Warren, H. Zhang, M. Eastman, and S.L. Herron. 2011. Alternative poultry litter storage for improved transportation and use as a soil amendment. J. Environ. Qual. 40:233-241.

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8111/PSS-2268…

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

White Meat-Green Farm: Case Study of Brinson Farms

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Comprehensive on-farm resource utilization and renewable energy generation at the farm scale are not new concepts. However, truly encompassing implementation of these ideals is lacking. Brinson Farms operates 10 commercial broiler houses. The farm generates heat for its houses using biomass boilers and litter anaerobic digestion to produce methane. Solar panels assist in heating process water for the boilers and digester. Biomass feedstock includes litter as well as municipal yard wastes. Liquid fertilizer is a product of the digester while residual solids are included in the farm’s composting operation. The operator has used a futuristic approach to not only attain energy independence for the farm, but also to comprehensively utilize byproducts of production and other local “wastes”, diverting them from local landfills. Considering the propane cost for a single winter flock has reached $66,000 and the annual electric bill may be $120,000, energy costs very much affect grower profitability. This approach decreases the uncertainty in energy costs. Brinson Farms provides a unique look into ensuring long-term farm sustainability in an environmentally friendly way and with a wide-ranging systems approach to management.

Purpose

The purpose of the renewable energy project was to implement an innovative, sustainable solution to manage poultry manure and other organic waste products using anaerobic digestion as well as to demonstrate the ability to effectively and economically reduce dependence on outside utilities.

What Did We Do?

Brinson Farms demonstrates comprehensive utilization of local resources that have historically been viewed as wastes. These organic materials (broiler litter, yard trimmings, storm damaged trees and waste vegetables) come from both the farm and the community. Broiler litter and waste vegetables are anaerobically digested to produce methane. The methane is then used in three ways: 1) to generate electricity for the farm; 2) in boilers to heat water used in the digestion process; and 3) in dual-fuel biomass boilers to heat water for heat exchange in the broiler houses when biomass sources are low. Two other significant products from the digester include liquid fertilizer (approximately 5-2-3) that is sold and residual solids that are incorporated into the farm’s composting facility. Solar panels assist in heating water for the biomass boilers and the digester. The simple payback period for the on-farm poultry litter digester system is approximately 5 years.

Brinson Farms anaerobic digester complex.

What Have We Learned?

Brinson Farms provides a unique system to ensure long-term farm sustainability in an environmentally beneficial manner. Attributes of the integrated system include: 1) bio-based energy production; 2) reduced utility costs; 3) comprehensive litter utilization; 4) no need to land apply poultry litter; 5) production of high quality, organic liquid fertilizer; 6) production of a marketable soil amendment (compost); and 7) diverting wastes from landfills. The farm/community interface is mutually advantageous. The farm uses yard trimmings and trees for energy and as a compost substrate; the community has a free repository to dispose of the biomass, where otherwise it would have to pay landfill fees.

Biomass storage and boiler to heat broiler houses

Future Plans

Future plans include developing economic evaluations for each of the system components so that farmers can choose the renewable energy/value added process(es) that will best fit their local resources as well as short and long term financial plans.

Authors

Dana M. Miles, Chemical Engineer, USDA-ARS Genetics & Precision Agriculture Research Unit, Mississippi State, MS, dana.miles@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

John Logan: johnlogan1@windstream.net;

Jeff Breeden: jbreeden@egesystems.com;

Eagle Green Energy: http://eaglegreenenergyinc.com /;

Arora, S. 2011. Poultry Manure: The New Frontier for Anaerobic Digestion. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046769.pdf

Acknowledgements

The assistance of John Logan and Jeff Breeden to effectively describe the Brinson system is greatly appreciated.

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Factors Affecting the Price of Manure Applied on Corn

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

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

Abstract

The 2010 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Corn data will be used to examine the price paid for manure as a function of type of manure (i.e. species), form of manure, distance, size of farm, location, yield goal and whether the application rates of manure were influenced by Federal, State or local policies. Based on economic theory and the few empirical studies on manure use, it is hypothesized that swine manure will command a lower price than manure from cattle or poultry operations, all else equal. Liquid manure, due to dilution and volatilization of nutrients, will have a negative effect on price received. Due to transportation costs, which are included in the ARMS manure cost question, distance is hypothesized to have a positive effect on price. Farms in areas with high nutrient demand, such as the Corn Belt, are hypothesized to pay higher prices for manure while those in areas with excess manure nutrients, such as the Chesapeake Bay area, will pay lower prices or even be compensated to accept manure. Similarly, if policy affects application of manure, it is an indication that there are problems of excess manure in the area so prices are expected to be lower. Higher yield goals are expected to be positively associated with the price paid for manure since nutrient requirements will be higher.

Why Are the Economics of Manure Management Important?

Increasing fertilizer prices may affect demand for manure nutrients. If manure is viewed as a valuable resource it is more likely to be well-managed. Examining the factors affecting the price paid for manure can indicate to what extent it is viewed as a resource but also indicate what might be done to increase the real or perceived value of manure for crop production.

What Did We Do?

The USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) is actually a set of surveys. Some are for the operation as a whole and some are for specific crops. The Corn Production Practices and Costs Report was conducted for the 2010 crop year by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. A specific, randomly selected field is identified and interviewers ask a variety of questions regarding management practices, yields, etc. on that field. The total size of the dataset was 2654, but this research focuses on the 919 farmers who indicated that manure was applied to the field in question. Summary statistics were calculated for this subset of the data.

The relationship between the price paid for the manure and various explanatory variables was examined using OLS regression as a first step. For the regression analysis, only farmers who indicated the manure came from off the farm were included, which reduced the number of observations to 206, 169 of which had no missing data. The cases of biosolids, sheep, and other were deleted since the numbers were too low once the farmers who applied their own manure were dropped. The dependent variable was calculated and represents the total cost of manure purchased for the field. This combined answers for the total cost for the field plus the product from answers to the amount per unit times number of units (e.g. $ per gallon times number of gallons) since farmers had a choice of how to answer the question.

What Have We Learned?

A few summary statistics on the full dataset are provided for comparison purposes. For the operation as a whole, an average of 345 acres of corn was planted in 2010. The size of the sample field was 48.5 acres. The value of corn production as a percentage of the total farm value of production was 38.4%. Only 0.34 % of farms indicated that this field was certified organic. For the initial subset of the data, 190 acres of corn was planted, the size of the sample field was 30.3 acres, the value of corn production was 18.4%, and 0.33% of farms indicated the field was certified organic. Therefore, the use of manure on the field does not seem to be associated with a higher rate of organic production. The farms that use manure were smaller than farms in the dataset as a whole and less specialized in corn production. As we see below, the majority of farmers who applied manure produced it themselves which also indicates these farms are more diversified.

The data for the subset of farmers who applied manure can be used to generally characterize manure use on farmers’ corn fields. The mean number of acres that manure was applied to in the field was 25.4, less than the average field size. The average expected corn production on the field was 5505 bu. The distance from the source of the manure to the field was on average 3.29 miles with a range from 0 to 320 miles. Of these farmers, 16% indicated that federal, state or local regulations had affected the manure application rate. The manure was applied by a custom applicator in 17% of cases. The mean custom application cost for purchased manure was $297 per field. Manure was tested in 22% of cases.

A number of categorical variables are also of interest. In the majority of cases (76.9%) farmers were applying their own manure. For manure that was sourced off the farm, 129 farmers purchased it, 79 received it for free, and 4 were compensated to accept it, showing that it is viewed as a valuable resource in most cases. The form of manure was primarily solid (635 farmers or 69%), followed by lagoon liquid (147) and slurry (136). For those who applied their own manure the percentage of solid manure was similar to all farmers applying manure (481/706 or 68%) and the lagoon form was only slightly higher (16.9% vs 16.0%). For those who applied manure from off the farm, there were slightly more cases of slurry than lagoon liquid (30 vs 28). The indicated units for manure application amounts are instructive; the majority (558) indicated tons, 232 indicated gallons, and the rest (129) indicated bushels. The number who indicated gallons is larger than the number who indicated the use of lagoon liquid so some slurry was also measured this way.

The most common animal source of the manure was dairy (453/919 or 49.3%), followed by beef (24.0%), poultry (16.4%), swine (7.6%), other (1.2%), equine (0.8%), sheep (0.3%), and there was one case of biosolids and zero cases of food waste. It should be noted that a separate set of questions related to compost, which was applied by about 2% of all the corn farmers surveyed.

The survey also indicated the ERS region for each farm. For farmers with corn who indicated that they used manure on the selected field, the majority (399 or 43.4%) were in the Northern Crescent (Lake States and Northeast). The next most common region was the Heartland (Corn Belt) with 38.7% of farmers, followed by Eastern Uplands (5.1%), Southern Seaboard (4.5%), Prairie Gateway and Northern Great Plains (each at 3.9%), and two cases each in the Basin and Range, and Fruitful Rim Regions.

For the regression analysis, only farmers who indicated the manure came from off the farm were included, which reduced the number of observations to 206, 169 of which had no missing data. The cases of biosolids, sheep, and other were deleted since the numbers were too low once the farmers who applied their own manure were dropped. The dependent variable was calculated and represents the total cost of manure purchased for the field. Farmers were given a choice as to how to answer the question, a total cost or answering two questions, number of units and price per unit. The dependent variable combined answers for the total cost for the field plus the product from answers to the amount per unit times number of units (e.g. $ per gallon times number of gallons).

The following results from the OLS regression are preliminary. The adjusted R² for the model was 0.417. There was no effect of size of the corn operation overall as measured by total acres of corn planted. Total value of farm production would probably be a better measure of size but a fairly large number of farmers didn’t answer that question. Expected corn production on the field did not have a significant effect and the coefficient was negative. Whether the field was organic was excluded from the regression by SAS and may be partly due to the low number of observations. As one would expect, given the nature of the dependent variable, the area the manure was applied to had a positive and significant impact on the price paid. Distance between source and field was positive and significant (p=0.057). For the form of manure, the base was slurry and the price paid for lagoon liquid was higher (p=0.028), contrary to expectations. There was no price difference between solid manure and slurry. The value of beef, dairy and poultry manure was higher than that for swine manure, in line with expectations. There was no effect of government regulations. The value was significantly higher if the manure was custom applied. Contrary to expectations, there were no regional differences after controlling for the other factors.

Future Plans

Alternate specifications of the model, including alternative versions of the dependent variable, will be examined to check for robustness. A final paper will relate the findings to the small but growing literature in this area.

Author

Laura McCann, Associate Professor, University of Missouri; McCannL@missouri.edu

Additional Information

Ali, Sarah, Laura McCann, Jessica Allspach. “Manure Transfers in the Midwest and Factors Affecting Adoption of Manure Testing”. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics Vol. 4 (4), November 2012, pp. 533-548.

Nunez, Jennifer and Laura McCann. “Determinants of Manure Application by Crop Farmers” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Vol. 63 (5) September/October 2008, pp. 312-321.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge research funding by USDA-NIFA, Integrated Water Quality Grant Program, 110D.

Factors Affecting the Price of Manure Applied on Corn from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Factors Affecting Manure Transfers in the Midwest

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

With livestock operations becoming larger and more specialized, and a requirement for phosphorus based application, there is a need for farmers to transfer manure off their farm in order for manure to be applied at agronomic rates.

A survey of livestock farmers in Iowa and Missouri was conducted in the spring of 2006. It was a random sample stratified by livestock type and farm sales. The major types of livestock were dairy cows, beef cattle on feed, beef cows, swine 55lbs or less, swine more than 55lbs, broilers, and turkeys. This survey examined manure management practices in general and also included questions regarding the sale and transfer of manure. For this analysis, farmers with pasture-only operations were excluded which left 921 observations.

Over 81% of turkey farmers and over 57% of broiler operations provide manure to other farmers. Farmers providing turkey manure are also the most likely to receive money for the manure with 83% being paid for the manure versus 82% of the broiler operations. Turkey and broiler litter is also transported the furthest (13.7 and 14.8 miles on average, respectively). Turkey manure also sold for the highest price.

A probit regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors that affect whether or not a farmer provides animal manure to others. Younger farmers were significantly more likely to provide manure but education level had no significant effect. The more wheat or pasture a farm had, the less likely they were to provide manure. The percent of land rented had no effect. Increases in livestock numbers for all types except beef and swine less than 55 pounds increased the likelihood of providing manure, as expected. Whether they used a commercial fertilizer on their manured fields had no relationship to whether they provided manure to others.

Purpose

One proposed solution to excess nutrients on some livestock farms is movement to other farms with nutrient deficits (Ribaudo, et al.). Our study examined the feasibility of this solution. Our specific objectives included: 1) Identify the factors that most heavily influence which farmers sell or give their excess manure to other farmers, 2) Estimate typical hauling distances for manure from different livestock types and 3) Examine the prices that farmers are being paid for different types of livestock manure.

What Did We Do?

A survey was sent out to over 3,000 randomly selected livestock farmers in Missouri and Iowa in March and April of 2006.

Methodology for the survey process followed Dillman’s model (Dillman). We initially sent out the survey to a test group of 100 farmers. We then sent out the first wave of the final survey with a cover letter, a postage paid return envelope, and a form to fill out to enter into a drawing to win a $200 gift certificate. A reminder postcard was sent, followed two weeks later by a second wave of the complete package, again asking them to participate.

Probit regression analysis was used to identify factors affecting whether manure was provided to others.

What Have We Learned?

Summary statistics showed that 1) Turkey farmers were most likely to provide manure, 2) Over 80 percent of broiler and turkey farmers that provided manure were paid for it, 3) Broiler farmers were the most likely to hire a custom applicator, and 4) 45.69 percent of farmers providing manure to others said that manure was tested before it was applied.

With all other variables in the regression held constant, farmers were significantly more likely to provide manure if: they were younger, the farm was an AFO or CAFO, they had more animal units or fewer farmed acres, they didn’t apply fertilizer to their manured fields, they had broilers or turkeys rather than swine, they say the smell of manure bothers them and, they agree that properly managing manure improves water quality. However, cropping system or concern for water quality had no effect.

Research needs to find economically feasible ways for farmers to transport their excess manure off of their farm, especially for less dry types of manure, such as that from dairy cattle or swine.

Future Plans

A publication including some of these results, plus a study on the factors affecting manure testing of material transferred off the farm has been published. Future research involves looking at the factors affecting the value of manure purchased by corn farmers using the USDA ARMS dataset (see presentation by McCann at this conference).

Authors

Laura McCann, Associate Professor, Univ. of Missouri, McCannL@missouri.edu

Jessica Amidei (first author, now Allspach), Callao, Missouri

Haluk Gedikoglu, Assistant Professor, Lincoln University

Robert Broz, Extension Assistant Professor, University of Missouri

John Lory , Extension Associate Professor, University of Missouri

Ray Massey, Extension Professor, University of Missouri

Additional Information

Ali, S., L. McCann, and Jessica Allspach. 2012. “Manure Transfers in the Midwest and Factors Affecting Adoption of Manure Testing”. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 44:3 (November 2012) pp. 533-548.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded through USDA Water Quality 406 Grant 2005-51130-02365 and we express our sincere thanks.

March 5, 2019July 8, 2020

Integrating Manure into Feed Ration Optimization

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

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

Abstract

Ration optimization models currently minimize the purchase price of feeds used to meet nutrient requirements. Not included in optimization models is the value of manure nutrients resulting from ration alternatives. This project extends the linear program that is used to minimize ration cost to include the value of manure excreted and stored. Microsoft EXCEL’s Solver GRG Nonlinear Add-in is used to optimize the integrated decision because of the non-linear aspects of manure excretion as a function of feed fed.

Several economic and production changes over the last 10 years warrant an investigation of the impact of optimizing both feed and manure decisions simultaneously. Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) have become a common feed high in phosphorus, lessening the need for inorganic phosphorus sources. Including DDGS in the diet also increases the manure concentration of phosphorus. If phosphorus is needed on nearby crop fields, there is potential to increase manure value while simultaneously reducing feed cost. In contrast, feeding phytase may reduce feed cost, while reducing manure value if phosphorus in manure is valued. Feeding synthetic amino acids can also reduce feed cost while reducing the amount of nitrogen excreted and available as a fertilizer in the manure. Adding to the importance of considering manure value is the increased costs of fertilizers. Manure is increasingly seen as a viable alternative to commercial fertilizers and might affect the whole farm profitability if included in the ration cost decision.

This project considers swine rations and examines how they might have changed during the past 10 years if manure value had been incorporated into the ration optimization decision. We will attempt to determine when manure fertilizer value relative to feed costs justifies integrating feed and manure optimization. Results indicate that incorporating manure value into the optimization routine would change some diet formulations.

Why Consider Manure Nutrients When Balancing Rations?

The value of manure supplied nutrients (N, P and K) has increased significantly over the past decade. Feedstuffs, such as DDGS, have been incorporated into the diets in ways that reduce the need for P supplementation. These developments have moved manure from a waste product to a co-product in livestock production. By integrating feed and manure management decisions it was hypothesized that profit could be improved.

What Did We Do?

The 2012 version of the National Swine Nutrition Guide (NSNG) ration software contains an optimization model for least cost ration formulation that calculates the potential manure value associated with different optimized diets. This recognition of the value of manure is an important contribution.

We incorporated the value of manure (as estimated by the NSNG) into the least cost ration optimization routine so that the objective function changed from minimizing the cost of feed to minimizing the net cost of feed. Net diet cost was defined as the cost of feed less the value of manure. Optimization of this equation required the use of the GRG non-linear optimization routine of Microsoft EXCEL.

This project evaluated least cost swine rations and how they might have changed during the past 10 years if manure value had been incorporated into the ration optimization decision. We specifically examined rations for 50-100 lb. and 200-250 lb. pigs. Rations were optimized with the following limitations: 1) manure was/was not included in the objective function; 2) DDGS were/were not allowed as a feedstuff in the rations.

What Have We Learned?

Assuming that the full value of the manure could be obtained, incorporating manure into the least cost ration optimization reduced net diet cost seven of the last 10 years for 50-100 lb. and 200-250 lb. pigs when DDGS were allowed in the diets. The ten-year mean improvement in net diet cost was $0.61/ton with a range from $0 to $8.41/ton of feed. More typically differences were small, exceeding $1.00/ton only in 2005 and 2006. Increasing manure value required increasing feed cost by an a 10-year average of $1.14/ton. The uncertainty in extracting manure value may make farmers hesitant to increase feed cost in hopes of capturing additional manure value. Two years may provide insight into the opportunity to incorporate manure value into the least cost feed decision. In 2006, a savings of $8.41/ton of feed fed was obtained by including 40% DDGS in the 50-100 lb. pig diet; this savings required increasing the feed cost by $1.76/ton resulting in a $10.18/ton increase in manure value in associated excreted nutrients. In 2009, a net ration savings of $.61/ton was obtained by eliminating phytase which was in the original least cost ration formulation. Phytase reduced the need for expensive phosphorus feedstuffs but not sufficiently when the value of manure was considered.

Future Plans

Non-linear optimization routines may find local optima rather than a global optimum. A procedure needs to be developed that insures that the global optimum is found before incorporating manure into the least cost ration decision will become widespread.

Authors

Dr. Ray Massey, Extension Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, masseyr@missouri.edu

John Lory, Extension Associate Professor of Extension, Division of Plant Science, University of Missouri

Marcia Shannon, Associate Professor, Swine Nutrition, University of Missouri

Additional Information

The 2012 version of the National Swine Nutrition Guide can be found at the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence (https://www.usporkcenter.org/product/national-swine-nutrition-guide/)

Integrating Manure Into Feed Ration Optimization from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019August 13, 2019

BFNMP$: A Tool for Estimating Feedlot Manure Economics

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Consider the Costs of Manure Transport in Nutrient Planning?

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

The Beef Feed Nutrient Management Planning Economics (BFNMP$) computer program can assist producers in understanding the impacts manure handling changes could have on their operation. It calculates manure management economics based on animal nutrient intake, manure nutrient availability, land requirements for spreading, operating costs, and fertilizer value. These values can be altered to fit individual operations. The objective of this analysis was to use the BFNMP$ software tool to evaluate the effect of distillers grains inclusion, nitrogen (N) volatilization, and manure application rate on feedlot nutrient management plans.

The BFNMP$ software tool is organized into 4 modules with producers entering information about their operation and then viewing the results. Outputs include nutrients produced, land needed for manure application, time the plan will take to implement, and economic implications.

What Did We Do?

This program was used to determine 1) impact of dietary N and P from traditional grain based diets compared to diets including 40% distillers grains (DG); 2) effect of different N volatilization (VOL) rates; 3) impact of changing manure application rates from N to P based and from 1 to 4 yr rates. While comparing scenarios, all other factors in the model were constant. These scenarios fed out 5,000 cattle per year in 100 hd pens from 341 to 591 kg with 144 d on feed.

What Have We Learned?

Increasing dietary N and P, with a 40% DG diet, increases excretion of these nutrients. Capturing these nutrients in manure increases costs, but increases value at a greater rate. Manure from cattle fed a traditional feedlot diet with 50% N VOL has a value of $21.53/animal ($14.45/Mg) based on inorganic fertilizer values. Feeding a 40% DG ration results in manure worth $29.70/animal ($19.94/Mg). Decreasing N VOL to 20% increases value of the manure to $26.55/animal ($17.83/Mg) and $37.11/animal ($24.93/Mg) for the grain based and DG diet, respectively. Phosphorus based applications require about 3 times the acres of N based applications, but spreading on a N basis results in excess P buildup. Spreading enough manure in 1 yr to meet crop P requirements for 4 yrs costs approximately the same as spreading manure every yr to meet N requirements.

Future Plans

The BFNMP$ program has been designed to aid feedlots in implementing a nutrient management plan. This tool allows them to see the potential effects of changes before implementing them and promotes better utilization of valuable manure nutrients.