Category: Environmental Planning

Posted on

Integrating Probable Fieldwork Days into Nutrient Management Plans

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

Abstract

Weather conditions impact land application of manure.  Wet soils hinder equipment from accessing fields.  Regulations prohibit application on frozen or snow cover soils.  Uncertain soil and atmospheric conditions can cause the best plans to fail.  Nutrient management plans that are expected to succeed might fail given any particular year’s weather. Incorporating fieldwork days information into nutrient management plans can make them more robust to uncertain weather conditions.

The USDA publishes the number of fieldwork days for different crop reporting districts within states. These data are from field reporters who provide their opinion on the number of days that were available for farmers to conduct fieldwork such as disking, planting and harvesting.  USDA Fieldwork Days data cover the growing season (approximately April to December). Estimates of fieldwork days do not exist for the non-growing season (approximately December to April).  However, certain states have agricultural weather station networks that collect soil temperature and other critical information that can be used to estimate the number of fieldwork days that exist for manure application within regulatory limits.

This project integrates fieldwork days from the USDA Fieldwork Days data with the Missouri Agricultural Weather Station Network winter soil temperature and precipitation data for the corresponding crop reporting district.  This compiled database gives a complete year of fieldwork day estimates.  The data are used in a model that allows nutrient management planners to incorporate climatological impacts into their land application plans.  Users specify their equipment complement and size, quantity of manure, and desired beginning and ending dates.  The model reports output in a cumulative distribution function that estimates the probability of completing fieldwork within the specified parameters and a sensitivity table of ending dates.

Why Consider Fieldwork Days for Nutrient Planning?

We currently have no mechanism to evaluate the feasibility of implementing nutrient management plans.  A plan that successfully finds sufficient fields for using nutrients in manure may fail because there is insufficient time to apply manure with the designated equipment.  Incorporating fieldwork day information into the nutrient management planning process could make plans more robust, informing the planner and farmer how likely the plan will succeed.

What Did We Do?

This project developed two spreadsheets that help nutrient management planners incorporate USDA and climatic data into their plans to estimate the likelihood of successfully completing the plan objectives.

The first spreadsheet incorporates fieldwork day data from the USDA with machinery management decisions to estimate the probability of completing manure application within a planned window.  This spreadsheet and data report the number of days in a week when fieldwork can be done in various regions of the state during the period April through November.  The second spreadsheet integrates soil temperature and precipitation data from the Missouri Agricultural Weather Station Network to estimate the probability of completing manure application within a planned window during the months of December through March period.

Users specify their equipment complement and size, quantity of acres receiving manure, desired beginning and ending dates for manure application, and hours per day and days per week they can apply manure.  The model reports output in a cumulative distribution function that estimates the probability of completing fieldwork within the specified parameters and a sensitivity table of ending dates.

Sample output of the probability of completing necessary fieldwork.

What Have We Learned?

Plans do not normally consider the feasibility of accomplishing manure application within an appropriate time frame.  Missouri fieldwork day data indicate that time available for field work varies significantly over the year and within the state at any given time.    For example, a nutrient management plan that requires 100 hours of application time in northwest MO during the month of April would be successful 78% of the time.  The same nutrient management plan needing 100 hours of fieldwork during February would be successful 40% of the time.  In April the median number of fieldwork days 11.5 days compared to 8.3 days in February.

Sample imput screen for describing the manure application parameters.

Future Plans

We will expand the tool beyond Missouri.  We are looking for funding opportunities to integrate it into our nutrient management plan document generators.

Authors

John Lory, Associate Professor of Extension, Plant Science Divsion, University of Missouri loryj@missouri.edu

Dr. Ray Massey, Professor of Extension, Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri

Pat Guinan, Assistant Professor of Extension, Soil and Environmental Systems, University of Missouri

Additional Information

The spreadsheets that incorporates fieldwork days into manure management decisions can be obtained at swine.missouri.edu/manure/ under the link names of Probable Fieldwork Days and Probable Winter Fieldwork Days.

Acknowledgements

Scott Gerlt and Brent Carpenter of the Food and Agriculture Policy Institute created the initial spreadsheet tool.

 

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.

Posted on

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative: Using Excess Manure to Generate Farm Income in the Chesapeake’s Phosphorus Hotspots

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

Abstract

Currently, all the Bay states are working to achieve nutrient reduction goals from various pollution sources.  Significant reductions in phosphorus pollution from agriculture, particularly with respect to phosphorus losses from land application of manure are needed to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem.  Producers in high-density animal agricultural production areas such as Lancaster County region of Pennsylvania, the Delmarva Peninsula, and the Shenandoah Valley region of Virginia, need viable alternatives to local land application in order to meet nutrient reduction goals.

Field demonstrations will be monitored to determine whether the technologies are environmental beneficial, and economically and technically feasible. Specific measures of performance include: reliability and heat distribution, in-house air quality, avoided propane or electricity use, costs to install and maintain, fertilizer and economic value of ash or biochar produced, air emissions, and fate of poultry litter nutrients. Technology evaluation results will be shared on a clearinghouse website developed in partnership with eXtension.

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative is also supporting efforts to develop markets for nutrient rich ash and biochar co-products. Field trials using nutrient rich ash and biochar from poultry litter thermochemical processes for fresh market vegetable production are currently underway at Virginia Tech’s Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Experiment Station.

Purpose

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative is a collaborative effort to evaluate the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of farm-scale manure to energy technologies in an effort to expand management and revenue-generating opportunities for excess manure nutrients in concentrated animal production regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

What Did We Do?

The project team went through a comprehensive review process and identified three farm-scale, manure to energy technologies that we think have the potential to generate new revenue streams and provide alternatives to local land application of excess manure nutrients.  Installation and performance evaluation of two of these technologies on four host farms in the Chesapeake Bay region are underway. Partners have also completed a survey of financing options for farm-scale technology deployment and published a comprehensive financing resources guide for farmers in the Chesapeake Bay region.

What Have We Learned?

To date, we have not identified any manure to energy technologies that also provide alternatives to local land application of excess manure nutrients for liquid manures.  Thermochemical manure to energy technologies using poultry litter as a fuel source seem to show the most promise for offering opportunities to export excess nutrients from phosphorus hotspots in the Chesapeake Bay region. Producing heat for poultry houses is the most readily available energy capture option.  We did not identify any vendors with a proven approach to producing electricity via farm-scale, thermochemical manure to energy technologies. With respect to the fate of poultry litter nutrients, preliminary air emissions data indicates that most poultry litter nitrogen (greater than 98%) is converted to non-reactive nitrogen in the thermochemical process. Phosphorus and potash are preserved in the ash or biochar coproducts. Preliminary field trial results indicate that phosphorus in ash and biochar is bioavailable and can be used as a replacement for commercial phosphorus fertilizer, but bioavailability varied according to the thermochemical process.

Future Plans

We are currenty in the process of installing and measuring the performance of farm-scale demonstrations in the Chesapeake Bay region.  We are collaborating with the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center to develop a clearinghouse website for thermochemical farm-scale manure to energy technologies that will be hosted on the eXtension website.  Performance data from our projects will be shared on this website, which can also be used as a platform to share information about the performance of other farm-scale, thermochemical technology installations around the U.S. Technical training events using farm demonstrations as an educational platform will be hosted during the later half of the project. Additional field and row crop trials to demonstrate the fertilizer value of the concentrated nutrient coproducts are also planned using ash from farm demonstrations.

Authors

Jane Corson-Lassiter, USDA NRCS, Jane.Lassiter@va.usda.gov; Kristen Hughes Evans, Executive Director, Sustainable Chesapeake

Additional partners in the Farm Manure to Energy Initiative include: Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies, University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Lancaster County Conservation District, the Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, Chesapeake Bay Commission, and International Biochar Institute.

Additional Information

www.sustainablechesapeake.org

www.fppcinc.org

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project is provided by a grant from the USDA Conservation Innovation Grant program, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation via the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program, the Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, as well as technology vendors and host farmers participating in the technology demonstrations.

 

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.

Posted on

Money from Something: Carbon Market Developments for Agriculture

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

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

For more than a decade, the potential to earn revenue from climate-saving activities in agriculture has been touted throughout farm-related industries. This presentation will assume a basic knowledge of the concept of carbon markets as a kind of ecosystem service market. The focus will instead be put on current market opportunities and the importance of learning from past mistakes. Included in the discussion will be carbon offset opportunities for methane capture from manure digesters and composting and nitrous oxide reduction from controls on nitrogen fertilization. Participants will learn about voluntary and compliance market opportunities and the value of offsets versus transactions costs in today’s markets. Sources of market information will also be discussed.

Topics:

  • Ecosystem services markets: Carbon credits and more.
  • Types of offsets relevant to livestock and crop producers (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide).
  • Rules of the road: How to read the key parts of project protocols.
  • Once and future markets: Consider the differences between voluntary and compliance markets.
  • Show us the money: Have any producers really made money from carbon markets?

Purpose

During the past decade, the potential to earn revenue from greenhouse gas reductions in agriculture, especially from anaerobic digestion projects, generated some enthusiasm for this emerging ecosystem market. In 2005, dairies in Washington and Minnesota received the first carbon credit payments for their digesters through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a pilot cap-and-trade market established in 2003. With the failure of the 111th Congress to complete passage of a national cap-and-trade law in the summer of 2010, the CCX closed shop. What has happened since that time? What is the potential today for livestock producers to benefit from carbon markets or carbon pricing? We look at current markets and summarize the opportunities.

What Did We Do?

The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program monitors technology, policy and market developments about anaerobic digestion as part of its land-grant mission to support industry and agriculture in Washington state. Because of the potential value of digesters to dairy producers, we follow developments in a wide range of existing and potential ecosystem markets, including renewable energy and fuels, carbon/GHGs, nutrients, and water. Preparation for this presentation included surveys of academic and popular literature, interviews with project developers and market insiders, and analysis of the participation in carbon trading by existing livestock digester projects in the U.S.

What Have We Learned?

The existing landscape of livestock anaerobic digestion projects illustrates three major types or models of carbon market finance: utility-based programs, voluntary carbon markets and compliance-based cap-and-trade markets.

Utility-Based Opportunities

Vermont is home to at least 15 operational dairy-based digesters. Only two digesters serve farms with more than 2,000 cows. Of the balance, about half are below and half above 1,000 cows. All of the Vermont digesters produce renewable electricity and participate in one or more utility-based incentive programs. One example is the Vermont’s Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (SPEED) program, which establishes standard offer contracts between utilities and renewable energy project developers. The goal of the SPEED program is to support in-state production of renewable power from hydro, solar PV, wind, biomass, landfill gas and farm methane with an overall portfolio target of 20 percent by 2017.

A key mechanism of the program is the long-term (20-year) Standard Offer contract and default pricing for the different types of renewable power. Default prices were calculated to allow developers to recover their costs with a positive return on investment. The default prices established for the first two rounds of farm methane projects were $0.16/kWh and $0.14/kWh, respectively. This compares to an average retail price of $0.146/kWh for electricity in the state. The default prices do not account for the environmental attributes of the green power for farm methane projects.

Many of the Vermont digesters participate in the Cow Power Program, established by  the former Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), now a part of Green Mountain Power, in 2004. The Cow Power Program offers customers the opportunity to purchase the environmental attributes (renewable energy and GHG reduction) from participating dairy digester projects at a rate of $0.04/kWh. This value was passed along to the suppliers of the dairy-based green power.

These two Vermont programs continue to operate in tandem and provide maximum benefit to Vermont’s diary digester projects. By one estimate, customers participating through the Cow Power program have provided to dairy digester operators more than $3.5 million in value for the environmental attributes created in the past eight years.

Other examples of this type of type of utility-based standard offer or incentive pricing for farm power can be found in North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Voluntary Carbon Offsets Opportunities

Voluntary carbon markets are built on decisions by utilities, corporations, and other businesses to offset their carbon footprint impacts through the purchase of third-party verified carbon credits. While the voluntary carbon market has suffered ups and downs, especially during the recent economic downturn, corporations continue to respond to pressures such as corporate stewardship policies or carbon disclosure programs that require accounting for environmental and greenhouse gas impacts. 

The voluntary market is inhabited by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations that bring sellers and buyers together. The types and value of offsets are more varied, depending on the appetites and budgets of the buyers.

For example, the voluntary carbon market has been a preferred option for Washington-based Farm Power, which has agreements with The Carbon Trust (Portland, OR) and Native Energy (Burlington, VT) for carbon credits generated from the capture and destruction of methane from its farm digester projects in Washington state. Both The Carbon Trust and Native Energy use designated registries and protocols, such as the Carbon Action Registry (CAR) or Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), as the vehicle through which credits are registered, verified, and eventually retired on behalf of their customers.

The Climate Trust – Retires registered carbon offsets on behalf of at least five Oregon-based utilities that are required by state law to offset the GHG impacts that occur from installing new power plants in the state. The Trust also sources offsets for the Smart Energy program created by NW Natural as an opportunity for customers to support production of “carbon-neutral” natural gas through farm-based biodigesters.

Native Energy – Has a diverse base of individual and business customers. They source carbon offsets for a wide range of large, environmentally conscious businesses, such as eBay, Stonyfield Farm, Brita, and Effect Partners, who provided some funding up front for offsets from Farm Power’s Rainier Biogas project. Offset values vary widely depending on demand, supply, and the “value” of the project’s story. In a few cases, offset values may loosely track the prices for compliance-grade carbon offsets with a discount for funding provided in advance of project implementation.

Compliance Cap-and-Trade Offsets Opportunities

Finally, the compliance market opportunity refers to cap-and-trade programs established by state governments to reduce GHG pollution. These are formal regulatory systems. The government establishes caps on GHGs for targeted sources and issues permits or allowances that are distributed, sold, or auctioned to regulated entities for each ton of emissions they generate. Allowances are typically tradable instruments, so entities can easily manage their allowance needs and accounts. The goal of cap-and-trade systems is to use market-based mechanisms to achieve pollution reductions at the lowest possible cost and with the least disruption to the economy.

Systems might also allow covered entities to use offsets generated voluntarily by non-covered entities to meet some portion of their emission reduction target. Allowed offsets are generated using approved protocols, verified by approved third-party verifiers, and registered/sold through approved registries. 

Two domestic cap-and-trade programs survived the past decade and are in operation today—the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which involves nine Northeastern states, and the California market, established by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Each of these systems operates under its own sets of rules.

The table below highlights features of these two market approaches.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

AB 32 – California Market

Nine states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont

California only (may establish a market connection with Ontario, Canada)

Covers the electricity sector: 200 power plants

Covers power and industrial entities that generate more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e annually; will expand to include the transportation fuel sector in 2015

Allowances based on U.S. short tons of CO2

Allowances based on metric  tons of CO2

Allowances are auctioned

Allowances are auctioned, with a minimum floor price of $10/MtCO2e

Offsets are very limited – few types, very strict rules, only 3% of compliance allowed

Offsets are allowed in four categories: livestock methane, forestry, urban forestry, and ozone-depleting substances; entities may use offsets for up to 8% of their compliance obligation

Current auction prices: ~ $2.00

Current auction prices: ~$13.50; offset values are estimated to lag allowance prices by about 25%

 

Among farm digester project developers, interest in the California market is guarded. Agricultural methane capture and destruction is one of just four approved offset categories. The demand for these offsets could become strong, and the rules allow projects from any state to participate. On the other hand, the costs for monitoring equipment can be significant, $15,000 or more for start up, with similar sums every year for verification and registration.  These monitoring and transaction costs will tend to favor projects with larger livestock numbers (1,500+ dairy animal units, or AUs). To date, 60 existing digester projects have listed with the Climate Action Registry—a first step to participation in the California market. Of these projects, 36 have registered more than 800,000 verified carbon credits.

Conclusions:

Values for carbon (i.e., GHG reductions) can be observed in the marketplace and measured in terms of market goodwill or as prices for environmental attributes or carbon credits from voluntary and compliance markets.

Developers of smaller farm digester projects (<1,500 AUs) may find their best value through utility-based incentive programs or through participation in voluntary carbon markets.

Developers of larger farm digester projects (>1,500 AUs) should explore the potential costs and benefits of registering to participate as an offset project in the California carbon market.

Future Plans

The WSU Energy Program will continue to monitor market developments related to this topic and encourage livestock producers to consider methane capture and anaerobic digestion as means to control odors, manage nutrients, and produce valuable biogas resources.

Authors

Jim Jensen, Sr. Bioenergy and Alternative Fuel Specialist, Washington State University Energy Program jensenj@energy.wsu.edu

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.

Posted on

Sustainable Dairy Cropping Systems

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

Abstract

An interdisciplinary team of Penn State and USDA-ARS researchers are evaluating a Sustainable Cropping System to test the hypothesis that a dairy farm can minimize off-farm inputs and environmental impacts, and be productive, profitable and sustainable. Established in 2010 at the Penn State Agronomy Research Farm, the farm produces grain, forage and tractor fuel at 1/20th the scale of an average sized Pennsylvania dairy of 240 acres. The farm includes two diverse 6-yr crop rotations that include manure injection, perennial legumes, cover and green manure crops; a cover crop roller, winter canola, and a straight vegetable oil tractor. Within each crop rotation two management practices for no-till crop production are compared:

1. Forage Rotation compares injected manure (IM) to broadcast manure (BM); and

2. Grain Rotation compares a combination of weed management strategies designed to reduce herbicide (RH) use relative to a “standard” herbicide (SH) weed management program.

The two diverse cropping systems are designed to provide all the forage and feed for 65 lactating cows housed in a tie-stall barn, 10 dry cows and 75 young-stock. Crops are analyzed for crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, and net energy of lactation; the production of a “virtual dairy herd” is simulated using the 2001 NRC dairy nutrition model. Performance of the two farm scenarios (BMSH or IMRH) is compared. Income-over-feed costs are monitored monthly to evaluate impact of forage quality and quantity on profitability. The economic performance of the two cropping systems: BMSH vs. IMRH will be highlighted.  In 2010, the IMRH scenario had a slight trend of higher income over feed cost compared to the BMSH scenario. Related: Manure value & economics

Why Is a ‘Systems’ Approach Important for Dairies?

New agronomic management practices and technologies are often evaluated in one or two specific crops for a few growing seasons. Management practices on farms however are integrated into crop rotations, where a combination of practices can have cumulative effects on multiple aspects of the agroecosystem. This project takes an interdisciplinary approach to develop sustainable dairy cropping systems and monitor multiple indicators of systems performance. Utilizing ecological principles and innovative practices, we designed two six-year dairy crop rotations to minimize off-farm inputs and environmental impacts for a typical-sized Pennsylvania dairy farm. Within each rotation we have been comparing innovative manure or weed management strategies, as well as evaluating two green manure crops, and a tactic to sustain mycorrhizae populations in canola. The two crop rotations also compare two approaches to integrating winter canola into a dairy crop rotation.

What Did We Do?

Two cropping systems were developed to compare diverse strategies that include canola in a dairy farm rotation. The two rotations consist of 12 crop entries, each main plot being 90’ x 121’with split plots of 45’ x 121’.

Agronomy farm at Penn State University where the cropping systems are being evaluated.

The splits within the two cropping system rotations are:

Forage rotation: Corn silage/winter wheat underseeded red clover – Corn silage – canola – alfalfa (3 yr)Split plots in the forage rotation compare the use of manure shallow disk injection versus surface-applied, broadcast manure.

Grain rotation: Alfalfa (2 yr)-Canola – Rye –Soybeans/Rye -Corn grain

To reduce herbicide use, split plots evaluate a combination of mechanical and cultural weed control practices used to reduce herbicides use (banding herbicides over the crop row, inter-row cultivation, companion cropping annual with alfalfa, and one plowing event).

What Have We Learned?

By assessing the performance of the innovative practices and the dairy cropping systems from a multidisciplinary perspective, over the past three years we have gained an understanding of their performance, as well as agroecosystem interactions, benefits, and trade-offs. Overall the cropping systems and the majority of the innovative practices are providing multiple agroecosystem benefits, although a few practices need to be modified to improve their performance.

In the first three years, both of the sustainable dairy cropping systems (inject manure and reduced herbicide (IMRH) and broadcast manure and standard herbicide (BMSH)) produced almost all of the virtual dairy herd’s feeds and forage, and all of the farm’s tractor fuel needs along with some additional canola oil to sell. The economics of the virtual farm show the purchased feed costs per cow are about half of what they would be on a “typical” dairy operation.

The assumptions made for the virtual dairy farm is that it is a start-up herd with the land and buildings in place. Loans were taken out to purchase animals and to remodel the facilities. This explains why the breakeven income over feed costs is high compared to what is observed on established dairy farms in Pennsylvania. When summarizing the cash flow plans for both scenarios, the IMRH has been trending with more income per cow compared to the BMSH. Even with the high breakeven income over feed costs, the BMSH has averaged about $1.00 and IMRH about $1.85 above breakeven for 2011-2012 on average.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Future Plans

We are still simulating and analyzing the virtual dairy herd production and economic performance and plan to conduct additional advanced economic analyses over the next three years. We will continue to monitor the cropping systems, learn how to improve their performance, and share this information through scientific literature and outreach educational activities and materials.

Authors

Virginia Ishler, Dairy Complex Manager and Nutrient Management Specialist, Penn State University, vishler@psu.edu

Heather Karsten, Associate Professor of Crop Production/Ecology, Penn State University

Glenna Malcolm, Post Doctoral Researcher, Penn State University

Tim Beck, Extension Educator, Penn State University

Additional Information

Detailed information about this project as well as publications and other resources can be found at http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/areas/crop-ecology-and-management/cropping-systems

A link to our 2012 Project summary report on the NESARE website. https://projects.sare.org/sare_project/lne09-291/

Acknowledgements

Funding has been provided NESARE (Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension) and collaboration with USDA-ARS.

 

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.

Posted on

Smartphone Apps for Manure Management

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

graph

The home screen of the Manure Calculator app.

Abstract

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

Why Create Apps for Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship?

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

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

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

graph

Home screen for the Manure Monitor app.

What Did We Do?

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

Future Plans

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

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

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

Author

Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska jheemstra@unl.edu

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

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

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Extension Outreach Response to Livestock Mortality Events Associated With Algal Toxin Production in Georgia Farm Ponds

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

Purpose

Excessive nutrient enrichment in watersheds can create harmful algal blooms (HABs) in aquatic systems, including ponds, which are frequently used to water livestock. Harmful algal blooms are typically dominated by cyanobacteria (commonly referred to as “blue green algae”) many of which produce toxins that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans.  In May 2012, our laboratory began receiving reports of cattle mortalities associated with HABs. We began an outreach effort to screen and identify algal species and toxins in water samples submitted by private citizens from ponds throughtout Georgia. Prior to this effort, no state or federal laboratories offered such a service. Private laboratories conduct these services, however the collection protocols and analytical costs preclude the average citizen from utilizing them. Rapid detetion of a HAB is critical for farmers so that access to the water source can be restricted. We recognized the need to provide such a service and to educate the public regarding exposure effects, preventative measures, and treatment of HABs.

During Summer 2012 sampling events we commonly encountered Microcystis blooms in both farm ponds used by humans for fishing and recreation (above) and for watering livestock (below).

What Did We Do?

We documented dense blooms of  planktonic cyanobacteria, predominantly Microcystis aeruginosa, and  extremely high levels of the potent hepatotoxin, Microcystin, in water samples submitted by Georgia cattle producers (Haynie et al. 2013). Many of these samples were submitted by producers who had experienced cattle mortalities, potentially due to algal toxin exposure.

Through a collaborative effort with UGA’s Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratories, we established a water screening service that includes algal speciation and toxin detection. This service became available to the public in Februrary 2013. This effort included a detailed outreach letter to extension agents, sampling protocol and materials for water sample collection and shipping. This screening service is avalible for either a $30.00 (algal identification) or $45.00 (toxin analysis and algal identification) fee. The submitter will receive an electronic report within 24 hours with results, interpretation, and recommendations.

We have begun promoting this service and educating the public about HABs by participating in various short courses, meetings and outreach opportunities.

What Have We Learned?

We have demonstrated that HABs and cyanotoxins are common in Georgia agriculture ponds. Therefore, the potential for livestock exposure and subsequent effects including mortality are likely to occur. Education and establishment of a rapid toxin detection service is warranted and will be beneficial to producers. The livestock deaths have highlighted an important issue for Georgia farmers and pond owners that will likely be increasingly prevalent under projected climatic models.

Future Plans

We will continue our outreach efforts by participating in University and industry sponsored workshops and meetings. We will use these opportunities to educate and inform the public about the newly available algal screening service. We have included, in recently submitted grants, funding to subsidize testing expenses in order to encourage more farmers/pond owners to use this service. We intend to utilize the testing service to gather spatially referenced data on the prevalence of HABs and toxin levels in GA ponds. This information, which is not currently available,  will inform nutrient management plans and BMPs that will ultimately improve nutrient management and water resources in Georgia.  We hope that this effort will serve as a model for other states experiencing similar increases in frequency and severity of HABs in agricultural settings.

Authors

Rebecca S. Haynie, Post Doctoral Associate, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 hayniers@uga.edu

Susan Wilde, Assistant Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602

David Kissel, Director and Professor, Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Leticia Sonon, Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Uttam Saha, Program Coordinator, Feed and Environmental Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Additional Information

Haynie, R. S., J. R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, B. Willis, J. H. Rodgers Jr., A.L. Jones and S. B. Wilde.  Harmful algal blooms and toxin production in Georgia ponds. (in review). Proceedings of the Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia. April 2013.

UGA Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory: http://aesl.ces.uga.edu/

Burtle, G.J. July 2012. Managing Algal Blooms and the Potential for Algal Toxins in Pond Water. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Temporary Publication 101.

Haynie, R.S., J.R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, S. B. Wilde. Cyanotoxins: Exposure Effects and Mangagement Options. Proceedings of the UGA Extension Beef Cattle Shortcourse. Ed. L. Stewart. Athens, Georgia. January 2013.

News article: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/experts-say-toxic-algae-may-pose-threat-kids-pets/242741856/

Acknowledgements

Drs. Lawton Stewart, Gary Burtle (Animal and Dairy Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, UGA)  coordinated sample delivery from pond owners to our laboratory. Brad Bartelme, James Herrin and Jamie Morgan (Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, UGA) contributed significant technical assistance with algal screening and sample processing.

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.

Posted on

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

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

Why Study High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion?

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

What Did We Do?

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

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

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

What Have We Learned?

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

Future Plans

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

Authors

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

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

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Silage Runoff Treatment

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

Abstract

Agricultural filter strips are commonly used to treat runoff from agricultural farmstead areas.  Many filter strips have been assessed in terms of surface water quality impacts but have failed to determine the fate of pollutants once they have infiltrated the soil subsurface.  Two side-by-side filter strips plots were installed to assess the performance of and determine the fate of contaminants in a filter strip system.  One of the two plots also contained a pretreatment system to facilitate nitrogen removal in an attempt to reduce nitrate leaching.  Both plots were lined with an impermeable membrane to collect subsurface leachate as well as surface runoff.  A mass balance could then be determined for these filter strip systems to assess the fate of nutrients and the ability of a low cost pretreatment system to reduce nitrate leaching.
Filter-strip Construction

Why Is It Important to Prevent Runoff from Silage Piles from Reaching Water?

Silage runoff, or the flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage or silage leachate, contains nutrients harmful to watersheds.  A filter-strip, a long narrow buffer strip used in agriculture as a BMP, could be used to reduce nutrient concentrations within silage runoff.  A study that investigates design storm loading and seasonal operation could benefit producers and their surrounding watershed.  A pre-treatment design consisting of an aerobic and anaerobic section, is also analyzed to quantify improvements in pollutant reduction.

What Did We Do?
Before Establishment of Vegetation

Two experimental filter-strips, one control and one pre-treatment design, were applied with silage runoff at volumes and rates corresponding to a 25 year – 24 hour and a 2 year – 24 hour design storm.  Design storm rates and volumes were determined from the runoff modeled from a 1:1 dairy bunker to filter strip area.  Three runs of each design storm were accomplished throughout the months of October, November, and early December 2012.

What Have We Learned?

The pre-treatment filter strip design distributed higher BOD5 reduction however, nitrite concentrations increased in the effluent.  Application in November and December had lower infiltration and changes in ammonia reduction were illustrated. 
Experimental Filter-strip and Sampling

Future Plans

Applications in the spring  and summer will determine further seasonal variation.  Expanding design storms applied will help determine prescriptive loading and aid in modeling.

Authors

Michael Holly, Master’s Candidate Biological System Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, maholly@wisc.edu

Dr. Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Acknowledgements

Zach Zopp, Lab and Field Tech

Shayne Havlovitz, Undergraduate Research Assistant

 

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.

Posted on

Silage Runoff Characterization

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

Abstract

Silage leachate is a high strength waste which contributes to surface and groundwater contamination of various pollutants from runoff, direct leaching through concrete storage structures, and infiltration of runoff. Feed storage is required for the majority of dairy operations in the country (which are expanding in size and fed storage requirements) leading to widespread potential contamination. Limited data on silage leachate quality and treatment has made management and regulation based solely on observation. This project investigated three bunker silage storage sites to assess the water quality characteristics of silage leachate and runoff from various feed sources and surrounding environmental factors. Surface samples were collected from feed storage structures and analyzed for numerous water quality parameters. Using collected hydrologic data, contaminant loading was analyzed for various storm events and assessed for first flush effects and potential to impact handling and treatment designs. Determination of first flush provides essential data for separation of waste streams (high and low strength) to ease management in terms of operation and cost, reduce loading to treatment systems, and reducing the overall environmental impact.

Why Is It Important to Characterize Silage Leachate?
Silage Runoff Samples from an October Rain Event

Silage runoff, or the flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage or silage leachate, contains nutrients harmful to watersheds. Nutrient concentrations within silage runoff are variable and are dependent on event size, seasonality, bunker condition, and concentration of silage. Knowledge of nutrient loading thoughout a storm can benefit silage runoff storage and treatment standards.

What Did We Do?

Three horizontal bunkers in south central Wisconsin were anzlyzed over the seasons of fall, spring and summer.  Two of the bunkers sampled were designed with subsurface leachate collection.  Runoff was collected using ISCO automated samplers and samples were triggered by flow rate. Water quality analysis was completed on the campus of University of Wisconsin – Madison and alkalinity, NH3, BOD5, COD, NO2, NO3, ortho-p, pH, TKN, TP and TS were analyzed. Thirty-five storms in total were analyzed ranging from 0.03 – 1.74 inches.
Horizontal Dairy Bunker During a Storm Event

What Have We Learned?

Seasonality can impact the nutrient concentrations within silage runoff.  Normalized cumulative pollution load curves illustrate moderate first flush in the fall and a moderate delayed load curve in the summer.

Future Plans

Correlating silage runoff concentrations with bunker conditions such as date, amount filled, moisture content, and amount of litter present on pad could help explain seasonal variability.  Collection of future storms could aid in explaining variances and facilitate modeling.

Authors

Michael Holly, Master’s Candidate Biological System Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, maholly@wisc.edu

Dr. Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Acknowledgements

Zach Zopp, Lab and Field Tech

Shayne Havlovitz, Undergraduate Research Assistant

 

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.

Posted on

Model of a Successful Regulatory-Industry Partnership to Address Air Emissions from Dairy Operations in Yakima, WA

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

Why Is It Important for Industry and Regulators to Work Together?

The community in the Yakima Region of Washington State has raised concerns over the potential adverse effects of air emissions from dairy operations. To address these concerns, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) proposed a policy process in October 2010 to control and mitigate emissions through implementation of site-specific best management practices (BMPs) on dairy operations. Absent a lack of reliable methodologies for estimating emissions from dairies, the YRCAA enrolled experts and scientists to help create tools that could be used for estimation of emissions from dairy operations. The assessment of BMPs aimed at mitigating air emissions from dairies was also included to determine their effect on the character, amount, and dispersion of specific air pollutants. This project assessed the effect of voluntary verses policy driven action on the dairy industry, community, and environmental impacts of air emissions from dairy operations.

What Did We Do?

The Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) proposed a draft policy in October 2010 to control and mitigate emissions through implementation of site-specific best management practices (BMPs) on dairy operations. To validate the policy, a “Pilot Research Project” was launched in February 2011 to gather information for one year to test the feasibility of implementing and determining policy effectiveness. Twelve operations, representing ~40% of the estimated regional cow numbers, volunteered to participate.

A description of proven BMPs and a BMP selection-guide were created to help producers develop site-specific Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP). Each AQMP identified, systematically, specific BMPs to mitigate emissions from each area of the dairy system (nutrition, feed management, milk parlor, housing-drylot, housing-freestall, grazing, manure management, land application, other) based on effectiveness, practicality and economics. The pollutants addressed in each AQMP included ammonia, nitrous oxide, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, odor, particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and methane. A universal score-sheet was created to assess implementation of BMPs at each dairy. The YRCAA inspectors were trained to evaluate, score, and record BMP implementation. A whole-farm score was generated during each visit, which identified areas of improvement to be addressed.

The process was very unique in that the dairy industry took a proactive role and actively participated. Using science and air quality experts to create and validate the evaluation tools and process also brought authority to the process. The policy was revised based on information collected from the pilot project and was adopted in February 2012. To date, 22 operations, representing 57% of total cow numbers in the Yakima Region, are enrolled.

What Have We Learned?

The voluntary approach used during the pilot project phase of the policy was very effective in enrolling the dairy community. Producers stepped up to volunteer and cooperatively participate in an unknown process. Even though they were very robust and integrated a large amount of scientific information, the emission assessment tools created as an outcome of the pilot project were very user friendly and easy to interpret by planners and producers. The air quality BMP assessment tool is currently being evaluated for use by other agencies and institutions.

Future Plans

The YRCAA has entered into phase two of the policy process and are now mandating that dairies participate in the air quality assessment. Starting in March 2013, all dairy operations in the Yakima basin will be either voluntarily or mandatorily inspected and assessed for air quality improvements. This provides an opportunity to compare voluntary and mandatory policy processes. The long-term impact of the process is yet unknown.

Authors

Nichole M. Embertson, Ph.D., Nutrient Management Specialist, Whatcom Conservation District, Lynden, WA, nembertson@whatcomcd.org

Gary Pruitt, Executive Director, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Air, Yakima, WA

Hasan Tahat, Engineering and Planning Supervisor, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Air, Yakima, WA

Pius Ndegwa, Biological and Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

Additional Information

https://www.yakimacleanair.org/site/files/file_manager/page/shared/Resource%20Guide%20for%20BMP%20for%20Dairy%20Oparation%20Aug18.pdf

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress