This webinar highlights ManureDB, a database of manure samples informing “book values”. Having current manure test numbers will assist in more accurate nutrient management planning, manure storage design, manure land application, and serve agricultural modeling purposes. This presentation was originally broadcast on June 17, 2022. Continue reading “Manure nutrient trends and creating dynamic “book values” through ManureDB”
Agronomic Response to Struvite as an Alternative Fertilizer-phosphorus Source
Purpose
As a primarily mined material, the global reserve of phosphorus (P) is finite and running out. Consequently, inorganic, commercial fertilizers are becoming more expensive. Chemical engineering techniques have been developed and are being actively researched to recover P from wastewater sources in the form of struvite (MgNH4PO4 · 6H2O). Many wastewaters contain elements such as P and nitrogen (N) in various forms that could be recovered and beneficially recycled as fertilizer nutrients. Recovering nutrients, such as P, from wastewaters and/or treating wastewaters to the point they could be safely recycled back into the environment could have a tremendously positive impact on any agricultural activity as well as receiving waters.
Arkansas has a documented significant geographic nutrient imbalance, where the row-crop-dominated region of eastern Arkansas has a severe nutrient deficiency, particularly for P, which routinely requires commercial P applications to supply crop needs for optimum production. Thus, eastern Arkansas is an ideal setting for testing the effectiveness of recovered nutrients from wastewaters as fertilizer sources, especially P, for various row crops, namely rice, corn, and soybeans. A sustainable, wastewater-recovered source of P, in the form of the mineral struvite, would be a critical advancement in the long-term viability of P availability, P-source options, and use as a fertilizer in P-deficient soils used for crop production.
What Did We Do?
Various studies were conducted to evaluate the behavior of struvite in different soils and crop response to struvite as compared to other commonly used, commercially available fertilizer-P sources [i.e., monoammonium phosphate (MAP), diammonium phosphate (DAP), triple superphosphate (TSP), and rock phosphate (RP)]. Two struvite materials were tested, a chemically precipitated struvite (CPST) created from real wastewater treatment plant effluent and an electrochemically precipitated struvite (ECST) created in the laboratory with an innovative electrochemical approach.
In the laboratory, a series of plant-less soil incubation experiments were conducted in several different agricultural soils to evaluate the behavior of struvite and the other fertilizer-P sources as they solubilize. Soil pH, water-soluble and plant-available P, magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), nitrate and ammonium concentrations were measured over a 4- to 9-month period in moist/aerobic and saturated/flooded/anaerobic soil conditions (Figure 1). A column study was also conducted to evaluate the effects of fertilizer-P source, including ECST and CPST, on P-leaching characteristics over time in multiple soils (Figure 2).
Additionally, a rainfall-runoff simulation experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of water source (i.e., rainfall, groundwater, and struvite-removed wastewater) and fertilizer-P source on runoff water quality parameters (i.e., pH, electrical conductivity, and P, N, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations) in various soils (Figure 3).
In the greenhouse, several potted-plant studies were conducted for 60-90 days evaluating above- and below-ground plant response to ECST, CPST, MAP, DAP, TSP, RP, and unamended controls in rice, corn, soybeans, and wheat. Studies were also conducted to evaluate the effects of fertilizer-P source (i.e., ECST, CPST, DAP, TSP, and an unamended control) on greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., CO2, CH4, and N2O) from flood- and simulated-furrow-irrigated rice (Figure 4).
In the field, two-year studies have been conducted in soil having low soil-test-P to evaluate the effects of fertilizer-P source (i.e., ECST, CPST, MAP, DAP, TSP, RP, and an unamended control) on above- and below-ground dry matter and tissue P, N, and Mg concentrations, aboveground tissue P, N, and Mg accumulations, and yields in rice, corn, and soybeans, as well as soil P concentrations in corn and soybeans (Figure 5).
What Have We Learned?
For the moist-soil incubations, averaged across fertilizer sources, differences in water-soluble soil P concentration [from their initial concentrations] differed among soils over time and, averaged across soils, among fertilizer sources over time. In addition, averaged across time, Mehlich-3-extractable soil P concentration differences from their initial concentrations differed among fertilizer sources within soils. For the flooded-soil incubations, averaged across fertilizer sources, the change in soil pH from the initial differed among soils over time. In addition, averaged across soils, the change in water-soluble soil P concentration from the initial differed among fertilizer sources over time. Results from the plant-less soil incubation experiments show that many elemental soil concentrations, namely P, and soil pH differed among soil-fertilizer-P-source combinations over time. However, in general, the two struvite materials (ECST and CPST) behaved similarly to one another and behaved similarly to at least one other commonly used, commercially available fertilizer-P source without any large, unexpected outcomes across several different agricultural soils with varying soil textures. Struvite appears to relatively similar soil behavior as other commercially available fertilizer-P sources.
For the greenhouse study, no differences were identified in soybean plant properties. However, corn plant properties and corn and soybean elemental tissue concentrations differed (P < 0.05) among fertilizer amendments. Total corn dry matter from ECST did not differ from that from RP and TSP and was 1.2 times greater than that from CPST Belowground corn dry matter from ECST was 1.9 times greater than that from CPST, TSP, DAP, and the unamended control treatments Corn cob-plus-husk dry matter from CPST and ECST were similar. Corn belowground tissue P concentration from CPST did not differ from that from DAP, TSP, and MAP and was 1.4 times larger than that from ECST. Corn cob-plus-husk tissue P concentration from ECST was similar to that from MAP and DAP and was 1.2 times larger than that from CG. Corn stem-plus-leaves tissue P concentration from ECST differed from that from all other treatments and was 1.8 times greater than that from the unamended control. Struvite appears to be a viable, alternative fertilizer-P source.
For the 2019 rice field study, neither above- or belowground P, Mg, and N tissue concentrations differed among fertilizer sources. For the 2019 corn field study, neither above- or below-ground P, Mg, and N tissue concentrations differed among fertilizer sources. For the 2019 soybean field study, neither aboveground Mg or N nor belowground P, Mg, and N tissue concentrations differed among fertilizer sources. However, aboveground tissue P concentration was greater from ECST than from RP and the unamended control. For the 2020 rice field study, aboveground dry matter and aboveground dry matter P, N, Mg concentrations did not differ among fertilizer sources. However, rice grain yield from ECST was similar to that from CPST, but both were lower than from TSP. Aboveground Mg uptake from ECST was greater than that from CPST. For the 2020 corn field study, total aboveground, cob/husk, and stalk/leaves dry matter, aboveground P, N, and Mg concentrations and uptake, and belowground P and N concentrations did not differ among fertilizer sources. However, corn yield was larger from ECST than from all other fertilizer treatments, which did not differ among themselves. Belowground Mg concentration was numerically largest from ECST among all fertilizer-P treatments and was significantly greater than that from MAP, DAP, and TSP. For the 2020 soybean field study, neither aboveground dry matter nor yield differed among fertilizer sources. Similar to greenhouse results, struvite appears to be a viable, alternative fertilizer-P source for multiple agronomic crops, including rice, corn, and soybean.
Results from a greenhouse trial in 2021 showed that, across 13 sample dates over a nearly 4-month period evaluating the effects of fertilizer-P source on greenhouse gas fluxes and emissions from flood-irrigated rice, CO2 fluxes were unaffected by fertilizer-P source, but differed over time, while both CH4 and N2O fluxes differed among fertilizer-P treatments over time. Furthermore, results showed generally lower CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes from ECST than from the other fertilizer-P sources and numerically lower CO2 and N2O season-long emissions from ECST than from the other fertilizer-P sources, while CH4 emissions from ECST were numerically lower than from CPST in flood-irrigated rice. Electrochemically precipitated struvite may have potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from flood-irrigated rice.
Future Plans
Future plans include additional laboratory rainfall-runoff simulation experiments, greenhouse potted-plant trials, and field studies to evaluate the effects of real-wastewater-derived struvite compared to other commonly used, commercially available fertilizer-P sources on soil and plant response as well as greenhouse gas emissions.
Authors
Presenting author
Lauren F. Greenlee, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University
Corresponding author
Kristofor R. Brye, University Professor, University of Arkansas
Corresponding author email address
kbrye@uark.edu
Additional authors
Lauren F. Greenlee, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University
Niyi Omidire, Post-doctoral Research Associate, University of Arkansas
Tatum Simms, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Diego Della Lunga, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Ryder Anderson, former Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Shane Ylagan, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Machaela Morrison, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Chandler Arel, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas
Additional Information
Anderson, R., K.R. Brye, L. Greenlee, and E. Gbur. 2020. Chemically precipitated struvite dissolution dynamics over time in various soil textures. Agricultural Sciences 11:567-591.
Ylagan, S.R., K.R. Brye, and L. Greenlee. 2020. Corn and soybean response to wastewater-recovered and other common phosphorus fertilizers. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 3:e20086.
Anderson, R., K.R. Brye, L. Greenlee, T.L. Roberts, and E. Gbur. 2021. Wastewater-recovered struvite effects on total extractable phosphorus compared with other phosphorus sources. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 4:e20154.
Anderson, R., K.R. Brye, L. Kekedy-Nagy, L. Greenlee, E. Gbur, and T.L. Roberts. 2021. Total extractable phosphorus in flooded soil as affected by struvite and other fertilizer-P sources. Soil Science Society of America Journal 85:1157–1173.
Anderson, R., K.R. Brye, L. Kekedy-Nagy, L. Greenlee, E. Gbur, and T.L. Roberts. 2021. Electrochemically precipitated struvite effects on extractable nutrients compared to other fertilizer-P sources. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 4:e20183.
Omidire, N.S., K.R. Brye, T.L. Roberts, L. Kekedy-Nagy, L. Greenlee, E.E. Gbur, and L.A. Mozzoni. 2021. Evaluation of electrochemically precipitated struvite as a fertilizer-phosphorus source in flood-irrigated rice. Agronomy Journal 114:739–755. DOI: 10.1002/agj2.20917
Brye, K.R., and L.F. Greenlee. 2022. What is struvite and how is it used? Blog post for Soil Science Society of America’s “Soils Matter” blog (https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge funding from the USDA NIFA AFRI Water for Food Production Systems program, grant #2018-68011-28691 and funding from the National Science Foundation, grant #1739473.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Anaerobic Co-digestion of Agro-industrial Feedstocks to Supplement Biogas Produced from Livestock Manure
Purpose
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is commonly used in agriculture to break down livestock manure and produce a sustainable source of energy by producing biogas, which is predominantly methane. Digestion of livestock manure can be supplemented with additional agricultural or industrial organic waste, potentially adding sources of revenue to the farm or digestion facility through tipping fees and additional biogas production. However, quantifying the anticipated impact on digester performance and operation is challenging, particularly as some potential feedstocks have not been studied previously. Understanding how a feedstock might impact a digester’s performance is critical, as digester upsets can lead to loss of revenue or even digester failure.
What Did We Do?
We conducted a set of mono-digestion biomethane potential experiments of several feedstocks currently in use at an agricultural AD facility that accepts mixed industrial waste streams in addition to digesting beef manure. The mono-digestion studies used triplicate 1-L working volume batch digesters which ran for 30-38 days. We tested beef manure, off-spec starch from food manufacturing, slaughterhouse wastewater treatment sludge, waste activated sludge from a corn processing facility, soap stock from glycerin refining, filter press slurry from a food grade water treatment facility, and food waste dissolved air flotation sludge. We also included a treatment for the effluent from the digester’s ammonia recovery system and a mixture of all the feedstocks at the same time. A blank (inoculum only) and positive control (cellulose with inoculum) digester were included as controls. This set of studies is described here as Experiment 1 (E1).
We then conducted a set of co-digestion biomethane potential tests combining the manure pairwise with some of the industrial feedstocks, specifically starch, slaughterhouse waste, soap stock, and filter press slurry (Experiment 2 or E2). These combinations were made at two different ratios of the two feedstocks. The first set of treatments combined the manure and an additional substrate at a 1:1 ratio on a volatile solids basis. The second set of treatments combined the feedstocks proportional to the amounts commonly used in the AD facility providing the materials. A final treatment pairing starch and soap stock at a 3:1 ratio was also included. These co-digestion treatments were conducted in triplicate alongside a single mono-digestion treatment of each feedstock for comparison. Finally, we examined the potential synergistic or antagonistic impacts of these combinations on methane yield and production rate. This was done by comparing the measured methane production at each time point compared to the expected methane production if the feedstocks each contributed additively to the methane production.
What Have We Learned?
Figure 1 shows the cumulative specific biogas production on a volatile solids basis for the mono-digestion experiment (E1). Some feedstocks, such as soap stock and slaughterhouse waste, experienced a substantial lag phase at the beginning of the experiment, which may have been due to the high levels of lipids and proteins.
During the co-digestion experiment (E2), we observed both total yield and kinetic synergy in all treatments. Only two digesters (one of the replicates from the starch and manure proportional treatment and one from the starch and soap stock treatment) produced substantially less (<30%) methane than would be expected for an additive effect for more than one day. This effect can be seen in Figure 2, which shows the cumulative methane curves (corrected for inoculum contribution and averaged over the three replicates) of the mono-digestion digesters for manure and starch individually and the curves for both co-digestion treatments using both manure and starch. Figure 3 shows the same curves for the co-digestion of manure and slaughterhouse waste. These co-digestion treatments show that combining the feedstocks causes an increase in methane production at a faster rate. They also show that co-digestion alleviates the lag phase experienced by the slaughterhouse waste.
Future Plans
We plan to continue exploring the impact of co-digestion on methane yield and production rate by using additional combinations of these feedstocks and exploring the impact of macromolecular composition (percentages of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) on synergistic effects. These results will help inform current or future agricultural AD operators regarding the use of co-digestion feedstocks for optimal energy production and best practices in selecting new feedstocks for co-digestion.
Authors
Jennifer Rackliffe, Graduate Research Fellow, Purdue University
Corresponding author email address
Additional authors
Dr. Ji-Qin Ni, Professor, Purdue University; Dr. Nathan Mosier, Professor, Purdue University
Additional Information:
https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-NCR-SARE-GNC-Funded.pdf
Acknowledgements:
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under agreement number 2020-38640-31522 through the North Central Region SARE program under project number GNC21-334. USDA is an equal opportunity employer and service provider. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We also thank Purdue’s Institute for Climate, Environment and Sustainability for supporting the dissemination of this work. Finally, we acknowledge the assistance of Gabrielle Koel, Kyra Keenan, Amanda Pisarczyk, and Emily McGlothlin in conducting the laboratory work.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Impact of Swine Sludge Inclusion Rate on the Composting Process and Compost Quality
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to develop and analyze potential recipes for composting swine lagoon sludge. Composting is a simple treatment; it is widely adopted on farms, generates a stable value-added stackable product, and conserves organic matter and nutrients. All these benefits along with an affordable cost and lower environmental emissions make it a potential candidate for the management of lagoon sludge, a byproduct of swine operations in southeast US.
Sludge accumulation in lagoons can result in increased odor from lagoons, impact animal productivity, increase risk of environmental and social consequences and lead to operation non-compliance. Developing affordable sludge management alternatives is important because current practices (land application post dredging and dewatering using organic polymers and geo-bags) are not widely adoptable, cost-prohibitive and non-sustainable (Owusu-Twum and Sharara, 2020, Soil facts) and current farm nutrient management plans do not consider management of sludge nutrients.
What Did We Do?
We developed two recipes by mixing different sludge amounts with locally available low-cost amendments: poultry litter, Bermuda hay, yard debris and lagoon liquid. We composted these recipes in triplicates using 13-cubic feet in-vessel composters and recorded changes in temperatures, weight loss, volume, moisture, and organic matter. We also recorded greenhouse gases emitted from the piles at regular intervals. Forced, intermittent aeration was maintained during composting for replicates to ensure adequate oxygen supply and avoid prematurely drying mixtures. Finally, we analyzed the final compost to determine its suitability as a soil amendment.
We used the observations from the experiments to evaluate if proposed recipes resulted in successful compost and determine whether sludge inclusion significantly impacts composting process and product quality. We also analyzed which factors influence weight and organic matter losses in the piles and if the proposed recipes have comparable cumulative GHG and NH3 emissions to previous observations.
What Have We Learned?
We learned that sludge can be composted at both 10% and 20% inclusion rates using the above ingredients, as the process met time and temperatures for pathogen reduction (15A NCAC, 13B.1406) and the final product were stable (TMECC, US Composting council). For 100 lbs. of an initial wet mixture (60.8 to 61.4% moisture) both recipes experienced a total weight loss of 33.8-35.2 lbs. with 24.5 to 25.4 lbs. being lost as moisture and 8.8 to 9.7 lbs. lost as organic matter during the active phase of composting (31 days). Post-screening the recipes resulted in 42.3 to 48.6 lbs. of the stable final product (45 to 47% moisture) that can be directly land applied.
We learned that the composting process generated similar GHG, and ammonia emissions as reported in the previous studies however, most of the methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were generated in the later stages of composting, which can be potentially reduced by proper management of the composting process. Another observation was larger losses in ammonia in the earlier stages of composting which on reduction; using certain additives, changes in recipe or management practices, can result in optimal utilization of nitrogen, increase product value, and reduce environmental impacts.
Future Plans
We plan to further analyze the impact of the composting process on total nutrients and water-extractable fractions, this will provide information on land use rate and potential losses in runoffs. This information is critical for swine lagoon sludge-derived products due to the high concentration of P, Zn, and Cu in sludge as losses can lead to eutrophication in surface and marine waters and potential toxicity in soils.
Future work proposed also involves techno-economic evaluation of this process to determine the cost of treatment, and fair price of the final product. We also plan to conduct a cradle to gate life cycle assessment of the process to determine global warming potential, eutrophication, acidification, and particulate matter generation for farm and large-scale systems. These efforts will help guide further research to improve the technology and provide knowledge to stakeholders and producers on alternative sludge management options.
References
-
- Owusu-Twum, M. Y., & Sharara, M. A. (2020). Sludge management in anaerobic swine lagoons: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 271, 110949.
- Soil Facts, Karl A. Shaffer, Dianna Deanna L. Osmond, Sanjay B. Shah, Phosphorus Management for Land Application of Biosolids and Animal Waste, North Carolina Cooperative extension.
- Test Method for Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC), US composting council, https://www.compostingcouncil.org/store/ViewProduct.aspx?id=13656204, last visited: Feb. 2022.
- 15A NCAC 13B .1406, Operational requirements for Solid waste Compost facilities, http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2013%20-%20solid%20waste%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2013b%20.1406.pdf, last viewed: Feb 2022.
Authors
Piyush Patil, Ph.D. Candidate, Bio&Ag. Engineering, North Carolina State University
Corresponding author
Mahmoud Sharara, Asst. Professor and Extension Specialist, Bio&Ag. Eng. North Carolina State University
Corresponding author email address
Additional authors
Stephanie Kulesza, Assistant Professor, Crop & Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University
Sanjay Shah, Professor and Extension specialist, Bio&Ag. Eng. North Carolina State University
John Classen, Associate Professor, Bio&Ag. Eng. North Carolina State University
Additional Information
Publication is in progress currently so best resource is the corresponding author.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support from Joseph Stuckey and Chris Hopkins (Poultry, livestock, and animal waste management facility, NCSU).
Funding sources
Bioenergy Research Initiative (BRI) – Contract No #17-072-4015, North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) – Critical Agricultural Research and Extension (CARE) – Award No. 2019-68008-29894, U.S. Department of Agriculture
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
A Decision-Support Tool for The Design and Evaluation of Manure Management and Nutrient Reuse in Dairy and Swine Farm Facilities
Purpose
The decision-support tool (DST) being developed facilitates the selection of manure treatment technology based on farm needs and nutrient balance requirements. A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach is used to determine and allocate among sources the whole-farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental impact of different manure management systems (MMS) to facilitate decision-making. The purpose of the tool is to help users identify the suite of technologies that could be used, given the farm’s unique set of preferences and constraints. The tool asks for an initial set of farm details and these values are cross-checked with predefined conditions before starting the simulation. This tool helps in the rapid quantification and assessment of treatment technology feasibility, GHG emissions, environmental, and economic impacts during the manure management decision-making process (Fig. 1). The decision algorithm operates based on user input for weightage priorities of criteria and sub-criteria related to environmental, economic, and technical components.
What Did We Do?
The DST is a Microsoft Excel-based tool with precalculated mass balance for a selected number of MMS alternatives representing current and emerging treatment technologies and practices. The MMS considered for the tool includes various handling systems, aerobic and anaerobic treatment systems, solid-liquid separation techniques, chemical processing units, etc. Modules were developed based on mass and energy balances, equipment capital & operating costs, unit process, and technology performance, respectively. The tool utilizes data specific to the country/region/farm where feasible and default values to calculate the overall economic and environmental performance of different MMS, providing results unitized per animal/day or per year.
Then, an LCA approach is used to evaluate the potential environmental footprints of each MMS considered. A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is comprised of detailed quantification of inputs and outputs of material flows in a specific treatment and/or conversion process. At the output level, it also defines and quantifies the main product, co-products, and emissions. The major focus on the treatment methods is quantifying the raw materials (manure, wash-water, bedding, etc.) that are to be handled in each MMS, thereby characterizing the properties of effluents (nutrients, gas emissions, etc.). The results include carbon, energy, water, land, nitrogen, and phosphorus footprints along with the effluent nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium concentrations.
What Have We Learned?
Systematic selection of appropriate technology can provide environmental and economic benefits. Manure management systems vary in their design, due to individual farm settings, geography, and end-use applications of manure. However, the benefits of technological advancements in MMS provide manure management efficiencies and co-production of valuable products such as recycled water, fiber, sand bedding, and nutrient-rich bio-solids, among others. The handling efficiencies and environmental benefits provided by manure treatment technologies come with additional costs, however, so the tradeoffs between environmental benefits and implementation costs also need evaluation.
Future Plans
The next steps are to finalize the dairy module. We are refining the tool’s user interface and demonstrating to stakeholders to gather information regarding key assumptions, outputs, and the functionality of the tool. Further, we also plan to complete the swine module.
Authors
Sudharsan Varma Vempalli, Research Associate, University of Arkansas
Corresponding author email address
Additional authors
Sudharsan Varma Vempalli, Research Associate, University of Arkansas
Erin Scott, PhD Graduate Assistant, University of Arkansas
Jacob Allen Hickman, Project Staff, University of Arkansas
Timothy Canter, Extension Specialist, University of Missouri
Richard Stowell, Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Teng-Teeh Lim, Extension Professor, University of Missouri
Lauren Greenlee, Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania State University
Jennie Popp, Professor, University of Arkansas
Greg Thoma, Professor, University of Arkansas
Additional Information
Detailed economic impacts and tradeoffs expected with the implementation of certain MMS related to this tool is presented during the conference by Erin Scott et al., on the topic “Evaluating Costs and Benefits of Manure Management Systems for a Decision-Support Tool”.
Varma, V.S., Parajuli, R., Scott, E., Canter, T., Lim, T.T., Popp, J. and Thoma, G., 2021. Dairy and swine manure management–Challenges and perspectives for sustainable treatment technology. Science of The Total Environment, 778, p.146319. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721013875
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant award (# 2018-68011-28691). We would also like to thank our full project team and outside experts for their guidance on this project.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Evaluating Costs and Benefits of Manure Management Systems for a Decision-Support Tool
Purpose
The purpose of the decision-support tool is to help livestock producers understand the costs of implementing new technology and the potential benefits associated with nutrient and water recovery, and how these compare across systems. Livestock agriculture is under increased scrutiny to better manage manure and mitigate negative impacts on the environment. At the same time, the nutrients and water present in manure management systems hold potential economic value as crop fertilizer and irrigation water. While technologies are available that allow for recovery and/or recycling of solids, nutrients and water, appropriate decision-support tools are needed to help farmers evaluate the practicality, costs, and benefits of implementing these systems on their unique farms.
What Did We Do?
In designing and refining the tool, we consider which economic components are important in driving the decision algorithm, as well as what is the most valuable economic output information for the user. We developed several “scenarios” defined by the unit processes used in the capture, treatment, storage, and usage of dairy manure. The costs and benefits related to each unit process were evaluated and aggregated for each scenario. Unit processes included flush/scrape activities, reception pit, sand recovery, solids separation, anaerobic digestion, composting, pond/lagoon storage, and tanker/drag hose land application.
Economic information was gathered from published literature, government documents, extension tools, and communication with academic, industry, and extension experts. We evaluated capital costs as an annual capital recovery value; operational costs including labor, energy, and repair and maintenance; cost savings resulting from sand/organic bedding and water reuse; fertilizer value of manure for use on-farm; revenue potential including the sale of treated manure nutrients and energy from anaerobic digestion; and the combined net costs or net benefits. Economic results are integrated into the multi-criteria decision algorithm. Results also elucidate economic tradeoffs across manure management systems (MMS), which can be used by farmers to assist in their decision-making.
What Have We Learned?
Economics is often about evaluating trade-offs between different choices or decisions. When evaluating results from the tool, we see that an increase in capital spending may lead to decreases in operational costs relative to capital costs, depending on farm size. This is due to a general reduction in labor and fuel costs associated with automated or additional manure treatment (e.g. increased spending on an MMS). For example, additional manure treatment can reduce land application expenses and increase cost savings from recovered sand or organic bedding. However, this larger capital outlay may or may not be possible based on the farm’s financial circumstances.
Future Plans
The next steps are to complete the economic analyses of a total of 60 MMS and integrate these into the decision-support tool. We plan to demonstrate this tool to extension specialists and producers to refine the user interface, key assumptions, functioning of the decision algorithm, and the usability of the results.
Authors
Erin E. Scott, PhD Graduate Assistant, University of Arkansas
Corresponding author email address
Additional authors
Sudharsan Varma Vempalli, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Arkansas
Jacob Hickman, Program Coordinator, University of Arkansas
Jennie Popp, Professor, University of Arkansas
Richard Stowell, Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Teng Lim, Extension Professor, University of Missouri
Greg Thoma, Professor, University of Arkansas
Lauren Greenlee, Associate Professor, Penn State University
Additional Information
Related presentation during this session by Varma et al., titled “A Decision-Support Tool for The Design and Evaluation of Manure Management and Nutrient Reuse in Dairy and Swine Farm Facilities”.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge funding support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant award (# 2018-68011-28691). We would also like to thank our full project team and outside experts for their guidance on this project.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Advances in Nutrient Recovery Technology: Approaches to Controlling Recovered Product Chemistry
Purpose
Our recent work has focused on developing approaches to nutrient management and recovery, with a particular focus on using electrochemical and membrane technologies to control the chemistry of the recovered nutrient products. We are interested in being able to recover both ammonia and phosphate, and our goal is to create recycled fertilizer products that can allow the agricultural community to control the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in the recycled fertilizer products and to control whether those fertilizer products are in liquid form or in solid form. With the electrochemical technology focus, we see benefits that include no required chemical dosing, scalable reactor design, and the ability to couple to renewable energy sources. Our engineering research on nutrient recovery technology is conducted within a team that includes life cycle assessment, economic analysis, agronomic greenhouse and row crop studies, agricultural sector outreach, and the development of a decision-support tool to help farmers understand technology options for water and nutrient management.
What Did We Do?
We have investigated an electrochemical cell design that includes a magnesium metal anode and a stainless-steel cathode. The corrosion of the magnesium anode results in the release of magnesium cations into solution, and these magnesium cations promote the precipitation of struvite, otherwise known as magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate (Figure 1). We have investigated how operating conditions of the electrochemical cell, including voltage, residence time, batch vs flow, and membrane separation of the two electrodes, affect nutrient recovery efficiency and the overall chemistry of the recovered precipitate. Our studies have included control experiments on synthetic wastewater compositions relevant to hog and dairy farm wastewaters, while we have also conducted laboratory-scale studies on natural wastewater samples from both agricultural and municipal sources. To demonstrate initial scale-up of an electrochemical reactor, we have designed a bench-scale reactor (Figure 2) that is capable of producing kilogram-level batches of struvite.
What Have We Learned?
The production of struvite from an electrochemical reactor can be controlled by the applied voltage and residence time of the wastewater in the reactor. Changes in reactor design, including the inclusion of a membrane to separate the anode and cathode and operation in batch vs flow mode, can change the composition of the struvite precipitate and can cause a change in the balance of struvite formed vs hydrogen gas formed from the electrochemical cell. We are also able to produce K-struvite, a potassium-based alternative to conventional struvite, that includes potassium rather than ammonium, and the production of K-struvite allows the recovery of the phosphate in a particulate fertilizer while also allowing the separation and recovery of ammonia in a separate liquid stream. We have learned that one of the primary challenges to the electrochemical reactor operation is fouling of the electrodes by the struvite precipitate (Figure 2), and we have developed a dynamic voltage control approach that enables minimal electrode fouling and therefore increases struvite recovery and decreases energy consumption. Our energy consumption values are similar to that of chemical precipitation processes that have been developed for nutrient recovery.
Future Plans
Future plans include further development and optimization of the dynamic voltage control approach to electrochemical reactor operation, which will allow us to control electrode fouling. We also plan to continue working with natural wastewater samples and further develop flow cell reactor design to understand how to translate our batch reactor studies to a flow reactor environment. Studies on K-struvite will focus on understanding the kinetics of K-struvite precipitation and the competing reactions (e.g., calcium precipitation and struvite precipitation) that might impact K-struvite recovery.
Authors
Lauren F. Greenlee, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University
Corresponding author email address
greenlee@psu.edu
Additional authors
Laszlo Kekedy-Nagy, Postdoctoral Fellow, Concordia University
Ruhi Sultana, Graduate Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University
Amir Akbari, Graduate Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University
Ivy Wu, Graduate Research Assistant, Colorado School of Mines
Andrew Herring, Professor, Colorado School of Mines
Additional Information
-
- Kekedy-Nagy, Z. Anari, M. Abolhassani, B.G. Pollet, L.F. Greenlee. Electrochemical Nutrient Removal from Natural Wastewater Sources and its Impact on Water Quality. Water Research (2022), 210, 118001, DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.118001.
- Kékedy-Nagy, M. Abolhassani, R. Sultana, Z. Anari, K.R. Brye, B.G. Pollet, L. F. Greenlee. The Effect of Anode Degradation on Energy Demand and Production Efficiency of Electrochemically Precipitated Struvite, Journal of Applied Electrochemistry (2021), DOI: 0.1007/s10800-021-01637-y.
- Kékedy-Nagy, M. Abolhassani, S.I. Perez Bakovic, J.P. Moore II, B.G. Pollet, L.F. Greenlee. Electroless Production of Fertilizer (Struvite) and Hydrogen from Synthetic Agricultural Wastewaters, Journal of the American Chemical Society (2020), 142(44), 18844-18858. DOI: /10.1021/jacs.0c07916.
- Wu, A. Teymouri, R. Park, L.F. Greenlee, and A.M. Herring. Simultaneous Electrochemical Nutrient Recovery and Hydrogen Generation from Model Wastewater Using a Sacrificial Magnesium Anode, Journal of the Electrochemical Society (2019), 166(16), E576-E583. DOI: 10.1149/2.0561916jes.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge funding from the USDA NIFA AFRI Water for Food Production Systems program, grant #2018-68011-28691 and funding from the National Science Foundation, grant #1739473.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Manure Analysis Proficiency Program: Trends in laboratory manure testing methods
Purpose
The Manure Analysis Proficiency (MAP) Program, administered by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, began in the mid-1990s to assist US Midwest analytical laboratories to verify the accuracy (including both bias and precision) of laboratory manure analyses. In 2003, the program expanded nationally and continues today. With an annual enrollment of 60 to 74 labs each year over the past two decades and the analysis of 120 manure proficiency samples of 12 test parameters, trends in laboratory methods and performance have arisen. The presentation will cover inter-laboratory bias and precision of the primary manure analysis parameters: total solid content, nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), phosphorus and potassium.
What Did We Do?
The MAP Program was designed to follow international standards under the ISO/IEC 17025 general requirements for the coordination of a proficiency testing program. This includes development and use of standard protocols for the preparation of manure proficiency testing (PT) samples, the use of blind sample replicates for the assessment of intra-lab precision, and the implementation of robust statistical measures for the assessment of data for the evaluation of both laboratory accuracy (bias) and precision.
Since 2002, the MAP program has sent PT samples to laboratories twice per year. Each cycle includes three manure types with each type having three replicates (for a total of nine manure samples). The PT samples are selected based on source animal type and a range of total solids (2-90%). Samples are thoroughly ground and homogenized and then packaged and frozen prior to overnight shipping to program participants. Each participating laboratory completes the required tests and sends back their results along with their analytical methods used to the MAP program. With the results tabulated from all laboratories each cycle, method bias is assessed based on the inter-lab (or between lab) median and 95% confidence limits (using the median absolute deviation). Precision is assessed based on the intra-lab (or within lab) relative standard deviation of PT sample replicates. Participating labs are provided graphical reports illustrating method performance as well as lab bias and precision.
One-hundred twenty-nine manure PT samples from dairy, beef, swine, and poultry operations have been evaluated since 2002 and each sample was analyzed by 60 to 74 labs participating in the MAP program (depending on the year). The samples ranged from 3.1 to 91% total solids, 0.02 to 2.71% total nitrogen, and 0.05 to 0.48% total phosphorus. With this wide range of manure types and conditions, plus the ability to pair data with manure analysis methods and accuracy ratings, we can evaluate the efficacy of certain methods and discuss their pros and cons.
What Have We Learned?
MAP program results for nitrogen have shown the dry combustion method to be unsuitable for manure samples with total solid content less than 10%. Results for four different ammonia methods indicate generally good agreement between methods in the median concentrations, but methods varied in precision. Across samples, intra-laboratory precision decreased with decreasing analyte concentration, often associated with decreased manure total solid content. In general, total solids, phosphorus and potassium methods were of high precision with intra-lab precision < 5%. Manure test parameters exhibiting poor intra-lab precision were EC, pH, and NO3-N.
Future Plans
The MAP program continues to operate under the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in partnership with Central Lakes College in Brainerd, MN. The team is currently working with the USDA-NRCS (who provided funding), the University of Minnesota, and laboratory directors of public and private laboratories to update the “Recommended Methods of Manure Analysis” manual which is expected to be released and printed in 2022.
Authors
Robert Miller, Technical Director, Agricultural Laboratory Proficiency Program
Corresponding author email address
rmiller@soiltesting.us
Additional author
Jerry Floren, MAP Program Director (retired), Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Additional Information
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/pesticide-fertilizer/certified-testing-laboratories-manure-soil
Acknowledgements
Larry Gunderson at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Trends in Manure Sample Data
Purpose
Most manure book values used today from the MidWest Plan Service (MWPS) and American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) were derived from manure samples prior to 2003. To update these manure test values, the University of Minnesota in partnership with the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, is working to build a dynamic manure test database called ManureDB. During this database construction, the University of Minnesota collected manure data spanning the last decade from five labs across the country. Trends, similarities, and challenges arose when comparing these samples. Having current manure test numbers will assist in more accurate nutrient management planning, manure storage design, manure land application, and serve agricultural modeling purposes.
What Did We Do?
We recruited five laboratories for this preliminary study who shared some of their manure sample data between 2012-2021, which represented over 100,000 manure samples. We looked at what species, manure types (liquid/solid), labels, and units we had to work with between the datasets to make them comparable. Once all the samples were converted into either pounds of nutrient/ton for solid manure or pounds of nutrient/1000 gallons for liquid manure, we took the medians of total nitrogen, ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), phosphate (P2O5), and potassium oxide (K2O) analyses from those samples and compared them to the MWPS and ASABE manure nutrient values.
What Have We Learned?
There is no standardization of laboratory submission forms for manure samples. The majority of samples have minimal descriptions beyond species of animal and little is known about storage types. With that said, we can still detect some general NPK trends for the beef, dairy, swine, poultry manure collected from the five laboratories in the last decade, compared to the published book values. For liquid manure, the K2O levels generally increased in both the swine and poultry liquid manure samples. For the solid swine manure and solid beef manure, total N, P2O5, and K2O levels all increased compared to the published book values. The solid dairy manure increased in P2O5 and K2O levels, and the solid poultry manure increased in total N and K2O. See Figure 1 for the general trends in liquid and solid manure for swine, dairy, beef, and poultry.
Table 1. Manure sample trends 2012-2021 compared to MWPS/ASABE manure book values. (+) = trending higher, (o) = no change/conflicting samples, (-) = trending lower
| Liquid | Total N | NH4–N | P2O5 | K2O |
| Swine | o | o | – | + |
| Dairy | – | o | – | o |
| Beef | o | o | o | o |
| Poultry | o | + | – | + |
| Solid | Total N | NH4–N | P2O5 | K2O |
| Swine | + | o | + | + |
| Dairy | o | o | + | + |
| Beef | + | – | + | + |
| Poultry | + | o | o | + |
Future Plans
The initial data gives us a framework to standardize fields for the future incoming samples (location, manure type, agitation, species, bedding, storage type, and analytical method) along with creating a unit conversion mechanism for data uploads. We plan to recruit more laboratories to participate in the ManureDB project and acquire more sample datasets. We will compare and analyze this data as it becomes available, especially more detailed data for each species. We will be designing ManureDB with statistical and data visualization features for future public use.
Authors
Nancy L. Bohl Bormann, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota
Corresponding author email address
Additional authors
Melissa L. Wilson, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
Erin L. Cortus, Associate Professor and Extension Engineer, University of Minnesota
Kevin Janni, Extension Engineer, University of Minnesota
Larry Gunderson, Pesticide & Fertilizer Management, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Tom Prather, Senior Software Developer, University of Minnesota
Kevin Silverstein, Scientific Lead RIS Informatics Analyst, University of Minnesota
Additional Information
ManureDB website: http://manuredb.umn.edu/ (coming soon!)
Twitter: @ManureProf, @nlbb
Lab websites:
https://wilsonlab.cfans.umn.edu/
https://bbe.umn.edu/people/erin-cortus
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program [grant no. 2020-67021-32465] from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Dynamic manure “book values” through the U.S. National Manure Database
Purpose
Most manure composition data summaries available in the U.S. are outdated because genetics, feed rations, manure handling, and housing practices have evolved over the past two decades. This means that the community that uses this manure data, such as farmers developing manure management plans, engineers designing manure storages, state and federal regulators establishing best management practices for manure land application, or researchers modeling nutrient cycling and gas emissions, is using outdated information. Thousands of manure samples, however, are analyzed every year by university and commercial labs across the country and could provide an up-to-date source of information. Until recently, there has been no mechanism for combining and summarizing this valuable data in a way that makes the results accessible to the broader community of users. Together with the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute (MSI) and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) – who runs the only manure analysis proficiency program in the United States – researchers at the University of Minnesota are developing a national database for manure test results. The database, or ManureDB, will meet FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) to ensure the data is shared and used by a wide audience.
What Did We Do?
The project team brought together a stakeholder group involved with manure management, regulation, lab analysis, and research to help us develop standards and best practices for data management. The stakeholder team helped inform the creation of several deliverables to date, including a schema and framework for the database, as well as a data use agreement template. The MSI is currently working on the development of the public-facing website that will interface with the database as well as a data cleaning tool to help standardize the data as it is uploaded.
What Have We Learned?
The stakeholder group identified that data privacy is a top priority. Customer data (i.e., name and address) will be removed, though state and zip codes will remain with the data (full zip codes will not be shared publicly). We also found that there is a stark difference between what data the full stakeholder team would like to see (i.e., manure data for livestock facilities by county or watershed code for different livestock species and manure storage types) versus what commercial laboratories collect (i.e. livestock species and sometimes the address of the livestock facility, but more often the address of the person requesting the tests). Standardizing manure submission forms in the future will potentially help ensure that information collected for each sample is consistent. Future educational efforts for those advising farmers on manure testing will be needed to ensure the forms are filled out accurately instead of being left blank.
Future Plans
This project is ongoing. We are in the process of working with our current participating labs to sign data use agreements and then to clean and upload data. New labs will be recruited throughout the project period. A public-facing dashboard will be created to search through aggregate data. We are working with our stakeholder groups to design websites for other potential use cases, including a site to download cleaned data for research purposes and potentially a site for labs to be able to benchmark their samples against labs from within and outside of their regions.
Authors
Melissa L. Wilson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Minnesota
Corresponding author email address
mlw@umn.edu
Additional authors
Erin L. Cortus, Associate Professor and Extension Engineer, University of Minnesota
Nancy L. Bohl Bormann, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Minnesota
Kevin Janni, Extension Engineer, University of Minnesota
Larry Gunderson, Pesticide & Fertilizer Management, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Tom Prather, Senior Software Developer, University of Minnesota
Kevin Silverstein, Scientific Lead RIS Informatics Analyst, University of Minnesota
Additional Information
Manuredb.umn.edu (coming soon)
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program [grant no. 2020-67021-32465] from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. We’d also like to thank our stakeholders for their time commitment.
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.