The “Circular Bioeconomy” seems to be everywhere these days. The American Society of Biological and Agricultural Engineers (ASABE) created a Circular Bioeconomy Systems Institute. The Water Environment Federation (WEF) sponsored a Circular Water Economy Summit. I’m on an email list called “In the Loop with EPA: Circular Economy Updates”. Even my old alma mater, the University of Arkansas, announced a position for an Assistant Professor in Engineering for the Circular Economy.
In the midst of all this, I am sensing a backlash from my colleagues. There is a rising attitude of, “isn’t this just a new name for what we’ve been doing all along?” True, but the Circular Bioeconomy is a bona fide environmental concept, one rooted in a process evolving for at least four and a half billion years on planet earth – Nature itself. We Waste to Worth folks should embrace the Circular Bioeconomy. We should proudly say, “This is what I do.”
What Did We Do?
So, what is the Circular Bioeconomy?
Here lies the problem. The terms “circular economy” and “bioeconomy” are interpreted by different groups to mean different things, leading to confusion and cynicism. Perhaps the clearest way to define the Circular Bioeconomy is to state what it is not. A circular bioeconomy is not a linear “take-make-waste” economy based on extraction of limited resources. The Circular Bioeconomy is an aspiration, a transition to a nature-based economy centered on sustainability.
What Have We Learned?
How can we explain what we do in the Circular Bioeconomy to the public we serve?
Most of the people attending this conference already work in “the bioeconomy” — either in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, or natural resource conservation. The place to start is with circularity. The universe you and I inhabit works in cycles. The second law of thermodynamics is “water flows downhill.” The law of nature is “energy flows and materials circulate.”
Translating this simple concept can get complicated quickly. There are numerous qualitative descriptors for various aspects of circularity, and an attempt to quantify circularity is in its infancy.
Future Plans
So, take a step back and focus on the central truth. What is true for the water cycle, is true for nutrient cycles, is true for agriculture, is true for the power grid, and these are all interconnected.
Plants use solar energy and transpire water vapor to the atmosphere. Energy is released through condensation. Rain falls on the earth and rivers flow to the sea. Water vapor travels on prevailing winds…
Soil microorganisms use energy contained in organic matter for growth. Microorganisms release nutrients for crops to grow. Crops are eaten by livestock and poultry. Animals of all species produce manure rich in organic matter and nutrients…
round and round …
sustainably.
Presenting and Corresponding author
Douglas W. Hamilton, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor and Waste Management Specialist, Oklahoma State University, dhamilt@okstate.edu
Poultry production is the number one agricultural enterprise in value of production for South Carolina with approximately 280,000,000 birds in inventory. Poultry litter as a by-product of poultry production is a low-cost fertilizer that can provide nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and micronutrients for forage systems. Poultry litter can improve soil fertility and health by adding organic matter and enhancing water infiltration and soil fertility over time on more than 300,000 acres of forages in South Carolina.
Yet, despite purported benefits to the pasture system and use as a fertilizer to improve forage, questions remain for livestock producers looking to apply poultry litter to their pastures. There is a lack of information about the availability, cost, and quality of litter. With the increase in interest in poultry litter applications as a climate-smart agricultural practice or to participate in conservation programs, this work is expected to assist regional producers in understanding poultry litter attributes and inform purchasing decisions.
What Did We Do?
Using a dataset of 68 producers utilizing poultry litter and the corresponding transactions, we characterize the availability and market for poultry litter in South Carolina. Data on transactions, including prices paid, delivery date, application rate, and county-level location of litter, forms the basis for analysis. Also, we use sample analysis results to compare nutrient price with commercial fertilizer nutrient values.
What Have We Learned?
Of the 68 producers reporting data, 45 reported detailed price, location and application information. An exploration of prices paid per ton of litter across the state suggests differences based on location (Table 1). Based on the results of a t-test, higher prices are observed for the mid-state compared to the upstate (statistically significant at 6% level for two tail t-test). Differences in prices observed by season appear but are not statistically significantly different based on ANOVA tests.
Table 1: Average price per ton of litter based on region of the farm and season applied.
Midstate (n=20)
Upstate (n=25)
Average
Fall
25.55
22.32
23.30
Spring
32.13
22.55
28.02
Summer
22.31
—
22.31
Winter
—
19.33
19.33
Average
27.37
22.02
24.40
Other findings from the data could be helpful to design outreach and assist producers looking to purchase litter for their operation. Some other interesting information includes the type of litter: broiler, layer, turkey, and other sources. Also, of the producers in the sample, 19 were unable to find litter with the majority of producers located in the Upstate area (74%).
Next, for the approximately 40 samples that included nutrient analysis, a summary of mean and standard deviation of pounds per ton of ammonium N, organic N, P205 and K20 are given in Table 2. From prices reported by each producer, the cost per pound of nutrient is also calculated. From here, average fertilizer and nutrient prices were gathered for South Carolina and displayed in Table 3. Similar costs can be seen when comparing the average cost per pound for each nutrient (Table 2) to the average price per pound for commercial fertilizers (Table 3). For example, the average cost of a pound of ammonium N from the poultry litter sources was $2.46/lb and $2.45/lb from commercial sources.
Table 2: Summary statistics of nutrient analysis from 40 samples.
Nutrients
Ammonium N (lbs./ton)
Organic N (lbs./ton)
P205 (lbs./ton)
K20 (lbs./ton)
n
41
40
42
42
mean
10.04
50.21
47.15
51.65
std dev
3.93
15.09
20.41
21.04
$/#
$2.46
$0.49
$0.52
$0.48
Table 3: Average fertilizer prices for South Carolina by fertilizer type and cost per pound for nutrients N, P, K.
South Carolina Average Fertilizer Prices FY2024
DAP (18%-46%-0%)
Urea (46%)
10-10-10
Potash (60%)
Mean
$881.00
$504.45
$489.00
$482.45
Std. Dev.
$8.02
$13.30
$5.72
$13.05
N ($/#)
$2.45
$0.55
$2.45
$0.00
P ($/#)
$0.96
$0.00
$2.45
$0.00
K ($/#)
$0.00
$0.00
$2.45
$0.40
Source: South Carolina Crop Production Report (Monthly), Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
Future Plans
Findings and data from this analysis will first be prepared for outreach and dissemination efforts to producers across the state. Information will also be summarized for current enrollees in the grant program. Finally, given that this data was collected as part of a five-year study, data will be collected in subsequent years. Ultimately, a hedonic analysis of poultry litter attributes to help understand differences in price as a result of nutrient attributes, storage conditions, type, and trucking could inform producer sourcing of litter and prices paid.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Nathan B. Smith, Extension Economist, Clemson University, nathan5@clemson.edu
Additional authors
Anastasia W. Thayer, Assistant Professor, Clemson University; Matthew Fischer, Extension Associate, Clemson University; Maggie Miller, Extension Associate, Clemson University.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under agreement number NR2338750004G049.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
A new approach for recovering nutrients and value-added products from waste is to search for a synergistic effect by combining two or more wastes. This work improved the recovery of phosphorus and proteins/amino acids abundant in swine manure by adding a second waste or product rich in sugars, such as molasses, fruit waste, or lactose waste. The second waste rich in sugars acted as a natural acid generator that replaced purchased acids and lowered the overall recovery cost.
What Did We Do?
A new approach was developed to separate and recover concentrated phosphorus and proteins from animal waste (Vanotti and Szogi, 2019). It was improved by adding a second waste or product containing sugars, such as molasses and fruit waste (Vanotti et al., 2020). They could be used as a natural acid precursor that replaces purchased acids and lowers the overall cost of phosphorus and protein recovery. In this study, the two model wastes were swine manure solids (source of extractable phosphorus and proteins) and peach waste (source of acid precursors).
What Have We Learned?
On a dry-weight basis, the swine manure solids contained high amounts of proteins (15.2%) and phosphorus (2.9%) available for extraction. It was shown that waste peaches, an abundant waste in the Southeastern USA with no cost except transportation, contain about 8% total sugars and can be used as an acid precursor to effectively extract phosphorus and proteins from swine manure (waste peaches were peaches that were too soft, had bad spots, or did otherwise not meet the grade at the Processing Plant for sale as fresh fruit). The waste peaches (Brix 7.7 deg) were added to the manure, and the combo received rapid fermentation (24-h) after adding an inoculum (Vanotti et al., 2020). Adding fruit waste to the manure and rapid fermentation produced abundant natural acids – lactic acid, citric acid, and malic acid – that effectively solubilized the phosphorus in the manure (Fig. 1). Further, the peach fermentation did not adversely affect the protein recovery from the manure. A pH of about five or less is a valuable target to optimize the phosphorus and protein recovery from manure. The target was successfully met using a variety of natural acid precursors (fructose, molasses, peaches, lactose). The phosphorus was precipitated with calcium or magnesium compounds, obtaining concentrated phosphate products with > 90% plant-available phosphorus. The proteins/amino acids in the manure were quantitatively recovered. Other fruits, vegetables, and food waste products also contain significant amounts of sugar, so this is not limited to only wasted peaches. It is contemplated that other sugar-containing agricultural by-products could be used in this process for the same purpose with minor adjustments for amounts depending on the sugar concentration and initial pH of the fruit or vegetable.
Fig. 1. Adding an acid precursor to the manure and rapid fermentation increased acidity and the phosphorus recovery from the manure, up to a plateau recovery (Vanotti et al., 2023).
Future Plans
Research will be presented showing consistent phosphorus extraction results obtained with swine manure and sugar beet molasses as the acid precursor, and with dairy manure and lactose waste as the acid precursor. USDA-ARS seeks a commercial partner to bring this technology to market. For more information on commercialization, contact: Mrs. Tanaga Boozer, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA-ARS, OTT Southeast Area, tanaga.boozer@usda.gov
Vanotti, M.B, Szogi, A.A., and Brigman, P.W. USDA-ARS, Florence, SC
Moral, R. Miguel Hernandez University, Orihuela, Spain
Additional Information
Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A. 2019. Extraction of amino acids and phosphorus from biological materials. US Patent 10,150,711. US Patent & Trademark Office.
Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A., Moral, R. 2020. Extraction of amino acids and phosphorus from biological materials using sugars (acid precursors). US Patent 10,710,937. US Patent & Trademark Office.
Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., Moral, R., & Brigman, W. 2023 (November). Recovery of Value-Added Products from Swine Manure and Waste Peaches. In National Conference on Next-Generation Sustainable Technologies for Small-Scale Producers (NGST 2022) (pp. 38-42). Atlantis Press.
Acknowledgements
This research was part of USDA-ARS National Program 212, ARS Project 6082-12630-001-00D. Support by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Japan, through ARS Project 58-6082-7-006-F, is also acknowledged. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the 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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This research aims to determine the effectiveness of cover crops (CCs) to improving nutrient uptake and soil health in a corn silage-cover crop system. Nutrient accumulation in soils from years of dairy manure or compost applications has increased the level of soil nutrients, creating environmental concerns. The study tests the feasibility and performance of different management strategies using CCs to mine nutrients from agricultural soils and reduce the negative environmental impact of manure or compost application.
What Did We Do?
In one study, two CC mixes (low height or tall) were inter-seeded (dual cropping) with corn silage at two different dates, near the corn planting date and later in the vegetative development. Two post-harvesting management strategies were used by either keeping the CC during the next season or terminating the CC in the spring, before the next corn silage planting. The control had no CC, only the corn silage. In an additional study, a fall CC mix was planted after corn silage harvest (double cropping). Different management strategies were used, including harvesting the CC, simulated grazing, green manuring the CC, and control with no CC. Both studies received the same amount of dairy manure compost annually, plus synthetic fertilizers. All other parameters, including corn planting and harvesting times and irrigation, were the same for both studies and all treatments. Weed management was adjusted using mowing as a method on plots with CCs, and herbicide on plots with no CCs.
What Have We Learned?
This study will continue for two more years. The first year of data collection was 2021. The inter-seeding (dual cropping) study results show very few significant differences in soil analysis comparing CC treatments. There were, however, statistically significant differences between some treatments and the control. This situation indicates that having an actively growing CC influences the soil nutrients and nutrient uptake compared to not having any CC when growing corn silage. The short CC mixes, either planted near the corn planting date or later during the corn vegetative development, tend to have the highest increase in soil OM, especially under reduced or no-till conditions, and reducing soil nitrates, ammonium, and total nitrogen. This can be explained by the better growth of the low mixes that continued growing after the corn silage harvest, compared with the high mixes that were harvested with the corn and rarely regrew after harvesting. CC establishment and growth was a challenge each year due to the corn silage shade. The low CC mix was the only one that was not terminated and continued to grow until after planting the corn silage the following spring. This treatment has proven challenging due to the aggressive CC regrowth and low growth of the corn with the CC competition, even when using strip tillage.
In most years, the previous season CC needed to be terminated to allow for the corn to grow and to reduce weed pressure before replanting the CC again. Soil phosphorous (P) did not show significant differences across treatments and control on the surface level. Phosphorus levels kept increasing during the study, indicating that the application rate far exceeded the crop uptake. In the case of nitrogen, even when CC showed increased nitrogen (N) uptake for all N species, nitrates have accumulated in soils, especially at lower depths, indicating leaching processes in all treatments and much more in the control (Figure 1). Cover crops can uptake some of the excess nitrogen, especially on the soil top layer, reducing the impact of N leaching (Figure 2). Under nutrient overapplication conditions, CCs that have not developed to their full potential cannot handle all the nutrients’ load, thus leaching can still occur. Overall, inter-seeding CC may have a positive impact on nutrient management when managed properly. This positive effect may be complex to quantify when comparing different CC practices with lower-than-ideal CC growth and under nutrient-overapplication conditions.
The second trial with double cropping with a single fall CC mix after harvesting the corn silage was more successful in most years in growing much more CC mass than the inter-seeding CC. The greatest differential was present only for a short period in spring before harvesting or terminating the CC for corn planting. Weed management during the corn growing season was simplified in the double (fall) cropping system. Results on the impact of fall CC and the different treatments compared to the control have not been fully analyzed.
Figure 1. Soil NO3-N estimated marginal means at 0-30 cm, 30-60 cm, 60-90 cm, and 90-100 cm depths across all sampling points in an inter-seeding corn silage-cove crop system receiving annual applications of dairy compost and synthetic fertilizer.
Figure 2. Estimated marginal means of soil nitrate at 0-30 cm depth by CC planting timing, CC height, and CC vs control in an inter-seeding corn silage-cove crop system receiving annual applications of dairy compost and synthetic fertilizer.
Future Plans
There is additional data to analyze in both studies, including other soil chemical parameters, corn silage and CC yields, and feed quality. In the last year, moisture sensors were installed in some plots, measuring and recording soil moisture and temperature at different depths up to three feet. This moisture data at various depths could be correlated with nitrate values and other soil chemical parameters data to determine nutrient leaching, irrigation efficiency, and what role CC may play. Two additional seasons of data will be included to the dataset.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Mario E. de Haro-Martí, Professor and Extension Educator, University of Idaho, mdeharo@uidaho.edu
Additional authors
Linda Schott, Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist, University of Idaho
Miguel Mena, MS Graduate Student, SWS Department, University of Idaho
Steven Hines, Professor and Extension Educator, University of Idaho
Anthony S. Simerlink, Assistant Professor and Extension Educator, University of Idaho
Clarence Robison, Research Support Scientist, University of Idaho
The research team thanks the USDA-ARS Kimberly, ID personnel for their support with machinery and assistance with this project.
Funding for this project was provided by a USDA-NIFA Sustainable Agriculture Systems (SAS) grant #2020-69012-31871.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This work aims to conduct pilot-scale trials using a rotary belt filter (RBF) with biochar to recover nutrients at a dairy anaerobic digestor and produce an upcycled bioproduct for soil amendment (Figure 1). Anaerobically digested (AD) effluents contain large quantities of phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), and organic carbon, while biochar is a reactive material that has potential for use to recover nutrients and prevent nutrient loss. Biochar was used as a strategy to enhance phosphorus (P) recovery by improving total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency in the RBF system. This approach was further extended to include iron chloride (FeCl3) as a flocculant, which has potential to efficiently remove suspended solids as well as soluble phosphorus from wastewater.
Figure 1. Rotary belt filter removal of biochar and solids in anaerobic digest effluent.
To optimize P recovery, laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to evaluate biochar and iron chloride dosing rates. These experiments aimed to better understand the system’s performance and provide insights for pilot scale studies. The goal was to develop a lab setup that accurately represents field conditions and to identify cost-effective, practical solutions for large-scale applications.
What Did We Do?
Biochar dosing experiments were conducted using a jar test, in which 30 mL of AD dairy effluent was mixed with biochar (Biochar Now LLC., Loveland, Colorado) for 20 minutes at 200 rpm, with dosing rates of 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 g/L. For the iron chloride dosing experiments, 6 g/L of biochar was mixed with the effluent for 20 minutes at 200 rpm, followed by the addition of iron chloride to achieve final concentrations of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 g/L. The Fe-biochar mixtures were then stirred for 1 minute at 200 rpm and subsequently for 20 minutes at 40 rpm. After mixing, the samples were vacuum filtered using the same mesh of the rotating belt filter (112 mesh or 149 μm) on a 2” Buchner ceramic funnel. Since sedimentation time introduces variability to the flocculation process, a filtration setup was designed to allow simultaneous filtration of replicates. All experiments were performed in triplicate.
The solids retained on the mesh were collected, air-dried overnight, and digested using a modified dry ash method. Part of the filtrate was used for total suspended solids (TSS) analysis, while another portion was digested following the acid digestion method for sediments, sludges, and soils (EPA 3025B). The digested solid and filtrate samples were filtered through a 0.45 μm PES syringe filter and analyzed for elemental composition using an ICP spectrometer.
What Have We Learned?
The TSS of the AD dairy effluent can vary seasonally. In our experiments, the batch used contained approximately 25,000 mg/L of SS. The filtration system retains up to 15% of the SS when no biochar or Fe are amended to the AD. The addition of 4 to 6 g/L of biochar increased TSS removal by 5%. However, higher biochar doses did not further enhance TSS removal efficiency.
Results indicated that most of the P in the AD dairy effluent is not in the soluble reactive form, which means that P removal in the rotary belt filter should be proportional to the TSS removal. Figure 2 shows the P concentration in the filtered effluent from the biochar dosing experiments, indicating that with biochar additions ranging from 2 to 8 g/L, the P concentration in the filtrate remains similar. Figure 3 shows that the P concentration in the solids decreased as the biochar dose increased. This is because the total mass of solids retained on the filter increased with the addition of biochar. These results showed that biochar has a dilution effect on P concentration because the phosphorus removal capacity of biochar during filtration is limited.
Figure 2. Total P concentration in the filtered effluent after biochar dosing experiments.Figure 3. Total P concentration on solids retaining by filtration from the biochar dosing experiments.
Figure 4 shows the P concentration on solids at different doses of FeCl3 added to 6 g/L of biochar. The results show that higher FeCl3 doses lead to higher P concentrations in the solids. Table 1 shows the relationship between FeCl₃ dosing rates and the estimated volume of iron chloride solution needed in a pilot scale field trial. With 6 g/L of biochar, achieving an increase in P concentration from ~3300 mg/L to 5000 mg/L would require 6 L/m³ of FeCl3 solution. pH adjustments would optimize iron promoted flocculation and significantly reduce the amount of iron dosing required, and thus process costs. However, due to the high buffering capacity of the AD effluent, large amounts of acid would be required, which would offset cost savings from the reduced iron amendment.
Figure 4. Total P concentration on solids retained by filtration from the FeCl3 dosing and 6 g/L biochar dosing experiments.
Table 1 – FeCl₃ dose and corresponding solution volume required in the field
Field scale
FeCl3 dose (g/L)
FeCl3 (L/m3)
0
0
0.1
0.24
0.25
0.60
0.50
1.21
1.00
2.41
2.50
6.03
Future Plans
The next steps of this research are divided into two main topics. The first focuses on evaluating the effect of organic flocculants, such as chitosan and alginate, on TSS and phosphorus removal from the effluent. This includes analyzing their advantages and disadvantages compared to iron chloride. The second topic explores the oxidation of the effluent with ozone before flocculant addition. This approach aims to determine whether pre-oxidation can reduce the required flocculant dose per mg of TSS removed.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Mariana C. Santoro, Postdoctoral researcher, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho, marianacoelho@uidaho.edu
Additional authors
Daniel G. Strawn, Professor, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho
Martin C. Baker, Research Engineer, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho
Alex Crump, Research Scientist, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho
Gregory Möller, Professor, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This collaborative project between The Ohio State University, Iowa State University, and 360YieldCenter intends to demonstrate the in-season application of commercial and animal nutrient sources and water application as a unified strategy to reduce nutrient losses while improving profitability with increased grain yields. A new and innovative high-clearance robotic irrigator (HCRI) is being used to apply liquid-phase nutrients in-season beyond all stages of row crops. Replicated strip trials of Fall, Spring, and in-season application will occur using the HCRI (e.g., 360 RAIN Robotic Irrigator, Figure 1). The in-season application consists of traditional N and P application rates as well as reduced rates to take advantage of better matching nutrient availability to crop needs during the growing season. Data were collected to verify nitrate-nitrogen leaching loss using liquid swine manure as a nutrient source in Iowa, while total and dissolved reactive phosphorus losses with both runoff and leaching using commercially available nutrients were collected in in Ohio. Secondly, as climate shifts result in water scarcity during critical crop growth stages, robotic irrigation water applications will be used to meet the crop needs. Higher crop yields are anticipated via precision water management.
Figure 1: 360 RAIN Unit (HCRI)
What Did We Do?
OSU is conducting two field demonstrations, one with a focus on water quality, and a second for comparison of nutrient management practices. The HCRI is being utilized to apply commercial fertilizer in-season via dilution in irrigation water with up to 12 applications per growing season (effective 4.5 in. of precipitation season dependent). Nutrient injection rates (N and P) are scaled to plant nutrient uptake and irrigator pass intervals. Both sites are farmed in accordance with existing crop rotation and standard practices.
Beck’s Hybrid Site (West 1A) – The Beck’s Hybrid site (78 ac) is subdivided in accordance with the sub-watershed boundaries and managed with two treatments: 1) conventional commercial fertilizer application in accordance with the Tri-State Fertilizer recommendations, and 2) in-season nutrient management (N and P) using the HCRI and Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations with the exception nutrient application matching with plant nutrient uptake rates as judged by growing degree days (GDD). This site is instrumented as a paired watershed for surface water and subsurface tile drainage. Further, these watersheds are monitored for precipitation, flow, and water quality (nitrate, nitrite, total phosphorus and DRP).
Molly Caren Agricultural Center (MCAC) Site 1 (Field 7) – Field demonstrations at this site (140 ac) are laid-out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) strip trial design with treatments that include: 1) commercial fertilizer application (N and P) in accordance with the Tri-State Fertilizer recommendations, 2) in-season nutrient management (N and P) using the HCRI and Tri-State Recommendations with the exception nutrient application matched with crop nutrient uptake rates based on growth stages as determined by GDD, and 3) in-season nutrient management (N and P) using the HCRI and 67.7% Tri-State recommend application rates matched with crop nutrient uptake rates based on growth stages (GDD). Strip trials are 160 ft. in width and approximately 1,170 ft. in length (4.3 ac treatments) with eight replicates.
MCAC Site 2 (Field 8A) – Field demonstration site used to test HCRI and “sandbox” for other RCBD trials outside of NRCS CIG grant to discovery and planning for future projects. This site varies depending on studies each year, but trials are completed via RCBD strips.
Data Collection and Analysis – Demonstration sites are grid sampled each season on a 1-ac grid (Beck’s) and within treatments (MCAC site) to monitor soil fertility levels. Soil moisture and temperature in situ sensors (CropX) are placed in both study locations (three per treatment, 15 total sensors). Tissue samples are collected by treatment type to assess nutrient uptake at three stages of crop growth. Harvested crops are scaled by treatment to ensure yield monitor accuracy. Remote sensing imagery (RGB, ADVI and thermal) is collected 10 or more times during the growing season to evaluate crop growth and development. Data is analyzed using RCBD procedures in SAS.
Water Quality Assessment – Surface and subsurface (tile) monitoring capacity was established in 2016 at the Beck’s Hybrid Site. Two isolated subareas within a single production field were identified and the surface and subsurface pathways were instrumented with control volumes and automated sampling equipment. Surface runoff sites were equipped with H-flumes while compound weirs were installed at each of the subsurface (tile) outlets. Each sampling point (two surface and two subsurface) is equipped with an automated water quality sampler and programmed to collect periodic samples during discharge events. Once collected, samples will be analyzed for N and P. An on-site weather station provides weather parameters. Water samples are collected weekly from the field plots during periods of drainage and follow the same ISU protocol for NO3–N. Dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and digested (total phosphorous) samples are analyzed using ascorbic acid reduction method.
What Have We Learned?
2023 Results
At the Beck’s Hybrid location field West 1A was planted to corn for the 2023 cropping season. There was an 8.0 bu/ac difference between irrigated and non-irrigated treatments. Nitrogen was injected using the rain unit and put on crop for the first application and use of the rain machine. Not having the rain unit in June made a significant difference in this study. The results of this location from 2023 should be taken lightly as complete implementation was not done until August. Location study information can be seen in Figure 2 and results in Figure 3.
Figure 2: Study information for Beck’s Hybrid location in 2023 cropping season.Figure 3: Results for Beck’s Hybrid field location in 2023.
In 2023, field 7 at MCAC was in soybeans and had no irrigation completed for this growing season.
Field 8A at MCAC was in corn for the 2023 cropping season. Irrigation had a statistically significant effect on yield over all treatments. Nitrogen had statistical significance from 120 versus 170 and 220 units on nitrogen treatments. The 170 units of nitrogen was the optimal amount of nitrogen for all treatments. Not having the irrigator installed in early June caused there to be less yield in irrigated treatments. The results of this location from 2023 should be taken lightly as complete implementation was not done until August. Location study information can be seen in Figure 4 and results in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Study information for MCAC 8A location in 2023 cropping season.Figure 5: Results for MCAC 8A field location in 2023.
2024 Results
Field 7 at MCAC was in corn for the 2024 cropping season. Irrigation had a statistically significant effect on yield over all treatments. There was a 48 bu/ac between irrigated two-thirds nutrients and non-irrigated and 44 bu/ac between irrigated and non-irrigated for the 2024 growing season. A total of 773 gallons of diesel was used to run the irrigator for this trial for 2024 cropping season across 71 acres. A total of 25,739 kWh was used to run the electric pumps, base station, and well for 2024 growing season across 71 acres. These are the initial results that were published in efields and further results will continue to be analyzed to meet all project objectives. This data will be used to help in evaluating HCRI versus traditional crop production and management practices to meet project objectives. Location study information can be seen in Figure 6 and results in Figure 8. In Figure 7, aerial imagery can be seen from the 2024 cropping season.
Figure 6: Study information for MCAC 7 location in 2024 cropping season.Figure 7: Aerial imagery of field 7 (Top l) and field 8A (Bottom left) from 2024 cropping season.Figure 8: Results for MCAC 7 field location in 2024.
Field 8A at MCAC was in soybeans for the 2024 cropping season. Irrigation had a statistically significant effect on yield over non-irrigated. A total of 211 gallons of diesel was used to run the irrigator for this trial for 2024 cropping season across 11 acres. A total of 3,475 kWh was used to run the electric pumps, base station, and well for 2024 growing season across 11 acres. Location study information can be seen in Figure 9 and results in Figure 10. In Figure 7, aerial imagery can be seen from the 2024 cropping season.
Figure 9: Study information for MCAC 8A location in 2024 cropping season.Figure 10: Results for MCAC 8A field location in 2024.
Future Plans
During the next 12 months, we are planning for the HCRI operation at the two sites for cropping practices and irrigation for 2025 growing season. We will be aggregating weather data, agronomic data, plant samples, surface and ground water quality samples, and machine performance data for all years of the project with the current end date as spring of 2026. We are hoping to continue to perform testing with this technology and implementing the dry product skid for field operations for the 2025 growing and full-scale implementation across all studies in 2026. The results from the Iowa State portion of this funded project will also be reported in the future as well. There is a significant need to further develop programs for injecting macro and micronutrients in liquid and granular form for growers. The potential to significantly cut application rates exists with this technology. Also, implementing this technology with liquid livestock manure producers will change the paradigm of how manure is managed in the future.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Andrew Klopfenstein, Senior Research Engineer, The Ohio State University, Klopfenstein.34@osu.edu
Additional authors
Justin Koch, Innovation Engineer, 360YieldCenter; Kapil Arora, Field Agricultural Engineer, Iowa State University; Daniel Anderson, Associate Professor, Iowa State University; Matthew Helmers, Professor, Iowa State University; Kelvin Leibold, Farm Management Specialist, Iowa State University; Alex Parsio, Research Engineer, The Ohio State University; Chris Tkach, Lecturer, The Ohio State University; Christopher Dean, Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State University; Ramareo Venkatesh, Research Associate, The Ohio State University; Elizabeth Hawkins, Agronomics Systems Field Specialist, The Ohio State University; John Fulton, Professor, The Ohio State University; Scott Shearer, Professor and Chair, The Ohio State University
Natural Resources Conservation Service – Conservation Innovation Grant (NR223A750013G037)
Ohio Department of Agriculture – H2Ohio Grant
USDA, NRCS, 360YieldCenter, Beck’s Hybrids, Molly Caren Agricultural Center, Rooted Agri Services, Iowa State University, The Ohio State University
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Time and time again, experience has taught us that many people learn by doing, not just from listening to presentations. The Nebraska Animal Manure Management Team has worked hard over the last six years to develop and expand what is now referred to as the Interactive Nutrient Management Decision-Making Exercise. This workshop will serve as a train-the-trainer event where attendees will:
Discover how the exercise began and what it has grown to include
Get familiar with the pieces and parts by helping set up the activity
Experience a couple of the activities as participants
Hear from others that have adapted the exercise and their experiences
Brainstorm how the exercise can be used elsewhere or for other concepts
What Did We Do?
The Interactive Nutrient Management Decision-Making Exercise (mapping exercise) was developed by the Animal Manure Management Team at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Minnesota to engage participants during Manure Application Trainings. In Nebraska, these trainings previously relied heavily on PowerPoint and recorded presentations, but with many people being hands-on learners, an interactive exercise was proposed. In 2020, the original 6 activities were used for the afternoon portion, and it has since grown to the exercise it is today that is incorporated throughout the whole-day training.
It has been used not only for livestock producers but also crop producers. Parts of it have been modified to fit into workshops at conferences and, most recently, high school classrooms. Current expansion topics include spray drift to avoid sensitive areas and nitrogen management from all sources.
What Have We Learned?
Because many livestock producers in Nebraska are required to attend Land Application Training events every five years to maintain their Livestock Waste Control Facility permit, the winter 2024-2025 programming season for the Nebraska manure team offered an opportunity to ask participants how their operations have changed since the first time they had seen the Interactive Nutrient Management Decision-Making Exercise (in 2020). The team asked 3 questions specific to the exercise and changes on their operations and found the following results.
In general, participants are considering the topics taught during training more now than they were five years ago. The figure below indicates that 48% consider weather forecasts to decrease odor risk more or much more than they did prior to experiencing the Interactive Nutrient Management Decision-Making Exercise. Forty eight percent and 59% consider water quality and soil health impacts from manure more than five years ago, subsequently. While many participants already factored in transportation cost compared to nutrient value captured for a field, 59% reported that they consider it more or much more than they did, and 55% reported that they now considered the value of manure nutrients based on a field’s soil test more or much more.
We also asked participants to share with us how useful they felt the changes and expanded activities of the Interactive Nutrient Management Decision-Making Exercise were. All participants felt that the changes and expansion were useful with 52% indicating that they were very or extremely useful.
We also asked, “How do you expect your experience with the newer activities of the interactive nutrient management decision-making exercise will change your operation in the future?” and, among others, we received the following responses:
“[we will] take more consideration to neighbors near application”
“[we will make] better $ management decision[s] on manure application site[s]”
“[the activity] makes us want to plan out better to get better results”
Future Plans
With so much success using this teaching tool, we would like to expand it to teach topics other than nutrient management. The Soil Health Nexus, a soil health workgroup in the north central region of the US, is in the process of developing an adaptation of this tool that will teach participants about the impacts of certain practices on soil health. Currently, progress has been made on activities focusing on tillage and the use of cover crops. Other planned activities include a focus on crop rotation and the use of the Soil Health Matrix, a tool developed by the Soil Health Nexus.
The Nebraska Animal Manure Management team, as part of a different grant, also has plans to create some activities focused on integrating livestock into cropping systems.
We also support using the base model of this exercise and adapting it for other practices and audiences outside of Nebraska.
Authors
Presenting & Corresponding author
Leslie Johnson, Animal Manure Management Extension Educator, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, leslie.johnson@unl.edu
Additional author
Amy Millmier Schmidt, Professor and Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineering Specialist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
We would like to acknowledge all other contributors to the curriculum in the past including:
Larry Howard, Rick Koelsch, Agnes Kurtzhals, Aaron Nygren, Agustin Olivio, Amber Patterson, Katie Pekarek, Amy Schmidt, Mike Sindelar, and Todd Whitney (University of Nebraska, Lincoln)
Daryl Andersen, Tyler Benal, Will Brueggemann, Russ Oakland, and Bret Schomer (Lower Platte North NRD)
Blythe McAfee and Tiffany O’Neill (Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy)
Andy Scholting (Nutrient Advisors)
Marie Krausnick, Dan Leininger (Upper Big Blue NRD)
Chryseis Modderman (University of Minnesota)
Nutrient Advisors
Settje Agri Services Eng.
Ward Laboratories Inc.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Manure nitrogen losses from agricultural soils presents a significant challenge with far-reaching implications for global food security and environmental health. This project evaluates common manure application practices and studies some mechanistic factors and relationships that influence manure nitrogen losses via leaching and volatilization when manure is soil applied. The study highlights the tradeoffs between reduction of ammonia emissions and nitrogen leaching aiming to promote effective manure management techniques that increase crop nutrient use efficiency while minimizing nutrient losses to the environment.
What Did We Do?
Dairy manure was applied to a silt loam agricultural field using different manure applications. The study involves six experimental treatments, each applying 94 m³ ha-1 of liquid dairy manure through different methods: injection, incorporation, surface broadcast, and two treatments with urease inhibitor-one injected and one surface broadcast. Additionally, there are control plots with no manure application. Immediately after manure application, ammonia emissions were routinely measured using an FTIR while cumulative nitrate leaching for the growing season was assessed using the resin cartridge methodology. Corn silage was planted and yield data collected at the end of the growing season and nitrogen use efficiency following each experimental treatment determined.
What Have We Learned?
Preliminary results suggest that manure incorporation and injection with or without the urease inhibitor, have a comparable significant impact on corn silage yield when compared to surface manure application and plots with no manure application. However, there were no significant differences in N uptake among treatments. Additionally, there were significant differences in the cumulative nitrates leached when comparing the manure application methods to the no-manure plots. Manure injection and incorporation resulted in the highest significant nitrates leached with averages of 104.4 kg ha-1 and 108.4 kg ha-1 respectively, in comparison to surface manure application. Overall, current project data suggests that ammonia emissions tend to be lower in the manure injection especially when the manure is treated with urease inhibitor compared to when manure is surface applied.
These preliminary results suggest that certain manure application practices may offer superior environmental benefits while the agronomic benefits may remain comparable across different practices.
Future Plans
The field project will be extended into a second year under similar soil types to collect additional data for better comparisons and identifications of trends among experimental treatments. Future plans will also include a new project involving the incorporation of biochar and investigating its potential in simultaneously reducing ammonia volatilization and nitrogen leaching in manure and crop systems.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Juma Bukomba, PhD Candidate, University of Wisconsin-Madison, bukomba@wisc.edu
Additional authors
Rebecca Larson, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison;
Mathew Ruark, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EFMA-2132036. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Biochar is a carbon-rich product derived from pyrolysis and is commonly used as a soil amendment. When applied to soil, biochar has been shown to sequester carbon, enhance aggregate stability, and improve soil nutrient and water retention. Recently, several states have adopted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 336, which addresses soil carbon amendments, including biochar, as a conservation practice. This has led to increased awareness of biochar in agricultural systems. While the application of biochar to soil systems has been extensively studied, there are other agricultural sectors where biochar could be incorporated to provide additional benefits. This study explores the potential for incorporating biochar into manure management systems, specifically anaerobic digestion and manure storage.
What Did We Do?
Two different studies were conducted as part of this research. The first study investigated how biochar could be implemented into manure storage systems. Manure storage is a common practice at livestock facilities; however, emissions of ammonia (NH₃), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are released into the atmosphere during storage. Additionally, the increasing use of solid-liquid separation in mid- to large-scale farms has resulted in emissions occurring outside of land application due to the lack of crust formation on manure storage. This study assessed emissions from pilot manure storage units (5-gallon buckets) after applying a 2-inch layer of raw feedstock or biochar as a cover over dairy manure. Different feedstocks, including woodchips, corn stover, and manure solids, were evaluated, and emissions were measured weekly over four months to determine NH₃, CH₄, and N₂O emissions (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Manure storage monitoring
The second study examined the incorporation of biochar into dairy manure anaerobic digestion systems. Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure produces biogas, which contains significant concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) that must be removed before energy utilization. This study evaluated how dosing biochar—produced from different feedstocks and at varying pyrolysis temperatures—impacted hydrogen sulfide reduction during anaerobic digestion. A bench-scale study was conducted using batch reactors dosed at 0.75% (w/w) (approximately 62 lbs per 1,000 gallons), and biogas was analyzed every 2–3 days for H₂S, CH₄, and CO₂ concentrations.
Figure 2: Anaerobic digestion setup
What Have We Learned?
In the manure storage study, both raw feedstocks and biochar reduced NH₃ emissions. The greatest reductions in NH₃ emissions were observed with woodchip biochar, which achieved an average reduction of 82–97% in cumulative emissions. The manure solids and corn stover biochar resulted in average reductions of 35% and 55%, respectively. However, while NH₃ emissions were reduced, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions—particularly N₂O—was observed in treatments with biochar covers.
In anaerobic digestion systems, the addition of biochar at 0.75% (w/w) reduced H₂S production. The degree of reduction was influenced by the biochar production temperature, with lower-temperature biochars being more effective at reducing H₂S. During the batch anaerobic digestion tests, no significant impact was observed on CH₄ or CO₂ concentrations in the biogas.
Future Plans
For the manure storage study, while the reductions in NH₃ emissions were promising, the observed increase in N2O emissions requires further investigation. The highest N₂O emissions were associated with large-particle woodchip biochar, likely due to the creation of an anoxic environment within the biochar cover. Future studies will examine whether reducing biochar particle size can mitigate these N₂O emissions. Additionally, further research will assess the long-term impacts of these treatments on soil health and crop production following land application.
For the anaerobic digestion study, additional work is needed to determine the specific biochar characteristics responsible for the greater H₂S reductions observed with lower-temperature biochars. Since the study was conducted at a batch scale, further evaluation in a continuous system is necessary. Lastly, full-scale digester trials are needed before widespread adoption of biochar in anaerobic digestion systems.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Joseph R. Sanford, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin–Platteville, sanfordj@uwplatt.edu
Additional authors
Ben Raimonde, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville
John Rodwell, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville
Jeffery Smolinski, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville
Acknowledgements
This material is supported by the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2022-70001-37309. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Due to a technical glitch, we did not get this presentation recorded. Please accept our apologies.
Purpose
Manure is a critical resource in livestock production as it contains many essential nutrients required for crop growth. However, as a nutrient source, manure is highly variable, and nutrient composition may fluctuate significantly during emptying of manure storages if not properly agitated. Accounting for this variability requires extensive sampling, which is often cost and time prohibitive for haulers and producers.
The aim of this study is to evaluate a commercially available manure nutrient sensor utilizing near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to provide real-time manure nutrient data. The study investigates the impact of NIRS systems in the field to achieve target nutrient application rates and assess effects on crop nutrient use efficiency (NUE) and yield compared to conventional sampling and fixed-rate application methods.
What Did We Do?
A manure tanker was outfitted with a John Deere HarvestLab 3000 setup for manure nutrient sensing. The setup included the sensor, a Krone flow meter, and a John Deere rate controller (Figure 1). Manure nutrient values from the sensor were recorded in real time. The controller then set specific target rates for a nutrient and the automation system adjusted the tractor speed or manure pump rate to meet the target.
Field trials were conducted in Wisconsin on silt loam soil. Manure was applied to strip plots to meet three specific nitrogen application rates using both the NIRS sensor and conventional sampling and application methods. During application, composite manure samples were collected to assess the sensor’s accuracy. After manure application, the field was planted with corn silage, and following harvest, NUE and yield were evaluated.
Figure 1: Manure tanker setup for sensor trials.
What Have We Learned?
In the first year of the study, the NIRS sensor outperformed conventional sampling methods in achieving target nitrogen rates. Across the application plots, the NIRS sensor delivered manure at a nitrogen rate in the range of 20 to 30 lbs N/ac over the target rate, whereas conventional sampling led to overapplication by 40 lbs N/ac to 95 lbs N/ac. During application, the system also tracked other nutrients, such as phosphorus and ammonium, but laboratory analysis indicated that the sensor was less accurate for these nutrients compared to nitrogen. While manure application rates varied, there was little difference in crop yield or NUE between treatments at harvest.
The NIRS sensor shows promise as a tool to revolutionize manure nutrient accounting in cropland. Its ability to track manure variation in real time could significantly improve nutrient management. Figure 2 demonstrates how the system tracked manure nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium levels over time following a reduction in agitation. This type of tracking may help reduce the need for excessive agitation and enhance manure utilization efficiency.
Figure 2: Variation of nitrogen (left), phosphorus (center), and potassium (right) over time while applying dairy manure. The right side of the field shows signs of decreased homogeneity when agitation was reduced.
Future Plans
Researchers plan to continue field trials over multiple years to assess long-term impacts on nutrient use efficiency and soil nutrient management. Additionally, with new calibration updates since the original trial, future studies will evaluate the sensor’s accuracy in measuring phosphorus and its ability to meet phosphorus-based manure application targets while simultaneously tracking nitrogen for improved supplemental nitrogen prescriptions. Overall, the goal of the project is to provide producers and haulers with information on how effective the system is and ways in which it can be used to enhance on-farm efficiency.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Joseph R. Sanford, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin -Platteville, sanfordj@uwplatt.edu
Additional authors
Rebecca A. Larson, Professor, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Tyler Liskow, Engineer, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Acknowledgements
This material is supported by the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2022-69008-36506. 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 or the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
