Excessive nutrient enrichment in watersheds can create harmful algal blooms (HABs) in aquatic systems, including ponds, which are frequently used to water livestock. Harmful algal blooms are typically dominated by cyanobacteria (commonly referred to as “blue green algae”) many of which produce toxins that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans. In May 2012, our laboratory began receiving reports of cattle mortalities associated with HABs. We began an outreach effort to screen and identify algal species and toxins in water samples submitted by private citizens from ponds throughtout Georgia. Prior to this effort, no state or federal laboratories offered such a service. Private laboratories conduct these services, however the collection protocols and analytical costs preclude the average citizen from utilizing them. Rapid detetion of a HAB is critical for farmers so that access to the water source can be restricted. We recognized the need to provide such a service and to educate the public regarding exposure effects, preventative measures, and treatment of HABs.
During Summer 2012 sampling events we commonly encountered Microcystis blooms in both farm ponds used by humans for fishing and recreation (above) and for watering livestock (below).
What Did We Do?
We documented dense blooms of planktonic cyanobacteria, predominantly Microcystis aeruginosa, and extremely high levels of the potent hepatotoxin, Microcystin, in water samples submitted by Georgia cattle producers (Haynie et al. 2013). Many of these samples were submitted by producers who had experienced cattle mortalities, potentially due to algal toxin exposure.
Through a collaborative effort with UGA’s Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratories, we established a water screening service that includes algal speciation and toxin detection. This service became available to the public in Februrary 2013. This effort included a detailed outreach letter to extension agents, sampling protocol and materials for water sample collection and shipping. This screening service is avalible for either a $30.00 (algal identification) or $45.00 (toxin analysis and algal identification) fee. The submitter will receive an electronic report within 24 hours with results, interpretation, and recommendations.
We have begun promoting this service and educating the public about HABs by participating in various short courses, meetings and outreach opportunities.
What Have We Learned?
We have demonstrated that HABs and cyanotoxins are common in Georgia agriculture ponds. Therefore, the potential for livestock exposure and subsequent effects including mortality are likely to occur. Education and establishment of a rapid toxin detection service is warranted and will be beneficial to producers. The livestock deaths have highlighted an important issue for Georgia farmers and pond owners that will likely be increasingly prevalent under projected climatic models.
Future Plans
We will continue our outreach efforts by participating in University and industry sponsored workshops and meetings. We will use these opportunities to educate and inform the public about the newly available algal screening service. We have included, in recently submitted grants, funding to subsidize testing expenses in order to encourage more farmers/pond owners to use this service. We intend to utilize the testing service to gather spatially referenced data on the prevalence of HABs and toxin levels in GA ponds. This information, which is not currently available, will inform nutrient management plans and BMPs that will ultimately improve nutrient management and water resources in Georgia. We hope that this effort will serve as a model for other states experiencing similar increases in frequency and severity of HABs in agricultural settings.
Authors
Rebecca S. Haynie, Post Doctoral Associate, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 hayniers@uga.edu
Susan Wilde, Assistant Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
David Kissel, Director and Professor, Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Leticia Sonon, Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Uttam Saha, Program Coordinator, Feed and Environmental Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Additional Information
Haynie, R. S., J. R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, B. Willis, J. H. Rodgers Jr., A.L. Jones and S. B. Wilde. Harmful algal blooms and toxin production in Georgia ponds. (in review). Proceedings of the Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia. April 2013.
Burtle, G.J. July 2012. Managing Algal Blooms and the Potential for Algal Toxins in Pond Water. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Temporary Publication 101.
Haynie, R.S., J.R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, S. B. Wilde. Cyanotoxins: Exposure Effects and Mangagement Options. Proceedings of the UGA Extension Beef Cattle Shortcourse. Ed. L. Stewart. Athens, Georgia. January 2013.
Drs. Lawton Stewart, Gary Burtle (Animal and Dairy Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, UGA) coordinated sample delivery from pond owners to our laboratory. Brad Bartelme, James Herrin and Jamie Morgan (Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, UGA) contributed significant technical assistance with algal screening and sample processing.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.
Abstract
Self-scraping system in hog confinement building.
Animal manure is often utilized by the American agriculture industry as fertilizer without considering the potential energy production. It is well established that on-farm anaerobic digestion (AD) can be effective in providing energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and controlling air and water pollutions. Knowledge of the ADs on biogas production, digested and stored manure nutrients, and air emissions must reach parties of interest. A modular, pilot-scale, mesophilic AD system is being installed for the new swine finishing facility at University of Missouri-Columbia Research Farm.
The new AD design utilizes three insulated, reinforced fiber-glass tanks of 2500-gallon in size, which are commercially available. One tank is designed for feedstock storage and mixing, and the other two tanks are for digestion. The dual-tank set up provides research flexibility as either single stage with two-stream parallel replication or dual-stage single-stream experiments. The design employs small biogas (generated by the AD) boilers for heating the digester tanks and system building. It also features a feedstock-digestate heat-exchanger for heat reclamation to reduce net energy input; which will be critical to the small and mid-size AD systems not generating electricity (no waste-heat from engines).
Valve control box (under construction). This allows extra manure and effluent to be discharged directly to the lagoon or to pump fresh manure directed back to the digester.
The system also includes a geothermal heat exchanger for biogas cooling to collect condensate in the biogas along with a small iron sponge to reduce H2S concentrations which improves the biogas quality. Excess biogas will be burned in boiler and the heat produced will be dissipated through a dual purpose radiator. The radiator provides building heat in winter and releases heat outside in summer. The goals of this project are to demonstrate AD for small and mid-size swine productions, quantify and characterize manure nutrient changes due to AD and storage, and develop baseline emission factors for raw and digested manure. This paper reports the design, construction and implementation of the AD system.
Why Study Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion?
The purpose of this project is to establish a pilot scale, on-farm anaerobic digester (AD) that demonstrates and evaluates the potential energy production, manure management, and overall economic viability of such systems. This research will provide invaluable information for small to medium sized swine farms seeking viable energy alternatives, practical manure management practices and air quality improvements.
What Did We Do?
Current digester system enclosed in greenhouse.
Construction began in the Fall of 2012, at the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Swine Teaching and Research Farm. This modular, pilot-scale, mesophilic AD system is being constructed next to a four-room swine finishing research barn. Each of the finishing room has individual deep-pit storage, with a pull-plug system for draining the manure to the lagoon. Manure scraper systems are installed in two of the rooms to more frequently collect the manure. The AD system is comprised of three insulated, reinforced fiber-glass tanks, each with a capacity of 2500-gallons. The first tank is designed for feedstock storage and pre-mixing, while the other two are for digestion. The dual tank set up allows flexibility for researchers to conduct experiments either with a single stage, two-stream parallel replication or dual-stage single-stream digestion process. The system employs a biogas (generated by AD) boiler for heating the digestion tanks to maintain continuity. A 3,000 gallon biogas bladder storage unit stores the biogas for a few hours. A feedstock-digestate heat exchanger is designed for heat reclamation to increase net energy output; which will be critical to a small to mid-size AD systems that do not generate electricity (no waste-heat from biogas engines). The boilers also supply heat to the AD housing through radiators, while the excess biogas will be flared off.
What Have We Learned?
Designing and implementing an AD system is complex and time consuming. It is very important to involve a good engineering or technical support team. If the barn is not designed to accommodate an AD system, significant consideration is needed to manage the manure collection and transport, and to maintain manure freshness and solids content. Project management is critical to consider planning and coorperation between the farm personnel and management, utility and construction companies, and the engineering support firm.
Future Plans
Pilot test will be conducted to examine and fine-tune the system. The AD system is designed for research and demonstration purposes. Submitted proposals include plans for studying the improved efficiency due to better design and heat-exchangers, effects of feedstock, co-digestion, feedstock pre-treatment on biogas production, and characterizing greenhouse gas emissions from untreated manure and AD-treated manure.
Authors
Brandon Harvey, Research Assistant, Agricultural Systems Management, University of Missouri bchfzf@mail.missouri.edu
Teng Lim, Assistant Professor, Agriculture Systems Management, University of Missouri. Kevin Rohrer, Engineer, Martin Machinery, LLC.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Colorado is the second highest producer of high solids cattle waste (HSCW) in the United States. Despite the available resources, Colorado currently has only one operational anaerobic digester treating manure (AgSTAR EPA 2011), which is located at a hog farm in Lamar. Arid climate and limited water resources in Colorado render the implementation of high water demanding conventional AD processes. Studies to date have proposed high solids AD systems capable of digesting organic solid waste (OSW) not more than 40% total solids (TS). Lab tests have shown that HSCW produced in Greeley (Colorado) has an average of 89.4% TS. Multi-stage leach bed reactor (MSLBR) system proposed in the current study is capable of handling HSCW of up to 90% TS.
What Did We Do?
Hydrolysis is carried out in a trickle flow leach bed reactor (TFLBR) and methanogenesis can be carried out in a high rate anaerobic digester (HRAD) like an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor or a fixed film reactor. The objective of this research is to evaluate and optimize the performance of the TFLBR. The system was operated as a batch process and the organic leaching potential of a single pass TFLBR configuration was evaluated. The organic leaching potential was measured in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Three series’ of reactor experiments were carried out in total. Each subsequent experiment was based on the results on the previously conducted experiment. First set of reactor experiments included three TFLBRs (triplicate) loaded with HSCW. The difficulty encountered during the operation of this experiment was that the flow rate of water through the TFLBR slowed down over time and eventually dropped to zero within the first 24 hrs. This caused water build-up on top of the manure bed, resulting in the failure of hydrolysis. Second set of reactor experiments included six TFLBRs (two sets of triplicates). One set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW and the other set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW bulked with straw (5% by mass) to improve the porosity through the reactor. A layer of fine sand was added on top of the manure bed to facilitate water dispersion through the reactor.
The third set of reactor experiments included the comparison between nutrient dosed and non-nutrient dosed reactors (each carried out in triplicates). The idea behind dosing nutrients to an operational TFLBR was to check if the reactors were nutrient limited during the digestion process. Composite sampling technique was adopted so as to capture the exact leaching potential from each of the reactors.
What Have We Learned?
The first set of reactor experiments helped in identifying the clogging issues in operational TFLBRs handling HSCW. The second set of reactor experiments validated the use of fine sand as a better alternative to improve hydraulic flow when compared to the use of bulking agents. The third set of reactor experiments indicated that the addition of nutrient solution to a single-pass TFLBR operation is essential in improving the overall system yield. Leachate collection by composited sampling method instead of the instantaneous sample method improved the system efficiency by approximately 50%. The average TS reductions in the non-nutrient dosed and nutrient dosed TFLBRs were 23.18% and 22.67% respectively. The non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 66.32% of COD reduction and the nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 73.51% of COD reduction due to COD leaching during hydrolysis, over the period of six weeks. Biochemical methane potential (BCMP) test results indicate high biogas yields from the weekly composited leachate from the reactor experiments proving successful system operation. Approximately 0.43 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs and 0.57 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the nutrient dosed TFLBRs.
Future Plans
The proposed MSLBR system recommends TFLBRs operating under leachate recirculation. The addition of nutrient solution in a leachate recirculated TFLBR would not be unnecessary since the nutrients in the system would be conserved. The success of hydraulic conductivity and leaching quality in a leachate recirculated TFLBR is unknown. More research is required to completely understand the operation and success of the MSLBR system treating HSCW. Pilot scale reactor experiments should be conducted to monitor the operation of the TFLBRs under leachate recirculation.
Authors
Asma Hanif, Graduate Student in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, asmahanif1988@gmail.com
Dr. Sybil Sharvelle, Assistant Professor in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Sybil.Sharvelle@colostate.edu
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
In livestock producing areas, animal manure is often applied to cropland to enhance soil fertility. Guidelines have been developed for manure application on fields underlain by subsurface (tile) drainage systems. Some of these guidelines, such as avoiding manure application if rain is predicted and not applying manure over a flowing tile, though effective, involve some level of risk. We believe that the level of risk can be reduced by filtering contaminants from the water leaving the drains. The control structures recommended for use with drainage systems underlying fields to which manure is applied, provide ready-made receptacles for filters. In this report we discuss the development and testing of a filter to remove contaminants from lagoon effluent.
Why Study Filters for Drainage Water?
The purpose of this project is to develop an economically feasible solution to capturing sediment bound nutrient loss from agricultural land as well as prevent herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, fertilizers and other contaminants from polluting the receiving waters of tile drained systems. In the event of a spill, these filters will presumably act as a barrier to capture pollutants in an attempt to prevent environmental degradation as well as fines to farmers.
What Did We Do?
We developed an activated carbon filter and tested it in our lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and in a controlled field setting in order to test the filters ability to meet physical parameters like allowing average tile flow rates through without backup and the effectiveness of the filter in improving water quality.
What Have We Learned?
We have learned that designing for agriculture is much more intensive than in a controlled setting and from that challenge, the project has helped us establish better research and development skills.
Check Out These Programs & Research About Tile Drainage
We plan to continue with alternative filter prototypes and continue testing so we have a product that is scientifically proven and farmers will want to use.
Authors
Stephanie Herbstritt, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Annie Kwedar, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
For more information on using filters in subsurface tile drained systems, go to the January-February 2013 edition of the Illinois Land Improvement Contractors Of America’s newsletters which can be found at: https://www.illica.net/newsletters
Acknowledgements
Dr. Richard Cooke, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Julie Honegger, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
In Iowa and many other Midwestern states, excess water is removed artificially through subsurface drainage systems. While these drainage systems are vital for crop production, nitrogen (N) added as manure or commercial fertilizer, or derived from soil organic matter, can be carried as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to downstream water bodies. A five-year, five-replication, field study was conducted in north-central Iowa with the objective to determine the influence of seasonal N application as ammonia or liquid swine manure on flow-weighted NO3-N concentrations and losses in subsurface drainage water and crop yields in a corn-soybean rotation. Four aqua-ammonia N treatments (150 or 225 lb-N/acre applied for corn in late fall or as an early season side-dress) and three manure treatments (200 lb-N/acre for corn in late fall or spring or 150 lb-N/acre in the fall for both corn and soybean) were imposed on subsurface drained, continuous-flow-monitored plots. Four-year average flow-weighted NO3-N concentrations measured in drainage water were ranked: spring aqua-ammonia 225 (23 ppm) = fall manure 150 every year (23 ppm) > fall aqua-ammonia 225 (19ppm) = spring manure 200 (18 ppm) = fall manure 200 (17 ppm) > spring aqua-ammonia 150 (15 ppm) = fall aqua-ammonia 150 (14 ppm). Corn yields were significantly greater (p=0.05) for the spring and fall manure-200 rates than for non-manure treatments. Soybean yields were significantly greater (p=0.05) for the treatments with a spring nitrogen application to the previous corn crop. Related: LPELC Manure Nutrient Management resources
Check Out These Other Presentations About Tile Drainage
Why Study Sub-Surface Drainage and Manure Application?
Subsurface agricultural drainage has allowed for enhanced crop production in many areas of the world including the upper Midwest, United States. However, the presence of nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) in subsurface tile drainage water is a topic of intense scrutiny due to several water quality issues. With the growing concern for the health of the Gulf of Mexico and local water quality concerns, there is a need to understand how recommended nitrogen management practices, such as through nitrogen rate and timing, impact nitrate-N concentrations from subsurface drainage systems. The objective of this presentation is to summarize results of studies from Iowa that have documented the impact of nitrogen application rate and timing on tile drainage nitrate loss.
What Did We Do?
The field experimental site was located near Gilmore City in Pocahontas County, IA. In the fall of 1999, seven treatments were initiated on 35 plots at the site to determine the effect of N source, rate, and application timing on crop yield and subsurface drainage water quality in a corn and soybean (CS) rotation. Two fertilizer N rates (168 or 252 kg ha-1) applied in the spring or fall and liquid swine manure (LSM) applied in spring or fall (218 kg ha-1) for corn production, and fall applied LSM for both crops in a CS rotation (168 kg ha-1) were randomly distributed in five blocks. Flow-weighted drainage samples were collected and volume measurements recorded for each plot through sampling/monitoring systems during drainage seasons in 2001-2004.
What Have We Learned?
This multi-year experiment demonstrated that rate and to a lesser extent timing affect concentration and losses and even at constant rates, these can be highly variable depending on precipitation patterns, N mineralization/denitrification processes and crop utilization in a given season. As expected, as nitrogen application rate to corn increases, the nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface tile drainage water increase. This highlights the need for appropriate nitrogen application to corn and to avoid over application. However, it is important to note that even when recommended nitrogen application rates are used, nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage are still elevated and may exceed the EPA drinking water standard for nitrate-N of 10 mg L-1. Relative to timing of nitrogen application, i.e. moving from fall to spring application, our studies showed little to moderate potential to decrease nitrate-N concentrations. Likely the largest factor when looking at the effect from fertilizer application timing is when precipitation and associated nitrate-N loss occurs. Although timing of nitrogen application is important, perhaps the most important factor is to apply the correct amount of N. Manure treatments out yielded commercial N in all years. No significant differences in corn yield for any year were noted between application timing. Soybean yields were affected by N timing and less so by application rate.
Other management practices need to be explored for their potentials in reducing nitrate loads from tile drained systems. Promising practices include drainage management, alternative cropping systems and edge-of-field practices.
Authors
Matthew Helmers, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, mhelmers@iastate.edu
Xiaobo Zhou, Assistant Scientist, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State Univeristy
Carl Pederson, Agricultural Specialist, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University
Additional Information
Lawlor, P.A., A.J. Helmers, J.L. Baker, S.W. Melvin, and D.W. Lemke. 2011. Comparison of liquid swine manure and ammonia nitrogen dynamics for a corn-soybean crop system. Trans. ASABE 54(5): 1575-1588.
Funding for this project was provided by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship through the Agricultural Water Management fund.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This workshop will focus on how dairy farmers in Wisconsin evaluate the risk of nutrient and sediment loss on their operations and what best management practices are adopted to reduce these risks. Dennis will describe how farm families evaluate all the risk factors facing their operation (weather, production, marketing, labor, safety and environmental risks) and discuss how a farmer has to balance the risk and rewards for each of these challenges. It is helpful to gain an appreciation for the numerous challenges farmers face on a daily basis and the amount of time committed to the evaluation and implementation of soil and water best management practices on each farm. Conservation practices are often applied in a “one size fits all” approach and are not developed and implemented to fit the needs of each farming operation. The large diversity of both farming systems and physical settings require a collaborative evaluation and implementation process between producers and conservation technicians to develop economic, effective, and practical conservation practices to fit the specific circumstances of individual farming operations.
What Are Some of the Lessons Learned in Managing Environmental Risks?
The focus of this talk is to explain when and where we saw nutrient and sediment losses that could have been avoided with improvements in management. We will also discuss what we have learned about unavoidable losses and try and explain the difference between unacceptable risk and acceptable risk.
What Did We Do?
Over the past twelve years UW – Discovery Farms has worked on many farms evaluating a variety of farming systems and identifying the positive and negative impacts that production agriculture can have on the environment. Data collection through this program includes over 120 sites years of edge-of-field monitoring, in-stream monitoring and monitoring tile drainage systems. All the monitoring was done in partnership with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and this data set is one of the largest and best on-farm sets known to exist.
What Have We Learned?
Discovery Farms has studied a variety of farming systems including no-till, minimal tillage, tillage and rotational grazing. The settings for these farming systems ranged from very steep (the driftless region with slopes up to 32%) to gently rolling (<3%) with a variety of unique challenges including manure management, tile drainage systems and close distance to surface water. On each of the operations that were studied, the farm operators have selected a farming system (tillage, planting, pest control, manure management, harvest, crop rotation, etc) that works for them. For the first two years of the study we asked the producers not make changes to their farming systems so that we could evaluate nutrient and sediment loss from their current practices. It quickly became apparent that on real farms, nothing stays the same. All of our cooperators made adjustments in management based not only on the data we were collecting, but also based on economics, changes in demand and changes on the operation (equipment, land base, labor, increase in cattle numbers). It is also apparent that even with the best farming system, implemented almost perfectly; mother nature can throw some unanticipated events which have a tremendous impact on nutrient and sediment losses.
Future Plans
In 2010, the UW – Discovery Farms Program expanded their on-farm research program to include not only edge-of-field and in-stream work on individual farms; they are now working with multiple farms in small watersheds. The goal of these studies is to better understand the relationsihp betweeen edge-of-field losses and what actually happens in lakes and streams.
Authors
Dennis R. Frame, Director, UW – Discovery Farms Program; Professor UW – Extension, drframe@wisc.edu
Eric Cooley, Outreach Specialist, UW-Discovery Farms
Additional Information
UW Discovery Farms makes every effort to develop materials from all of the on-farm research projects. These materails are available on our website (uwdiscoveryfarms.org or by contacting our office at 1-715-983-5668).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the farmers who have participated in our program. Without their guidance and support this program would not be possible. We would also like to acknowledge the support and guidance of all the non-governmental agricultural organizations in Wisconsin who continue to provide support financially and politically.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The economics and environmental impacts of livestock production cross watershed boundaries and affects both rural and urban populations. In particular, the issue of manure management has been the subject of debate and new policies in recent years as the non-point source discharge of nutrients and bacteria can be substantial if manure is not managed properly. Like most policies and rules, every five years the National Conservation Practice Standard (590) on Nutrient Management undergoes review and revision. This year, 2013, marks the initial year for adoption and implementation of state-specific and/or revised 590 standards across the United States. Despite “guiding” national standards and policies, there are different, unique approaches and tools used for nutrient management within different states and regions.
Why Discuss Nutrient Management Standards?
This session explores how different states are moving forward with nutrient management policies, standards and practices, and in particular, related to the NRCS 590 Standard. This session will include a panel discussion on unique adaptations by states to phosphorus indices, nitrogen leaching indices, winter application guidelines, air quality, and general nutrient management planning. The panel will also discuss if and how stakeholders have come together to develop these standards and practices. The discussion is also open to audience members wishing to share approaches and ideas. The session will conclude with a planning session to identify how we can, cooperatively, prepare for future policy and standard development, including discussion of collaborative research opportunities. This is a great opportunity to start building multi-state research projects to provide answers to manure management questions and issues that we might face in another five years.
Presenters
Erin Cortus, Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University erin.cortus@sdstate.edu and Nichole Embertson, Nutrient Management and Air Quality Specialist, Whatcom Conservation District, Lynden, Washington nembertson@whatcomcd.org
All presenters were invited to speak on the panel as experts on their State’s 590 revisions and/or adoption and implementation process. Their unique perspectives and processes will shed light on the regional differences in Nutrient Management and how it is affected by policy, social considerations, and regional resource concerns.
Laura Pepple, Livestock Extension Specialist, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Melony Wilson, Animal and Dairy Science Public Service Representative, University of Georgia
Bonda Habets, Certified Crop Advisor, Washington State
James Sharkoff, State Conservation Agronomist, USDA-NRCS Colorado State
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Maumee River watershed contributes 3% of the water but more than 40% of the nutrients entering Lake Erie. Data from the Ohio Tributary Loading Program has identified increasing levels of dissolved reactive phosphorus as the prime suspect in the recurrence of harmful algal blooms within Lake Erie. Livestock manure represents approximately 25% of the phosphorus applied in the watershed and can be a source of dissolved reactive phosphorus.
One project is a three year research project on applying liquid swine manure as a spring top-dress nitrogen source for soft red winter wheat. Field-scale randomized block design replicated plots were conducted on farms. Liquid swine manure was surface applied and incorporated on all plots using a Peecon toolbar and compared to urea (46-0-0) fertilizer surface applied with a fertilizer buggy for wheat yield. Manure applications were made using a standard 5,000 gallon manure tanker in early April after the wheat had broken dormancy and field conditions were deemed suitable. Manure was applied at rates to approximate the nitrogen amount in the urea treatments. There was no statistical yield difference between using livestock manure or purchased urea fertilizer as the top-dress nitrogen source.
Another research project started in 2011 compared fall and spring applied manure. The fall treatment included an application of manure just before planting of a wheat cover crop. The wheat was killed in the spring and followed with a corn crop. A direct injection manure application was made to the corn that had not received manure in the fall. The fall applied manure had an average yield of 109 bu/ac and the spring applied had an average yield of 205 bu/ac.
The potential to use liquid manure on growing crops opens a new window of opportunity to reduce phosphorus loading into Lake Erie.
Purpose
To compare manure nutrient field application timing throughout the year and with commercial fertilizer in order to maximize crop yield and minimize nutrient loss.
What Did We Do?
Topdressed wheat in the spring with manure and urea. Corn applications include topdressing and sidedressing corn fields in the fall and spring.
What Have We Learned?
Wheat topdressed with manure has yielded equal to or greater than urea. Preliminary results show sidedressing applications made to corn in the spring yield better than fall applications.
No statistically significant yield difference was found between spring applied urea and manure to soft red winter wheat.
There was a statsitcally significant yield difference between both fall manure applications (manure and manure plus a nitrogen inhibitor) and the spring sidedressed manure.
Future Plans
Continue the wheat study and are adding cover crops to the corn study.
Authors
Amanda Douridas, Extension Educator, The Ohio State University Extension Douridas.9@osu.edu
Glen Arnold, Manure Nutrient Management Field Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
A number of the manure related Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) have been successful. Several feed management related projects have been major successes under the CIG program. Other successful projects have dealt with such technologies as anaerobic digesters; community digesters; environmental credit trading; lagoon management; manure to energy generation; alternative litter sources, storage, and handling; and pathogen, odor, and emissions mitigation, to name just a few.
The presentation will provide specific numbers of projects and funding per year, and information about actual projects that NRCS considers to have been successful.
What Is the Purpose of the CIG Grant Program?
Glenn Carpenter came to Natural Resources Conservation Service as a Senior Economist in December of 2001 with the Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Division. In May, 2004 he became the agency’s National Leader for Animal Husbandry, with that Division. In 2010 his position was moved to the Ecological Sciences Division. Much of his work with NRCS has been related to the animal waste issue and the agency’s interaction with EPA over the CAFO Rule.
Glenn has three degrees in Poultry Science from Michigan State University. Prior to joining NRCS, Glenn served in Extension Poultry positions at two universities.
The 2002 Farm Bill created a mechanism under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for a program of Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG). These grants were “…intended to stimulate innovative approaches to leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production…” The grants were to provide a mechanism for funding projects to aid in technology development and transfer. The granting program actually began in 2004, and has continued since that time.
What Did We Do?
By statute, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service cannot do research. Because of this, and because the interest of NRCS lies in directly assisting farmers and ranchers in the adoption of technologies that will benefit conservation, projects funded under this program must be in the field demonstration or tool application stages. Since the initial grant funding cycle in 2004, NRCS has provided funding through EQIP every year. To date nearly 500 grants have been awarded, with total funding in excess of $180 million.
A large share of these CIGs has been strongly animal, and/or manure related. Almost 25 percent of the total number of grants has been animal related, and these grants have received slightly over 26 percent of the total dollars. About 19 percent of the total grants have been manure related and these have received about 22 percent of the funding. Those animal related grants that are not manure related largely deal with range and pasture systems.
What Have We Learned?
Several feed management related projects have been major successes under the CIG program. Other successful projects have dealt with such technologies as anaerobic digesters; community digesters; environmental credit trading; lagoon management; manure-to-energy generation; alternative litter sources, litter storage, and handling; and pathogen, odor, and emissions mitigation from manure, to name just a few.
The number and variety of funded projects has covered a wide range of geographic areas and technical innovations. A multistate feed management project resulted in training programs, a tech note for NRCS, and many fact sheets and other materials that are available on Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center webpage. Another major grant demonstrated the effectiveness of filter strips and other vegetated treatment areas on mitigating manure runoff from cattle feedlots. Utilizing high pressure injection of manure, a Pennsylvania project demonstrated a decrease in odor and runoff while also preserving nitrogen. Several projects have successfully demonstrated the effects of precision feeding of dairy cattle to show the change in manure nutrients. Projects have demonstrated the effectiveness of different tillage systems and technologies on manure nutrient runoff. Other projects have dealt with innovative waste-to-energy technologies, or waste to value-added-product creation. These are just a few of the number and variety of projects funded through the Conservation Innovation Grants program.
Future Plans
The success of the CIG program since 2004, both in numbers of projects and in innovative technologies and tools applied, demonstrates that the program is important to agriculture in the U.S. NRCS has shown its support by continually funding the program, and by making additional moneys available for special targeted CIGinitiatives.
Authors
Glenn H. Carpenter, National Leader, Animal Husbandry, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service glenn.carpenter@wdc.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Innovation Grants Program
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.
Ammonia and odor emissions from land application of liquid dairy manure, and costs associated with manure land application methods are serious concerns for dairy owners, regulators, academic, and the general public. Odor and ammonia samples from agricultural fields receiving liquid dairy manure applied by surface broadcast and subsurface injection methods were collected and analyzed. Costs associated with both of the manure application methods were estimated. The test results showed that subsurface injection reduced both the odor and ammonia emissions compared with surface broadcast; therefore, applying liquid dairy manure by subsurface injection could be recommended as one of the best management practices to control ammonia and odor emissions. The estimated costs associated with subsurface injection were higher than surface broadcast. However the higher costs could be partially compensated by the higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the deep injection method.
Why Study Air Emissions from Dairy Farms?
A floating self-propelled mixing pump and a remote controller (yellow)
Agriculture is the single most important economic sector in Idaho. Dairy production currently stands as the single largest agricultural pursuit in Idaho. Currently, Idaho ranks as the third largest milk production state in the US. Idaho has roughly 550 dairy operations with 580,000 milk cows. Over 70% of milk cows are located in the Magic Valley in southern Idaho (Idaho Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Dairying, 1/22/2013). A number of dairies in the Magic Valley use flushing systems resulting in huge amount of lagoon water which is applied to crop lands near the lagoons via irrigation systems during the crop growing seasons. The volatilization of ammonia (NH3) from the irrigated lands and lagoons is not only a loss of valuable nitrogen (N), but also causes air pollution. Concentrated dairy production in a limited area such as the Magic Valley has caused air and water quality concerns. Controlling odor and capturing N in dairy manure are big challenges facing the southern Idaho dairy industry.
Direct injection incorporates manure directly beneath the soil surface and thus minimizes odor and NH3 emissions during application. Injecting manure decreases soluble phosphorus (P) and N in runoff relative to surface application. Some common types of direct injection applications are liquid tankers with injectors and drag-hose systems with injectors. Manure can be successfully injected in both conventional tillage and non-till systems with currently available equipment. The manure direct injection has been proven in other regions, such as the Midwest, to effectively manage odors and manure nutrients. The purpose of this research was to demonstrate, evaluate, and encourage the widespread adoption of the manure direct injection method in southern Idaho for mitigating odors and managing manure nutrients.
Subsurface injection with drag hose system
What Did We Do?
A manure application field day was held on October 31, 2012 on a dairy in Buhl, Idaho, to demonstrate and evaluate dairy manure land application via a drag-hose system and manure mixing equipment. The dairy had approximately 3,500 milking cows managed in a free-stall and open-lot mix set-up, with about 60% of the cows housed in free stalls. Waste is flushed from lanes running under the feeding alleys and from the milking parlor. The wastewater passes through solids removal equipment and basins and then into three lagoons in series. Manure used for this demonstration study was from the last lagoon, which had about 9 million gallons of manure at the beginning of the demonstration field day and its sludge had been not cleaned for 5 years.
Soil after manure subsurface injection
The on-farm manure application trials conducted at two sites were comprised of two manure application methods: surface broadcast and subsurface injection. At each of the sites, a square plot of approximately 3,600 m2 in the western portion of the site was used for surface broadcast and the rest of the land was used for subsurface injection. The western portion of the site was chosen because the prevailing winds were from the north during the test period. The previous crop at the two sites was corn; both sites had been disked after harvest.
The manure lagoon was agitated before and during application with a floating mixing pump. Manure was pumped from the lagoon directly to the application field via drag hoses. The two manure application methods were demonstrated with the same equipment. Subsurface injection placed manure behind the shank in a band approximately 20 cm (8 inches) deep. Surface broadcast was realized by lifting the shanks above ground so manure was applied on the soil surface. Manure was applied from east to west and back again until the site was finished. The equipment shanks were lifted only when the equipment was in the designated 3,600 m2 square plot for surface application. After manure application in the site, three towers, each 1.5 m high, were placed in a north-to-south orientation with approximately 15 m spacing. The middle tower was placed at the center of the manure surface applied plot. Three towers were placed in the manure subsurface injected field parallel to the ones in the manure surface broadcasted plot and approximately 200 m apart to avoid or minimize cross-contamination between the two manure application methods.
Passive NH3 samplers (Ogawa & Co. USA Inc., Pompano Beach, FL) were installed on each tower at a height of 0.5 and 1 m to determine the NH3 concentration at each location. Ammonia samplers were changed approximately every 24 hours over a two-day period after manure application. Right after collection of NH3 samplers in field, samplers were placed into airtight containers and then shipped back to the U-Idaho Twin Falls Waste Management Laboratory where the NH3 sampler filters were carefully removed from the samplers and transferred into 15-mL centrifuge tubes. Five mL of 1 M KCI was added to each of the centrifuge tubes to extract NH3 trapped in the filters. The extractant was transported to the USDA Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory (NWISRL) located in Kimberly, Idaho where it was analyzed for NH4-N using a flow-injection analysis system (Quickchem 8500, Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee, WI). Background concentrations of NH3 were determined by placing three towers 50 m upwind (north) of the site following the same procedure described previously. Concentrations from passive samplers are time-average concentrations for the amount of time the sampler was exposed to the air and were calculated with the following equation:
In this, [NH3-N]air is the concentration of NH3-N in the air, [NH4-N]extractant is the concentration of NH4-N in the extractant, and 31.1 cm3/min is a constant used to calculated diffusion to the trap (Roadman et al., 2003; Leytem et al., 2009). Details regarding the design and calculation of NH3 concentrations can be found in Roadman et al. (2003) and Leytem et al. (2009).
Air samples were collected from the first test site right after manure application using Tedlar bags. One air sample was collected at 1 m above ground from each of the three towers located in the surface broadcast plot, subsurface injection, and background, respectively. A total of nine air samples were collected and then sent via UPS over-night service to Iowa State University Olfactometry Laboratory for odor analysis. The nine air samples were analyzed within 24 hours based on ASTM E679-04 (ASTM, 2004).
For each test site, a grab sample (about 1 L) of liquid manure was collected and transported to a commercial lab (Stukenholtz Laboratory, Inc., located in Twin Falls, Idaho) for pH and total nitrogen analysis. The manure pH, total N, and calculated total N application rates are shown in Table 1. The liquid manure application rate was approximately 20,000 gallons per acre on both the test sites.
Table 1. Manure pH and total N concentrations and application rates of total N at the two test sites
Site and Application Method
Manure pH
Manure total N concentration (mg/L)
Manure total N Application Rate (kg/acre)
Site 1
7.4
3433
257
Site 2
7.3
3519
265
A soil temperature probe with data logger (HOBO U23 Pro v2 2x external temperature data logger-U23-003) was placed 3 cm below the soil surface to record soil temperature data in 15-min increments. Wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity data were obtained from local Buhl Airport, located six miles from the test sites, due to failure of the mobile weather station set on the test sites. The ambient weather conditions and soil temperature at the test sites over the test period are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Ambient weather conditions and soil temperature at the test sites
Site 1
Site 2
Item
Day 1
Day 2
Day 1
Day 2
Average wind speed, m/s
5.0
4.2
4.2
3.1
Air temperature, average(minimum, maximum),˚F
61 (42, 78)
49 (45, 63)
49 (45, 63)
47 (38, 61)
Average relative humidity, %
28
53
53
51
Soil temperature, average(minimum, maximum), ˚F
50.9 (51.1, 56.1)
47.3 (51.1, 51.2)
46.5 (51.5, 52.1)
66.7 (51.6, 69.1)
Cost analysis was carried out for four different manure land application systems as shown in the “What Have We Learned?” section below. Cost calculations are based on 500 hours annual use for the tractor and 200 hours annual use for the injection system. Tractor operator labor is figured at $11.70/hour, diesel is figured at $4.00/gallon. Equipment costs were determined using the MACHCOST program from the University of Idaho’s department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. The program is available on the AERS web page at https://www.uidaho.edu/cals/idaho-agbiz/resources/tools. Equipment data was provided by John Smith at Smith Equipment Co. Rupert, ID 83350. Some machinery data was taken from “Costs of Owning and Operating Farm Machinery in the Pacific Northwest” PNW 346 available on line at: https://www.extension.uidaho.edu/publishing/pdf/PNW/PNW0346/PNW0346.html.
What Have We Learned?
Odor results from test site 1
T-test for Odor showed there was no significant difference between the background and subsurface injection (P=0.41), there was significant difference between the background and surface broadcast (P=0.03), and P value was 0.08 for the t-test of mean difference between the subsurface injection and surface broadcast. The field day attendees felt there was significant difference in odor perception between the subsurface injection and surface broadcast methods.
Test site 1
First day ammonia sample results from test site 1.
Second day ammonia sample results from test site 1.
The NH3 concentration data from test site 1 showed significant difference between surface broadcast and subsurface injection based on P<0.05. The NH3 concentration data from test site 1 showed 82% and 64% reduction in NH3 concentration for first and second sampling day, respectively when liquid dairy manure was applied by subsurface injection vs. surface broadcast.
Test site 2
First day ammonia sample results from test site 2.
Second day ammonia sample results from test site 2.
The NH3 concentration data from test site 2 showed significant difference between surface broadcast and subsurface injection based on P<0.05. There were 64% and 41% decrease in NH3 concentration for first and second sampling day, respectively when manure was applied by subsurface injection compared with surface broadcast.
The NH3 concentration data from both the test sites showed lower NH3 concentration in the air from the subsurface injected soil vs. surface applied land which means higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the subsurface injection method.
Cost analysis results:
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 15 foot wide broadcast unit. A 180 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 8 mph. Up to 10 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 12 foot wide broadcast unit. A 215 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 7 mph. Up to 7 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 12 foot wide broadcast unit. A 225 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 7 mph. Up to 7 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a system utilizing 5,280 FT of 8 inch hose and 1,320 FT of 5 inch hose. The pump unit capacity is 1,500 gpm to a 16 foot knife injection unit. A 250 PTO HP tractor is needed for the injection unit operating at 75% field efficiency and at an average ground speed of 3.5 mph. The lagoon pump is a 270 HP unit and operating efficiency assumed at 70%. Beyond 2 miles a booster pump would be necessary. Up to 4.75 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. Operation is continuous as no tank refill is needed.
Based on the estimated costs above, the subsurface injection method has higher costs mainly due to the need of larger tractor and lower operating speed. However, we did not include the time and equipment costs associated with refilling the tank for the tank application system. Due to the short time to discharge the tank on the tank broadcast and tank injection systems additional equipment to refill the tank in a timely fashion would be desirable. This would increase the investment in equipment and also would reduce the number of acres that could be covered per hour due to down time while the tank is refilled.
In summary, subsurface injection can reduce both the odor and NH3 emissions compared with surface broadcast; therefore, applying liquid dairy manure by subsurface injection could be recommended as one of the best management practices to control NH3 and odor emissions. The estimated costs associated with subsurface injection were higher than surface broadcast. However, the higher costs could be partially compensated by the higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the subsurface injection method.
Future Plans
We will finish development of educational videos to demonstrate the manure subsurface injection technique and disseminate results from this study to our stakeholders.
Authors
Lide Chen, Waste Management Engineer and Assistant Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Idaho lchen@uidaho.edu
Mario de Haro Marti, Extension Educator
Wilson Gray, District Extension Economist and Extension Professor
Howard Neibling, Extension Irrigation and Water Management Specialist and Associate Professor
Mireille Chahine, Extension Dairy Specialist and Associate Professor
Sai Krishna Reddy Yadanaparthi, Graduate student, University of Idaho
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service through a Conservation Innovation Grant. We would also like to thank Dr. April Leytem and Mr. Myles Miller (USDA Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory (NWISRL) located in Kimberly, Idaho) for their help with analysis of ammonia samples.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
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.
Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….
