Category: Manure Treatment

Posted on

Phosphorus Densification and Availability From Manure-Derived Biochar

Purpose

Manure produced at livestock facilities contains plant essential nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which is typically land applied as a fertilizer source for crops near where it is generated. However, in areas of high livestock density, due to the imbalance of nitrogen and phosphorus in manure compared to crop requirements, soil phosphorus concentrations have increased. This has resulted in soil phosphorus legacy issues throughout the Midwest, contributing to water quality issues in surrounding waterways. To reduce phosphorus application near livestock facilities, advanced manure management systems are needed to separate and concentrate manure nutrients, particularly phosphorus, to expand transport distances. In this study, we investigated converting separated anaerobically digested manure solids into biochar through pyrolysis to densify manure nutrients. In addition, we examined the availability of phosphorus from manure derived biochar in a soil incubation study to evaluate its fertilizer potential.

What Did We Do

We collected anaerobically digested manure solids from a screw press separator at a local dairy facility. Manure solids were dried and converted to biochar at two different temperatures (662°F and 932°F). The mass of the dried manure and biochar were determined and samples analyzed for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and available phosphorus to evaluate densification of manure nutrients.

We additionally evaluated nutrient availability of manure solids and biochar in a soil incubation study. In the study manure solids and biochar were applied at equal agronomic phosphorus rates to two different soil textures (loam and sandy loam). Soils were then incubated for 182 days with samples collected and analyzed Every week for four weeks throughout the period to evaluate phosphorus release over time.

What Have We Learned

We found that converting manure solids to biochar is an effective method for reducing manure mass while retaining the original manure phosphorus content (as shown in Figure 1). However, manure derived biochar had lower available phosphorus following pyrolysis than the original separated manure solids, with the available P decreasing as the pyrolysis temperature increased.

Figure 1: Mass reduction and P content following drying and pyrolysis of manure.

During the soil incubation study, while soils with manure derived biochar application had lower available phosphorus at the start of the incubation period, within 28 days available soil phosphorus reached similar levels to those amended with separated manure solids in both soil textures. While nitrogen was applied at different rates, making comparisons difficult, there were minor changes in soil available nitrogen for manure derived biochar, suggesting no additional nitrogen availability during the incubation period.

Future Plans

We plan to further investigate manure derived biochar as a potential advanced manure processing pathway, by evaluating whether manure derived biochar can provide additional soil benefits, such as reducing nitrogen leaching when amended to agronomic soils and increasing crop yields in field studies.

Authors

Joseph R. Sanford, Assistant Professor and Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub Affiliate Researcher, School of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
sanfordj@uwplatt.edu

Additional Authors

Rebecca A. Larson, Associate Professor, Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional Information

Sanford, J., H. Aguirre-Villegas, R.A. Larson, M. Sharara, Z. Liu, & L. Schott. 2022. Biochar Production through Slow Pyrolysis of Animal Manure. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Publication No. A4192-006/AG919-06, I-01-2022.

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2017-67003-26055. Partial support was provided by the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub. 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 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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Manure Treatment Technology Adoption by Swine and Dairy Producers: Survey Feedback

Purpose

Sound management of manure is essential to optimize its benefits for soil health and crop production, and to minimize costs and environmental risks. Along with changes in farm scale and practices, modern farms are increasingly looking to process or treat manure to address problem areas and to take advantage of market opportunities on their operations. A variety of manure treatment technologies are available and new technologies continue to be developed for managing nutrients, solids, energy, water, and other components of manure. But, while these new treatment technologies hold potential to improve the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of livestock and poultry production, questions remain regarding producer adoption of treatment systems on their operations. To improve our understanding of decision-making processes employed when producers evaluate and adopt manure treatment technologies, the authors conducted a survey aimed at dairy and swine producers in the Midwest.

What did we do?

Two surveys were developed, one tailored to dairy producers and one for swine producers. All operation sizes and production systems were included. The surveys were administered using Qualtrics, an online survey platform. Questions asked covered manure-related practices in animal facilities, manure handling, and land application. Additional questions asked producers to prioritize their needs for manure treatment, factors influencing technology selection, current technologies being utilized, and principal barriers for adoption. Respondents were asked to select up to three critical outcomes for their farms’ manure treatment technologies, the most influential factors (or technology characteristics) for manure treatment adoption, and the main barriers for technology adoption. The authors collaborated with Nebraska Extension and with state producer associations to reach swine and dairy producers in Nebraska and other Midwest states, with the survey first launched in the fall of 2021. Magazine articles, radio programs, listservs, and social media were used to promote the surveys.

Responses were analyzed using descriptive methods. Eighteen respondents provided information to characterize seven swine farms and ten dairy operations. Swine respondents had farms in Nebraska (7), Iowa (2), and Ohio (1). For dairy, 7 of the farms were in Nebraska and 1 was in Minnesota. Swine farm systems were divided between the ones that had farrowing (farrow-to-finish and farrow-to-wean systems) and the ones without it (grow-to-finish and wean-to-finish systems) (Table 1). Respondents were asked to provide insights for their farms’ primary manure management systems. A dairy operation’s primary manure management system was defined as the one receiving manure from the lactating cows. For swine, the primary manure management system received manure from the gestation sows or the finishing herd. For both swine and dairy, secondary systems were defined as utilizing separate storage and handling facilities.

Table 1. Herd size information of dairy and swine farms represented in the survey responses.
Species and herd type Number of farms Herd size – average Herd size – range
Dairy – lactating cow herd 8 933 30 to 2,150
Swine (farrowing) – sow herd 4 2,762 250 to 7,500
Swine (finishing) – finisher herd 5* 23,600 1,200 to 70,000
Note: *One finishing farm did not share its herd size information.

What have we learned?

The dairy and swine farms demonstrated differences in manure treatment needs and consequently adopted different treatment technologies (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Farm characterization and manure management of ten swine farms.
FTF = farrow-to-finish
PSOP = partially slotted open pens
PP = pull-plugs
FTW = farrow-to-wean
ISWPSF = individual stalls w/partial slotted floor
DP = deep pits
GF-F = grow-finish or finishing
ASFB = all slotted-floor building
FL = flushing
WTF = wean-to-finish
CH = chemicals
AE = aeration
LA = lagoons
AD = anaerobic digestion
CO = composting
Figure 2. Farm characterization and manure management of eight dairy farms.
CS = corn stalks
Sd = sedimentation
DD = direct drying
Mch = mechanical
TL = treatment lagoon
Co = composting
Stt = sand settling lane or basin
AE = aeration
NS = no separation
AD = anaerobic digestion

The most-used technologies in the primary manure management system for each industry were: mechanical separation, sand settling lanes, and sedimentation basins for dairy farms; and addition of chemicals, treatment lagoons, and composting for swine operations (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Manure treatment technologies being used in primary manure management systems.

Allowing water to be reused and exporting nutrients were the primary desired outcomes of implementing manure treatment technologies for dairy and swine farms, respectively (Figure 4). Accordingly, 6 of 7 dairy farms were recycling water in their operations, while only 1 out of 10 was doing so on the swine side.

Figure 4. Primary desired outcomes of the implementation of manure treatment technologies in swine and dairy farms.

Diverse factors influenced the selection of the implemented technologies in both livestock operations. Low management demand, low maintenance, “performs best functionally” (best performance achieving the desired goals of manure treatment), and low initial cost are among the most-mentioned factors (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Factors that most influenced the selection of implemented manure treatment technologies.

Swine and dairy farmers identified initial cost, operational cost, and return on investment as the primary barriers to future technology adoption (Figure 6). Management demand was another important barrier among swine producers.

Figure 6. Barriers of highest concern when upgrading manure management systems on farms, especially through the adoption of manure treatment technology.

None of the survey respondents used membranes, electrochemical precipitation, or gasification technologies, demonstrating that cutting-edge manure treatment technologies are being more slowly adopted by regional livestock producers. The high cost and potential high management demand of these technologies could be barriers for their adoption.

Future plans

Our research work has moved into qualitative exploration. Focus groups will be held with swine and dairy producers, where they will discuss and share their manure treatment needs and desired outcomes from new treatment options. These activities will be organized online and will allow producers to share their manure management perspectives for the present and future. The results of our surveys and focus groups are being used to inform a decision-support tool being developed as part of the Management of Nutrients for Reuse  (MaNuRe) project. Our findings will also be used to help develop extension programs that meet the needs of producers for manure management in Nebraska and neighboring states.

Authors

Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Corresponding author email address

jramostanchez2@huskers.unl.edu

Additional authors

Richard Stowell, Professor of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Amy Schmidt, Associate Professor of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this effort came from the USDA NIFA AFRI Water for Food Production Systems program, grant #2018-68011-28691. The authors would like to express gratitude to Dr. Teng Lim and Timothy Canter (University of Missouri), Mara Zelt, and Lindsey Witt-Swanson (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) for their relevant support to this study. We would also like to thank the staff at the Nebraska Pork Producers Association and the Nebraska State Dairy Association for their collaboration on our research.

Posted on

A Workshop to Review BMPs and BATs for Control of Dust, Ammonia, and Airborne Pathogen Emissions at Commercial Poultry Facilities (Zhao)

Purpose

Poultry production is a significant source of air pollutant emissions including particulate matter (PM), ammonia (NH3), and  pathogens, which negatively impact bird health and performance, human respiratory health, food safety, and local environmental quality. Effective and economically feasible management practices and technologies to mitigate air pollutant emissions and pathogen transmission are urgently needed.

In the past decade, a variety of management practices and control technologies have been developed and preliminarily tested in commercial poultry facilities, with varying degrees of success. Technologies that have been applied for PM control include air filtration, impaction curtains, oil/water spraying, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitation, and electrostatic spray scrubbing. Among these, electrostatic methods and wet scrubbing achieve high removal efficiencies for both fine and coarse PM. For NH3 gas mitigation, various forms of scrubbing technologies such as trickling biofilters, acid spray scrubbers, and electrolyzed water spraying have been tested in commercial poultry facilities, alongside management practices such as feed additives and litter amendments. Acid spray scrubbers can be particularly attractive to poultry facilities since the sulfuric acid from the scrubber reacts with NH3 to create ammonium sulfate, which can be used as fertilizer to offset scrubber operating costs. A new technology using artificial floor was recently studied and demonstrated significant reduction in ammonia and PM concentrations and emissions at laying hen housing.

The avian influenza outbreak in 2014/15 and the current spread of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) remind us that pathogen control at poultry facilities is crucial. Technologies such as electrostatic precipitators, electrostatic spray scrubbers, and electrolyzed water spraying systems have been tested to assess their capacities for airborne bacteria reduction.

The technical and economic feasibilities of these methods need to be evaluated for proper consideration by poultry producers and their stakeholders. All the above research results need to be introduced to producers for practical applications.

What Did We Do?

This workshop is organized for the researchers and Extension specialists to review the latest BMPs and BATs on control of dust, ammonia, and pathogens at poultry facilities for improved biosecurity, food safety, environmental quality, and the overall sustainability of poultry production.  We have developed the following presentations and will present them at 2022 W2W.

    1. Manure Drying Methods to Control Ammonia Emissions (Dr. Albert Heber-Professor Emeritus, Purdue University)
    2. A Spray Wet Scrubber for Recovery of Ammonia Emissions from Poultry Facilities (Dr. Lingying Zhao, Professor, Ohio State University)
    3. Electrostatic Precipitation Technologies for Dust and Pathogen Control at Poultry Layer Facilities (Dr. Lingying Zhao, Professor, The Ohio State University)
    4. Field Experiences of Large-Scale PM Mitigation (Dr. Teng Lim, Professor, University of Missouri)
    5. Mitigation of Ammonia and Particulate Matter at Cage-free Layer Housing with New Floor Substrate (Dr. Ji-Qin Ni, Professor, Purdue University)

What Have We Learned?

    1. Newly developed BMPs and BATs can improve air quality in commercial poultry facilities: Manure belt layer houses reduce ammonia emissions by removing manure from the layer houses in 1 to 7 days. Belt aeration using blower tubes is one method that has been used to dry the manure on the belt.  Drying tunnels take manure from layer houses and utilize ventilation exhaust air to further dry the manure before it enters the manure storage or compost facilities or transfers to pelletizing operations.  Manure sheds and compost facilities are ventilated with building exhaust air or fresh air to dry manure in storage.
    2. The use of acid spray scrubbing is promising, as it simultaneously mitigates and recovers ammonia emission for fertilizer. Its low contribution of backpressure on propellor fans makes it applicable on US farms. A full-scale acid spray scrubber was developed to recover ammonia emissions from commercial poultry facilities and produce nitrogen fertilizer. The scrubber performance and economic feasibility were evaluated at a commercial poultry manure composting facility that released ammonia from exhaust fans with concentrations of 66–278 ppmv and total emission rate of 96,143 kg yr−1. The scrubber achieved high NH3 removal efficiencies (71–81%) and low pressure drop (<25 Pa). Estimated water and acid losses are 0.9 and 0.04 ml m−3 air treated, respectively. Power consumption rate was between 90 and 108 kWh d−1. The scrubber effluents containing 22–36% (m/v) ammonium sulphate are comparable to commercial-grade nitrogen fertilizer. Preliminary economic analysis indicated that a break-even of one year is achievable. This study demonstrates that acid spray scrubbers can economically and effectively recover NH3 from animal facilities for fertilizer.
    3. Two types of electrostatic precipitation-based dust control technologies have been developed at the Ohio State University: the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and the electrostatic spray scrubber (ESS). Field tests of the ESP and ESS conducted at a commercial layer facility indicated that (1) the fully optimized ESP achieved respective mean PM5, PM10, and TSP removal efficiencies of 93.6% ±5.0%, 94.0% ±5.0%, and 94.7% ±4.4% and (2) the ESS exhibited respective mean PM2.5, PM10, and TSP removal efficiencies of 90.5% ±10.0%, 91.9% ±8.2%, and 92.9% ±6.9%.  A system of 88 large ESP units to treat exhaust air from the 4-house poultry facility at the minimum required ventilation rate of 24.8 m3 s-1 would have an initial cost of $757,680 and an annual operating cost of $10,831 ($13.43 per 1,000 birds), increasing annual facility electricity consumption by 54.2%. A system of ESS units designed to treat exhaust air for six exhaust fans in each of the 4 poultry houses that operated continuously year-round for minimum ventilation, is estimated to have an initial cost of $71,280 with an annual operating cost of $21,663 for water consumption and electricity usage. The ESP is more effective, and the ESS is more economically feasible to mitigate PM at a commercial egg production facility.
    4. The field-scale measurements of PM mitigation technologies are usually time-consuming to set up and maintain, and often only limited replications can be obtained. It is important to minimize interference to the routine farm operation. The use of different PM measurements, setup and maintenance required to ensure data quality, and differences between the mitigation technologies are discussed. It is important to consider practicality of the mitigations, along with safety, and long-term use of the different technologies.
    5. A new mitigation approach, using AstroTurf ® as floor substrate, reduced indoor concentrations and emissions of ammonia and PM at cage-free aviary-style layer rooms in a recent study. Results demonstrated that the average daily mean ammonia concentration in the two AstroTurf® floor rooms (7.5 ppm) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) compared with that in the two wood shaving floor rooms (15.2 ppm) with a reduction rate of 51%. Average daily mean large particles (all particles detected above ~2.5 µm) and small particles (all particles detected below ~0.5 µm) in the two AstroTurf® floor rooms were significantly reduced (p < 0.05) by 70% (501,300 vs. 1,679,700 per ft3) and 63% (906,300 vs. 2,481,100 per ft3), respectively, compared with those in the two wood shaving floor rooms. With the controlled and consistent ventilation rates among the rooms in the study, the emissions of ammonia and PM (large and small particles) from the two AstroTurf® floor rooms had similar reduction rates.

Future Plans

More workshops to review BMPs and BATs for mitigation of air emissions and pathogen transmission in poultry facilities will be organized as new research development and findings emerge.  The workshop will target audiences of researchers, farmers, and professionals working with farmers.

Authors

Presenting authors

Lingying Zhao, Professor and Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Albert Heber, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University

Teng Lim, Professor, University of Missouri

Ji-Qin Ni, Professor, Purdue University

Corresponding author

Lingying Zhao, Professor and Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University

Corresponding author email address

Zhao.119@osu.edu

Additional authors

Matt Herkins, Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State University

Albert Heber, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University

Teng Lim, Professor, University of Missouri

Ji-Qin Ni, Professor, Purdue University

Additional Information

Airquality.osu.edu

Hadlocon, L. J., A. Soboyejo, L. Y. Zhao, and H. Zhu. 2015. Statistical modeling of ammonia absorption efficiency of an acid spray scrubber using regression analysis. Biosystems Engineering 132: 88-95.

Hadlocon, L. S., R.B. Manuzon, and L. Y. Zhao. 2015. Development and evaluation of a full-scale spray scrubber for ammonia recovery and production of nitrogen fertilizer at poultry facilities. Environmental Technology 36(4): 405-416.

Hadlocon, L.J. and L.Y. Zhao. 2015. Production of ammonium sulfate fertilizer using acid spray wet scrubbers. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 17 (Special Issue: 18th World Congress of CIGR): 41-51.

Hadlocon, L.J., L.Y. Zhao, B. Wyslouzil, and H. Zhu. 2015. Semi-mechanistic modeling of ammonia absorption in acid spray scrubbers based on mass balances.  Biosystems Engineering 136:14-24.

Heber, A. J., T.-T. Lim, J.-Q. Ni, P. C. Tao, A.M. Schmidt, J. A. Koziel, S. J. Hoff, L.D. Jacobson, Y.H. Zhang, and G.B. Baughman. 2006. Quality-assured measurements of animal building emissions: Particulate matter concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 56(12): 1642-1648.

Knight, R. M. L.Y. Zhao, and H. Zhu. 2021. Modelling and optimisation of a wire-plate ESP for mitigation of poultry PM emission using COMSOL. Biosystems Engineering 211: 35-49.

Knight, R., X. Tong, L. Zhao, R. B. Manuzon, M. J. Darr, A. J. Heber, and J. Q. Ni. 2021. Particulate matter concentrations and emission rates at two retrofitted manure-belt layer houses. Transactions of the ASABE 64(3): 829-841. (doi: 10.13031/trans.14337)

Knight, R., X. Tong, Z. Liu, S. Hong, and L.Y. Zhao. 2019. Spatial and seasonal variations of PM concentration and size distribution in manure-belt poultry layer houses. Transactions of the ASABE 62(2):415-427. doi: 10.13031/trans.12950

Lim, T. T., H. W. Sun, J.-Q. Ni, L. Zhao, C. A. Diehl, A. J. Heber, and P.-C. Tao. 2007. Field tests of a particulate impaction curtain on emissions from a high-rise layer barn. Transactions of the ASABE 50(5): 1795-1805.

Lim, T.-T., Y. Jin, Ni, J.-Q., and A. J. Heber. 2012. Field evaluation of biofilters in reducing aerial pollutant emissions from commercial finishing barn. Biosytems Engineering 112(3): 192-201.

Lim, T.-T., C. Wang, A. J. Heber, J.-Q. Ni, and L. Zhao. 2018. Effect of electrostatic precipitation on particulate matter emissions from a high-rise layer house. In Air Quality and Livestock Farming, 372 p. T. Banhazi, A. Aland, and J. Hartung, eds. Australia: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.

Ni, J.-Q., A.J. Heber, M. J. Darr, T.-T. Lim, Diehl, and B. W. Bogan. 2009. Air quality monitoring and on-site computer system for livestock and poultry environment studies. Transactions of the ASABE 52(3): 937-947.

Ni, J.-Q., A. J. Heber, E. L. Cortus, T.-T. Lim, B. W. Bogan, R. H. Grant, and M. T. Boehm. 2012. Assessment of ammonia emissions from swine facilities in the U.S. – Application of knowledge from experimental research. Environmental Science & Policy 22(0): 25-35.

Ni, J.-Q., L. Chai, L. Chen, B. W. Bogan, K. Wang, E. L. Cortus, A. J. Heber, T.-T. Lim, and C. A. Diehl. 2012. Characteristics of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter concentrations in high-rise and manure-belt layer hen houses. Atmospheric Environment 57(0): 165-174.

Ni, J.-Q., S. Liu, C. A. Diehl, T.-T. Lim, B. W. Bogan, L. Chen, L. Chai, K. Wang, and A. J. Heber. 2017. Emission factors and characteristics of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter at two high-rise layer hen houses. Atmospheric Environment 154: 260-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.050.

Tong, X., L.Y. Zhao, A. Heber, and J. Ni. 2020.  Mechanistic modelling of ammonia emission from laying hen manure at laboratory scale. Biosystems Engineering. 192:24-41.

Tong, X., L.Y. Zhao, A. Heber, and J. Ni. 2020. Development of a farm-scale, quasi-mechanistic model to estimate ammonia emissions from commercial manure-belt layer houses. Biosystems Engineering 196, 67-87.

Tong, X., L.Y. Zhao, R. B. Manuzon, M. J. Darr, R. M. Knight, C. Wang, A. J. Heber, and J.Q. Ni. 2021. Ammonia concentrations and emissions at two commercial manure-belt layer housed with mixed tunnel and cross ventilation. Transactions of the ASABE 64(6): 2073-2087. (doi: 10.13031/trans.14634)

Tong, X., S. S. Hong., and L.Y. Zhao 2019. Development of upward airflow displacement ventilation system of manure-belt layer houses for improved indoor environment using CFD simulation. Biosystems Engineering 178:294-308.

Zhao, L.Y., L. J. S. Hadlocon, R. B. Manuzon, M.J. Darr, H. M. Keener, A. J. Heber, and J.Q. Ni. 2016. Ammonia concentrations and emission rates at a commercial manure composting facility. Biosystems Engineering  150: 69-78.

Acknowledgements

The wet scrubber development was supported by National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2008-55112-1876 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Air Quality Program. The ammonia emission modelling work was supported by the USDA-NIFA Grant 2018-67019-27803.

The electrostatic precipitation-based dust control work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grant 2016-67021-24434.

The Project funding for the Mitigation of Ammonia and Particulate Matter at Cage-free Layer Housing with New Floor Substrate presentation was provided by the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association. GrassWorx LLC provided the AstroTurf and financed the building of the flooring systems.

Appreciation is also expressed to the U.S. EPA, and participating producers and staff for their collaboration and support.

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

California’s Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases from Dairy and Livestock Operations

This webinar discusses two programs in California, administered through the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), that provide financial incentives to dairy and livestock producers to reduce methane emissions from on-farm manure management. This presentation was originally broadcast on August 16, 2019. More… Continue reading “California’s Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases from Dairy and Livestock Operations”

Proudly powered by WordPress