Regulations – Page 6 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 22, 2019

Ammonia Emissions and Emission Factors: A Summary of Investigations at Beef Cattle Feedyards on the Southern High Plains

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Ammonia Emitted from Feedlots?

Ammonia volatilization is a major component of the nitrogen balance of a feedyard, and the effects of ammonia loss range from the economic (loss of manure fertilizer value) to the environmental (air quality degradation, overfertilization of ecosystems). Although not yet regulated, ammonia emissions from cattle are required to be reported under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Emission factors are used to estimate ammonia emissions for purposes of reporting and national inventories, but current emission factors are based on limited data. Our objective was to definitively quantify ammonia emissions and emission factors from commercial feedyards on the southern High Plains of Texas.

A typical feedyard on the High Plains of Texas. In the foreground, cattle in corrals with a stocking density of about 150 sq. ft./animal. In the background on the left, the runoff water retention pond, and center, a mound of stockpiled manure.

What Did We Do?

Ammonia emissions were quantified at three commercial feedyards in the Texas Panhandle from 2002 to 2008 using micrometeorological methods. Seasonal, intensive measurement campaigns were conducted from 2002 to 2005 at one feedyard, and ammonia emissions were near-continously monitored from 2007-2008 at two more feedyards. Meteorological and cattle management data were also collected.

What Have We Learned?

Ammonia emissions followed a distinct annual pattern. Emissions during summer were about twice those during winter, while spring and autumn emissions were intermediate. Annualized ammonia emissions ranged from 0.20 to 0.37 lb NH₃/animal/day, and averaged 0.26 lb NH₃/animal/day over all studies. Ammonia loss as a fraction of nitrogen fed to cattle averaged 41% during winter and 69% during summer; on an annual basis, 54% of fed nitrogen was lost as ammonia. Greatest emissions were observed when crude protein in cattle rations exceeded the nutrient requirements of beef cattle. Mean monthly ammonia emissions were strongly correlated with mean monthly temperature, and the relationship can be used to predict ammonia emissions from southern High Plains feedyards. Cattle feeders that meet recommended crude protein in rations can expect to lose half of fed N as ammonia. We recommend an annual emission factor of 88 lb/head for beef cattle feedyards based on one-time capacity, or 39 lb/head fed, based on a 150-d feeding period.

The annual pattern of ammonia emission rates (ER) followed seasonal temperatures, but also was sensitive to dietary crude protein (CP). Adding distillers grains to rations from March, 2008 to October, 2008 increased crude protein at Feedyard A to as high as 19%. Ammonia emissions greatly increased compared with the previous year and compared with Feedyard E.

Future Plans

Next steps involve using the extensive database from this research to adapt and refine process-based models of ammonia emissions. These models, based on the actual physical and chemical processes that control ammonia loss, will be more generally applicable than emission factors to a wider range of feedyards.

On an annual basis, ammonia emission averaged 0.26 lb per animal per day across the three feedyards and six years of study. Increased ammonia emission at Feedyard A in 2008 was due to high dietary crude protein when distillers grains were added to rations. Using these data and other estimates of ammonia loss from retention ponds and stockpiles, we recommend, for beef cattle fed a diet that meets protein requirements, an annual emission factor of 88 lb/head based on one-time capacity, or 39 lb/head fed, based on a 150-d feeding period.

Authors

Richard W. Todd, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, Texas, richard.todd@ars.usda.gov

Richard W. Todd, Research Soil Scientist; N. Andy Cole, Research Leader and Research Animal Scientist (Nutrition); and Heidi M. Waldrip, Research Soil Scientist: USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, Texas.

Additional Information

Cole, N.A., R.N. Clark, R.W. Todd, C.R. Richardson, A. Gueye, L.W. Greene, and K. McBride. 2005. Influence of dietary crude protein concentration and source on potential ammonia emissions from beef cattle manure. J. Anim. Sci. 83:722 731.

Cole, N.A., A.M. Mason, R.W. Todd, M. Rhoades, and D.B. Parker. 2009. Chemical composition of pen surface layers of beef cattle feedayrds. Prof. Anim. Sci. 25:541-552.

Flesch, T.K., J.D. Wilson, L.A. Harper, R.W. Todd, and N.A. Cole. 2007. Determining ammonia emissions from a cattle feedlot with an inverse dispersion technique. Agric. For. Meteorol. 144:139-155.

Hristov, A. N., M. Hanigan, A. Cole, R. Todd, T. A. McAllister, P. M. Ndegwa, A. Rotz. 2011. Ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91:1-35.

Preece, S.L., N.A. Cole, R.W. Todd, and B.W. Auvermann. 2012. Ammonia emissions from cattle-feeding operation. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Bulletin E-632 12/12.

Rhoades, M.B., D.B. Parker, N.A. Cole, R.W. Todd, E.A. Caraway, B.W. Auvermann, D.R. Topliff, and G.L. Schuster. 2010. Continuous ammonia emission measurements from a commercial beef feedyard in Texas. Trans. ASABE 53:1823-1831.

Sakirkin, S.L., N.A. Cole, R.W. Todd, and B.W. Auvermann. 2011. Ammonia emissions from cattle-feeding operations. Part 1: issues and emissions. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture, Issues: Ammonia, December, 2011. p. 1-11.

Sakirkin, S., R.W. Todd, N.A. Cole, and B.W. Avermann. 2011. Ammonia emissions from cattle-feeding operations. Part 2: abatement. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture, Issues: Abatement, December, 2011. p. 1-11.

Todd, R.W., N.A. Cole, and R.N. Clark. 2006. Reducing crude protein in beef cattle diet reduces ammonia emissions from artificial feedyard surfaces. J. Environ. Qual. 35:404-411.

Todd, R.W., N.A. Cole, M.B. Rhoades, D.B. Parker, and K.D. Casey. 2011. Daily, monthly, seasonal and annual ammonia emissions from southern High Plains cattle feedyards. J. Environ. Qual. 40:1-6.

Todd, R.W., N.A. Cole, H.M. Waldrip, and R.M. Aiken. 2013. Arrhenius equation for modeling feedyard ammonia emissions using temperature and diet crude protein. J. Environ. Qual. 2013. (accepted for publication).

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by CSREES Grant #TS2006-06009 under the direction of Dr. John Sweeten, Resident Director, Texas A&M University AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Amarillo, TX. Larry Fulton, Research Technician, USDA-ARS-CPRL, provided invaluable technical and logistical support and expertise.

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.

Ammonia Emissions and Emission Factors: A Summary of Investigations at Beef Cattle Feedyards on the Southern High Plains from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 22, 2019

Manure Spreader Calibration Field Days for Confined Animal Facility Operators in South Carolina

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Confined Animal Facility Operators in South Carolina either utilize the manure they produce directly on their own land or sell the manure to be used on another farm. The application of this manure is regulated by SC Regulation R.61-43, which provides application setback requirements, nutrient application rates, and other information pertaining to the utilization of the manure as a nutrient source. One requirement of this regulation is that growers must calibrate their spreader equipment once each year in order to provide an accurate application of the manure. Spreader calibration field days were developed for both liquid and solid manure application systems and held in multiple locations around South Carolina. The poster will detail the methods used, the amount of grower interaction and participation, and the number or growers attending and utilizing this program.

Authors

Bryan Smith, Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service wsmth@clemson.edu

Brian L. Beer, M.S., Area Extension Agent – Livestock, Clemson Extension Service, Lee van Vlake, M.S., Area Extension Agent – Livestock, Clemson Extension Service

March 5, 2019March 22, 2019

South Carolina’s Confined Animal Manure Manager Program

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In 1998 the South Carolina Legislature enacted regulation R.61-43, titled “Standards for the Permitting of Agricultural Animal Facilities.” This regulation provides requirements on Confined Animal Facility location and permitting, facility management, vector control, mortality disposal, manure application and storage, and a number of other topics. A portion of this regulation stipulates that Clemson University shall provide training in the management of confined animal facilities and the proper application and utilization of manure produced from these facilities. The poster will detail the major points of the regulation and the development and presentation of the Confined Animal Manure Manager program in South Carolina to over 1,500 growers to date.

Authors

Bryan Smith, Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service wsmth@clemson.edu

Jesse Adams III, M.S., Area Extension Agent – Livestock, Clemson Extension Service (ret.), Brian L. Beer, M.S., Area Extension Agent – Livestock, Clemson Extension Service, John P. Chastain, Ph.D., Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Clemson University, Julie D. Helm, DVM, Livestock-Poultry Health Division, Clemson University, Stephen T. Henry, M.S., Environmental Engineer, USDA-NRCS, Tonya O’Cain, Agricultural Compliance Manager, SCDHEC, Lee van Vlake, M.S., Area Extension Agent – Livestock, Clemson Extension Service

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG)

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG) was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information. It is hard to imagine, but at that time web pages were just beginning to be used as vehicles to share information, and even harder to imagine is the fact that while information on manure management existed, it was difficult to access, and it was just not a topic that garnered much positive attention.

IMMAG began as state-level technical committee comprised of public and private-sector entities with the objectives to 1) provide access to comprehensive information on manure management issues; 2) develop relevant educational materials and 3) provide them in a format that could be easily accessible.

Now, 15 years later, what was supposed to be short-term, one-year effort, has turned into a major outreach and education effort for Iowa State University Extension and Outreach and their partners. In addition to the web page, IMMAG has hosted many field days and training workshops over the years as well as coordinated the development of countless fact sheets, newsletters and other educational pieces.

Why Was the IMMAG formed?

As the livestock sector in Iowa changed in the 1990’s it became apparent that a mechanism for information delivery was needed that could quickly evolve to keep livestock producers in tune with changing regulations, up-to-date with current research and understand best management practices to help assure manure’s value as a crop nutrient resource and help protect Iowa’s natural resources.

IMMAG was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information, develop and deliver educational programs, and design tools and resources that could be used by producers, technical agencies, educational institutions, researchers, consultants and the general public. IMMAG originated as a state-level technical committee under the leadership of the Iowa NRCS that brought together the state agencies, land-grant institution, commodity groups, environmental groups and private sector interests who proceeded to identify challenges and needs for manure management information.

What Did We Do?

After an initial needs assessment was completed, members of IMMAG agreed the highest priority was the development of an integrated Web site for all manure management information. A Web page would allow the most flexibility in keeping materials up-to-date. The members also agreed that producers and others not having internet access would be able to request printed materials from the site made available through the commodity organization. Once all existing materials were organized and included on the IMMAG Web page, a needs assessment was conducted by ISU Extension and the commodity group to determine information gaps and the kinds of new material that needed to be developed. Materials were not limited to print resources, but also included development and delivery of nutrient planning workshops, field days and tools. Along with a needs assessment, the Web site was thoroughly evaluated by members of the environmental groups and the general public to determine how accessible the information was and how easy it was to use and comprehend.

During the past 15 years, the Iowa Manure Management Action Group has distributed monthly newsletters (originally printed, now e-newletters); created 40 fact sheets; hosted over 50 field days and workshops, coordinated 3 multi-day manure clinics for producers and professionals; written over 200 popular press articles, supported and developed material for nearly 600 Extension meetings; and developed 9 video presentations.

What Have We Learned?

The biggest lesson learned from this educational outreach program was and is the success of integrating the state agency, land-grant university and livestock commodity group message to assist livestock producers. This partnership allowed the development of a consistent message among all involved when it came to manure management so producers and their technical staff were using the same recommendations and planning processes across all programs. Other important things learned include 1) longevity of programs are crucial to producer awareness and success; 2) a defined mechanism for intergrating research into extension programming is crucial for producers to make informed choices related to best management practices; 3) leveraging financial support to serve all clients helps level the playing field in terms of client access to educational materials, events and access to technical assistance and 4) when provided with appropriate training and resource materials, it is possible to develop an entire service industry to assist producers with manure nutrient management planning.

Future Plans

Many internal discussions have identified the need to continue to support this effort even with the availability of other national programs that serve as clearinghouses for manure management information. Future needs for program implementation include coordinating long-term financial support for continued programming and a needs assessment that is relevant to current production practices. Future needs for program delivery include more field days and hands-on type experiences for producers and their service providers.

Authors

Angela Rieck-Hinz, Extension Program Specialist, Iowa State University, amrieck@iastate.edu

Additional Information

IMMAG Home Page

Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG) from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 30, 2020

Water Quality Initiatives for Small Iowa Beef and Dairy Feedlot Operations (Small Feedlot Project)

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Traditionally, small feedlots and dairies have not been engaged in environmental regulations and awareness in Iowa due to the environmental focus being directed at large feedlots and confinement feeding operations. Many small feedlot and dairy managers do not even recognize or admit that regulations do apply to their livestock operation. This effort primarily uses traditional extension outreach methods, field days and publications, to raise awareness. Unique to this outreach effort are the goal to provide a producer network to share information and ideas to learn more about manure runoff control structures and best management practices to reduce impacts on water quality, and the focus on controls beyond minimum rule requirements, but tailored to small operations.

This talk will discuss some of the challenges faced by small feedlot producers, identification of parameters to help producers overcome some of these challenges, and methods and educational materials aimed at helping raise environmental awareness and foster action among these producers.

Purpose

The Small Feedlot Project is a cooperative effort between state and federal regulatory agencies, public research and extension, technical agencies and the private sector in Iowa. The primary objectives are to 1) educate producers to better understand the pollution potential of open feedlot runoff, 2) train producers to accurately assess the water pollution potential of their own feedlots, 3) assist producers to identify and evaluate appropriate runoff control alternatives, and 4) provide technical assistance to producers to implement solutions that improve the environmental performance of their feedlots.

What Did We Do?

The first focus in regards to raising awareness about potential impacts of runoff from open feedlots was the development of two producers guides that specifically talk about open lot runoff and impacts on water quality, applicable regulations, the importance and how to assess risk, structural solutions, management solutions and a list of appropriate resources. The guides, PM 3018, Small Open Beef Feedlots in Iowa- a producer guide and PM 3019, Small Open Lot Dairies in Iowa- a producer guide, were both written and printed in 2012. These publications were peered reviewed by internal and external partners to the Small Feedlot Plan. Two-thousand copies of each publication were printed and have been widely distributed via field days, workshops and meetings. The publications have been in such demand that as of February 2013, only 26 copies of the beef publication and 630 copies of the dairy pub remain in stock.

The second focus to raising awareness was to offer multiple field days that showcased structural or management practices put in place by feedlot owners to address runoff from their farms. It is well-known that livestock producers respond well to field days where they can observe physical site conditions that impact runoff, see structural (i.e. settling basins, pumping demonstration, clean-water diversions) or management practices (i.e. pen scraping, manure removal) put in place by other producers; can ask management and cost of implementation questions to other producers; and can discuss regulations and other management decisions with Extension and agency staff.

Three field days were held in 2012 to provide options to look at different sizes of feedlots, dirt versus concrete lots and structural and management practices on farms. The first field day was a three-stop tour held on August 7 near Larchwood, IA with 26 people in attendance; the second field day was held on October 29 near Wall Lake, IA, with 22 people in attendance; and the third field day was held on October 31 near Andover, IA with 26 people in attendance.

What Have We Learned?

A post-field day evaluation was offered to attendees at the Wall Lake and Andover Field Days. A summary of the evaluations completed follows:

29% reported their understanding of impact of feedlot runoff on stream water quality “increased a lot”; while 56% reported their understanding “increased a little”.
38% reported their understanding of lost-cost methods to better control and manage feedlot runoff “increased a lot”; while 52% reported their understanding “increased a little”.
29% reported their understanding of the value of feedlot manure for crop production “increased a lot”; while 60% reported their understanding “increased a little”.
31% reported their understanding of available technical and financial assistance for feedlot runoff control improvement “increased a lot”; while 58% reported their understanding “increased a little”.
35% reported they are more likely to plan and install additional improvements to feedlot runoff controls on their farms as a result of attending a field day.

Future Plans

Future plans include the development of fact sheets that address specific practices small open lot dairy and beef operations can use to protect water quality and additional field days throughout 2013. New materials will be posted to a Web page specifically created to host resources for small open lots.

Authors

Angela Rieck-Hinz, Extension Program Specialist, Iowa State University, amrieck@iastate.edu

Shawn Shouse, Extension Field Ag Engineer, Iowa State University

Additional Information

Small Feedlots and Dairy Operations Web Page

Acknowledgements

Partners in the Water Quality Initiatives for Small Iowa Beef and Dairy Feedlot Operations

Water Quality Initiatives for Small Iowa Beef and Dairy Feedlot Operations (Small Feedlot Project) from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Using Soil Moisture to Predict the Risk of Runoff on Non-Frozen Ground

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Risk and Runoff Potential?

Identifying time periods when land application of manure is likely to contribute to surface runoff contamination is important for making proper management decisions and reducing the risk of surface water contamination. Recently, a great deal of attention has been focused on reducing nutrient and sediment losses from the winter period. However, sediment and nutrient losses during the late spring period can be significant and it is important to understand landscape and weather conditions that lead to elevated runoff risk during this time period.

What Did We Do?

Surface runoff and weather data were gathered at multiple edge-of-field Discovery Farm monitoring stations in Wisconsin. Soil moisture data were also collected. Data were analyzed by each storm event during the non-frozen ground period to determine the impact of antecedent soil moisture on surface runoff generation.

What Have We Learned?

Data from the Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program has identified two key time periods with an elevated risk of surface runoff from agricultural fields: the late winter period (February – March) and the late spring period (May – June). Eighty-one percent of the average annual surface runoff was observed during these two time periods with the late winter period accounting for 50% and the late spring period accounting for 31%. Data collected over the past 12 years of the Wisconsin Discovery Farm Program indicate that the vast majority (86%) of non-frozen ground runoff occurs when soil moisture is in excess of 35%. High antecedent soil moisture can indicate risk for surface runoff in agricultural watersheds and can also influence the quantity of surface runoff generated during rainfall events. Avoiding manure applications during time periods with a high probability of rainfall and when soil moisture is at or near threshold levels decreases the risk of surface water contamination. Agricultural producers can utilize soil moisture measurement to guide the timing and rate of manure application to further reduce environmental risk.

Future Plans

Producer education and outreach

Authors

Tim Radatz, Research Specialist , Discovery Farms MN & WI, radatz@mawrc.org

Anita Thompson, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Fred Madison, Professor, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Additional Information

Radatz, T. F., Thompson, A. M. and Madison, F. W. (2012), Soil moisture and rainfall intensity thresholds for runoff generation in southwestern Wisconsin agricultural watersheds. Hydrol. Process.. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9460

Acknowledgements

UW Discovery Farms Program and Staff

UW-Platteville Pioneer Farm Program and Staff

Using Soil Moisture to Predict the Risk of Runoff on Non-Frozen Ground from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Will Spreading Bans Reduce Manure Runoff Events?

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program was one of the first on-farm evaluation projects to identify the risk of manure applications in the late winter period. Data from several of our farms have shown that manure applied during February and March has an increased risk of running off and contributing to high nutrient losses in surface water. This data has been used to justify the establishment of recommendations, rules and regulations on winter manure spreading. But, do bans on winter manure spreading (spreading on frozen or snow covered ground) actually reduce the risk of manure runoff? A close evaluation of the data indicates that spreading during early winter (November – January) is much different than during late winter when frost can extend deeper and be more solid in the soil profile. Total winter application bans also increase the volume of manure that needs to be stored and increase the risk of runoff during the spring spreading season.

Based on the data from the Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program, manure spreading bans should be established based on field conditions, and not a calendar. There are times when applying manure early in the winter is optimal because lack of snow and/or frost affords the opportunity for manure to come into contact with the soil. There are also times when manure can be safely applied in late March, when the soils have thawed, snowmelt is finished and the fields are fit. Not allowing farmers to begin fieldwork based on calendar dates can greatly increase the potential for runoff because the window for manure applications is smaller and the potential for runoff from saturated soils and spring rains is greater.

Why Did the Discovery Farms Project Study Nutrient Runoff?

The Wisconsin Discovery Farms Program was established in 2001 with leadership from farmers, their advisors and their industry groups to gather water quality data from working farms around Wisconsin and to use that data to educate farmers, industry personnel, consumers and policymakers. At the time, there was little reliable year-round information on actual phosphorus, nitrogen or sediment loss from fields with different management practices, physical settings or weather related events.

What Did We Do?

Average runoff timing and frequency from Wisconsin Discovery Farms, 2003-2008

The US Geological Survey partners with the Discovery Farms Program to provide high quality year-round data collected from agricultural fields, in streams, and within tile drainage. Monitoring has been conducted on more than 10 farms all around the state, totaling over 150 site years of data.

What Have We Learned?

The Discovery Farms data shows losses from the edge of field are, on average, 667 pounds of sediment, 2 pounds of phosphorus and 7 pounds of nitrogen. While these numbers are important, the real value is in the variation, factors, and the management decisions that can influence nutrient and sediment losses. One of the most important lessons learned is the impact of the timing of manure application on nutrient loss. The key to reducing loss of nutrients from manure applications is to maximize the time between a manure application and a runoff event. As a producer, you need to understand the factors that cause runoff and options you have when manure spreading is not feasible.

Approximately 90% of the annual runoff in Wisconsin occurs from December through June. From December through March, most of the runoff is caused by snowmelt or rain on frozen/snow covered ground. During every year and on every site monitored, there has been runoff in March. Avoiding manure application during February and March can reduce nutrient loss, as 50% of the annual runoff happens during these two months. From April through June, runoff is driven by intense storm events or saturated soil conditions. In any given year, there can be times when fields are fit for manure application during this same time period based on little to no snow cover, early spring conditions, or droughty periods.

Future Plans

Prohibiting spreading based on calendar dates does not allow producers to assess the conditions in their immediate location. Management by calendar dates can force producers to spread during conditions when the risk for runoff is high because storage facilities are full. The conditions vary each year, and waiting for a specific calendar date can make producers miss opportune times for manure application so that field activities can be completed in a timely manner.

To prepare producers for assessing their own situations, Discovery Farms has provided intensive education and outreach on the factors that cause runoff in Wisconsin. By understanding the factors that cause runoff and management strategies that reduce nutrient loss, Wisconsin agriculture producers can maintain and improve water quality resources and farm productivity.

Authors

Amber Radatz, Outreach Specialist, UW Discovery Farms, aradatz@wisc.edu

Eric Cooley, Outreach Specialist, UW Discovery Farms

Dennis Frame, Director, UW Discovery Farms

Additional Information

www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org

UW Discovery Farms on Facebook

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Photometric measurement of ground-level fugitive dust emissions from open-lot animal feeding operations.

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Fugitive dust from confined livestock operations is a primary air quality issue associated with impaired visibility, nuisance odor, and other quality-of-life factors. Particulate matter has conventionally been measured using costly scientific instruments such as transmissometers, nephelometers, or tapered-element, oscillating microbalances (TEOMs). The use of digital imaging and automated data-acquisition systems has become a standard practice in some locations to track visibility conditions on roadways; however, the concept of using photometry to measure fugitive dust concentrations near confined livestock operations is relatively new. We have developed a photometric method to estimate path-averaged particulate matter (PM10) concentrations using digital SLR cameras and high-contrast visibility targets. Digital imaging, followed by automated image processing and interpretation, would be a plausible, cost-effective alternative for operators of confined livestock facilities to monitor on-site dust concentrations. We report on the development and ongoing evaluation of such a method for use by cattle feeders and open-lot dairy producers.

Purpose

To develop a low-cost practical alternative for measurement of path-averaged particulate matter (PM₁₀) concentrations downwind of open-lot animal feeding operations.

What Did We Do?

Working downwind of a cattle feedyard under a variety of dust conditions, we photographed an array of high contrast visibility targets with dSLR cameras and compared contrast data extracted from the photographs with path-averaged particulate matter (PM₁₀) concentration data collected from several TEOMs codeployed alonside the visibility targets.

What Have We Learned?

We have developed a photometric method to estimate path-averaged particulate matter (PM₁₀) concentrations using digital SLR cameras and high-contrast visibility targets. Using contrast data from digital images we expect to predict PM₁₀ concentrations within 20% of TEOM values under the dustiest conditions. Digital imaging, followed by automated image processing and interpretation, may be a plausible, cost-effective alternative for operators of open-lot livestock facilities to monitor on-site dust concentrations and evaluate the abatement measures and management practices they put in place.

Future Plans

We intend to improve the prediction accuracy of the photometric method and automate it such that it can be easily adapted for use as a cost-effective alternative for measuring path-averaged particulate matter (PM₁₀) concentrations at cattle feedyards and open-lot dairies.

Authors

Brent Auvermann, Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M AgriLife Research. b-auvermann@tamu.edu

Sharon Preece, Senior Research Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Brent W. Auvermann, Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Taek M. Kwon, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota-Duluth; Gary W. Marek, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Kevin Heflin, Extension Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; K. Jack Bush, Research Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Research.

Additional Information

Please contact Brent W. Auvermann, Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, 6500 Amarillo Boulevard West, Amarillo TX, 79106, Phone: 806-677-5600, Email: b-auvermann@tamu.edu.

Acknowledgements

This research was underwritten by grants from the USDA National Institute on Food and Agriculture (contract nos. 2010-34466-20739 and 2009-55112-05235).

Photometric Measurement of Ground-Level from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Impacts of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is a holistic approach to environmental protection. It helps farmers evaluate their entire operation, regardless of size or commodity, and make sustainable management decisions balancing society’s needs, the environment, and economics. MAEAP is a partnership effort that aims to protect natural resources and build positive communities by working with farmers on environmentally responsible agricultural production practices.

To become MAEAP verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, an on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). MAEAP benefits Michigan by helping to protect the Great Lakes by using proven scientific standards to improve air, water, and soil quality. Annual phosphorus reduction through MAEAP is over 340,451 pounds per year which is enough to grow almost 85,104 tons of algae in lakes and streams. Farming is an environmentally intense practice and the MAEAP-verification process ensures farmers are making choices that balance production and environmental demands. The measures aimed at protecting air, soil, water, and other environmental factors mean that MAEAP-verified farmers are committed to utilizing farming practices that protect Michigan’s natural resources.

Purpose

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an innovative, proactive program that assists farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. MAEAP is a collaborative effort of farmers, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, universities, conservation districts, conservation groups and state and federal agencies. MAEAP teaches farmers how to identify and prevent environmental risks and work to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Farmers who successfully complete the three phases of a MAEAP system (Farmstead, Cropping or Livestock) are rewarded by becoming verified in that system.

What Did We Do?

To become MAEAP-verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, a thorough on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices. To retain MAEAP verification, a farm must repeat all three steps including MDARD inspection every three years.

Local MAEAP farm verified in the Cropping System

What Have We Learned?

The MAEAP program is positively influencing Michigan producers and the agriculture industry. Annually, an average of 5,000 Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and MAEAP verification. To date, over 10,000 farms are participating with over 1,500 MAEAP verifications. On a yearly basis, over $1.2 million is spent for practice implementation by producers working towards MAEAP verification. In 2012; the sediment reduced on MAEAP-verified farms could have filled 28,642 dump trucks (10 yards each), the phosphorus reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 138,056 tons of algae in surface waters, and the nitrogen reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 45,515 tons of algae in surface waters.

An example of the partnership between MAEAP and Michigan Farm Bureau

Future Plans

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a vested interest in the value of the MAEAP program. In March of 2011, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 1 and 2 which codify MAEAP into law. This provides incentives and structure for the MAEAP program. It is a goal of Governor Snyder’s to have 5,000 farms MAEAP-verified by 2015. Most importantly, through forward thinking MAEAP strives to connect farms and communities, ensure emergency preparedness and protect natural resources.

Authors

Jan Wilford, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development – Environmental Stewardship Division, wilfordj9@michigan.gov

Shelby Bollwahn, MAEAP Technician – Hillsdale Conservation District

shelby.bollwahn@mi.nacdnet.net

Additional Information

www.maeap.org – MAEAP Website

http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_25432—,00.html – MDARD MAEAP Website

http://www.facebook.com/mimaeap – MAEAP Facebook Page

Acknowledgements

MDARD MAEAP Program Office Communications Department

Michigan Farm Bureau

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts

Hillsdale County Farm Bureau

Hillsdale Conservation District

Handout version of the poster (8.5 x 11; pdf format)

March 5, 2019August 5, 2020

Livestock GRACEnet

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Livestock GRACEnet is a United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service working group focused on atmospheric emissions from livestock production in the USA. The working group presently has 24 scientists from 13 locations covering the major animal production systems in the USA (dairy, beef, swine, and poultry). The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of management practices that reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions from livestock agriculture. The working group fosters collaboration among fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices; supports the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information; fosters scientific transparency and rigor and transfers new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community. Success in the group’s mission will help ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, improve vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide beneficial environmental services. Some of the research highlights of the group are provided as examples of current work within Livestock GRACEnet. These include efforts aimed at improving emissions inventories, developing mitigation strategies, improving process-based models for estimating emissions, and producing fact sheets to inform producers about successful management practices that can be put to use now.

Why Was GRACEnet Created?

The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of livestock management practices to reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and to provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions.

What Did We Do?

The Livestock GRACEnet group is comprised of 24 scientists from 13 USDA-ARS locations researching the effects of livestock production on emissions and air quality.

Our goals are to:

Collaborate with fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices
Support the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information
Foster scientific transparency and rigor
Transfer new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community

Success in our mission will help to ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide environmental services benefits.