Tag: ammonia emissions

Posted on

Ammonia Loss Following Application of Swine Manure

Purpose

The amount of nitrogen lost to the air as ammonia following the application of manure is important for two reasons. From the farmer’s point of view, the loss of nitrogen as ammonia gas represents a loss of fertilizer that could have contributed to the production of a crop. From an environmental point of view, ammonia lost from a field to the atmosphere is a source of air pollution that can combine with sulfites and nitrates in the atmosphere to form extremely fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that can have harmful effects on human health and can contribute to water pollution when deposited into surface water by rainfall. Land application of animal manure is one of many sources of ammonia emissions that also include municipal and industrial waste treatment, use and manufacture of fertilizers, combustion of fossil fuel, coke plants and refrigeration (USEPA, 1995).

Animal manure can be used as a fertilizer substitute. However, the types of nitrogen in manure are more complicated than those found in most common chemical fertilizers. Nitrogen can be present in manure as ammonium-N, ammonia-N, organic-N, and nitrate-N. Not all the nitrogen in manure is immediately available for plant use. Most animal manure contains very little nitrate-N and as a result it is typically not measured. However, manure that receives aerobic treatment, i.e., composting or aeration, should be analyzed for nitrate-N since it is a valuable form of nitrogen that is the same as contained in one of the most common types of fertilizer – ammonium nitrate.

Most laboratories measure the total ammoniacal nitrogen content (TAN) of animal manure, which includes ammonium-N and ammonia-N (TAN = NH4+-N + NH3 -N). The amount of TAN that is in the ammonia form depends greatly on the pH of the manure. At a pH of 6.5 none of the TAN is in the ammonia form – it is all ammonium-N which is a great form of plant fertilizer.  At a high pH, such as, 9.5, 65% of the TAN is in the ammonia form. Most animal manures have a pH in the range of 8 to 8.5 and about 10% most of the TAN is ammonia-N and can be lost to the air. As a result, TAN is often labeled as ammonium-N on manure analysis reports.

A key aspect of using animal manure as a fertilizer substitute is to make a good estimate of the fraction of the total nitrogen contained in the animal manure that can be used to grow a plant. This portion of the nitrogen is called the plant available nitrogen (PAN) and can be estimated using the following equation:

PAN =mf Organic-N + Af TAN + Nitrate-N. (1)

Most of the nitrogen in untreated slurry and solid animal manure is organic nitrogen (organic-N) that must be mineralized in the soil to become available to plants as ammonium-N. The fraction of the organic-N that will be mineralized during the growing season is represented in equation 1 as the mineralization factor, mf. The value of the mineralization factor varies depending on animal species, the amount of treatment, as well as soil pH, moisture, and temperature. The values of mf recommended are 0.70 for lagoon water and 0.50 for swine slurry (Chastain, 2006).

The fraction of TAN in manure that will be available to the plant is represented by the ammonium-N availability factor, Af. The ammonium-N availability factor (a decimal) is determined from the fraction of TAN lost to the air as ammonia-N using the following formula:

Af =1-( AL/ 100). (2)

The amount of ammonia-N lost following application varies with the method of application, the extent and timing of incorporation in the soil by disking as well as the pH of the manure, the pH that the manure attains following application, and the air temperature. Most extension publications provide recommended values for estimating ammonia-N losses. For example, Clemson Cooperative Extension (CAMM, 2005) recommends use of an ammonia loss (AL) of 50% for broadcast of manure without incorporation. This would mean that a value of 0.5 is used for ammonium-N availability factor (Af) in equation 1. If the manure is incorporated into the soil within one day the recommended value for AL is 20% giving an Af value of 0.80.

The amount of nitrate-N contained in animal manure is often so small that it is not measured. However, manure that is exposed to enough air or that is treated aerobically will have a significant amount and measurement of the nitrate-N content is recommended. All the nitrate-N contained in manure is 100% plant available.

Various studies and reviews (Chastain, et al., 2001; Montes, 2002; Montes and Chastain, 2003; Chastain, 2006) have indicated that the amount of ammonia lost following application of animal manure varies much more than indicated by most extension recommendations (e.g., CAMM, 2005). The result of large differences between recommended estimates and actual values is either substantial over or under estimation of the amount of ammonia emissions to the air as well as over or underestimation of the amount of nitrogen that will be available for the plant. The objective of this paper is to provide practical recommendations for the ammonium-N availability factors for swine manure based on the application method, total solids content, and the time between broadcast and incorporation.

What Did We Do?

The data and the correlations used to develop the recommendations in this paper were provided by Montes (2002) and Chastain (2006).  The effect of the application method on ammonia-N loss was estimated using the following equation:

AL =fA ALBC. (3)

The application factors, fA, that correspond to an application method are given in Table 1 and ALBC was the ammonia loss for broadcast manure. The value of the ammonium-N availability factor, Af, for each application method was calculated using the definition given previously in equation 2.

How fast ammonia is lost following broadcast application of manure was determined by Montes (2002). The results indicated that ammonia-N loss following irrigation of lagoon water occurred too quickly to consider incorporation by disking. Values for broadcast and incorporation for slurry manure are given in Table 1. The results indicated that incorporation must follow broadcast of slurry manure within 8 hours if it is desired to reduce ammonia-N loss by 50% (fA=0.50).

 

Table 1. Application method factors to describe the reduction in ammonia loss as compared to broadcast application of manure. (Values based on reviews of the literature by Chastain et al., 2001 and Montes, 2002).
Application Method fA What type of manure can use this method?
Broadcast without incorporation 1.0 All
Broadcast followed by incorporation within 4 hoursA 0.29 Slurry
Broadcast followed by incorporation within 6 hoursA 0.40 Slurry
Broadcast followed by incorporation within 8 hoursA 0.50 Slurry
Broadcast followed by incorporation within 12 hoursA 0.64 Slurry
Band spreading (drop or trailing hose) 0.50 Liquid and Slurry
Band spreading with immediate shallow soil cover 0.12 Liquid and Slurry
Shallow injection (2 to  inches below soil surface) 0.10 Liquid and Slurry
Deep injection (4 to 6 inches below soil surface) 0.08 Liquid and Slurry
AfA calculated using K = 0.086 h-1 (Chastain, 2006)

A few studies indicated that application of manure to bare soil versus cut hay, or plant residue reduced ammonia-N loss following broadcast by 10% to 20% (see Montes, 2002 and Chastain, 2006). However, it was decided that there was not sufficient data to generalize the result for practical use.

What Have We Learned?

The model was applied to as wide a range of swine manure application situations as possible. The results were tabulated as ammonium-N availability factors, Af, that may be used in the PAN equation (equation 1) along with an estimate for the mineralization factor.

Variation in Ammonium-N Availability by Application Method

The impact of application method on the ammonium-N availability factor for swine manure is shown in Table 2. Application method had the least impact on irrigation of surface water from an anaerobic treatment lagoon. The value of Af was 0.98 for irrigated swine lagoon water. This corresponded to an ammonia-N loss of 2% (AL = (1-Af) x 100). The amount of ammonia-N lost was low since more than 0.25 inches of lagoon water was applied, and most of the ammonium-N was washed into the soil. However, the ammonium-N availability factors for broadcast of manure decreased sharply as the total solids content of swine manure increased. This corresponded to ammonia-N loss ranging from 8% for liquid manure (TS = 1% to 4%) to 58% for thick slurry (TS = 15% to 20%). It can also be seen in the table that all the ammonium-N conserving application methods increased in effectiveness as the TS content of swine manure increased.

 

Table 2. Variation in ammonium nitrogen availability factors, Af, for swine manure and treatment lagoon surface water based on application method. (AL = (1 – Af) x 100)
Description Broadcast or Large Bore Irrigation Broadcast followed by incorporation within 6 hours Band Spreading Band Spreading with Shallow Cover Shallow Injection Deep Injection
Lagoon Surface WaterA 0.98 NA 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Liquid or SlurryB
TS=1% to 4% 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99
TS=5% to 6% 0.82 0.93 0.91 0.98 0.98 0.99
TS=7% to 8% 0.75 0.90 0.88 0.97 0.98 0.98
TS=9% to 12% 0.66 0.86 0.83 0.96 0.97 0.97
TS=13% to 14% 0.56 0.82 0.78 0.95 0.96 0.96
TS=15% to 20% 0.42 0.77 0.71 0.93 0.94 0.95
AALBC = 14.30 TS – 4.75, R2 = 0.791, TS = 0.5%, Chastain (2006)
BALBC = 23.284 TS, R2 = 0.875, Chastain (2006)

Comparison of the Use of New Ammonium-N Availability Factors and Current Clemson Extension Recommendations for Broadcast Application of Swine Manure

Selection of the ammonium-N availability factor (Af) and mineralization factor (mf) for a manure type and application method has a large effect on the accuracy of the estimate of nitrogen that can be used to fertilize a crop as well as the estimate of ammonia-N lost to the air. The PAN estimate determines the amount of manure applied per acre (gal/ac) and the amount of P2O5 and K2O that are applied (lb/ac). The impact of using constant values of Af and mf that are different from values that more closely match the data was studied by comparing the results for spreading lagoon water (TS = 0.5%) and slurry (TS = 7.5%) to meet a target application rate of 100 lb PAN/ac. The results are provided in Table 3. The impact of settling and biological treatment in the lagoon was indicated by the low TS content (TS=0.5%) and the fact that the lagoon water contained two pounds of TAN for every pound of organic-N. Swine slurry (TS = 7.5%) contained 1.2 pounds of TAN per pound of organic-N.

Comparison of the estimates using Clemson Extensions current recommendations with the results provided in this paper led to the following observations.

    • Using the new Af and mf values that varied by manure type (lagoon water vs slurry) provided higher PAN estimates than the Clemson Extension recommendations.
    • The higher PAN estimates resulted in reductions in the amount of manure needed to provide 100 lb PAN/ac.
    • The amount of ammonia-N lost per acre per 100 lb PAN applied was much lower using the new factors for estimating PAN as compared to using Clemson Extension values for lagoon water and swine slurry. Using Clemson Extension values over-estimated the ammonia-N loss/ac by 133% to 1133%.
    • The inaccuracies in PAN estimates for lagoon water and slurry manure also impacted plant nutrient application rates. Using the PAN estimates based on Clemson Extension recommendations to determine manure application rates resulted in over application of nitrogen by 17% to 21%. Similar over-applications were observed for P2O5 and K2 Therefore, better estimates of PAN can help to reduce excessive applications of phosphorous and provide better estimates of potash (K2O) application rates.
    • Comparison of the estimates of the ammonia-N lost per acre following broadcast of manure for the examples shown in Table 4 demonstrates the need to consider using values of Af and mf that more closely agree with the available data.
    • It must be emphasized that slurry manure with a higher TS content than 7.5% and heavily bedded manure were not included in the examples in this paper. The ammonia-N loss values will be higher and must be calculated using the Af values provided in this paper along with the corresponding manure analysis to yield valid conclusions.

Impact of Selected Ammonium-N Conserving Application Methods on Ammonia-N Loss per Acre, and P2O5 Application Rate

The impact of application method on the estimates of PAN, ammonia-N loss, and phosphorous application rates was calculated for swine slurry using the tabulated values for the ammonium-N availability factors given in Table 2.  Lagoon water was not included because irrigation is the most common and cost-effective method of application, and the amount of ammonia-N lost to the air was the least. The application methods that were compared were broadcast, broadcast followed by incorporation within 6 hours, band spreading, band spreading with shallow soil cover, and shallow injection. Results for deep injection were not included because the improvements were very small compared with shallow injection (see Table 2). Furthermore, the horsepower and fuel costs of deep injection are higher than for shallow injection. The results are given in Table 4.

The results indicated that broadcast with incorporation within 6 hours provided a reduction in ammonia-N loss per acre of 65% and a reduction in the P2O5 application rate of 11%. Band spreading provided almost the same benefits (57% reduction in ammonia-N loss and 10% reduction in lb P2O5/ac) but would be achieved with only one pass across a field. Adding a method to immediately cover a band of manure with soil provided reductions in ammonia-N loss of 90% and reduction of the P2O5 application rate by 16%. Shallow injection provided a modest improvement in ammonia-N emissions (93%) as compared to band spreading with shallow cover. Shallow injection also provided about the same benefit in reduction of phosphorous application rate as band spreading with shallow cover.

 

Table 3. Comparison of land application rate and ammonia-N loss estimates using tabulated model results and current Clemson University Extension recommendations for broadcast application of swine lagoon surface water and slurry manure. Target nutrient application rate = 100 lb PAN/ac.
Swine
Lagoon Water Slurry
TS, % 0.5 7.5
TAN, lb/1000 gal 4.3 23.0
Org-N, lb/1000 gal 2.0 19.0
P2O5, lb/1000 gal 3.6 33.0
K2O, lb/1000 gal 7.9 28.0
Land Application Rates and Ammonia-N Loss Estimates Using Clemson Extension Recommendations
Mineralization factor, mf 0.60 0.60
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.80 0.50
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 4.6 22.9
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal/ac 21,552 4,367
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 78 144
Resulting application rate for K2O 170 122
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 18.5 50.2
Land Application Rates and Ammonia-N Loss Estimates Using New Recommendations
Mineralization factor, mf 0.70 0.50
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.98 0.75
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 5.6 26.8
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal/ac 17,813 3,738
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 64 123
Resulting application rate for K2O 141 105
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 1.5 21.5
Key Impacts of Inaccurate Estimates of Af, and PAN
Over-estimation of Ammonia-N Loss/ac 1133% 133%
Actual PAN Application Rates Using Clemson Extension Recommendations to Determine Manure Application Rate, lb PAN/ac and percent over-application of PAN (%) 121
(21%)		 117
(17%)
Difference in Application of P2O5, lb/ac (%) 14
(22%)		 21
(17%)
Difference in Application of K2O, lb/ac (%) 29
(21%)		 17
(14%)

 

Table 4. Impact of Application Method on Ammonia-N Loss and P2O5 Application Rate for Swine Slurry. The total solids and plant nutrient contents were given previously in Table 3 and the mineralization factor was 0.50 for all application methods.
Swine
Slurry, TS = 7.5%
Broadcast – no incorporation
Mineralization factor, mf 0.50
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.75
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 26.8
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal /ac 3,738
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 123
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 21.5
Broadcast – incorporation within 6 hours
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.90
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 30.2
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal /ac 3,311
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 109
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 7.6
Reduction in Ammonia-N loss Compared to Broadcast 65%
Reduction in P2O5 Application Rate 11%
Band Spreading
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.88
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 29.7
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal /ac 3,362
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 111
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 9.3
Reduction in Ammonia-N loss Compared to Broadcast 57%
Reduction in P2O5 Application Rate 10%
Band Spreading with Shallow Cover
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.97
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 31.8
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal /ac 3,144
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 104
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 2.2
Reduction in Ammonia-N loss Compared to Broadcast 90%
Reduction in P2O5 Application Rate 16%
Shallow Injection
Ammonium-N availability factor, Af 0.98
PAN estimate, lb PAN/1000 gal 32.0
Application rate to provide 100 lb PAN/ac, gal /ac 3,121
Resulting application rate for P2O5, lb/ac 103
Ammonia-N Loss, lb per acre / 100 lb PAN 1.4
Reduction in Ammonia-N loss Compared to Broadcast 93%
Reduction in P2O5 Application Rate 17%

Future Plans

The model results provided in this paper are currently being used to develop extension programs and will be used to update extension publications and recommendations for producers. It is hoped that these tabulated ammonium-N availability factors will be used to increase the precision of using swine manure as a fertilizer substitute and making better estimates of ammonia-N emissions.

Author

John P. Chastain, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Sciences Department, Clemson University

Corresponding author email address

jchstn@clemson.edu

Additional Information

CAMM. 2005. Confined Animal Manure Managers Program Manual – Swine Version. Clemson, SC.: Clemson University Extension. Available at https://www.clemson.edu/extension/camm/manuals/swine_toc.html.

Chastain, J.P. 2006. A Model to Estimate Ammonia Loss Following Application of Animal Manure, ASABE Paper No. 064053. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.

Chastain, J. P., J. J. Camberato, and J. E. Albrecht. 2001. Nutrient Content of Livestock and Poultry Manure. Clemson, SC.: Clemson University.

Montes, F. 2002. Ammonia volatilization resulting from application of liquid swine manure and turkey litter in commercial pine plantations. MS Thesis, Clemson, SC.: Clemson University.

Montes, F., and J.P. Chastain. 2003. Ammonia Volatilization Losses Following Irrigation of Liquid Swine Manure in Commercial Pine Plantations. In Animal, Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes IX: Proceedings of the Nineth International Symposium, 620-628. R.T. Burnes, ed. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.

USEPA. 1995. Control and Pollution Prevention Options for Ammonia Emissions (EPA-456/R-95-002), report prepared by J. Phillips, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control Technology Center. Research Triangle Park, NC. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/documents/ammoniaemissions.pdf.

 

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

Reducing Greenhouse and Ammonia Emissions from Manure Systems


Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose             

Dairy manure systems produce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions that contribute to climate change. There are many potential practices and management strategies that can reduce these emissions which can conserve nutrients and reduce environmental impacts. This work assesses different processing strategies, additives, and manure storage covers to reduce emissions from dairy manure systems.

What did we do? 

We completed three laboratory/field trials to assess emissions from manure systems. The first trial was to assess the greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during storage and land application of manure that was processed with solid separation and digestion in combination with solid separation. A second trial assessed emissions and manure characteristics from storage with various commercial additives. The third study assessed ammonia emissions from digested manure storages with various biomass covers including raw wood, steam treated wood, and biochar produced from wood and corn cobs.

What have we learned? 

The results from the study indicate that separation and digestion result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, as expected, ammonia emissions following digestion are increased due to increased nitrogen mineralization. Results also indicate that separation alone had a similar impact to greenhouse gas emissions, but did not further reduce emissions following digestion. Commercially available products that are designed to be added to manure storages had little to no impact on emissions or manure characteristics for the conditions present in this study. Lastly, biochar was capable of reducing ammonia emissions significantly when applied as a cover. Although the biochar was capable of sorbing ammonical nitrogen, the results indicate that the physical barrier on the manure surface was the primary driver for the reduction in ammonia emissions.

Future Plans    

Following the outcomes of this work, information is being added to a dairy manure life cycle assessment to determine larger system wide impacts from changes in management practices or the inclusion of a processing system. In addition, work is being conducted to look at potential benefits that may be gained over a number of impact factors when manure management systems are optimized with other waste management systems from the municipal sector.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation        

Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email    

rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Other authors   

M.A. Holly, Agricutural Engineer at USDA ARS, J.M. Powell, Soil Scientist at USDA ARS, H. Aguirre-Villegas, Assistant Scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional information 

Holly, M.A., R.A. Larson, M. Powell, M. Ruark, and H. Aguirre-Villegas. 2017. Evaluating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated manure through storage and land application. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 239:410-419. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321953

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Effects of Manure Storage Additives on Manure Composition and Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions. Transactions of the ASABE, Accepted in Print.

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Evaluation of Biochar, Activated Biochar, and Steam Treated Wood as Dairy Manure Storage Covers for Ammonia Mitigation. In Review.

Acknowledgements       

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. 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.

 

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. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Fertilizer Value of Nitrogen Captured using Ammonia Scrubbers

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Over half of the nitrogen (N) excreted from broiler chickens is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia (NH3) before the manure is removed from the barns, resulting in air and water pollution and the loss of a valuable fertilizer resource. A two stage exhaust scrubber (ARS Air Scrubber) was developed by scientists with USDA/ARS to trap ammonia and dust emissions from poultry and swine facilities. One objective of this study was to determine the fertilizer efficiency of N, which is mainly present as ammonium (NH4), captured from the exhaust air from poultry houses using acid scrubbers, when applied to forages. The second objective was to determine if any of the scrubber solutions resulted in a decrease in phosphorus (P) runoff or soil test P.

What did we do?

This study was conducted using 24 small plots (1.52 x 6.10 m) located on a Captina silt loam soil at the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. There were six treatments in a randomized block design with four replications per treatment. The treatments were: (1) unfertilized control, (2) potassium bisulfate (KHSO4) scrubber solution, (3) alum (Al2(SO4)3.14H2O) scrubber solution, (4) sulfuric acid (H2SO4) scrubber solution, (5) sodium bisulfate (NaHSO4) scrubber solution and (6) ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) fertilizer dissolved in water. The four scrubber solutions, which were obtained from scrubbers attached to exhaust fans on commercial poultry houses, and the ammonium nitrate solution were all applied at an application rate equivalent to 112 kg N ha-1. Forage yields were measured periodically throughout the growing season. A rainfall simulation study was conducted five months after the solutions were applied to determine potential effects on P runoff.

ARS air scrubber in Arkansas

Applying scrubber solutions

Rainfall simulation

What have we learned?

Forage yields (Mg ha-1) followed the order: potassium bisulfate (7.61), sodium bisulfate (7.46) > ammonium nitrate (6.87), alum (6.72), sulfuric acid (6.45) > unfertilized control (5.12). These data indicate that forage yields with scrubber solutions can be equal to or even greater than that obtained with equivalent amounts of N applied as commercial fertilizer. This is likely due to the presence of other nutrients, such as K in acid salts, like potassium bisulfate. Nitrogen uptake followed similar trends as yields, although there were no significant differences among N sources.

 

Total P loads in runoff were 37, 25, 20, 19, 17, and 14 g P ha-1, for sulfuric acid, potassium bisulfate, sodium bisulfate, unfertilized control, ammonium nitrate, and alum. The alum solution resulted in significantly lower P loads than H2SO4. This was likely due to a decrease in the water extractable P (WEP) in the soil, since alum was also shown to significantly reduce WEP compared to the unfertilized control. None of the treatments affected Mehlich III extractable P.

 

Future Plans

Currently research is underway on using acid-tolerant nitrifying bacteria to generate the acidity needed to capture ammonia in the exhaust air from animal rearing facilities.

 

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Philip Moore, Soil Scientist, USDA/ARS

Corresponding author email

philipm@uark.edu

Other authors

Jerry Martin, USDA/ARS, Fayetteville, AR; Hong Li, University of Delaware

Additional information

Philip Moore
Plant Sciences 115
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Moore, P.A., Jr., R. Maguire, M. Reiter, J. Ogejo, R. Burns, H. Li, D. Miles and M. Buser. 2013.  Development of an acid scrubber for reducing ammonia emissions from animal rearing facilities.  Proc. Waste to Worth Conference. http://lpelc.org/development-of-an-acid-scrubber-for-reducing-ammonia-emissions-from-animal-rearing-facilities.

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. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Development of Pilot Modules for Recovering Gaseous Ammonia from Poultry Manure

Purpose?

There is major interest from producers and the public in implementing best control technologies that would abate ammonia (NH3) emissions from confined livestock and poultry operations by capturing and recovering the nitrogen (NH3-N).

What did we do?

In this study, we continued investigating development of gas-permeable membrane modules as components of new processes to capture and recover gaseous ammonia inside poultry houses, composting facilities, and other livestock installations. The overall research objective was to improve poultry houses with the introduction of nitrogen emission capture technology. There were two milestones during the initial phase of the study: 1) to test ammonia recovery with gas-permeable membranes in a bench system using Maryland’s poultry manure; and 2) to construct and install a pilot ammonia recovery system at the UMES Poultry Research facility.

Figure 1. System for the recovery of gaseous ammonia from poultry waste using gas-permeable membrane module.

Figure 1. System for the recovery of gaseous ammonia from poultry waste using gas-permeable membrane module.

What have we learned?

The prototype ammonia recovery bench system using gas-permeable modules was moved from ARS-Florence to ARS-BARC in Sept. 2013 and tested during three consecutives runs using turkey and chicken manure mixes. The bench unit had two chambers: one was used with recirculating acid solution (1 N H2SO4) and the other was a control that used recirculating water. The control, which used water as the capture solution, was very effective at recovering the ammonia. This finding may lead to more economical ammonia recovery systems in the future.

Figure 2. Prototype ammonia recovery system using gas-permeable modules.

Figure 2.  Prototype ammonia recovery system using gas-permeable modules.

Two pilot ammonia recovery systems using gas-permeable membranes were constructed at ARS-Florence and installed at the UMES poultry research facility in June 2014.  One ammonia recovery module was developed using flat membranes mounted on troughs. The other module was developed using tubular gas-permeable membranes.  The recovery manifolds were placed inside the experimental barns (400 chickens) hanging from the roof and close to the litter. Both systems were installed with the ammonia concentrator tanks outside the barns. They were tested continuously for four months without chickens in the barns. The first flock of birds was placed in the facility Feb. 2015 and also in a control facility without the ammonia recovery modules.  The installed modules will demonstrate the ammonia recovery and the potential poultry production benefits from cleaner air.

Figure 3. Pilot ammonia recovery systems installed in a chicken barn at UMES Poultry Research Facility. At left is a recovery module that uses tubular gas-permeable membranes. At right is a recovery module that uses flat gas-permeable membranes.

Figure 3.  Pilot ammonia recovery systems installed in a chicken barn at UMES Poultry Research Facility.  At left is a recovery module that uses tubular gas-permeable membranes.  At right is a recovery module that uses flat gas-permeable membranes.

Future plans?

The N recovery modules are being demonstrated at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore’s Poultry Research facility.

USDA seeks a commercial partner to develop and market this invention (Gaseous ammonia removal system.  US Patent 8,906,332 B2, issued Dec. 9, 2014). http://www.ars.usda.gov/business/docs.htm?docid=763&page=5

Authors

Matias Vanotti, USDA-ARS, Florence, South Carolina matias.vanotti@ars.usda.gov

Vanotti, M.B.1; Millner, P.D.2 ;Sanchez Bascones, M.3 ;Szogi, A.A.1;  Brigman, P.W.1; Buabeng, F.4; Timmons, J.4 ; Hashem, F.M.4

1USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil Water and Plant Research Center, Florence, SC, USA

2USDA-ARS Environmental Microbial and Food Safety, Beltsville, MD, USA

3University of Valladolid, School of Agric. Engineering, Palencia, Spain

4University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Resource Sciences,  Princess Anne, MD, USA

Additional information

Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., and Rothrock, M.J. 2014. Gaseous ammonia removal system.  US Patent 8,906,332 B2, issued Dec. 9, 2014. US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.

Rothrock Jr, M.J., Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B. 2013. Recovery of ammonia from poultry litter using flat gas permeable membranes. J. of Waste Management. 33:1531-1538

“Recovery of ammonia with gas permeable membranes” research update at USDA-ARS-CPSWPRC website  http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=22883#ammonia

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge NIFA Project “Novel Integration of Solar Heating with Electricity Generation Technology and Biofiltered Poultry Litter Biofertilizer Production System” and  ARS Project 6657-13630-001-00D “Innovative Animal Manure Treatment Technologies for Enhanced Environmental Quality”. Funding by University of Valladolid/Banco Santander for participation of Dr. Sanchez Bascones as Visiting Scientist is also acknowledged.

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. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

On-Farm Field Days as a Tool to Demonstrate Agricultural Waste Management Practices and Educate Producers

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Teaching Best Management Practices (BMP) or introducing new agricultural waste management practices to livestock producers and farmers is a challenge. This poster describes a series of on-farm field days designed to deliver information and demonstrate on-site several waste management techniques, most of them well established in other parts of the country but sparsely used in Idaho. During these field days, Extension personnel presented each technique and offered written information on how to apply them. But without a doubt, presentations by the livestock producers and farmers who are already applying the techniques and hosted each field day at their farms was the main tool to spark interest and conversations with attendees.

Four field days were delivered in 2012 with more programmed for 2013. Demonstrated techniques reduce ammonia and odor emissions, increase nitrogen retention from manure, reduce run-off risks, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Topics addressed on each field day were, a: Dairy manure collection and composting, 20 attendees. b: Dairy manure land application ten attendees. c: Grape vine prunings and dairy manure composting, 50 attendees. d: Mortality and offal on-farm composting, 40 attendees. In all cases farm owners and their managers presented and were available to answer attendees’ questions, sharing their experience, and opinions regarding the demonstrated practices. Many attendees expressed their interest and willingness to adopt some of the demonstrated practices. On-farm field days are an excellent tool to increase understanding and adoption of BMP and new technologies. Hearing experiences first hand from producers applying the techniques and being able to see them in action are excellent outreach tools. On-farm field days also fit the fast pace, busy schedule of modern producers who can later visit with Extension and other personnel if they need more details, information, and help on how to adopt the techniques they are interested in.

Why Hold Field Days on Ag Waste Management?

The dairy industry is the number one revenue commodity in Idaho. At the same time Idaho is ranked third in milk production in the nation. Idaho has more than 580,000 dairy cows distributed in 550 dairy operations (Idaho State Department of Agriculture 1/2013). The Magic Valley area in south-central Idaho hosts 54% of those dairies and 73% of all dairy cows in the state (Idaho Dairymen’s Association internal report, 2012).  Odors from dairies and other animal feeding operations are a major issue in Idaho and across the country.  In addition, the loss of ammonia from manures reduces the nutrient value of the manure and generates local and regional pollution. Dairy farmers of all sizes need more options on how to treat and dispose of the manure generated by their operations. Odor reductions, capture of nitrogen in dairy manure, reduction of greenhouse gases emissions, off-farm nutrients export, water quality protection, and reduction of their dairy operation’s environmental impact are some of the big challenges facing the dairy industry in Idaho and around the country. There are many Best Management Practices (BMP) that are proven to work on providing results related to the challenges mentioned before. Some of these practices are widely adopted in certain parts of the country or in other countries, with a lack of adoption by dairy producers and farmers in other parts of the country. This poster shows a series of Extension and research efforts designed to introduce and locally test proven BMP to dairy producers and crop farmers in southern Idaho in an effort to increase their adoption and incorporate those BMP as regular practices in Idaho agriculture. The four projects described were delivered in 2012 and some will continue in 2013.

What Did We Do?

To demonstrate and test BMP we chose to develop on-farm research projects to collect data and couple these projects with on-farm field days to demonstrate the applicability of the BMP in a real-world setting. Extension personnel developed the research and on-farm field days and did several presentations at each location. But without a doubt the stars during those field days were the dairy producers and farmers who hosted the research and demonstration events and who are already using or starting to use the techniques showcased. These pioneer producers are not only leading the way in using relatively new BMP in southern Idaho, they also share their experiences with other producers and with the academia so everybody around can learn from them. Topics addressed in each field day were, a: Dairy manure collection and composting, 20 attendees. b: Dairy manure land application, 10 attendees. c: Grapevine prunings and dairy manure composting, 50 attendees. d: Mortality and offal on-farm composting, 40 attendees.

On-farm manure collection and composting field day.

Some highlights from each project are: a. The dairy manure collection and composting field day demonstrated the operation and use of a vacuum manure collection system and a compost turner. Dairy managers and machinery operators shared their experiences, benefits and challenges related to the use of these two technologies. During the field day attendees also visited the whole manure management system of the dairy and were able to observe diverse manure management techniques. As a result of this project Extension personnel determined the necessity of generating educational programs for compost and manure management operators for dairy employees. A composting school in Spanish and English proposal was presented and a grant was obtained to develop and deliver them in 2013.

b. The dairy manure land application field day featured the demonstration of a floating manure storage pond mixer and pump, and a drag hose manure injection system. We also showed an injection tank that wasn’t operated during the demonstration. The floating pond mixer serves as lagoon mixer and pump. It mixes and pumps the manure through the drag hose system to the subsurface injector. This system dramatically reduces the time required to land apply liquid and slurried manures. It also significantly reduces ammonia and odor emissions to near background levels, as well as avoids runoff after applications. This project included research of emissions on the manure injection sites (see Chen L., et al. in this conference proceedings).

Demonstrating dairy manure subsurface injection using a drag hose system.

c. The grapevine prunings and dairy manure composting project involves research on the implications of increasing the carbon content of dairy manures using grapevine prunings and other carbon sources to retain more nitrogen in the compost, and how it varies among three diferent composting techniques. This project includes two field days, one during the project (2012), and another one at the end of it in 2013. The demonstration includes how to compost using mechanically turned windrows (common in Idaho), passive aerated, and forced aerated windrows (both very rarely used in Idaho). Another novelty in this project is that it aims to bring together dairy producers and fruit & crop producers, or landscaping insustry so they can combine their waste streams to produce a better compost and to reduce the environmental impact of each operation. Several producers of the diverse audience who attended showed interest in adopting some of the composting techniques presented during the field day.

On-farm composting methods featuring grape vine prunings and dairy manure compost

d. The mortality and offal on-farm composting project was located at a diversified sheep farm that includes sheep and goat dairy and cheese plant, meat lambs, and chickens. A forced aerated composting box was used to compost lamb offal, hives, lamb and chicken mortalities, and whey from the cheese plant. A very diversified audience attended the field day and the composting system generated a lot of interest. The farm owner was so pleased with the system that she created a second composter with materials she had on-hand to increase her composting capabilities and compost all year round. The producer stopped disposing of lamb offal, hives, and mortalities at the local landfill.

What Have We Learned?

On-farm field days are a great tool to demonstrate and encourage the application of otherwise seldom applied techniques. They also can serve a dual purpose of demonstration and research, allowing for quality data collection if designed properly. Farmers’ collaboration and full participation during all phases of the project is paramount and pays off by having a very enthusiastic and collaborative partner. Identiying progressive and pioneer producers that are already applying new BMP or are willing to take the risk is very important to develop this kind of on-farm experience. In general these individuals are also willing to share their knowledge, experience, and results with others to increase the adoption of such techiques. Having a producer hosting and presenting during the field day, at their facilities (as opposed to a dedicated research facility) generates great enthusiasm from other producers and helps to “break the ice” and bring everybody to a friendly conversation and exchange of ideas if properly facilitated.

Future Plans

On both projects, a. manure collection and composting and b. manure injection we will generate a series of videos to demonstrate the proper application of BMP, and educational printed material will also be published. Project c. grape prunings and manure composting is still going on and we will finish collecting data by mid 2013. A second field day will be offered and videos and printed educational material will be developed. Project d. will see an expansion with a mortality composter for dairy calves being installed at a dairy, and with a field day following after the first compost batch is ready. Additional programs are in the works; these programs incorporate the on-farm demonstration and research dual purpose and have high participation from the involved producers.

Authors

Mario E. de Haro-Marti, Extension Educator, Gooding County Extension Office, University of Idaho Extension.  mdeharo@uidaho.edu

Lide Chen, Waste Management Engineer

Howard Neibling, Extension Irrigation and Water Management Specialist

Mireille Chahine, Extension Dairy Specialist

Wilson Gray, District Extension Economist

Tony McCammon, Extension Educator

Ariel Agenbroad, Extension Educator

Sai Krishna Reddy Yadanaparthi, Graduate student

James Eells, Research Assistant. University of Idaho Extension.

Acknowledgements

Projects a. and b. were supported by a USDA-NRCS Conservation and Innovation Grant (CIG). Project c. was supported by a USDA-NRCS Idaho CIG. Project d. was supported by a University of Idaho USDA-SARE mini grant. We also want to thank Jennifer Miller at the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides for her help and support with projects c. and d. Finally, we want to thank all producers involved in these projects for their support and openess to work with us, and for their innovative spirit.

 

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress