animal air quality – Page 4 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Regulating Ammonia Emissions from Agriculture: Potential Pitfalls and Limitations

Currently, there is limited regulation of ammonia (NH3) emissions as a matter of federal policy. The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the federal authority for regulation of these emissions. Although there are reporting requirements for NH3 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, these statutes do not provide authority to regulate emissions of NH3. There is increasing pressure to change NH3 policy primarily due to concerns about nutrient enrichment of large water bodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Recently, the EPA has been petitioned to list NH3 as a criteria pollutant; and this request is somewhat supported by the report from the EPA’s Integrated Nitrogen Panel to the Science Advisory Board. There is also the immediate concern of EPA’s treatment of NH3 as a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Regulation of NH3 as a precursor to PM2.5 will make it a regulated pollutant under the CAA. It will be difficult to regulate only the ‘excess’ portion of reactive N, particularly since ‘excess’ cannot be defined as a constant. Roughly 60- 85% of NH3 emissions in the U.S. are estimated to come from agricultural sources, a sector that varies considerably from the traditional industrial sources addressed by the environmental statutes. In fact, in most of these statutes, there is recognition that agricultural sources are different; and some regulatory exemptions are provided. Most likely, Congress did not anticipate the application of the CAA to agricultural sources or it would have included some exemptions in it as well. Nevertheless, regulation of NH3 emissions under the CAA will make it extremely difficult for EPA to consider the positive value and need for fertilizer NH3, which could have huge implications for the viability of the domestic and global food supply.

Purpose

Members of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) recognize the ever increasing pressure to change ammonia policy in the United States and to regulate sources of ammonia emissions under various environmental statutes including the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ammonia is not your ordinary air pollutant and will be difficult to regulate appropriately under the current construct of the CAA. Therefore, members of the AAQTF developed and approved a paper outlining information that regulators should consider before regulating ammonia emissions entitled, “Ammonia Emissions: What to Know Before You Regulate.”

What did we do?

Consideration of NH3 as an air pollutant will require the EPA to acknowledge and address the role of NH3 in the full nitrogen (N) cycle and specifically address emission reduction measures that do not merely transfer NH3 from one environmental medium to another. It will be difficult to regulate only the “excess” portion of reactive N, particularly since “excess” cannot be defined as a constant. Regulation of NH3 emissions under the CAA will make it extremely difficult for EPA to consider the positive value and need for fertilizer NH3, which could have huge implications for the viability of the domestic and global food supply.

To date, pollutants regulated under the CAA are considered “bad” for public health and for the environment; and the statute is designed to limit the impacts of these pollutants by reducing or eliminating their emissions. As EPA moves to regulate greenhouse gases, it is encountering difficulty in applying the existing statute in its consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which is a necessary component of the life cycle of plants and animals. Regulation of NH3 emissions within the constraints of the existing CAA will prove no less daunting and may lead to costly and illogical outcomes with little actual benefit to the environment or human health.

Prior to regulating ammonia emissions, EPA regulators must fully understand ammonia’s role in agriculture. Not only must there be an understanding of the nitrogen cycle from a chemical perspective, but there must be a full understanding from a biological perspective as well. These biological processes cannot be easily predicted or controlled and are based on many factors such as geographic region, cropping system, management practices, soil characteristics, climate and field variability. In animal production systems, there must be an understanding of diets and nitrogen use efficiency of the various species and the impacts of the housing systems, manure characteristics and management, and climate variables.

The EPA regulators must also not only understand the fate, transport, and transformation of atmospheric ammonia but must be able to quantify these processes. Any regulation of agricultural sources of ammonia should be informed by knowledge of management practices that will reduce emissions without negatively impacting animal and plant health and production levels. Ammonia reduction strategies must be considered across the entire production spectrum and not on individual aspects of production.

Underlying any regulation must be accurate measurement of the emissions and the ability to measure compliance, i.e., reductions and impacts. However, ammonia emissions are fugitive, vary spatially and temporally, and are readily influenced by many factors (e.g., source, climate, management practices, etc.) making it difficult to determine at a farm level, a precise emission factor. There are currently no easy and economical ways to directly monitor emissions from commercial livestock and cropping farms, which will make emissions estimation and enforcement challenging. Proceeding to regulation without proven methodologies for measurement of agricultural sources of ammonia and the ability to demonstrate scientifically the effectiveness of reduction practices, does not seem appropriate.

Nitrogen is essential to both crop and animal production, and when not supplied in sufficient amounts, will decrease both crop yield and animal productivity, risk declining soil system health and sustainability, and generate a loss for producers and perhaps even increase the overall environmental footprint of agricultural activities. Certain management or mitigation practices may be too costly for many producers given the current market value of agricultural commodities, so any regulation must considered how these costs will be covered.

What have we learned?

A collaborative dialogue with the agricultural community needs to occur prior to considering regulation. Current approaches of voluntary and incentive-based efforts are accomplishing significant improvements in soil health and reducing erosion and loss of nutrients, and agencies should recognize these improvements.

EPA can assist constructive dialog by avoiding regulatory silos and embracing holistic approaches in development of policies as it focuses on the agricultural sector; avoiding “One size fits all” style requirements; and avoiding multiple regulations on the same practice.

Farmers of the U.S. and the world must meet the food, fiber, and fuel needs of the predicted nine billion people by 2050. Therefore, any regulation of ammonia under the Clean Air Act must address its impact on the sustainability of domestic and global food supply as part of the mandatory statutory requirement to evaluate public health and welfare effects and the vitality of rural communities.

Future Plans

The AAQTF will continue to address these issues and attempt to facilitate future dialogue with EPA and USDA on these issues.

Authors

Sally Shaver, President, Shaver Consulting, Inc. slshaver50@aol.com

Dr. April Leytem, USDA-ARS, NW Irrigation and Soils Lab, Kimberly, ID

Dr. Robert Burns, Assistant Dean for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Community Economic Development, University of Tennessee Extension, Knoxville

Dr. Hongwei Xin, Director of Egg Industry Center, Departments of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering and Animal Sciences, Iowa State University

Dr. Lingjuan Wang-Li, Associate Professor, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University

Lara Moody, Director of Stewardship Program, The Fertilizer Institute

Dr. Nicole Embertson, Resource Coordinator – Sustainable Livestock Production Program, Whatcom Conservation District, Lynden, WA

Dr. Eileen Fabian-Wheeler, Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Penn State University.

Additional information

The paper, Ammonia Emissions: What to Know Before You Regulate, is located on the USDA website

Acknowledgements

The contributions of members of the AAQTF to the discussions of these issues and to the development of the paper are recognized and greatly appreciated.

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.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Use of zilpaterol hydrocholoride to reduce odors and gas production from the feedlot surface when beef cattle are fed diets with or without ethanol byproducts

Purpose

Many malodorous compounds emitted from the feedlot surface of beef finishing facilities result from protein degradation of feces and urine (Mackie et al., 1998; Miller and Varel, 2001, 2002). The inclusion of wet distillers grain with solubles (WDGS) in beef finishing diets has been shown to increase nitrogen excretion (Spiehs and Varel, 2009; Hales et al., 2012) which can increase odorous compounds in waste (Spiehs and Varel, 2009). Zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) is a supplement fed to cattle for a short period of time (21 days) near the end of the finishing phase to improve efficiency of lean gain. Improvements in feed efficiency and lean tissue accretion potentially decrease nitrogen excretion from cattle. Therefore, the use of ZH in feedlot diets, especially those containing WDGS, may reduce the concentration of odorous compounds on the feedlot surface. The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of ZH to beef f inishing diets containing 0 or 30% WDGS would decrease odor and gas production from the feedlot surface.

What did we do?

Sixteen pens of cattle (25-28 cattle/pen) were used in a 2 x 2 factorial study. Factors included 0 or 30% WDGS inclusion and 0 or 84 mg/steer daily ZH for 21 d at the end of the finishing period. Each of the four following treatment combinations were fed to 4 pens of cattle: 1) finishing diet containing 0% WDGS and 0 mg ZH, 2) finishing diet containing 30% WDGS and 0 mg ZH, 3) finishing diet containing 0% WDGS and 84 mg/animal daily ZH and 4) finishing diet containing 30% WDGS and 84 mg/animal daily ZH. A minimum of 20 fresh fecal pads were collected from each feedlot pen on six occasions. Samples were mixed within pen and a sub-sample was placed in a small wind-tunnel. Duplicate samples for each pen were analyzed. Odorous volatile organic compounds were collected on sorbent tubes and analyzed for straight-chain fatty acids, branched-chain fatty acids, aromatic compounds, and sulfide compounds using a thermal desorption-gas chromatograph-mass spectrometry (Aglient Technologies, Inc, Santa Clara, CA). Ammonia (NH3) production was measured using a Model 17i Ammonia Analyzer (Thermo Scientific, Franklin, MA), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was measured using a Model 450i Hydrogen Sulfide Analyzer (Thermo Scientific, Franklin, MA).

What have we learned?

Inclusion of ZH in beef finishing diets was effective in lowering the concentration of total sulfides, total branched-chain fatty acids, and hydrogen sulfide from fresh cattle feces. Inclusion of 30% WDGS to beef feedlot diets increased the concentration of odorous aromatic compounds from feces. Ammonia concentration was not affected by the inclusion of either WDGS or ZH in the finishing diet. Producers may see a reduction in odorous emissions when ZH are fed to beef finishing cattle.

Future Plans

Additional research is planned to evaluate the use of β-agonists, such as ZH, with moderate and aggressive implant strategies. These implants may further improve feed efficiency and lean gain, thereby potentially reducing excess nutrient excretion and odorous emissions. Evaluation odorous emissions from the feedlot surface when ZH are fed is also needed.

Authors

Mindy J. Spiehs, USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE mindy.spiehs@ars.usda.gov

Kristin E. Hales, USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE

Additional information

Mention of trade names or commercial products in their article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Literature cited

Hales, K. E., N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 90:3174-3185.

Mackie, R. I., P. G. Stroot, and V. H. Varel. 1998. Biochemical identification and biological origin of key odor components in livestock waste. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1331-1342.\

Miller, D. N. and V. H. Varel. 2001. In vitro study of the biochemical origin and production limits of odorous compounds in cattle feedlots. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2949-2956.

Miller, D. N. and V. H. Varel. 2002. An in vitro study of manure composition on the biochemical origins, composition, and accumulation of odorous compounds in cattle feedlots . J. Anim. Sci. 80:2214-2222.

Spiehs, M. J. and V. H. Varel. 2009. Nutrient excretion and odorant production in manure from cattle fed corn wet distillers grains with solubles. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2977-2984.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Alan Kruger and Elaine Ven John for assistance with data collection.

March 5, 2019September 4, 2020

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Beef Feedlot Pen Surface as Affected by Within Pen Location, Moisture, and Temperature

Purpose

Determine the effects of moisture, temperature and within pen location on odorous emissions from pen surfaces generated from cattle fed a diet containing 30% wet distillers grain plus soluble (WDGS). This work is focused on developing precision practices for mitigating odor.

What did we do?

A laboratory study was conducted to determine effects of pen location, moisture, and temperature on emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Feedlot surface material (FSM) was obtained from pens where cattle were fed a diet containing 30% wet distillers grain plus soluble (WDGS). The FSM were collected from the bunk, drainage, and mound areas within three feedlot pens. The FSM were mixed with water to represent dry, wet, or saturated conditions and then incubated at temperatures of 5, 15, 25 and 35ºC. A wind tunnel and TD GC/MS were used to quantify emissions of eight volatile fatty acids (VFA), five aromatics and two volatile sulfur compounds (VSC).

What have we learned?

Evaluation of emissions as affected by the specified environmental conditions was performed on individual compounds which were normalized using an odor activity value (OAV). When the odor compounds were normalized with respect to their activity value, many of the measured compounds contributed minimally to the overall odor activity. Approximately 10% of the OAV was contributed by three VFAs and one aromatic (4-methylphenol) compound. The VSC contributed the most with 87.3% of the total OAV.

More than half of the OAV occurred at the base of the mound with the bunk and drainage contributing approximately equally to the remainder. The frequent wetting and drying cycles occurring near the base of the mound may contribute to a more diverse microbial population when compared with the chronically wet to saturated conditions existing behind the feed bunk.

The addition of water significantly increased the OAV. Approximately 92% of the OAV was accounted for by wet and saturated conditions. In general, the addition of water decreased emissions of VFA and aromatics, and increased the emission of sulfides. Two possible causes were offered. First, the greater solubility of the VFA and aromatics allowed them to be retained in the solution fraction of the FSM and not be emitted. Second, the addition of water results in an anaerobic environment and reducing conditions, which are conducive to production of VSC.

Temperature significantly affected OAV with over 60% of the total OAV occurring at 35ºC. The 35ºC temperature increased each odor compounds with the impact being the greatest for VSCs. It appears from this study, odor emissions are greatest during warm (i.e. > 25ºC) wet periods and from specific location within the pen.

Future Plans

Understanding the spatial variability of odor emission is important in the development of cost-effective management practices. Based on the results from this investigation, field-scale studies will be conducted to develop precision odor mitigation practices.

Authors

Bryan L. Woodbury, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE bryan.woodbury@ars.usda.gov

John E. Gilley, Agr. Eng, USDA-ARS. David B. Parker, Prof., Life, Earth and Environ. Sci., West Texas A&M University. David B. Marx, Prof, Statistics, Univ. of NE. Roger A. Eigenberg, Agr. Eng., USDA-ARS, U.S.

Additional information

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=14337

https://www.agupdate.com/todaysproducer/news/local/with-feedlot-manure-it-pays-to-be-precise/article_015b6db8-a234-582d-8c0e-04b99cf0f730.html

March 5, 2019March 28, 2019

Open Lot Dairy Ammonia Losses and Nitrogen Balance: A New Mexico Study

Purpose

Animal agriculture is a significant source of ammonia (NH3). Dairy cattle excrete most ingested nitrogen (N); most urinary N is converted to NH3, volatilized and lost to the atmosphere. This fugitive NH3 can contribute to negative environmental effects such as degraded air quality and excessive N in ecosystems. Open lot dairies on the southern High Plains are a growing industry and face challenges that include reporting requirements for NH3 emissions and potential regulation. However, producers and regulators lack a clear quantitative understanding of NH3 losses from the open lot production system.

What did we do?

We quantified NH3 emissions from the open lot and wastewater lagoons of a typical open lot New Mexico dairy during two weeks in summer, 2009. The 3500-cow dairy consisted of open lot, manure-surfaced corrals (22.5 ha). A flush system using recycled water removed manure from the feed alley to three lagoons (1.8 ha). Most manure was retained on the corral surface. Open path lasers measured atmospheric NH3 concentration downwind from the open lot and lagoon sources, sonic anemometers characterized turbulence, and inverse dispersion analysis (Windtrax) was used to quantify emissions every 15 minutes (Fig. 1). A dairy N balance was constructed using measured and calculated values to partition N to different stores in the dairy system. Milking cows comprised 73% of the herd, with the remainder dry or fresh cow. Dry matter intake averaged 22.5 kg/cow/d, with a mean crude protein content of 16.7% (Table 1).

What have we learned?

Most NH3 loss was from the open lot. Ammonia emission rate averaged 1061 kg/d from the open lot and 59 kg/d from the lagoons; 95% of NH3 was emitted from the open lot (Table 2). The per capita NH3 emission rate was 304 g/cow/d from the open lot (41% of N intake) and 17 g/cow/d from lagoons (2% of N intake). Mean N intake was 612 g/cow/d and N exported in milk averaged 145 g/cow/d. The dairy N balance showed that most N was lost as NH3. Daily N input at the dairy was 2139 kg/d, with 43, 36, 19 and 2% of the N partitioned to NH3 emission, manure/lagoons, milk, and cows, respectively (Fig. 2). The NH3 production intensity was 13.7 g NH3/kg milk. We estimated that on an annual basis, from 30 to 35% of fed N would be lost as NH3. Ammonia loss from open lot dairies is more similar to that from open lot beef feedyards than from dairies with closed housing where manure is more intensively managed.

Future Plans

Next steps include sampling during additional seasons to better characterize annual emissions.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Richard W. Todd, Research Soil Scientist at USDA ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland TX

Corresponding author email

richard.todd@ars.usda.gov

Other authors

N. Andy Cole, Res. Animal Scientist at USDA ARS CPRL, Bushland, TX; G. Robert Hagevoort, Ext. Diary Specialist at New Mexico State University; Kenneth D. Casey, Air Quality Engineer and Brent W. Auvermann, Agricultural Engineer at Texas A&M AgriLife.

Additional information

For more information, contact Richard Todd, 806-356-5728.

Acknowledgements

Research was partially funded with a USDA NIFA Special Research Grant through the Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium.

$Table 1. Cow population, feed dry matter intake (DMI) and crude protein (CP), and the fraction of N fed for each cow class$

Table 1.

$Table 2. Mean NH3 flux density, emission rate, per capita emission rate (PCER), and the fraction of N intake lost as NH3-N from either the open lot or lagoons.$

Figure 1.

Figure 2. Nitrogen partitioning at the New Mexico dairy. Daily N input was 2139 kg d-1. Milk N and NH3-N were measured, N partitioned to cows was estimated as 2% of N intake and N partitioned to manure and lagoons was the residual of the N balance.

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

The Great Biogas Gusher

Why Pursue Bio-Energy?

The great Texas Oil Boom, also referred to as the Gusher Age, provided for dramatic economic growth in the US in the early 20th century, and ushered in rapid development and industrial growth. Although we typically think of the Middle East when we consider the impacts of oil discoveries on local economies (reference Dubai), at the time of its discovery, the oil finds in Texas were unprecedented; and the US quickly became the world’s top producer of petroleum.

As we all know, the rest of the world came to the party, and the US was soon falling in the ranks of top petroleum producers. Though the US oil reserves are vast, increasing concerns over the environmental impacts of finding, mining, extracting, refining, and consuming fossil fuels has incentivized the development of renewable energy resources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and bioenergy. Of these forms of renewable energy, bioenergy holds the promise for replacement of fossil fuels for transportation use.

What did we do?

Bioenergy may be described as fuels derived from organic materials, such as agricultural wastes, through processes like anaerobic digestion. The US has even more organic resources above the Earth’s surface than are identified in the petroleum and natural gas deposits yet to be exploited, yet the development of agricultural bioenergy systems seems to be progressing at a snail’s pace, as compare to the great Oil Boom. There is enormous potential in producing biogas from agricultural, industrial, municipal solid waste, sewage and animal byproducts which can be used to fuel vehicles. The EPA estimates that 8,200 US dairy and swine operation could support biogas recovery systems, as well as some poultry operations. Biogas can be collected from landfills and used to power natural gas vehicles or to produce energy. Wastewater treatment plants are estimated by the EPA to have the potential of about 1 cubic foot of digester gas per 100 gallons of wastewater, this energy could potentially meet 12% of the US electricity demand. Industrial, commercial and institutional facilities provide another source of biogas, in particular supermarkets, restaurants, and educational facilities with food spoilage.

What have we learned?

This presentation compares and contrasts the historical development of fossil fuel reserves with the potential for development of bioenergy from agricultural sources, such as animal wastes and crop residues. The US energy potential from these sources is grossly quantified, and current development inhibitions are identified and discussed. Opportunities for gathering biogas and bioenergy from multiple regional sources, similar to the processes used in the Texas oil fields, are discussed. The presentation offers insight into overcoming these obstacles, and how the US may once again rise to the top of the energy development rankings through efficient use and stewardship of our organic resources.

Percentage of waste water treatment plants that send solids to anaerobic digestion broken out by state

Future Plans

Biogas and bioenergy resources present an enormous opportunity for renewable energy development, and progression toward energy independence for the U.S. The U.S. currently has more than 2,000 active biogas harvesting sites, but claims more than 11,000 additional sites can be developed in the U.S., with the potential to power more than 3 million American homes if used to fuel electricity generating power plants. The USDA, EPA and DOE recently created a US Biogas Opportunities Roadmap which is off to a good start, which hopefully will initiate biogas programs, and foster investment in biogas systems to improve the market vitality in each state. To move the process forward, policy-makers, investors and the public need to have improved collaboration and communication on the state level. We need to develop a clear plan and strategy for developing these valuable biogas resources to promote environmental sustainability and economic growth of our b ioenergy sector.

Author

Gus Simmons, P.E., Director of Bioenergy, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A. gus.simmons@cavanaughsolutions.com

Additional Information

http://www.cavanaughsolutions.com 1-877-557-8924

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/Biogas-Roadmap.pdf

Acknowledgements

USDA/DOE/EPA US Bioenergy Roadmap

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Impact of Aerosols on Respiratory Health of Dairy Workers and Residents Living Near Dairies – Discussion and Implications of Recent Research

Recent studies of large modern dairies have found that respiratory disease remains an important problem for dairy workers, contributing to lost time and high turnover. Exposure to high levels of organic dusts generated during milking, moving cows, feeding and other tasks has been associated with increased inflammation and decreased lung function resulting in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma-like diseases. Much research into the cause of respiratory disease in agriculture has focused on the role of endotoxins – a chemical component of Gram-negative bacteria. Recent research suggests that other components of these dusts such as Gram-positive bacteria and fungi are also important. Many new workers adapt to these exposures, and new evidence suggests that individual behavior and genetic factors play a key role in explaining why some workers are more susceptible. In addition several new studies of communities living in the vicinity of dairies and other livestock operations have shown that low level exposure to bioaerosols containing endotoxins and other microbial components at a very young age may be protective against the development of asthma later in life, possibly through priming of the immune system. Dairy producers are faced with interpreting complex research that may appear to show conflicting results. This presentation will review and discuss research into the impact of aerosols on respiratory health of dairy workers and residents living near dairies – the findings and implications for dairy producers.

Authors

Reynolds, Stephen Stephen.Reynolds@Colostate.edu Colorado State University, High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Development of a New Manure Amendment for Reducing Ammonia Volatilization and Phosphorus Runoff from Poultry Litter

Adding alum to animal manures greatly reduces ammonia (NH3) emissions and phosphorus (P) runoff. Improvements in poultry production, lower energy costs and environmental benefits from alum have led to widespread use by the poultry industry. Over one billion broilers are grown with alum in the U.S. each year. However, the price of alum has increased dramatically, creating a need for cheaper products that control NH3 and P losses. The goal of this research was to develop an inexpensive manure amendment that is as effective as alum in reducing NH3 volatilization and P runoff from poultry litter. Sixteen manure amendments were created using various ratios of alum mud, bauxite ore, sulfuric acid, liquid alum and water. Alum mud is the waste product that is left over from the manufacture of alum when made by mixing sulfuric acid with bauxite. A laboratory NH3 volatilization study was conducted using a total of 11 treatments; untreated poultry litter, litter treated with liquid or dry alum and litter treated with eight of the new mixtures. All amendments tested resulted in significantly lower NH3 losses than the controls. Ammonia losses with dry and liquid alum were reduced by 86% and 75%, respectively. Ammonia losses with the eight new amendments ranged from 62 to 73% less than controls and were not significantly different from liquid alum and the three most effective mixtures were not significantly different from dry alum. All of the amendments also significantly reduced water extractable P (WEP); three of which resulted in significantly lower WEP than with dry alum. The most promising products were mixtures of alum mud, bauxite, and sulfuric acid. The potential impact of these products could be enormous, since they could be produced for less than half the price of alum, while being equally effective at reducing both NH3 emissions and P runoff.

Authors

Moore, Philip philip.moore@ars.usda.gov USDA/ARS

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

University and Anaerobic Digestion Industry Partnerships – Laboratory Testing

The anaerobic digestion (AD) industry often is in need of laboratory testing to assist them with issues related to project development, digester performance and operation, and co-digestion incorporation. This presentation will highlight laboratory procedures that can be carried out through a University partnership, including biochemical methane productivity (BMP), specific methane activity assays (SMA), anaerobic toxicity assays (ATA), solids, nutrient and elemental proximate analysis for inputs, outputs and co-products, as well as a host of other activities. The presentation will illustrate the lessons that can be learned from the results of these tests, using real-life examples of testing already completed for industry partners.

Why Provide Guidance on Laboratory Testing for Anaerobic Digestion?

Laboratory testing allows characterization of anaerobic digestion (AD) inputs, outputs, and process stability. Testing can be carried out within AD industry laboratories, and they can also be carried out through partnerships with active AD research laboratories at academic institutions. The purpose of this project was to provide a document that summarizes common laboratory procedures that are used to evaluate AD influents, effluents, and process stability and to illustrate real-life examples of laboratory test results.

What did we do?

The overview of common laboratory procedures was written based on the need to introduce third-party AD developers and government agencies to evaluating AD outputs and process stability. The authors are practiced at performing AD laboratory tests and have expertise and valuable information concerning these types of evaluations. Following a description of each test, we included the purpose of the test and an example of how the test results can be interpreted.

What have we learned?

Laboratory testing of AD samples is performed to determine the concentration of certain constituents such as organic carbon, volatile fatty acids, ammonia-N, organic-N, phosphorus, and methane. Contaminants can be tested for such as fecal coliform indicator pathogens, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Understanding the concentration of specific constituents enables informed decisions to be made about appropriate effluent management.

Biochemical methane potential (BMP) and specific methanogenic activity (SMA) tests are used to estimate the biogas and methane that can be produced from an organic waste or wastewater during AD. These tests are often used by industry during the design phase to predict total biogas output, allowing for correct sizing of engines and estimation of potential revenue.

Anaerobic toxicity assays (ATAs) test the effect of different materials on biogas production. Unknown inhibitors may reside within new feedstock materials which can lead to an unanticipated reduction in digester performance, so it is important to use ATAs to test the effect of new feedstock material on the AD system before it is used. A common example is when energy-rich organic materials are added to a digester that practices co-digestion.

Future Plans

Future plans are to prepare an extension fact sheet about the basics of anaerobic digestion effluents and processes, including the overview of common laboratory testing used to evaluate AD influents, effluents, and process stability.

Authors

Shannon Mitchell, Post-doctoral Research Associate at Washington State University shannon.mitchell@email.wsu.edu

Jingwei Ma, Post-doctoral Research Associate at Washington State University

Liang Yu, Post-doctoral Research Associate at Washington State University

Quanbao Zhao, Post-doctoral Research Associate at Washington State University

Craig Frear, Assistant Professor at Washington State University

Additional information

Craig Frear, PhD

Assistant Professor

Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

Department of Biological Systems Engineering

Washington State University

PO Box 646120

Pullman WA 99164-6120

208-413-1180 (cell)

509-335-0194 (office)

cfrear@wsu.edu

www.csanr.wsu.edu

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Contract #2012-6800219814; and by Biomass Research Funds from the WSU Agricultural Research Center.

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

Impact of Manure Incorporation on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Semi-Arid Regions

Purpose

Gaseous emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) can create adverse impacts ranging from short-term local effects on air quality, to long-term effects due to greenhouse gas generation. This study evaluates gaseous emissions from manure application with differing times to incorporation. The purpose of the study is to identify ways to improve manure management and land application BMPs in semi-arid regions with a high soil pH.

What did we do?

Manure application and incorporation methods were evaluated in a field setting on a soil with high pH. Scraped dairy manure was surface applied at a rate of 50 tons/acre to a Millville silt loam. Incorporation events occurred immediately, 24hrs after application, 72 hrs after application, and no incorporation. Gaseous emissions were monitored using a closed dynamic chamber with a Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy gas analyzer, which is capable of monitoring 15-pre-programmed gases simultaneously including ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. Emissions were monitored for 15 days.

What have we learned?

Emissions for methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) stopped when the manure was incorporated. For methane, 33% of the emissions occurred within the first 24 hours, 61% within the first 72 hrs. For ammonia, 50% of the emissions occurred within the first 24 hours, 88% within the first 72 hours. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were reduced, but continued at a baseline level after incorporation. Immediate incorporation reduced total CO2 emissions for the 15 days by approximately 50%. Incorporation within 24 hours and 72 hours, reduced total CO2 emissions for the 15 days by 40% and 18%, respectively. Based on this data, incorporation greatly reduces NH3, CH4, and CO2 emissions. Rapid incorporation is needed to have a meaningful impact on NH3 and CH4 emissions. Best management practices should emphasize the need for immediate incorporation.

(Click to enlarge the graphs below).

Future Plans

Examine the impact of tannins on gaseous emissions.

Authors

Rhonda Miller, Ph.D.; Agricultural Systems Technology and Education Dept.; Utah State University rhonda.miller@usu.edu

Pakorn Sutitarnnontr, Ph.D.; South Florida Water Management District; Naples, FL Markus Tuller, Ph.D.; Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Dept.; University of Arizona Jim Walworth, Ph.D.; Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Dept.; University of Ar

Additional Information

Sutitarnnonntr, P., E. Hu, R. Miller, M. Tuller, and S. B. Jones. 2013. Measurement Accuracy of a Multiplexed Portable FTIR- Surface Chamber System for Estimating Gas Emissions. ASABE 2013 Paper and Presentation No. 131620669. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.

Website: http://agwastemanagement.usu.edu

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from a USDA-CSREES AFRI Air Quality Program Grant #2010-85112-50524.

March 5, 2019March 18, 2019

Low-Power Aerators Combined with Center Pivot Manure Application at a Northeast Nebraska Hog Finishing Facility Created an Easy to Manage, Turn-Key System

trnkey animal waste management system Applying livestock manure from lagoon storage through center pivot irrigation has long been considered a low-labor, uniform method of application that can deliver nutrients in-season to a growing crop. Three challenges with this system have been odor, pivot nozzle clogging and loss of nitrogen. A new innovation in lagoon treatment addresses these challenges. Low-power circulators were installed at a Northeast Nebraska commercial hog finishing facility and used to aerate the lagoon by moving oxygen-rich water and beneficial microbes to the bottom of the lagoon, reducing odor and potent greenhouse gases while lowering disease pathogen risk. This process preserved nitrogen and made it 40-60% more available in the first year of application. Circulation also reduced lagoon solids and bottom sludge, resulting in reduced agitation and dredging expense. Having a continuously well-mixed lagoon facilitated accurate manure nutrient sampling and consistent nutrient concentration delivery to the irrigation system. Combined with the ease of calibration of the center pivots, precision uniform nutrient application was achieved. Center pivot application had several additional advantages over tractor-based systems: less soil compaction, optimal nutrient timing during plant growth, higher uniformity, lower labor and energy costs, and eliminating impact on public roads. The circulators combined with flush barns and center pivot irrigation creates a complete turn-key manure management system.

Do Circulators Make a Difference in Liquid Manure Storage?

pumping nutrients from lagoon on korus pig site The purpose of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of low powered circulators to treat livestock waste in lagoons. The objective was to evaluate how the addition of circulators to a livestock pond would change: 1. Odor levels, 2. Pivot nozzle clogging problems, and 3. Nitrogen loss.

What did we do?

A demonstration was conducted by installing five circulators on a lagoon receiving manure from a 3000 pig finisher facility. The lagoon is owned by a Lindsay customer that was already pumping the top water from the pond through pivots, but was having difficulty with plugging nozzles and was hiring a commercial pumper to agitate and pump solids. The circulators were installed in May of 2013. Starting with the day of installation and each month after through November 2013, effluent lab samples were collected, photos of the pond and effluent were taken, and odor level estimated.

comparison of manure application systems

The effluent was pumped through pivots where odor and nozzle clogging problems were evaluated on August 15th and December 2nd of 2013. The pond was refilled with fresh water, circulated for a few days, and re-pumped right after the August 15th event so more of the nutrients could be utilized by the crops.

What have we learned?

The benefits of using aerobic lagoons with livestock waste have been known for many years. The challenge has been finding a cost effective and reliable method to facilitate the process. The cost to run all five circulators was about $3300 per year figuring $0.10 per kWh.

The circulators facilitated the following changes in the pond:

Reduced dry matter in effluent to <0.4%-starting at 0.57% and ending at 0.37%
Greatly reduced hog hair and soybean hulls caught in the filter resulting in virtually eliminating nozzle and pressure regulator clogging on the pivot
Reduced solids and bottom sludge-sonar indicated a 5+ ft reduction in bottom solids in 5 months
Doubled 1st year availability of nitrogen-%NH4 to total N was >80% compared to average book values of 40%
Greatly reduced offensive manure odor-downwind from pivot applying effluent, very little odor was observed
Reduced disease pathogens-Total Coliform went 11,000 to 30 CFU/g & Escherichia coli went from 460 to <10 CFU/g
Reduced flies-virtually eliminated floating solids and fly habitat on the pond
Reduced severe greenhouse gasses (GHGs)
Generated safer and lower odor water to recycled back through the barn for manure removal

Future Plans

We would like to continue evaluating the system for more precise odor reduction ratings, nitrogen preservation during pond storage, and affect on disease pathogens.

Author

Steve Melvin, Irrigation Applications Specialist, Lindsay steve.melvin@lindsay.com

Additional information

Call Steve Melvin at 402-829 6815 for additional information.