Tag: animal mortality

Posted on

Natural Rendering: Composting Horse Mortality


poster of the mortality composting processPurpose          

Understanding Livestock Composting as there are few methods to safely dispose of livestock mortality

What did we do?         

CWMI has been working on mortality disposal since 1990. Research was completed methodically as new questions arose. We started with large livestock(deadstock) migrated to research on managing animals hit by cars, generally wild animals. Moved to managing disease outbreak and drugs residual that might end up in compost if it does not degrade.

What have we learned?           

See attached paper

Future Plans  

Responding to Routine Mortality and Disasters

Authors

Jean Bonhotal, Director CWMI, Cornell University jb29@cornell.edu

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute Craig Williams, Penn State University, Ann Swinker, Penn State University

Additional information      

http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/mortality.htm

Acknowledgements      

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute

Craig Williams, Penn State University

Josh Payne, Oklahoma State University

Ann Swinker, Penn State University

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

Managing Animal Mortalities Curriculum Materials

Managing animal mortalities is an unpleasant but necessary part of raising livestock or poultry. Improper carcass disposal can negatively impact the environment and be a source of disease or pathogens. This material was developed for use in beginning farmer and extension programs, high school classrooms, and for self-study or professional continuing education.

Teachers, Extension, Consultants

Educators are welcome to use the following materials in their classrooms and educational programs. More modules… All materials except the video FAQs are available in a single ZIP file for easy download. Download animal mortality curriculum ZIP file….

Acknowledgements

Authors: Joshua Payne, Oklahoma State University; Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University; Shafiqur Rahman, North Dakota State University

Reviewer: Thomas Bass, Montana State University

Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA) is a collaborative effort of the National Young Farmers Educational Association, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Montana State University. It was funded by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project would not be possible without the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community and the National eXtension Initiative.

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.

Posted on

Quantification of Sodium Pentobarbital Residues from Equine Mortality Compost Piles

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

*Abstract

Preliminary research has shown that sodium pentobarbital, a euthanasia drug, can persist up to 180 days in equine mortality compost piles. This experiment attempts to expand upon past research by quantifying pentobarbital residues in equine mortality compost piles over a longer duration using innovative sampling schemes. Six, 3.7 m2 plots were used to construct separate compost bins with 3 bins serving as control. Each bin was constructed with 1.2 m high horse panels. Soil samples were collected in each bin area. The carbonaceous material consisted of wood chips that were added at a depth of 0.46 m creating the base. Twenty-four whiffle balls, pre-filled with wood chips were placed on the center of each pad.  Nylon twine was tied to each ball for retrieval.

A licensed veterinarian provided six horse carcasses for use in the experiment.  These horses had required euthanasia for health reasons. All horses were weighed and then sedated with an intravenous injection of 8 ml of xylazine.  After sedation the three horses in the treatment group were euthanized by intravenous injection of 60 ml of sodium pentobarbital. The three control group horses were anesthetized by intravenous injection of 15 ml of ketamine hydrochloride and then humanely euthanized by precise gunshot to the temporal lobe. Following euthanasia, each carcass was placed on the center of the woodchip pad and surrounded with 0.6 m of additional wood chips. Serum and liver samples were immediately obtained while whiffle ball, soil and compost samples were obtained over time. Each sample was analyzed for pentobarbital residues. Compost pile and ambient temperatures were also recorded. Data illustrates pentobarbital persistence up to 367 days in compost piles with no clear trend of concentration reduction.

Why Be Concerned with Equine Mortality Management?

Equine mortality is an issue encountered by every horse owner. Mortality may be associated with disease, injury, age or a catastrophic event. For horses suffering from an incurable illness or injury, euthanasia is often the most humane option. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) approved methods for horse euthanasia include barbiturate overdose and captive bolt or gunshot to the temporal lobe (AVMA, 2007). Following mortality, the carcass must be properly disposed of according to local regulations. For many horse owners, carcass disposal options are limited and can be costly.  Improper disposal of animal carcasses can present potential environmental, animal and public health risks.

Recent interest has focused on the common euthanasia barbiturate, sodium pentobarbital, and its persistence in the animal carcass following euthanasia. In 2003 the FDA added environmental warning labels to euthanasia products containing pentobarbital in regards to proper carcass disposal (FDA, 2003). Barbiturates accumulate within the carcass and can cause sedation or death of animals that may consume the body (AVMA, 2007).

Questions exist regarding the potential environmental risk of improperly disposed animal carcasses following euthanasia with pentobarbital. It has been suggested that proper composting of animal carcasses euthanized with pentobarbital may degrade drug residues to negligible concentrations. However, preliminary research has shown that pentobarbital can persist up to 180 days in equine mortality compost piles (Cottle et.al, 2010). The researchers identified a need for controlled experiments investigating the persistence of sodium pentobarbital in animal carcasses during composting. The objectives of this experiment were to expand upon previous research by quantifying pentobarbital residues in equine mortality compost piles over a longer duration using innovative sampling schemes and to determine the efficacy of wood chips as a carbonaceous material for degrading equine carcasses.

Compost bin with pad.

What Did We Do?

Six, 3.7 m2 plots were used to construct separate compost bins. Each compost bin was constructed with 6.1 m x 1.2 m metal horse panels supported by 3 steel t-posts. The bulking agent for construction of compost piles consisted of hardwood chips that were wetted to approximately 50% moisture content. Bulking agent was added at a depth of 0.46 m creating the pad. Twenty-four whiffle balls pre-filled with wood chips were centrally placed on each pad.  Nylon hay twine was tied to each whiffle ball for retrieval during required sampling times.

A licensed veterinarian provided six horse carcasses for use in the experiment.  These horses had required euthanasia for health reasons. All horses were weighed and then sedated with an intravenous injection of 8 ml of xylazine.  After sedation the three horses in the treatment group were euthanized by intravenous injection of 60 ml of sodium pentobarbital (Beuthanasia-D, Schering-Plough Animal Health).  The three control group horses were anesthetized by intravenous injection of 15 ml of ketamine hydrochloride and then humanely euthanized by precise gunshot to the temporal lobe.

Compost bin after carcass placement.

Following euthanasia, each carcass was placed on the center of the woodchip pad and surrounded with 0.6 m of additional wood chips. Serum and liver samples were immediately obtained while whiffle ball, soil and compost samples were obtained over time. Each sample was analyzed for sodium pentobarbital residues. Compost pile and ambient temperatures were also recorded throughout the duration of the study.

What Have We Learned?

The findings from this experiment indicate that wood chips were effective at decomposing equine mortalities within 129 days of composting. Nearly all of the soft tissue was completely degraded with only large bones present. Compost temperatures met EPA class B biosolid standards for pathogen reduction. At day 367, sodium pentobarbital still persisted in the treatment group with no clear trend of concentration reduction from day 7 to day 367. Enveloping the carcass with carbonaceous material and constructing a barrier reduces the risk of secondary toxicosis from scavenging animals. Moreover, carcass degradation by composting followed by homogenous compost mixing allows for dilution of any remaining sodium pentobarbital residues.

Future Plans

Future research could focus on alternative livestock mortality management options and their impact on sodium pentobarbital residues.

Authors

Josh Payne. Ph.D. Area Animal Waste Management Specialist. Oklahoma State University.   joshua.payne@okstate.edu

Rodney Farris. Ph.D. Senior Research Station Superintendent. Oklahoma State University.

Gene Parker. D.V.M. Area Food/Animal Quality and Health Specialist. Oklahoma State University.

Jean Bonhotal. Director. Cornell Waste Management Institute.

Mary Schwarz. Extension Support Specialist. Cornell Waste Management Institute.

Additional Information

Managing Livestock Mortalities Link

Horse Mortality: Carcass Disposal Alternatives Link

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is extended to Ted Newell, Tommy Tucker, Robert Havener and Bobby Adams for their assistance with field work as well as Cheryl Ford for her assistance with data entry.

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.

Posted on

White Meat-Green Farm: Case Study of Brinson Farms

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

Abstract

Comprehensive on-farm resource utilization and renewable energy generation at the farm scale are not new concepts.  However, truly encompassing implementation of these ideals is lacking.  Brinson Farms operates 10 commercial broiler houses.  The farm generates heat for its houses using biomass boilers and litter anaerobic digestion to produce methane.  Solar panels assist in heating process water for the boilers and digester.  Biomass feedstock includes litter as well as municipal yard wastes.  Liquid fertilizer is a product of the digester while residual solids are included in the farm’s composting operation.  The operator has used a futuristic approach to not only attain energy independence for the farm, but also to comprehensively utilize byproducts of production and other local “wastes”, diverting them from local landfills.  Considering the propane cost for a single winter flock has reached $66,000 and the annual electric bill may be $120,000, energy costs very much affect grower profitability.  This approach decreases the uncertainty in energy costs.  Brinson Farms provides a unique look into ensuring long-term farm sustainability in an environmentally friendly way and with a wide-ranging systems approach to management.

Purpose

The purpose of the renewable energy project was to implement an innovative, sustainable solution to manage poultry manure and other organic waste products using anaerobic digestion as well as to demonstrate the ability to effectively and economically reduce dependence on outside utilities.

What Did We Do?

Brinson Farms demonstrates comprehensive utilization of local resources that have historically been viewed as wastes.  These organic materials (broiler litter, yard trimmings, storm damaged trees and waste vegetables) come from both the farm and the community.  Broiler litter and waste vegetables are anaerobically digested to produce methane.  The methane is then used in three ways: 1) to generate electricity for the farm; 2) in boilers to heat water used in the digestion process; and 3) in dual-fuel biomass boilers to heat water for heat exchange in the broiler houses when biomass sources are low. Two other significant products from the digester include liquid fertilizer (approximately 5-2-3) that is sold and residual solids that are incorporated into the farm’s composting facility.  Solar panels assist in heating water for the biomass boilers and the digester. The simple payback period for the on-farm poultry litter digester system is approximately 5 years.

Brinson Farms anaerobic digester complex.

What Have We Learned?

Brinson Farms provides a unique system to ensure long-term farm sustainability in an environmentally beneficial manner. Attributes of the integrated system include: 1) bio-based energy production; 2) reduced utility costs; 3) comprehensive litter utilization; 4) no need to land apply poultry litter; 5) production of high quality, organic liquid fertilizer; 6) production of a marketable soil amendment (compost);  and 7) diverting wastes from landfills.  The farm/community interface is mutually advantageous. The farm uses yard trimmings and trees for energy and as a compost substrate; the community has a free repository to dispose of the biomass, where otherwise it would have to pay landfill fees.

Biomass storage and boiler to heat broiler houses

Future Plans

Future plans include developing economic evaluations for each of the system components so that farmers can choose the renewable energy/value added process(es) that will best fit their local resources as well as short and long term financial plans.

Authors

Dana M. Miles, Chemical Engineer, USDA-ARS Genetics & Precision Agriculture Research Unit, Mississippi State, MS, dana.miles@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

John Logan: johnlogan1@windstream.net;

Jeff Breeden: jbreeden@egesystems.com;

Eagle Green Energy: http://eaglegreenenergyinc.com/;

Arora, S. 2011. Poultry Manure: The New Frontier for Anaerobic Digestion. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046769.pdf

Acknowledgements

The assistance of John Logan and Jeff Breeden to effectively describe the Brinson system is 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. 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.

Posted on

Impacts of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste 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)

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.

Posted on

Livestock GRACEnet

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste 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.

Authors

April Leytem, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS april.leytem@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

https://www.ars.usda.gov/anrds/gracenet/livestock-gracenet/

 

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.

Posted on

Mortality Composting in the Semi-Arid West

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

Why Is Proper Mortality Management Important?

Proper management of animal mortalities has important implications for nutrient management, water quality, animal health, and farm/ranch family and public health.  To best ensure human health and safety, reduce regulatory risks, and protect environmental resources, livestock producers should become familiar with best management practices (BMPs) for dealing with dead animals. Producers should also be aware of state laws related to proper disposal or processing of mortalities. 

Mortality composting is an increasingly popular and viable alternative when compared to other disposal practices because of cost savings, bio-security benefits, and reduced environmental risks.  Static mortality composting differs from traditional composting in both management intervals and carbon to nitrogen ratios.   The objective of this workshop is to provide those who advise livestock producers with the knowledge, tools, and resources to develop a mortality management plan, with specific focus on the static composting option.   

The Rocky Mountain based authors conducted demonstrated research, reviewed pertinent literature, studied USDA-NRCS standards, and documented mortality composting systems already in-use by regional producers. 

Recording of the author’s presenting the workshop
Options for managing dead animals
Principles of mortality composting
Managing animal mortality compost piles
Economics of mortality composting

Curriculum Materials

Data from these activities provided a basis for the following tools:

  1. Decision aid spreadsheet that evaluates the costs of mortality composting against other mortality disposal options (in English and Spanish),
  2. How-to-manual on mortality composting in English and Spanish),
  3. Video illustrating on-the-ground mortality composting
  4. PowerPoint presentation explaining mortality composting principles, methods and resources (in English and Spanish).

Learning Objectives

This 90 minute in-service workshop will provide background and step-by-step considerations for mortality composting, with an emphasis on the practice in the semi-arid environments of the western United States.  However, fundamentals of the workshop will apply to all climates.   To the right, you will find recordings of the authors presenting the workshop using the slides from the curriculum materials.

Presenters

Thomas Bass, Livestock Environment Associate Specialist, Montana State University tmbass@montana.edu. Mr. Bass has been an Extension Specialist in the area of livestock and environmental management for 12 years.  He has been involved in composting research and demonstrations for much of his career. 

Jessica Davis, PhD, Colorado State University.  Dr. Davis is an Extension Specialist and the director of the Institute for Livestock and the Environment, a diverse group of CSU faculty working together to solve problems at the interface of livestock production and environmental management. She is the principal investigator and originator of this SARE project.    

John Deering, MS, Colorado State University.  Mr. Deering, is a regional Extension Specialist in Eastern Colorado.  He is an economist by training with an emphasis on agriculture and business management.  He developed the economic tools and narratives associated with the products of this project.

Michael Fisher, MS, Colorado State Univeristy.  Mr. Fisher is an area Extension Agent, with an emphasis in livestock production, meat science, range management, and overall ranch management.  He is an important conduit between producers, other government agencies, and industry groups in north eastern Colorado.      

Additional Information

This project was funded by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.

Archive webcast: https://connect.extension.iastate.edu/p93vve55l1f/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Curriculum Materials

Companion Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL62C6899F81B769B7&v=1DwUrOxpTxw&feature=player_detailpage

Manual (eng): http://livestockandenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CompostingManual-final-webview.pdf

Manual (span): http://livestockandenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/CompostingManual_spanish_web-2.pdf

Ppt: https://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/ag/mortality.pdf

Ppt (span): http://livestockandenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Mortality-Spanish.pptx

Partial Budget: http://livestockandenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Partial-Budget-Form-English.xls

Partial Budget (span): http://livestockandenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Partial-Budget-Form-Spanish.xls

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.

Posted on

Extension Outreach Response to Livestock Mortality Events Associated With Algal Toxin Production in Georgia Farm Ponds

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

Purpose

Excessive nutrient enrichment in watersheds can create harmful algal blooms (HABs) in aquatic systems, including ponds, which are frequently used to water livestock. Harmful algal blooms are typically dominated by cyanobacteria (commonly referred to as “blue green algae”) many of which produce toxins that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans.  In May 2012, our laboratory began receiving reports of cattle mortalities associated with HABs. We began an outreach effort to screen and identify algal species and toxins in water samples submitted by private citizens from ponds throughtout Georgia. Prior to this effort, no state or federal laboratories offered such a service. Private laboratories conduct these services, however the collection protocols and analytical costs preclude the average citizen from utilizing them. Rapid detetion of a HAB is critical for farmers so that access to the water source can be restricted. We recognized the need to provide such a service and to educate the public regarding exposure effects, preventative measures, and treatment of HABs.

During Summer 2012 sampling events we commonly encountered Microcystis blooms in both farm ponds used by humans for fishing and recreation (above) and for watering livestock (below).

What Did We Do?

We documented dense blooms of  planktonic cyanobacteria, predominantly Microcystis aeruginosa, and  extremely high levels of the potent hepatotoxin, Microcystin, in water samples submitted by Georgia cattle producers (Haynie et al. 2013). Many of these samples were submitted by producers who had experienced cattle mortalities, potentially due to algal toxin exposure.

Through a collaborative effort with UGA’s Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratories, we established a water screening service that includes algal speciation and toxin detection. This service became available to the public in Februrary 2013. This effort included a detailed outreach letter to extension agents, sampling protocol and materials for water sample collection and shipping. This screening service is avalible for either a $30.00 (algal identification) or $45.00 (toxin analysis and algal identification) fee. The submitter will receive an electronic report within 24 hours with results, interpretation, and recommendations.

We have begun promoting this service and educating the public about HABs by participating in various short courses, meetings and outreach opportunities.

What Have We Learned?

We have demonstrated that HABs and cyanotoxins are common in Georgia agriculture ponds. Therefore, the potential for livestock exposure and subsequent effects including mortality are likely to occur. Education and establishment of a rapid toxin detection service is warranted and will be beneficial to producers. The livestock deaths have highlighted an important issue for Georgia farmers and pond owners that will likely be increasingly prevalent under projected climatic models.

Future Plans

We will continue our outreach efforts by participating in University and industry sponsored workshops and meetings. We will use these opportunities to educate and inform the public about the newly available algal screening service. We have included, in recently submitted grants, funding to subsidize testing expenses in order to encourage more farmers/pond owners to use this service. We intend to utilize the testing service to gather spatially referenced data on the prevalence of HABs and toxin levels in GA ponds. This information, which is not currently available,  will inform nutrient management plans and BMPs that will ultimately improve nutrient management and water resources in Georgia.  We hope that this effort will serve as a model for other states experiencing similar increases in frequency and severity of HABs in agricultural settings.

Authors

Rebecca S. Haynie, Post Doctoral Associate, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 hayniers@uga.edu

Susan Wilde, Assistant Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602

David Kissel, Director and Professor, Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Leticia Sonon, Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Uttam Saha, Program Coordinator, Feed and Environmental Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105

Additional Information

Haynie, R. S., J. R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, B. Willis, J. H. Rodgers Jr., A.L. Jones and S. B. Wilde.  Harmful algal blooms and toxin production in Georgia ponds. (in review). Proceedings of the Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia. April 2013.

UGA Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory: http://aesl.ces.uga.edu/

Burtle, G.J. July 2012. Managing Algal Blooms and the Potential for Algal Toxins in Pond Water. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Temporary Publication 101.

Haynie, R.S., J.R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, S. B. Wilde. Cyanotoxins: Exposure Effects and Mangagement Options. Proceedings of the UGA Extension Beef Cattle Shortcourse. Ed. L. Stewart. Athens, Georgia. January 2013.

News article: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/experts-say-toxic-algae-may-pose-threat-kids-pets/242741856/

Acknowledgements

Drs. Lawton Stewart, Gary Burtle (Animal and Dairy Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, UGA)  coordinated sample delivery from pond owners to our laboratory. Brad Bartelme, James Herrin and Jamie Morgan (Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, UGA) contributed significant technical assistance with algal screening and sample processing.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Waste Disposal by the Veterinary Community

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

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) offers several resources to its members and the public regarding various disposal issues encountered by the veterinary community and animal owners.  With its veterinary medical expertise, the veterinary profession can be a valuable resource for clients, the general public, regulators, and other stakeholders on carcass and other animal waste disposal issues, especially those involving potential health risks to other animals or the public.  The purpose in developing these resources is to further increase awareness by the veterinary profession and its stakeholders of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning disposal of animal waste and carcasses.

What Did We Do?

The AVMA has established policies related to the disposal of animal waste and carcass disposal.  Three key policies include “Appropriate Animal Carcass Disposal,” “Animal Carcass Risk in Natural Disasters,” and “Animal Agriculture Waste Management.”  All of the AVMA policies related to waste issues can be found at https://www.avma.org/PracticeManagement/Administration/Pages/AVMA-Policies-Relevant-to-Waste-Disposal.aspx.

  1. Appropriate Animal Carcass Disposal

The AVMA advocates safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses, whether on an individual animal basis or during mass mortality events. As such, the AVMA supports increased research and education towards the development of appropriate methods and guidelines for animal carcass disposal.

  1. Animal Carcass Risk in Natural Disasters

Consistent with current scientific literature and the conclusions of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the AVMA recognizes that animals that die from injuries, including massive animal deaths in cases of natural disasters, generally do not represent a health hazard for humans. The presence of dead bodies that result from a disaster, without the presence of another risk factor, is not the cause for the spread of infectious diseases. (1PAHO Manual, Ch 3, Conclusions; p. 81)

1 Management of Dead Bodies in Disaster Situations, Disaster Manuals and Guidelines Series, number 5. Pan American Health Organization, Area on Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief, and the World Health Organization, Department for Health Action in Crisis. Washington, DC, 2004.

  1. Animal Agriculture Waste Management

The AVMA supports the basic premises of current federal and state legislation and regulations enacted to prevent negative environmental impacts from wastes generated by terrestrial or aquatic animal productions. Veterinarians should be aware of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning animal waste.

Therefore the AVMA supports the following:

  • Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements. This includes aid in establishing and implementing nutrient management plans as well as design and construction of effective waste management facilities to prevent contamination of the environment.
  • Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
  • Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.

Additionally, the AVMA has developed the microsite, www.avma.org/wastedisposal.  Sections of the microsite addressing topics such as “Federal Regulations of Waste Disposal,” “State-based Waste Disposal Resources,” and “AVMA Policies Relevant to Waste Disposal,” are accessible by the general public.  Specific “Clinical Resources” pages, such as “Animal Carcass Disposal,” “Animal Waste Disposal,” “Recordkeeping,” and more are accessible only by AVMA members.  On a similar note and because of its expertise, the Association was consulted during the development of the Veterinary Compliance Assistance (VetCA) website (www.vetca.org) by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences under the National Compliance Assistance Centers program. Funding for this latter project has been provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition to the pharmaceutical disposal information within the aforementioned resources, the AVMA has partnered with the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce to combine efforts and develop a joint outreach and educational campaign for veterinary clients regarding proper pharmaceutical disposal.  Information and products associated with the collaborative effort are available at www.avma.org/unwantedmeds.

The “Green Veterinary Practices” microsite has also been developed by the AVMA.   The web pages provide AVMA members and the public information on sustainable practices.  Not only does the site discuss what the AVMA is doing, it also provides resources for integrating eco-friendly features into veterinary practices as well as opportunities for including eco-friendly practices in facility designs.  The microsite is available at https://www.avma.org/green-veterinary-practices

In addition to policy and resource development, the AMVA is active in advocacy.  Related to waste issues, the Association has weighed in on Federal Register items such as Docket Number [EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0188], the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule and Docket Number [EPA-OW-2011-0466], Draft Recreational Water Quality Criteria and Request for Scientific Views.  To see additional topics as well as the AVMA’s comments, please visit https://www.avma.org/advocacy/national-advocacy.  In 2012, the AVMA joined the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition urging Congress to support the $325 million for the AFRI in the President’s Fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.  To view all of the AVMA’s advocacy information, please click on “Advocacy” from the AVMA’s home page, www.avma.org.

What Have We Learned?

Integrative efforts of multiple disciplines and stakeholders are needed to better enhance the science of waste management as well as to help bridge the gaps between such science and sociopolitical opinions.

Future Plans

As stated in its policies, the AVMA will continue to advocate for safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses as well as support:

  • Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements
  • Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
  • Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.

Authors

Kristi Henderson, DVM, Assistant Director, Scientific Activities Division, American Veterinary Medical Association khenderson@avma.org

Additional Information

http://www.avma.org

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