Tag: beef manure

Posted on

The Arkansas Discovery Farm Program: Connecting Science to the Farm

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

Why Create the Arkansas Discovery Farm Program?

Agriculture in Arkansas is under increasing pressure to manage nutrients and sediment in an environmentally sustainable manner.  In many sectors of the farming community, this has created severe constraints to remaining economically viable and competitive in today’s global market place.  In northwest Arkansas, home to the nation’s second largest broiler poultry production, farmers have been under intense scrutiny and litigation over the last decade, due to downstream water users (i.e., Oklahoma) questioning the role of agriculture in water quality impairment.  Also, increasing national attention is being focused on reducing nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico, which will further increase the need of agricultural producers to increase nutrient efficiency while declining groundwater levels in crop producing areas of eastern Arkansas will increase the need for greater water efficiency.  The Arkansas Discovery Farm Program was initiated in 2009 to document the effectiveness of conservation practices on “real-world” private farms across the diverse forage, livestock, and row crop agricultural setting across the State.

What Did We Do?

We are monitoring runoff quality from seven farms as we are quantify sediment and nutrient losses from all major row crop and livestock commodities including rice, soybean, corn, cotton, poultry and beef cattle.  We are currently monitoring the quality of runoff from 19 fields using automated water quality samplers that are now equipped modems that contact us via cell phone when sampling is initiated.    On our row crop fields, we have increased our efforts to monitor irrigation water use and needs.  All fields are equipped with turbine-type irrigation flow meters that utilize dataloggers to automatically records flow data.  On two farms, we split fields in half and monitored evapotranspiration with atmometers (ET gages) and compared to our computer irrigation scheduler to calibrate the ET gages as an easier field method for irrigation scheduling.

What Have We Learned?

Due to the fact that we have been monitoring runoff since mid-2011 at the longest, we have limited reliable information to present.  As our first year, 2011 produced several severe flood-stage storms and 2012 provided a record breaking drought, it is difficult to quantify impact at this point.  While the water quality monitoring is a cornerstone, empowering agricultural producers to take ownership in finding solutions to minimize environmental impact is paramount to protecting voluntary efforts for the industry.  Our major findings to date have been the willingness of Arkansas farmers in general to embrace the Program, to be environmentally accountable for their actions, and to be proactive rather than reactionary.   

Future Plans

We have plans to develop another Discovery Farm in the litigated Illinois River Watershed, Northwest Arkanas.   While there is a great deal of interest in developing a commerical forestry Discovery Farm, a lack of potneital funding has limited those plans to date.  As we continue to collect data, we hope we can provide timely information on both economic and natural resource sustainability on behalf of Arkansas Agriculture to regulators, lawmakers and other decision makers. 

Authors

Andrew Sharpley, Professor, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas System, sharpley@uark.edu

Mike Daniels, Professor, Cooperative Extension, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas System

Neal Mays, Program Technician, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas System

Cory Hallmark, Program Technician, Cooperative Extension, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas System

Additional Information

http://discoveryfarms.uark.edu/

Acknowledgements

Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts, Arkansas Conservation Commission, Arkansas Natural Resource Conservation Service, Arkansas Farm Bureau

 

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

Software For Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Dairy and Beef Production Systems

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

Why Model Environmental Impacts of Livestock?

Quantifying the long term environmental impacts of dairy and beef production is complex due to the many interactions among the physical and biological components of farms that affect the amount and type of emissions that occur. Emissions are influenced by climate and soil characteristics as well as internal management practices. Software models are needed to perform an integrated and comprehensive assessment of all important environmental and economic effects of farm management and mitigation strategies. Related: Manure value & economics

What Did We Do?

Figure 1. The Integrated Farm System Model simulates the performance, determines the economics, and predicts the air and water emissions of farm production systems.

Software tools were created that perform whole-farm analyses of the performance, economics and environmental impact of dairy and beef production systems. The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) is a comprehensive research tool that simulates production systems over many years of weather to quantify losses to the environment and the economics of production. From the simulated performance and losses, environmental footprints are determined for carbon, energy use, water use and reactive nitrogen loss. Crop, dairy and beef producing farms can be simulated under different management scenarios to evaluate and compare potential environmental and economic benefits. The Dairy Gas Emissions Model (DairyGEM) provides a simpler educational tool for studying management effects on greenhouse gas, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions and the carbon, energy and water footprints of dairy production systems.

What Have We Learned?

Analyses with either the IFSM or DairyGEM tools illustrate the complexity of farming systems and the resultant effect of management choices. Although IFSM was primarily developed and used as a research tool, it is also used in classroom teaching and other education applications. DairyGEM provides an easier and more graphical tool that is best suited to educational use.

Future Plans

Figure 2. DairyGEM is an educational tool for evaluating management effects on air emissions and environmental footprints of dairy production systems.

Development of these software tools continues. Work is currently underway to add the simulation of VOC emissions to both models. Routines are also being implemented to better represent the performance and emissions of beef feed yards.

Authors

C. Alan Rotz, Agricultural Engineer, USDA/ARS; al.rotz@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

The IFSM and DairyGEM software tools are available through Internet download [https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/software/?modeCode=80-70-05-00] for use in individual, workshop and classroom education. Reference manuals and other detailed information on the models is also available at this website.

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to the development of these models and software tools. Although they can not all be listed here, they are acknowledged in each software program.

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

Environmental Footprints of Beef Produced At the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center

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

Why Study the Environmental Footprint of Beef?

As a major contributor in food production, beef production provides a major service to our economy that must be maintained. Production of cattle and the associated feed crops required also impact our environment, and this impact is not well understood. Several studies have determined the carbon footprint of beef, but there are other environmental impacts that must be considered such as fossil energy use, water use, and reactive nitrogen loss to the environment. Because of the large amount of data available to support model evaluation, production systems of the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center were simulated with the Integrated Farm System Model for the purpose of evaluating the environmental impact of the beef cattle produced.

What Did We Do?

The environmental footprints of beef produced at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska were determined with the objective of quantifying improvements achieved over the past 40 years. Relevant information for MARC operations was used to establish parameters representing their production system with the Integrated Farm System Model. The MARC farm, cow calf and feedlot operations were each simulated over recent historical weather to evaluate performance, environmental impact and economics. The current farm operation included 2,078 acres of alfalfa and 2,865 acres of corn to produce feed predominately for the beef herd of 5,500 cows, 1200 replacement heifers and 3,724 cattle finished per year. Spring and fall cow calf herds were fed on 24,000 acres of pastureland supplemented through the winter with hay and silage produced by the farm operation. Feedlot cattle were backgrounded 3 mo on hay and silage and finished over 7 mo on a diet high in corn grain and wet distiller’s grain.

What Have We Learned?

Model simulated predictions for weather year 2011 were within 1% of actual records for feed production and use, energy use, and production costs. A 25-year simulation of their current production system gave a carbon footprint of 10.9 lb of CO2 equivalent units per lb body weight (BW) sold, and the energy required to produce that beef was 11,400 Btu/lb BW. The total water required was 2,560 gallon/lb BW sold, and the water footprint excluding that obtained through precipitation was 335 gallon/lb BW. Reactive N loss was 0.09 lb/lb BW, and the simulated total cost of producing their beef was $0.96/lb BW sold. Simulation of the production practices of 2005 indicate that the use of distiller’s grain in animal diets has had a small impact on environmental footprints except that reactive N loss has increased 10%. Compared to 1970, the carbon footprint of beef produced has decreased 6% with no change in the energy footprint, a 3% reduction in the reactive N footprint, and a 6% reduction in the real cost of production. The water footprint, excluding precipitation, has increased 42% due to greater use of irrigated corn production.

Future Plans

Now that the modeling approach has been shown to appropriately represent beef production systems, further simulation analyses are planned to evaluate beef production systems on a regional and national scale.

Authors

C. Alan Rotz, Agricultural Engineer, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, USDA/ARS al.rotz@ars.usda.gov

B.J. Isenberg, Research Assistant, The Pennsylvania State University

K.R. Stackhouse-Lawson, Director of Sustainability Research, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

E.J. Pollak, Director, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, USDA / ARS

Additional Information

C. Alan Rotz, al.rotz@ars.usda.gov

Acknowledgements

Funded in part by The Beef Checkoff and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service

 

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Purpose

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

What Did We Do?

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

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

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

 

What Have We Learned?

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

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

Future Plans

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

Authors

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

Shawn Shouse, Extension Field Ag Engineer, Iowa State University

Additional Information

Small Feedlots and Dairy Operations Web Page

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Purpose

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

What Did We Do?

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

What Have We Learned?

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

Future Plans

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

Authors

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

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

Additional Information

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

Acknowledgements

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

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Cow-Calf Operation in Florida, USA

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

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources in a typical cow-calf operation in Florida and to calculate its total carbon footprint. The most important greenhouse gas source found was enteric fermentation, hence further investigation of this factor is being developed with field trials.

Why Study the Carbon Footprint of Cow-Calf Systems?

We estimated the carbon footprint of the cow-calf operation held in Buck Island Ranch, with data from 1998 to 2008. This production system has around 3000 cows and 250 bulls, has low fertilizer and lime inputs and feeding is pasture and hay based with some use of molasses and urea. Natural mating is used and calves are kept in the farm until 7 months old.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006) methodology was used along with emission factors from USDA (EPA, 2009) to estimate emissions at different levels of complexity (Tier 1 being the least complex and Tier 3 the most), according to data availability, and transformed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). A field trial to measure ruminal methane emissions was held at the North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna, Florida, from June 26th to September 18th. The experiment treatments consisted of three stocking rates (1.2, 2.4 and 3.6 AU/ha, where one animal unit is 360) with four replicates each. The ruminal methane emissions were measured three times using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique (Johnson et al., 1994). Experimental weight gain and average initial weight of each experimental unit were used to estimate emissions with the IPCC’s Tier 3 methodology.

Table 1. Sources of greenhouse gases in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Data retrieved from Buck Island Ranch from 1998 to 2008.

Figure 2. Animal with SF6 sample collection apparatus. Marianna, Florida, August 2012.

What Have We Learned?

Results of the carbon footprint calculation are shown in Table 1. We can observe that enteric fermentation is responsible for almost 60% of total emissions in this production system, varying with feed quality, age of animal (since calves under 7 months age are not considered to produce any methane), and number of animals in the farm. It was also found that this model is most sensitive to variations in weight gain. The second most important source of GHG is manure with more than 23 of emissions. The yearly variation in emissions is a result of the use of nitrogen fertilization and lime or burning of the pasture. On average 477,936 kg of live weight are produced every year in the ranch, resulting in an average of 24.6 kg CO2eq/kg live weight that leaves the farm. Results from the field trials were compared with default values from IPCC’s Tier 1 methodology and USDA, and to IPCC’s Tier 3. We can see that on Period 2 the weight gain on the 2.4 AU/ha treatment was greater than on the 3.6 AU/ha (Figure 1). Since the model used is highly sensitive to weight gain, the prediction resulted in higher methane emissions from the 2.4 AU/ha treatment. The field measurements (Figure 2), however, showed more emissions in the 3.6 AU/ha treatment showing that other factors besides weight gain might play an important role on enteric fermentation methane emissions.

Future Plans

Our future plans include the use of field data to perform a prediction analysis with the model under study. Also, we plan to do in vitro gas production technique (IVGPT) to simulate ruminal fermentation and have a better understanding of emissions.

Authors

Marta Moura Kohmann, M.S. student, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida. mkohmann@ufl.edu

Clyde W. Fraisse, PhD., Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida.

Hilary Swain, PhD., Executive Director, Archbold Biological Station.

Martin Ruiz-Moreno, PhD, Post-doctoral, Animal Science Department, University of Florida

Lynn E. Sollenberger, PhD., Professor and Associate Chair, Agronomy Department, University of Florida

Nicolas DiLorenzo, PhD., Animal Science Department, University of Florida

Francine Messias Ciríaco, M.S. student, Animals Science Department, University of Florida

Darren D. Henry, M.S. student, Animals Science Department, University of Florida

Additional Information

The Carbon Footprint for Florida Beef Cattle Production Systems: A Case Study with Buck Island Ranch. Available in

<http://www.archbold-station.org/statiohttps://www.archbold-station.org/documents/agro/Kohmann,etal.-2011-FlaCattleman-carbonfootprint.pdfn/documents/publicationspdf/Kohmann,etal.-2011-FlaCattleman-carbonfootprint.pdf>

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Faculty and Staff at the North Florida Research and Education Center for the assistance during the field trial.

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

Effect of Feeding Distiller’s Grains on Reduced Sulfur Emissions

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

Why Study Sulfur Emissions and Manure from Animals Fed Distillers Byproducts?

Odorous reduced sulfur compounds are produced during manure decomposition and emitted from confined animal feeding operations.  Feeding high-sulfur distiller’s byproducts may increase the emission of these compounds.  The objectives of a series of feedlot pen studies was to (i) determine if emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from fresh manure and from the feedlot surface where affected if cattle were fed varying levels of distillers byproducts, and (ii) determine the areas within a pen that emit greater amounts of reduced sulfur compounds.

Study #1–Relative emission of redued sulfur compounds from fresh feces. Cattle fed diets containing 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% WEGS.

What Did We Do?

Three studies were conducted to evaluate the relative impact of feeding high-sulfur wet distiller’s grain plus solubles (WDGS) to beef cattle.  In the first study, beef cattle in sixteen small-scale pens were fed varying amounts (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%) of WDGS, and the relative emissions of reduced sulfur from fresh feces were measured using a laboratory wind tunnel chamber.  A follow up study in eight production-scale feedlot pens also examined the effect of feeding 0% or 40% WDGS on fresh manure emissions.  A third study in ten production-scale pens examined emissions from the pen surface when cattle were fed 0% and 40% WDGS diets over two production cycles.

Study #2–Relative emission of reduced sulfur compounds from feces of cattle fed 0% or 40% WDGS. P values above bars indicate the significance of the difference between emissions on the four dates.

What Have We Learned?

The relative emission of reduced sulfur from fresh feces was significantly greater (4 to 22-fold) when 40% (or greater) WDGS was fed in the initial study.  The follow up study confirmed this finding, but found the relative emission to be lower (2 to 4 fold higher for WDGS) in the production-scale feedlot.  In the final study examining the relative emission from the whole feedlot pen surface (mixed soil and aged feces) over many months, emissions principally came from the wetter edges of the pen when animal were fed higher levels of WDGS in their diet.  For the six study periods, the relative emissions from WDGS pens ranged from 0.3 to 4-fold higher than a standard ration.  Consistent results from these three studies indicate that reduced sulfur emissions increase when animals are fed higher levels of WDGS.

Study #3–Relative concentration of total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the chamber for each of the seven study periods. An asterisk above the bars indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between diets.

Future Plans

The level of sulfur in WDGS varies depending upon source and production method.  Feeding lower sulfur WDGS should reduce the relative emission of odorous reduced sulfur compounds.  Production of the reduced sulfur compounds may also be related to water quality—some water sources high in sulfur may enhance the emission of reduced sulfur from animal production sites.  Further research into the mechanism of reduced sulfur production may provide new insights into controlling the emissions of these odorous compounds.

Authors

Daniel N. Miller, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS, Lincoln, NE, dan.miller@ars.usda.gov

Mindy J. Spiehs, Research Animal Scientist, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE

Bryan L. Woodbury, Agricultureal Engineer, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE

Additional Information

Miller, D. N., V. H. Varel, B. L. Woodbury, and M. J. Spiehs.  2010.  Enhanced reduced sulfur emission from manures of beef cattle fed distiller’s byproducts.  International Symposium on Air Quality and Manure Management for Agriculture Conference Proceedings, 13-16 September, Dallas, Texas.  711P0510cd.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical expertise of Todd Bowman, Alan Kruger, and Ryan McGhee.  Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

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

The National Air Quality Site-Assessment Tool (NAQSAT)

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

Abstract

The National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) has been developed for the voluntary use of livestock producers and their advisors or consultants. It is intended to provide assistance to livestock and poultry producers in determining the areas in their operations where there are opportunities to make changes that result in reduced air emissions. Air emissions research from livestock production systems is increasing every year. NAQSAT is based on the most accurate, credible data currently available regarding mitigation strategies for air emissions of ammonia, methane, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, particulates, and odor.
From the NAQSAT home page users may watch a video explaining the tool, read an overview, study the user manual or select a species to start using the program.

Purpose

The National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) was developed for livestock producers who are interested in investigating opportunities to reduce air emissions from their livestock operation. The online tool is designed to provide farmers and their advisors air emissions information explicitly for their farm in a confidential setting. The tool may be run from any computer with internet access. All information entered into NAQSAT and the corresponding results remain confidential.

What Did We Do?

NAQSAT considers the air emissions from eight management categories; animal housing, feed and water, manure collection and transfer, manure storage, land application, mortality management, public perception and on-farm roads.
On the NAQSAT Effectiveness Results page the green area indicates the effectiveness of current management practices, the white area indicates the opportunity for improvement. At the end of each session users are encouraged to select “Print My Report” to receive a paper copy of all inputs that had been entered and a copy of the Effectiveness Results page for their records. 

Users of the tool are asked a series of questions under each of the eight management categories. Based on the responses to previously answered questions the program determines what additional questions need to be answered such that only questions pertaining to the operation currently being evaluated are asked. Pop-up pictures assist the user in determining the relative rating to select when questions require a visual evaluation of the existing practices.

NAQSAT addresses seven emissions of concern; odor, particulate matter (dust), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane (CH4), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O) under each of the eight management categories. Within the results page the green area in each rectangle indicates the effectiveness of current management practices, the white area indicates the opportunity for improvement.

NAQSAT allows users to save and run different scenarios providing the opportunity to compare the results of implementing new management practices.

It is easy to save NAQSAT sessions and return at a later date to make adjustments or consider additional alternatives. Each “saved” user session of NAQSAT is stored under its own URL available only to the person or persons with access to that URL. Individual URLs remain available for a minimum of 30 days before they are removed from the host computer.

The tool’s results page does not provide emissions data and/or regulatory guidance. It does identify opportunities for reducing air emissions and the ability to evaluate which practices might have the most impact. NAQSAT was developed for voluntary and educational use. The tool is designed to be used by livestock and poultry producers, however, the results may be more valuable when NAQSAT is used in cooperation with agency personnel or private consultants that can provide follow-up with suggestions for mitigation practices.

What Have We Learned?

NAQSAT has been used by members of the tool’s development committee to address odor conflicts in Colorado and in Michigan. In each case the tool confirmed the farm management teams were using acceptable management practices to limit odors from the livestock operation. In both states the local and state agencies involved in the conflict resolution were appreciative of the information provided by the tool.

Authors

Gerald May, Educator, Michigan State University Extension, mayg@msu.edu

Additional Information

The NAQSAT on-line tool is currently available at: http://naqsat.tamu.edu/.  It is available at no cost from its host website (it does not download onto your computer). To assist first time users an overview of the tool, an informative video and a user’s manual are available on the NAQSAT home page.

Archived webinars:

Acknowledgements

Are there any organizations or individuals (besides the authors) that should be acknowledged?

Development of NAQSAT was partially funded by the USDA – NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant program. Over twenty partner organizations and universities contributed to the development of NAQSAT.

Partner universities:  Partner organizations:
Colorado State University C.E. Meadows Endowment
Iowa State University Colorado Livestock Association
Michigan State University Iowa Turkey Federation
Oregon State University Iowa Pork Producers
Penn State University Iowa Pork Industry Center
Purdue University Iowa State Univ. Experiment Station
Texas A&M University Michigan Milk Producers Association
University of California, Davis Michigan Pork Producers Association
University of Georgia Michigan State Univ. Extension
University of Maryland National Pork Board
University of Minnesota Nebraska Environmental Trust
University of Nebraska Western United Dairymen

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

Developing a Modeling Framework to Characterize Manure Flows in Texas

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

Abstract

In recent years, sharply rising costs of inorganic fertilizers have contributed to an increased demand for manure and compost in crop production acreage, transforming cattle manure from a valueless waste to a viable alternative to commercial fertilizer. If additional demand for manure as a bio-fuel were to arise manure could take on two distinct values, a fertilizer value and a fuel value. This potential “dual” value of manure begs several questions. What would the fertilizer and fuel markets of manure look like? Is there enough manure supply for the markets to operate independently? If not, which market would prevail? In essence, how, if at all, would manure’s potential value as a bio-fuel distort the traditional Panhandle manure market? A modeling framework was developed to assess the potential impacts of a manure-fired ethanol plant on the existing Texas Panhandle manure fertilizer market.  Two manure-allocation runs were performed using a spreadsheet model. Run #1 allocated all available manure from dairies and feedlots to cropland as manure fertilizer; run #2 first allocated fuel manure to the ethanol plant and then allocated the remaining manure to cropland. Both model runs assumed a time horizon of one year and no antecedent nutrients in cropland soils. Other constraints included only irrigated acreages received manure and no supplemental fertilizer was used. The model revealed a 6.4% increase in cost per acre of fertilizing with manure for fields whose nutrient requirements were fully satisfied in both runs. The increase in cost per acre was likely due to an increase in hauling distances attributed to fewer CAFOs available for fertilizer manure. The model is not presented as a dynamic, systems model, but rather a static model with the potential to be incorporated into a more dynamic systems-based modeling environment. Suggestions for further model development and expansion including GAMS integration are presented.

Why Model Manure Transport and Use?

To demonstrate the potential for systems modeling to characterize manure flows in response to fertilizer prices,  biofuel demand, and other externalities in the Texas Panhandle

Conceptual model diagram.

What Did We Do?

We develeloped a spreadsheet based modeling framework to evaluate how both manure use and transport might be affected by regional changes in fertilizer prices, crop composition, and biofuel demand.  Specifically, we evaluated how traditional fertilizer valued manure flows might be affected by potential biofuel based flows stemming from a proposed manure-fired ethanol plant.  Two model simulations representing manure flows with and without biofuel manure demand from the proposed plant were performed.

Explicit model boundary shown with TNRIS satellite imagery used to locate and identify center pivot irrigated fields.

What Have We Learned?

Although the cattle industry in Texas Panhandle generates a substantial volume of manure, almost all of it is land applied as fertilizer.  However, the introduction of manure-fired facilities such as the proposed ethanol plant would undoubtedly change the dynamics of the existing manure market by introducing at least additional demand, if not a second value-based market.  Assuming only transportation costs of acquiring manure for biofuel, our model simulations suggested a 6.4% increase in cost per acre for lands whose manure requirements were fully satisfied in both simulations.  Assuming that manure for biofuel received an allocation preference for proximity to the plant, we propose that costs associated with having to transport manure over longer distances significantly contributes the the increased cost per acre for fertilized lands.

In terms of what we learned about systems modeling, we have experienced (although anticipated) that translating broad, systems based conceptual modeling ideas into an explicit, user friendly, and robust modeling interface can be extremely challenging. Although systems-based modeling efforts occur largely at a macro level, they often require extensive supplemental datasets.  We have experienced difficulty in identifying software packages that are equipped to adequately handle both aspects of systems modeling.

Future Plans

We plan to continue to develop and expand the current modeling framework by incorporating  a GIS-based water availability aquifer component, expanding the current crop-composition database, and providing logic algorithms for producer-based management decisions using GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System) optimization modeling.

Manure allocation map for model run #1 (232 LMU cells allocated).

Authors

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

Gary Marek, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Brent W. Auvermann, Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Kevin Heflin, Extension Associate, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

Additional Information

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

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr. Raghavan Srinivasan and David Shoemate of the Texas A&M University Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Spacial Sciences Laboratory for their help in GIS processing scripts.

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

Enhancing the Productivity of Livestock Production Through Improved Feeding: Empirical Evidence from Highland of Ethiopia

 

Forage development as feed resources in Tiyo district (Elephant grass)

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

Abstract

The Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) was used to characterize the farming and livestock system in Limu-Bibilo district in Ethiopia. Prior to data collection, a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) was conducted in August 2012. The quantitative data from individual interviews of 18 farmers were entered and analyzed using FEAST. Livestock production is an integral component of the farming system of the study area. Cattle are kept for food, cash, draught power and manure production. For the above average group grazing, crop residues, and cultivated fodder contributes 49%, 25% and 12% to the dry matter (DM) content of the total diet respectively. Similarly, grazing, crop residue, and purchased feeds contributes 33%, 23% and 20% of the DM respectively as to the below average groups. Grazing, crop residues and cultivated fodders are the major feed resources that are contributing 49%, 20%, and 14% of the metabolizable energy (ME) respectively as to the above average group and 32%, 17% and 14% respectively to the below average group. For above average group Grazing, cultivated fodder, purchased feeds, and crop residues contribute 42%, 17%, 16%, and 15% crude protein (CP) content respectively whereas purchased feeds, grazing, and cultivated fodders contribute 35%, 25%, and 15% of CP in the total diet in the case of below average groups. The problems that were raised by the farmers encompass, shortage of feed, scarcity of water, unavailability of cash or credit services, shortage of veterinary service, lack AI service, awareness and communication gap. In light of the problems the study recommends the development of herbaceous forage legumes and fodder trees species which can mitigate the constraints of feed scarcity. Training on cost effective livestock ration formulation techniques to reduce the feed shortages observed must be part of a strategy which requires attention to improve the production of the sector.

Why Study Feed Resource Availability?

The study area Lemu-Bilbilo district is located in Arsi zone in Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. It is characterized by a crop-livestock mixed farming system where dairy production contributes significantly to livelihoods of the smallholder farmers. Market-oriented dairy production based on crossbred dairy cows is also practiced in the district. However, economic benefits accruing from the livestock sector are not significant. Livestock production is constrained by ecological, technical and economic limitations which result in severe feed shortages. Thus, the objective of the current study was to assess feed resource availability and utilization using a feed assessment tool (FEAST) within the context of the overall farming and livestock production systems and to determine the potential of site-specific feed interventions in Lemu Bilbilo district.

What Will Be Learned In This Presentation?

The feed resources in the study area was primarily natural pasture, crop residue (cereals and legumes), purchased feed, cultivated fodder and naturally occurring and collected fodder. Crop residue was a major component in the diet of livestock. Animals rely on crop residues throughout the year especially when grazing pastures are scarce. Farmers who do not have adequate quantity of crop residue from cropping activities purchase additional straw from other farmers who produced cereals in surplus. The straw was usually fed to the animals without any form of processing or manipulation prior to feeding. However, some farmers were aware of mixing straws with linseed cake, wheat bran or salt as a means of improving quality and palatability. The contribution of grazing to dry matter (DM), metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein content (CP) was relatively high for the above average group farmers who reserve more land for grazing pasture through land renting. Due to limitations of grazing and crop residue resources, farmers in the below average group were forced to purchase feeds. Purchased feeds thus contribute relatively higher to the DM, ME and CP of their livestock diets compared to that of the above average farmers. Feed shortage was identified by both groups of farmers as the most important problem of livestock production. Other constraints like water problem, inefficient veterinary and AI services were similar and equally important for farmers in both groups.

Silage pit in AMAE which was used as training ground for practical feed formulation techniques

Presenters

Presenters: Mesay Yami1, Bedada Begna1, TeklemedihinTeklewold1, Jane Wamatu 2, Peter Thorne 3 and Alan Duncan

1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Kulumsa Agricultural Research center, Socio-economics, extension Research Process, P. O. Box 489, Assela, Ethiopia: 2 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Associate Scientist – Animal Nutritionist,: 3Crop Livestock Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O .Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:

*Corresponding author E-mail: mesay44@gmail.com

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