As livestock and poultry production has intensified it is no surprise that regulations have become a more prominent part of the business. This module introduces the Clean Water Act (CWA) and it application to animal agriculture. This material was developed for use in beginning farmer and extension programs, high school classrooms, and for self-study or professional continuing education.
Agriculture Professionals and Farmers
Check out this self-study module “Playing By the Rules“. This module is estimated to take 60 minutes and offers a certificate upon successful completion.
Teachers, Extension, Consultants
Educators are welcome to use the following materials in their classrooms and educational programs. More modules…
Instruction Guide – includes lesson plan, links to additional information, connections to national agriculture education standards (AFNR Career Content Cluster Standards), application to Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) projects, sample quiz/review questions, and enrichment activities.
Reviewers: Paul Hay, University of Nebraska, Lyle Holmgren, Utah State University, Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska, Elizabeth Burns Thompson, Drake University (law student), Mary Catherine Barganier, NYFEA, Shannon Arnold, Montana State.
To find a way to completely eliminate bio-hazards in manure, food wastes, municipal sludge, and agricultural production wastes.
What did we do?
We adapted existing dry extrusion technology to bio-hazard agricultural wastes. To test the hypothesis we developed [ Dry Extrusion Technology can be adapted to convert bio-degradable hazardous wastes into Bio-Secure class “A” fertilizer, feed, and/or bedding more economically, with less environmental impact, greater sustainability, and in less time with a smaller foot print]
Once we proved our Hypothesis we further developed the process to allow the technology to be utilized in a large stationary plant suitable for a large waste generator and in a portable plant that can be used to assist smaller waste generators, such as, most agricultural producers and smaller municipalities.
What have we learned?
Our tests showed that we could validate our hypothesis by:
1) utilizing finely ground dry agricultural production wastes, mixed with the wet food and manure to reduce the moisture content of the wet wastes to a level compatible to the requirements of the dry extruder,
2) The Dry extruder effectively sterilized the wastes by high temperature, high pressure inside the extruder, and sudden drop in atmospheric pressure inside the cell walls of all the materials when exiting the Dry Extruder, thereby destroying the cell walls of not only the bio-mass materials but also of all micro organisms ova, and pathogens inside the final product.
Future Plans
Develop new niche markets for agricultural waste generators by adding additional value to their wastes.
Moses Braxton, Bill Ansley, William Andrews, Duncan Nesbit, and Dr. Carm Parkhurst
Acknowledgements
Insta Pro International, North Carolina 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.
The cover of the Watershed Management Resources DVD
The Watershed Management Resources DVD is an interactive e-learning tool created by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was created for a wide variety of audiences including watershed groups, government and non-government organizations, post-secondary students , agricultural producers and any others who wish to learn more about water quality, water sampling and integrated watershed management. This tool promotes a synergistic approach to watershed management and increases leadership capacity by encouraging all members of a watershed community to work together to reduce harmful impacts to watersheds and to monitor their watershed for improvements.
What Did We Do?
A screen shot of the Welcoming page in the Surface Water Sampling section of the DVD
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canda used past experiences and current information to create a trilingual (English, French and Spanish) set of educational modules. This self-paced DVD provides users with interactive flash animations, video clips and text screens which educates about issues of water quality, beneficial management practices (BMPs) and watershed management. The DVD is available free of charge to any interested parties.
What Have We Learned?
A screen shot of the Hydrologic Cycle Animation that is found on the DVD.
Integrated watershed management is a complex topic and involves all types of people with varying levels of knowledge. Any type of educational tool that can be used to help stakeholders better understand their watersheds and how to appropriately monitor and manage them are very useful.
Future Plans
To continue to find ways to extend our knowledge to the sector.
Authors
Serena McIver, Senior Water Quality Engineer, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, serena.mciver@agr.gc.ca
Additional Information
More information on the organization and agriculture in Canada can be found at www.agr.gc.ca
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.
Why Work With Small Poultry and Livestock Operations?
Understand the business planning and development issues confronting small-scale livestock and poultry producers.
What Did We Do?
Colorado State University has been building educational programming to benefit small-scale crop and livestock producers across the state since 2007. The Colorado Building Farmers and Ranchers program uses a classroom, experiential learning and community-building approach to help smaller-scale and new agricultural producers build their businesses in a profitable, safe and sustainable manner. To date, we have graduated more than 300 producers, 65% of whom have completed business plans to expand or develop their agricultural business. These producers are primarily characterized by their focus on direct marketing, and many are located relatively close to urban areas; locations that provide both marketing opportunities as well as production constraints. The classroom education takes place over 8 weeks and helps producers build sustainable business plans, and develop a network of producers and technical assistance providers (e.g. NRCS, FSA, county planning staff). Topics covered include developing a production plan, recordkeeping, pricing, risk management, and on-farm food safety. In addition, since small-scale livestock production is a more complex business model, we have built a curriculum that guides producers through all the business planning considerations necessary to start and operate a profitable livestock operation: from acquiring poultry, sheep or goats, to health and environmental issues, to processing and creating a unique market niche.
What Have We Learned?
Given that smaller or more diversified poultry and small ruminant operations may be trying to maintain a greater number of enterprises on one farm or operation, it may be more difficult for those producers to stay on top of good management practices, as well as any requirements necessary to remain in good standing with local government and marketing partners. For example, these small-scale operations may be maintained on a limited number of acres, thus requiring very careful land and animal management. Additionally, many smaller-scale operations are located in areas where agriculture is not the primary land use. Such operations may be in the urban-rural interface, the suburbs or even in towns or cities. The research for this curriculum provided a basic overview of production, management and marketing considerations and opportunities for smaller-scale poultry and small ruminant production, and a means to discuss the relationship between resource stewardship and long-term business viability. We examined, in particular, emerging niche market opportunities and some of the costs and benefits inherent to pursuing those newer markets, finding that the costs and management skills required make it extremely difficult to operate a commercially viable small-scale livestock business in an urban area.
Future Plans
Next steps involve developing enterprise budgets with different numbers of poultry and small ruminants to understand the point at which these businesses become financially viable. This is important for helping prospective new livestock enterprises to truth their business plans, based on realistic assumptions.
Raising Poultry for Profit Video
Raising Sheep and Goats for Profit Video
Authors
Martha Sullins, Extension Regional Specialist, Colorado State University Extension, Martha.sullins@colostate.edu
David Weiss and Dawn Thilmany (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU), Blake Angelo (Urban Ag Educator, Denver/Jefferson Counties, CSU Extension), Marisa Bunning (Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, CSU); Thomas Bass (Montana 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. 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.
While large-scale farms have typically been the focus of anaerobic digestion systems in the U.S., an emerging need has been identified to serve smaller farms with between 50 and 500 head of cattle. Implementing such a small, standardized, all-in-one system for these small farm applications has been developed. Small-scale digesters open the playing field for on-farm sustainability and waste management.
Unloading the first biodigester unit.
This presentation on small-scale digestion would discuss the inputs, processing, function, and outputs of BIOFerm™ Energy Systems’ small agitated plug flow digester (EUCOlino). This plug-and-play digester system has the ability to operate on dairy manure, bedding material, food waste, or other organic feedstocks with a combined total solids content of 15-20%. A case study would be presented that describes the site components needed, the feedstock amount and energy production, as well as biogas end use. Additional details would include farm logistics, potential sources of funding, installation, operation, and overall impact of the project.
This type of presentation would fill an information gap BIOFerm™ has discovered among dairy farmers who believe anaerobic digestion isn’t feasible on a smaller scale. It would provide farmers who attend with an understanding of the technology, how it could work on their specific farm and hopefully reveal to them what their “waste is worth”.
Why Study Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion
To inform and educate attendees about small-scale anaerobic digestion surrounding the installation and feasibility of the containerized, paddle-mixed plug flow EUCOlino system on a small dairy farm <150 head.
Biodigester unit being installed at Allen Farms.
What Did We Do?
Steps taken to assist in financing the digestion system include receiving grants from the State Energy Office and Wisconsin Focus on Energy. Digester installation includes components such as feed hopper, two fermenter containers, motors, combined heat and power unit, electrical services, etc…
What Have We Learned?
Challenges associated with small project implementation regarding coordination, interconnection, and utility arrangements.
Future Plans
Finalize commissioning phases and optimize operation.
Steven Sell, Biologist/Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems
Gabriella Huerta, Marketing Specialist, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems
Additional Information
Readers interested in this topic can visit www.biofermenergy.com and for more information on our plants, services and project updates please visit us on our website at www.biofermenergy.com. You will also see frequent updates from us in industry magazines (BioCycle, REW Magazine, Waste Age). BIOFerm will also be present at every major industry conference or tradeshow including the Waste Expo, Waste-to-Worth and BioCycle– stop by our booth and speak with one of our highly trained engineers for further information.
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.
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
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.
To meet Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for agricultural pollution, conservation districts and farmers are tasked with implementing best management practices (BMPs) that reduce farm losses of nutrients and sediment. The importance of the agricultural industry to the regional economy highlights the need for determining cost-effective BMP solutions given the geographical and operational characteristics of these farms. This study evaluated both the environmental risk and farm profitability of common farm-level management practices for three major farm types in the region: crop, tractor-based (“English”) dairy, and horse-drawn (“Amish”) dairy.
Whole-farm simulations were conducted with the Integrated Farm System Model, a multi-year, process-based simulation model, to facilitate a broader understanding of the challenges for the farmers in finding financially feasible and environmentally sustainable solutions. Strip cropping, conservation tillage, cover cropping, and nutrient management BMPs generally reduced nutrient and sediments losses from all three farm types. However, scenarios that reduced phosphorus and sediment losses generally promoted more leaching of nitrogen. Double cropping corn with winter wheat combined with improved nutrient management was the most profitable practice for the crop farm, increasing average farm profitability by 92% over the baseline condition, while reducing combined nitrogen and total phosphorus losses by 13% and 23%, respectively.
Net profitability of the dairy farm was increased only by decreasing manure storage or using improved nutrient management. For the horse-drawn dairy, cover-cropping and harvest of rye silage combined with increased nutrient management provided the greatest increase in farm profit (+8%) and also reduced phosphorus and nitrogen losses.
Horse-drawn machinery through puts and increased human labor hours were required to simulate a typical Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy operation in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Why Study Farms As a System?
Because southeastern Pennsylvania is a significant environmental contributor of the Chesapeake Bay, agricultural land management is under intense scrutiny by restoration groups. It is imperative to improving water quality that economically and culturally acceptable nonpoint source control practices be explored, developed, and evaluated. This is true for “contemporary” crop and dairy farms in the region as well as those that are more conservative in their use of electrical- or gas-powered farming equipment, described in this study as “Lancaster Old Order Amish”. Evaluation from a whole-farm perspective enables practical assessments of tradeoffs among management practice combinations and is particularly relevant when effectiveness relies on the willingness and dedication of the farm operators.
What Did We Do?
The expertise of regional conservationists and pooled results from farmer surveys were used to determine three major farm types in southeastern Pennsylvania and design potentially acceptable management combinations for each type. Three baseline farms were described: 400 ha corn-soy-wheat crop farm; 100 cow, 120 ha contemporary dairy; and 24 ha Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy. Whole-farm impacts were assessed with the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM), a multi-year, process-based simulation model. Environmental tradeoffs between nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses were evaluated and financial cost-benefits through change in annual net return for the farmer were analyzed.
What Have We Learned?
Strip cropping, conservation tillage, cover cropping, and improved nutrient management generally reduced nutrient and sediment losses from all three farm types. However, scenarios that reduced phosphorus and sediment runoff losses generally increased nitrogen leaching to groundwater. Double cropping corn and winter wheat under improved nutrient management was the most profitable combination for the crop farm, increasing average farm profitability by 92% over the baseline while reducing combined nitrogen and total phosphorus losses by 13% and 23%, respectively. Net profitability of the contemporary dairy farm was increased only by decreasing manure storage or using improved nutrient management. For the Lancaster Old Order Amish dairy, cover-cropping and harvest of rye silage combined with increased nutrient management provided the greatest increase in farm profit (+8%) and also reduced phosphorus and nitrogen losses.
Future Plans
Cost-effective recommendations from a whole farm perspective that account for unique characteristics of particular farm types can aid officials in determining locally agreeable methods for efficiently addressing regional priority pollutants. As farms adopt and implement suggested management changes, additional management practices of interest can be evaluated. Also, IFSM is being expanded to consider air emissions and carbon sequestration effects of the management practices.
McLean, A. D., 2012. Modeling best management practices on representative farms in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Master’s thesis, PA State University, University Park, PA. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/14093/, available Dec. 05, 2012.
Acknowledgements
This work contributes to the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), jointly funded, coordinated, and administered by United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, and National Institute for Food and Agriculture. We would like to thank Mike Hubler and Larry Baum from Dauphin County Conservation District and officials at Lancaster and Lebanon County Conservation Districts for their advice and guidance categorizing and characterizing farms of Dauphin County and southeastern Pennsylvania. Thanks also to Kristen Saacke-Blunk and Matt Royer from Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative for their time and input. 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.
Because of their size, it is possible to raise most poultry species (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pigeon, etc.) with only a minimal amount of acreage. This has made them increasingly popular in rural, suburban, and urban areas throughout the United States. They are suitable for 4-H/classroom projects, backyard flocks, as well as small- and medium-sized production flocks. Many of those who have started raising poultry have limited experience with poultry production.
What Topics Will Be Covered In This Presentation?
Example of a small layer flock (3 Buff Orpingtons) in a backyard
An overview of the situation with small and backyard flocks with regards to waste management
What Did We Do?
Visits to different small and backyard flocks, as well as information provided during presentations and webinars.
What Have We Learned?
Poultry production in the US started out as small farm operations. Over the decades poultry production has evolved from farming to an industry. World War II created a huge demand for poultry products. As farm workers were drafted into the army production become more mechanized. After the war ended many of the returning soldiers did not return to a life on the farm. New urban markets for poultry products developed, furthering fueling the modernization of poultry production. Today we have come full circle. It is becoming more common to see small chicken flocks raised in backyard poultry flocks. Niche markets have also been developed for organic and pasture poultry production.
The front yard of a home with a backyard chicken flock
Although flock size is small, chickens kept in backyards still produce a considerable amount of manure that needs to be managed. Many backyard flock owners also raise their own vegetables and use the manure produced as a valuable fertilizer. For others, however, the manure can be allowed to accumulate and, when not properly stored, can become an odor nuisance. Pasture-raised poultry flocks, given sufficient acreage, spreads the manure over a large area reducing, or eliminating, odor problems.
For both backyard and confined small poultry flocks, composting of both manure and any dead birds has become common.
Future Plans
Use of composted manure as fertilizer for raised garden beds
In the 1950s more than 40 state colleges and universities had poultry science departments. Discoveries in nutrition, genetics, physiology, health and food science helped poultry production become an important food industry. Today only 6 universities have poultry departments. With the loss of university poultry depeartments and retirmements of key extension people, there has been a loss of updated extension publications to provide guidance to small and backyard poultry flock owners. Since very little information is available addressing the management needs of these smaller poultry flocks, many producers have turned to outdated books as well as non-science-based and anecdotal information for their education needs. A new eXtension community of practice for small and backyard poultry has been developed to fill this information void.
Author
Dr. Jacquie Jacob; Poultry Extension Associate; University of Kentucky, 906 Garrigus Building; Lexington, KY; 40546-0215, jacquie.jacob@uky.edu
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.
Technology is driving many exciting possibilities in agriculture. The increase in use of smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices is changing the way people consume information and interact with each other. One exciting opportunity is to utilize smartphone apps to make farm record keeping easier. With that in mind, two apps were created for livestock and poultry farms, “Manure Calculator” and “Manure Monitor”.
Why Create Apps for Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship?
Concerns about the digital divide and access to technology often mean that educators try to ensure educational materials are available in paper or other common formats. The creation of apps seems like a tool that would be available only to a select group. The reality is that mobile technologies are leapfrogging the traditional use of computers or laptops and many are gaining access to digital information through mobile devices of their own or those accessed through an adviser or educator. We believe that mobile apps have potential to actually increase the reach of credible, research-based information to audiences that may be underserved through traditional educational outreach.
One of the problems with record-keeping is that these are seen as an ‘add-on’ or additional chore beyond what a farmer would normally do. Incorporating records or planning processes into mobile devices can lower this inconvenience factor since users usually keep their mobile devices with them all the time and are comfortable using them.
Last, but not least, farmers are becoming more aware of the need to communicate their actions and stewardship ethics to audiences not familiar with agriculture. Social media, blogs, and crowdsourcing sites (like Reddit or Wikipedia) make it more possible than ever for farmers to interact with people that have questions or are skeptical about certain farming practices. Keeping records or developing plans on a mobile device makes it easier to share actions and activities and potentially counteract negative or misleading information that is circulated through the same media.
Home screen for the Manure Monitor app.
What Did We Do?
“Manure Calculator” has three sections. 1) calculate the amount of manure spread (calibrate your spreader) 2) calculate the amount of nutrients applied by using either your own manure test or using book values and 3) calculate the economic value of that manure. The app keeps a history of past entries and allows the user to email a single entry or an entire history to themselves for record keeping purposes. The value section was based on an existing spreadsheet from the University of Nebraska. The book values section was based on the ASABE 384.2 Manure Production and Characteristics standard.
Future Plans
We believe that two of the concerns for app development are:
1) The cost to develop apps. When looking at such a specific topic as manure management or environmental records, the cost is usually the first question asked by other educators or agency staff and it can be substantial. Our plan is to make this app code available to others that would like to customize or build on the app for their clientele (specific species or specific state). This will hopefully lower the cost of development for others AND lead to app versions that are more useful to farmers. It is also important to recognize that creating both of these apps was actually less expensive than funds needed to develop some of the traditional educational modules in this same project.
2) Integration into software. We believe apps can be even more useful if they provide a simple way to enter data into software being used for comprehensive planning or record keeping procedures. Software companies interested in integrating these apps into data entry will be welcomed.
This program originated thanks to funding from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project is a joint effort between University of Nebraska, Montana State University, Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center and the National Young Farmers Educational Association (NYFEA).
App developer: Jeff Abele from Move Creative http://movecreative.com
We would like to thank the following people for their feedback and reviews of the apps:
Leslie Johnson, Charles Shapiro, William Kranz, Larry Howard, and Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska; Mark Risse and Melony Wilson, University of Georgia; Laura Pepple, University of Illinois; Amanda Douridas, Ohio State University; Thomas Bass, Montana; Saqib Mukhtar, Texas AgriLife Extension; Rhonda Miller, Utah State University; and many others.
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.
Colorado is the second highest producer of high solids cattle waste (HSCW) in the United States. Despite the available resources, Colorado currently has only one operational anaerobic digester treating manure (AgSTAR EPA 2011), which is located at a hog farm in Lamar. Arid climate and limited water resources in Colorado render the implementation of high water demanding conventional AD processes. Studies to date have proposed high solids AD systems capable of digesting organic solid waste (OSW) not more than 40% total solids (TS). Lab tests have shown that HSCW produced in Greeley (Colorado) has an average of 89.4% TS. Multi-stage leach bed reactor (MSLBR) system proposed in the current study is capable of handling HSCW of up to 90% TS.
What Did We Do?
Hydrolysis is carried out in a trickle flow leach bed reactor (TFLBR) and methanogenesis can be carried out in a high rate anaerobic digester (HRAD) like an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor or a fixed film reactor. The objective of this research is to evaluate and optimize the performance of the TFLBR. The system was operated as a batch process and the organic leaching potential of a single pass TFLBR configuration was evaluated. The organic leaching potential was measured in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Three series’ of reactor experiments were carried out in total. Each subsequent experiment was based on the results on the previously conducted experiment. First set of reactor experiments included three TFLBRs (triplicate) loaded with HSCW. The difficulty encountered during the operation of this experiment was that the flow rate of water through the TFLBR slowed down over time and eventually dropped to zero within the first 24 hrs. This caused water build-up on top of the manure bed, resulting in the failure of hydrolysis. Second set of reactor experiments included six TFLBRs (two sets of triplicates). One set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW and the other set of triplicate was loaded with HSCW bulked with straw (5% by mass) to improve the porosity through the reactor. A layer of fine sand was added on top of the manure bed to facilitate water dispersion through the reactor.
The third set of reactor experiments included the comparison between nutrient dosed and non-nutrient dosed reactors (each carried out in triplicates). The idea behind dosing nutrients to an operational TFLBR was to check if the reactors were nutrient limited during the digestion process. Composite sampling technique was adopted so as to capture the exact leaching potential from each of the reactors.
What Have We Learned?
The first set of reactor experiments helped in identifying the clogging issues in operational TFLBRs handling HSCW. The second set of reactor experiments validated the use of fine sand as a better alternative to improve hydraulic flow when compared to the use of bulking agents. The third set of reactor experiments indicated that the addition of nutrient solution to a single-pass TFLBR operation is essential in improving the overall system yield. Leachate collection by composited sampling method instead of the instantaneous sample method improved the system efficiency by approximately 50%. The average TS reductions in the non-nutrient dosed and nutrient dosed TFLBRs were 23.18% and 22.67% respectively. The non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 66.32% of COD reduction and the nutrient dosed TFLBRs underwent approximately 73.51% of COD reduction due to COD leaching during hydrolysis, over the period of six weeks. Biochemical methane potential (BCMP) test results indicate high biogas yields from the weekly composited leachate from the reactor experiments proving successful system operation. Approximately 0.43 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the non-nutrient dosed TFLBRs and 0.57 L CH4/g COD is produced from the leachate collected from the nutrient dosed TFLBRs.
Future Plans
The proposed MSLBR system recommends TFLBRs operating under leachate recirculation. The addition of nutrient solution in a leachate recirculated TFLBR would not be unnecessary since the nutrients in the system would be conserved. The success of hydraulic conductivity and leaching quality in a leachate recirculated TFLBR is unknown. More research is required to completely understand the operation and success of the MSLBR system treating HSCW. Pilot scale reactor experiments should be conducted to monitor the operation of the TFLBRs under leachate recirculation.
Authors
Asma Hanif, Graduate Student in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, asmahanif1988@gmail.com
Dr. Sybil Sharvelle, Assistant Professor in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Sybil.Sharvelle@colostate.edu
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.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
