Tag: biochar

Posted on

Enhancing Phosphorus Recovery from Anaerobically Digested Dairy Effluent Using Biochar and FeCl₃ in a Rotary Belt Filter System

Purpose

This work aims to conduct pilot-scale trials using a rotary belt filter (RBF) with biochar to recover nutrients at a dairy anaerobic digestor and produce an upcycled bioproduct for soil amendment (Figure 1). Anaerobically digested (AD) effluents contain large quantities of phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), and organic carbon, while biochar is a reactive material that has potential for use to recover nutrients and prevent nutrient loss. Biochar was used as a strategy to enhance phosphorus (P) recovery by improving total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency in the RBF system. This approach was further extended to include iron chloride (FeCl3) as a flocculant, which has potential to efficiently remove suspended solids as well as soluble phosphorus from wastewater.

Figure 1. Rotary belt filter removal of biochar and solids in anaerobic digest effluent.
Figure 1. Rotary belt filter removal of biochar and solids in anaerobic digest effluent.

To optimize P recovery, laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to evaluate biochar and iron chloride dosing rates. These experiments aimed to better understand the system’s performance and provide insights for pilot scale studies. The goal was to develop a lab setup that accurately represents field conditions and to identify cost-effective, practical solutions for large-scale applications.

What Did We Do?

Biochar dosing experiments were conducted using a jar test, in which 30 mL of AD dairy effluent was mixed with biochar (Biochar Now LLC., Loveland, Colorado) for 20 minutes at 200 rpm, with dosing rates of 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 g/L. For the iron chloride dosing experiments, 6 g/L of biochar was mixed with the effluent for 20 minutes at 200 rpm, followed by the addition of iron chloride to achieve final concentrations of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 g/L. The Fe-biochar mixtures were then stirred for 1 minute at 200 rpm and subsequently for 20 minutes at 40 rpm. After mixing, the samples were vacuum filtered using the same mesh of the rotating belt filter (112 mesh or 149 μm) on a 2” Buchner ceramic funnel. Since sedimentation time introduces variability to the flocculation process, a filtration setup was designed to allow simultaneous filtration of replicates. All experiments were performed in triplicate.

The solids retained on the mesh were collected, air-dried overnight, and digested using a modified dry ash method. Part of the filtrate was used for total suspended solids (TSS) analysis, while another portion was digested following the acid digestion method for sediments, sludges, and soils (EPA 3025B). The digested solid and filtrate samples were filtered through a 0.45 μm PES syringe filter and analyzed for elemental composition using an ICP spectrometer.

What Have We Learned?

The TSS of the AD dairy effluent can vary seasonally. In our experiments, the batch used contained approximately 25,000 mg/L of SS. The filtration system retains up to 15% of the SS when no biochar or Fe are amended to the AD.  The addition of 4 to 6 g/L of biochar increased TSS removal by 5%. However, higher biochar doses did not further enhance TSS removal efficiency.

Results indicated that most of the P in the AD dairy effluent is not in the soluble reactive form, which means that P removal in the rotary belt filter should be proportional to the TSS removal. Figure 2 shows the P concentration in the filtered effluent from the biochar dosing experiments, indicating that with biochar additions ranging from 2 to 8 g/L, the P concentration in the filtrate remains similar. Figure 3 shows that the P concentration in the solids decreased as the biochar dose increased. This is because the total mass of solids retained on the filter increased with the addition of biochar. These results showed that biochar has a dilution effect on P concentration because the phosphorus removal capacity of biochar during filtration is limited.

Figure 2. Total P concentration in the filtered effluent after biochar dosing experiments.
Figure 2. Total P concentration in the filtered effluent after biochar dosing experiments.
Figure 3. Total P concentration on solids retaining by filtration from the biochar dosing experiments.
Figure 3. Total P concentration on solids retaining by filtration from the biochar dosing experiments.

Figure 4 shows the P concentration on solids at different doses of FeCl3 added to 6 g/L of biochar. The results show that higher FeCl3 doses lead to higher P concentrations in the solids. Table 1 shows the relationship between FeCl₃ dosing rates and the estimated volume of iron chloride solution needed in a pilot scale field trial. With 6 g/L of biochar, achieving an increase in P concentration from ~3300 mg/L to 5000 mg/L would require 6 L/m³ of FeCl3 solution. pH adjustments would optimize iron promoted flocculation and significantly reduce the amount of iron dosing required, and thus process costs. However, due to the high buffering capacity of the AD effluent, large amounts of acid would be required, which would offset cost savings from the reduced iron amendment.

 

Figure 4. Total P concentration on solids retained by filtration from the FeCl3 dosing and 6 g/L biochar dosing experiments.
Figure 4. Total P concentration on solids retained by filtration from the FeCl3 dosing and 6 g/L biochar dosing experiments.
Table 1 – FeCl₃ dose and corresponding solution volume required in the field
Field scale
FeCl3 dose (g/L) FeCl3 (L/m3)
0 0
0.1 0.24
0.25 0.60
0.50 1.21
1.00 2.41
2.50 6.03

Future Plans

The next steps of this research are divided into two main topics. The first focuses on evaluating the effect of organic flocculants, such as chitosan and alginate, on TSS and phosphorus removal from the effluent. This includes analyzing their advantages and disadvantages compared to iron chloride. The second topic explores the oxidation of the effluent with ozone before flocculant addition. This approach aims to determine whether pre-oxidation can reduce the required flocculant dose per mg of TSS removed.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Mariana C. Santoro, Postdoctoral researcher, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho, marianacoelho@uidaho.edu

Additional authors

Daniel G. Strawn, Professor, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho

Martin C. Baker, Research Engineer, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho

Alex Crump, Research Scientist, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho

Gregory Möller, Professor, Department of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho

 

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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Biochar as a Manure Additive

Purpose

Biochar is a carbon-rich product derived from pyrolysis and is commonly used as a soil amendment. When applied to soil, biochar has been shown to sequester carbon, enhance aggregate stability, and improve soil nutrient and water retention. Recently, several states have adopted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 336, which addresses soil carbon amendments, including biochar, as a conservation practice. This has led to increased awareness of biochar in agricultural systems. While the application of biochar to soil systems has been extensively studied, there are other agricultural sectors where biochar could be incorporated to provide additional benefits. This study explores the potential for incorporating biochar into manure management systems, specifically anaerobic digestion and manure storage.

What Did We Do?

Two different studies were conducted as part of this research. The first study investigated how biochar could be implemented into manure storage systems. Manure storage is a common practice at livestock facilities; however, emissions of ammonia (NH₃), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are released into the atmosphere during storage. Additionally, the increasing use of solid-liquid separation in mid- to large-scale farms has resulted in emissions occurring outside of land application due to the lack of crust formation on manure storage. This study assessed emissions from pilot manure storage units (5-gallon buckets) after applying a 2-inch layer of raw feedstock or biochar as a cover over dairy manure. Different feedstocks, including woodchips, corn stover, and manure solids, were evaluated, and emissions were measured weekly over four months to determine NH₃, CH₄, and N₂O emissions (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Manure storage monitoring
Figure 1: Manure storage monitoring

The second study examined the incorporation of biochar into dairy manure anaerobic digestion systems. Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure produces biogas, which contains significant concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) that must be removed before energy utilization. This study evaluated how dosing biochar—produced from different feedstocks and at varying pyrolysis temperatures—impacted hydrogen sulfide reduction during anaerobic digestion. A bench-scale study was conducted using batch reactors dosed at 0.75% (w/w) (approximately 62 lbs per 1,000 gallons), and biogas was analyzed every 2–3 days for H₂S, CH₄, and CO₂ concentrations.

Figure 2: Anaerobic digestion setup
Figure 2: Anaerobic digestion setup

What Have We Learned?

In the manure storage study, both raw feedstocks and biochar reduced NH₃ emissions. The greatest reductions in NH₃ emissions were observed with woodchip biochar, which achieved an average reduction of 82–97% in cumulative emissions. The manure solids and corn stover biochar resulted in average reductions of 35% and 55%, respectively. However, while NH₃ emissions were reduced, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions—particularly N₂O—was observed in treatments with biochar covers.

In anaerobic digestion systems, the addition of biochar at 0.75% (w/w) reduced H₂S production. The degree of reduction was influenced by the biochar production temperature, with lower-temperature biochars being more effective at reducing H₂S. During the batch anaerobic digestion tests, no significant impact was observed on CH₄ or CO₂ concentrations in the biogas.

Future Plans

For the manure storage study, while the reductions in NH₃ emissions were promising, the observed increase in N2O emissions requires further investigation. The highest N₂O emissions were associated with large-particle woodchip biochar, likely due to the creation of an anoxic environment within the biochar cover. Future studies will examine whether reducing biochar particle size can mitigate these N₂O emissions. Additionally, further research will assess the long-term impacts of these treatments on soil health and crop production following land application.

For the anaerobic digestion study, additional work is needed to determine the specific biochar characteristics responsible for the greater H₂S reductions observed with lower-temperature biochars. Since the study was conducted at a batch scale, further evaluation in a continuous system is necessary. Lastly, full-scale digester trials are needed before widespread adoption of biochar in anaerobic digestion systems.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Joseph R. Sanford, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin–Platteville, sanfordj@uwplatt.edu

Additional authors

Ben Raimonde, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville
John Rodwell, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville
Jeffery Smolinski, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Wisconsin–Platteville

Acknowledgements

This material is supported by the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2022-70001-37309. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub.

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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date. 

Posted on

Consumer Demand for products using biochar

Purpose

This research aims to analyze consumer sentiment and demand for biochar-enriched products, with a focus on their willingness to pay. By assessing how consumers perceive and value biochar’s environmental and agricultural benefits—such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, improved soil health, enhanced water efficiency, and increased yields—the study explores how these factors influence purchasing decisions.

Understanding these preferences is essential for determining the market viability of biochar-enriched products and identifying potential price premiums. Additionally, the study provides insights into policy recommendations on eco-labeling, sustainability certifications, and incentives for biochar adoption. As the biochar market is still emerging, these findings will help producers and suppliers assess whether investment in biochar-based systems is financially viable based on consumer demand.

What Did We Do?

For our analysis, we employed the contingent valuation method (CVM), a widely used approach in consumer studies. In this method, consumers are asked whether they are willing to pay a premium for products after being informed about their environmental and health benefits compared to conventional options. Our analysis is based on the premise that consumers care about the products they purchase, particularly in terms of the environmental and health benefits they offer.

To capture a broad range of consumer sentiments, the survey was designed to gather data from approximately 1,006 U.S. respondents aged 18 and older who consume meat, selected randomly through Qualtrics. The sample was evenly balanced, with 50.4% female and the remaining respondent’s male. The survey aimed to understand meat consumers’ preferences regarding sustainably produced feed, particularly focusing on corn silage produced using biochar. It collected demographic information and insights into participants’ meat purchasing habits, such as the frequency of purchases and their preferred locations. Participants ranked factors like taste, price, health benefits, environmental impact, and brand when selecting meat products. We also assessed their awareness of sustainable agriculture practices, environmental claims, and the effects of traditional farming.

Since biochar is a relatively new concept, respondents unfamiliar with biochar were shown an educational video explaining its benefits as a soil amendment. Respondents were then asked to choose between sustainable feed and conventional feed, as well as to rank the importance of sustainable feed sources in meat production. Following this, respondents listing benefits of biochar in silage production, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced water usage, decreased chemical fertilizer use, reduced carbon footprint, and improved soil health. Finally, respondents were asked about their willingness to pay a premium for meat produced with sustainably raised feed (silage produced using biochar) and whether additional product information or certifications, such as USDA , Organic, would influence their purchasing decisions.

What Have We Learned?

From our survey, we learned that demographic factors such as marital status, education level, urban residence, and full-time employment are associated with greater concern for health and a willingness to pay a premium for higher-quality meat. Nearly 94% of participants purchased meat from supermarkets, with 66% doing so weekly, with taste and price being the most important factors in their decision-making. Health benefits were considered, but they were secondary to taste and price. Environmental sustainability and brand identity had a minimal influence on purchasing choices, and most consumers did not actively seek information about food production processes. A significant portion of respondents, particularly those unfamiliar with sustainable farming practices, did not let environmental claims impact their meat purchases.

Additionally, our findings revealed that over 92% of respondents were initially unaware of biochar and its benefits. However, after being exposed to an informational clip, 49% expressed interest in learning more about biochar, and 35% felt informed enough to make a purchasing decision. Participants recognized key benefits of biochar, including reduced chemical fertilizer use, lower water consumption, and improved soil health. By the end of the survey, more than 69% of respondents indicated a willingness to pay a premium for sustainably raised meat.

Moreover, familiarity with sustainable agriculture and consideration of environmental claims played a significant role in purchasing decisions, emphasizing the impact of awareness on consumer behavior. Certification and detailed product information, both of which were statistically significant at the 1% level, further enhanced consumer trust and perceived value, increasing the likelihood of premium pricing acceptance.

Future Plans

The analyses conducted thus far are based on survey results, utilizing descriptive statistics and an ordered logit regression model. Moving forward, we plan to apply these findings to estimate market demand for biochar-based products and compare the profitability of biochar-based production with conventional practices. This expanded analysis will offer deeper insights into consumer preferences, the potential price premium for biochar products, and the economic viability of integrating biochar into agricultural production systems.

Authors

Presenting & Corresponding author

Sunita Bandane Pahari, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Idaho, paha0494@vandals.uidaho.edu

Additional author

Jason Winfree, Professor, University of Idaho

Additional Information

Idaho Sustainable Agriculture Initiative for Dairy (ISAID)

This informational clip derived from You Tube is used for survey to provide information on what is biochar and its benefits to participants: https://youtu.be/7qVcEvKEfGc?si=Isxex7E4lJCQrfGc

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the USDA Sustainable Agricultural Systems Initiative through the Idaho Sustainable Agriculture Initiative for Dairy (ISAID) grant (Award No. 2020-69012-31871).

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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Manure and Wood Based Biochar Soil Amendment Field Trials

*note: due to a technical glitch, the audio at the beginning of this recorded presentation was not captured. Please accept our apologies.

Purpose

Sustainable intensification of agriculture aims to boost food production while minimizing environmental damage. Current farming practices often lead to inefficient nutrient cycling, contributing significantly to water and air pollution. Agricultural runoff, especially from livestock systems, introduces pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus into waterways, causing issues like eutrophication and anoxic conditions, which harm aquatic ecosystems. Agricultural emissions also account for a large portion of global methane and nitrous oxide emissions. To meet increasing food demands, farms have intensified production, further worsening environmental impacts due to increased use of nutrients and feed. Addressing these issues requires innovative solutions that can balance productivity and sustainability.

One promising approach is pyrolysis, which thermochemically converts biomass into syngas, bio-oils, and biochar. While syngas and bio-oils are used for energy, biochar can improve soil health, reduce nutrient leaching, and sequester carbon. Research shows biochar can effectively retain nitrogen and phosphorus, making it a potential candidate for use in wastewater treatment and as a manure storage cover to reduce emissions. Additionally, converting manure into biochar could improve transport logistics by densifying nutrients, making it more economically feasible for farms to manage nutrient surpluses. However, more research is needed to expand biochar’s use beyond fields and into broader agricultural applications to fully realize its environmental and economic benefits.

What Did We Do?

A pilot pyrolysis system, the Pilot Activator from ARTi (Figure 1), was installed at UW-Platteville to process biomass under controlled conditions, allowing for plot-scale studies on biochar applications in agriculture. Biochar was made from separated manure solids at 400 and 600 degrees C at the pilot system at UW-Platteville. Additional biochar was produced from wood chips from a full-scale system integrated at a site in Wisconsin. Biochar was applied to plot trials (Figure 2) to assess the impacts to yield, soil nutrient cycling, crop nutrient uptake, and greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions with varying manure and biochar applications. The trials have been divided into two concurrent field trials to assess various aspects of biochar incorporation practices into livestock-cropping systems.

Figure 1. Pilot scale pyrolysis unit
Figure 1. Pilot scale pyrolysis unit

Trial 1 – Separated manure solids biochar as a phosphorus fertilizer

The main objective in this study is to examine the impacts of applying separated manure solids versus biochar made from separated manure solids to assess the impact of pyrolysis on the phosphorus availability. Separated manure solids (10.9 tons/acre) and biochar produced from separated manure solids at 400 and 600 degrees C was applied based on phosphorus demands for corn silage and supplemented with urea after biochar application, incorporated into soil, to meet recommended nitrogen application. Crop yield and soil impact were assessed at the end of the trial.

Trial 2 – Biochar amended slurry manure

The main objective in this second trial is to examine the impacts of integrating biochar with slurry manure applications to assess the impacts to corn silage production systems, ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions. Slurry manure was applied at a rate of 10,000 gal/acre and biochar was applied and incorporated. Treatments included manure control, biochar made from separated solids at 400 and 600 degrees C at 1 ton/acre, wood biochar made at 600 degrees C applied at 1, 2,5, 5 and 10 tons per acre, and a control that received no manure or biochar. Plots were assessed for the impact to soil nutrient concentration, corn silage yield, nutrient use efficiency, and emissions (measured using a Gasmet Technologies Inc. model DX4015 Portable Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) Multi-component Gas Analyzer).

For each trial, soil sampling and analysis was conducted prior to amendment application, post application, and post-harvest. Corn silage was grown in all trials and harvested and weighed at the end of each trial. Biochar was always applied to the soil following manure application and then incorporated within 24 hours. At the end of the season, plant tissue samples were collected, dried, and analyzed for nutrient uptake to be used to calculate nutrient use efficiency.

Figure 2: Land application of biochar to field trial plots before and after incorporation
Figure 2: Land application of biochar to field trial plots before and after incorporation

What Have We Learned?

Data is currently being analyzed from year one of the field trial to assess the impacts with biochar application. Thus far, we have determined little difference in yields in the treatments for both trials. This indicates for trial 1 that phosphorus availability from biochar produced from separated manure solids is similar to that of the separated solids.  Additional data analysis will allow for comparison of emissions and impacts to soil nutrients.

Future Plans

Additional data analysis will be completed this spring to determine statistical differences in treatments for the parameters measured. In addition, as biochar is thought to have greater impacts in future cropping years, the fields will have manure applied in year 2 and the plots analyzed again for the same impacts as year one to determine further impacts as biochar ages in the soil.

Authors

Presenting and Corresponding author

Rebecca A. Larson, Professor, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Additional author(s)

Tyler Liskow, Engineer, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Brian Langolf, Researcher, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Joseph Sanford, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Additional Information

Biochar Production through Slow Pyrolysis of Animal Manure

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NLGCA under award number 2022-70001-37309.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Phosphorus Densification and Availability From Manure-Derived Biochar

Purpose

Manure produced at livestock facilities contains plant essential nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which is typically land applied as a fertilizer source for crops near where it is generated. However, in areas of high livestock density, due to the imbalance of nitrogen and phosphorus in manure compared to crop requirements, soil phosphorus concentrations have increased. This has resulted in soil phosphorus legacy issues throughout the Midwest, contributing to water quality issues in surrounding waterways. To reduce phosphorus application near livestock facilities, advanced manure management systems are needed to separate and concentrate manure nutrients, particularly phosphorus, to expand transport distances. In this study, we investigated converting separated anaerobically digested manure solids into biochar through pyrolysis to densify manure nutrients. In addition, we examined the availability of phosphorus from manure derived biochar in a soil incubation study to evaluate its fertilizer potential.

What Did We Do

We collected anaerobically digested manure solids from a screw press separator at a local dairy facility. Manure solids were dried and converted to biochar at two different temperatures (662°F and 932°F). The mass of the dried manure and biochar were determined and samples analyzed for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and available phosphorus to evaluate densification of manure nutrients.

We additionally evaluated nutrient availability of manure solids and biochar in a soil incubation study. In the study manure solids and biochar were applied at equal agronomic phosphorus rates to two different soil textures (loam and sandy loam). Soils were then incubated for 182 days with samples collected and analyzed Every week for four weeks throughout the period to evaluate phosphorus release over time.

What Have We Learned

We found that converting manure solids to biochar is an effective method for reducing manure mass while retaining the original manure phosphorus content (as shown in Figure 1). However, manure derived biochar had lower available phosphorus following pyrolysis than the original separated manure solids, with the available P decreasing as the pyrolysis temperature increased.

Figure 1: Mass reduction and P content following drying and pyrolysis of manure.

During the soil incubation study, while soils with manure derived biochar application had lower available phosphorus at the start of the incubation period, within 28 days available soil phosphorus reached similar levels to those amended with separated manure solids in both soil textures. While nitrogen was applied at different rates, making comparisons difficult, there were minor changes in soil available nitrogen for manure derived biochar, suggesting no additional nitrogen availability during the incubation period.

Future Plans

We plan to further investigate manure derived biochar as a potential advanced manure processing pathway, by evaluating whether manure derived biochar can provide additional soil benefits, such as reducing nitrogen leaching when amended to agronomic soils and increasing crop yields in field studies.

Authors

Joseph R. Sanford, Assistant Professor and Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub Affiliate Researcher, School of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
sanfordj@uwplatt.edu

Additional Authors

Rebecca A. Larson, Associate Professor, Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional Information

Sanford, J., H. Aguirre-Villegas, R.A. Larson, M. Sharara, Z. Liu, & L. Schott. 2022. Biochar Production through Slow Pyrolysis of Animal Manure. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Publication No. A4192-006/AG919-06, I-01-2022.

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2017-67003-26055. Partial support was provided by the Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub.

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Thermal-Chemical Conversion of Animal Manures – Another Tool for the Toolbox


How Can Thermo-Chemical Technologies Assist in Nutrient Management?

Livestock operations continue to expand and concentrate in certain parts of the country. This has created regional “hot spot” areas in which excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, are produced. This nutrient issue has resulted in water quality concerns across the country and even lead to the necessity of a “watershed diet” for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. To help address this nutrient concern some livestock producers are looking to manure gasification and other thermo-chemical processes. There are several thermo-chemical conversion configurations, and the one chosen for a particular livestock operation is dependent on the desired application and final by-products. Through these thermo-chemical processes manure Factory processingvolumes are significantly reduced. With the nutrients being concentrated, they are more easily handled and can be transported from areas of high nutrient loads to regions of low nutrient loads at a lower cost. This practice can also help to reduce the on-farm energy costs by providing supplemental energy and/or heat. Additional benefits include pathogen destruction and odor reduction. This presentation will provide an overview of several Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) and other manure thermo-chemical conversion projects that are being demonstrated and/or in commercial operation. Information will cover nutrient fate, emission studies, by-product applications along with some of the positives and negatives related to thermo-chemical conversion systems.

Exterior of factory processingWhat did we do? 

Several farm-scale manure-to-energy demonstration projects are underway within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Many of these receive funding through the USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant program. These projects, located on poultry farms, are being evaluated for the performance of on-farm thermal conversion technologies. Monitoring data is being collected for each project which includes: technical performance, operation and maintenance, air emissions, and by-product uses and potential markets. Performance of manure gasification systems for non-poultry operations have also been reviewed and evaluated. A clearinghouse website for thermal manure-to-energy processes has been developed.

What have we learned? 

The projects have shown that poultry litter can be used as a fuel source, but operation and maintenance issues can impact the performance and longevity of a thermal conversion system. These systems are still in the early stages of commercialization and modifications are likely as lessons are learned. Preliminary air emission data shows that most of the nitrogen in the poultry litter is converted to a non-reactive form. The other primary nutrients, phosphorus and potassium, are preserved in the ash or biochar co-products. Plant availability of nutrients in the ash or biochar varies between the different thermal conversion processes and ranges from 80 to 100 percent. The significant volume reduction and nutrient concentration show that thermal conversion processes can be effective in reducing water quality issues by lowering transportation and land application costs of excess manure phosphorus.

Future Plans    

Monitoring will continue for the existing demonstration projects. Based on the lessons learned, additional demonstration sites will be pursued. As more manure-to-energy systems come on-line the clearinghouse will be updated. Based on data collected, NRCS conservation practice standards will be generated or updated as necessary.

Author       

Jeffrey P. Porter, PE, Manure Management Team Leader, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service jeffrey.porter@gnb.usda.gov

Additional information                

Thermal manure-to-energy clearinghouse website: http://lpelc.org/thermal-manure-to-energy-systems-for-farms/

Environmental Finance Center review of financing options for on-farm manure-to-energy including cost share funding contact information in the Chesapeake Bay region: http://efc.umd.edu/assets/m2e_ft_9-11-12_edited.pdf

Sustainable Chesapeake: http://www.susches.org

Farm Pilot Project Coordination: http://www.fppcinc.org

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund: http://www.nfwf.org/chesapeake/Pages/home.aspx

Acknowledgements

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., Sustainable Chesapeake, Flintrock Farm, Mark Weaver Farm, Mark Rohrer Farm, Riverview Farm, Wayne Combustion, Enginuity Energy, Coaltec Energy, Agricultural Waste Solutions, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Environmental Finance Center, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Lancaster County Conservation District, Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Council, with funding from the USDA Conservation Innovation Grant Program and the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction 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. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Effect of Wood Biochar Amendment to Sand on Leachate Water Quality with Repeated Dairy Manure Application: A Soil Column Study

Purpose            

Agricultural operations can pose a threat to the quality of nearby water sources, particularly from nitrogen and phosphorus losses following land application of manure. Biochar application to soils has the potential to ameliorate degraded soils and reduce nutrient leaching to groundwater. The effects of amending sand soil columns with hybrid poplar biochar made by a slow pyrolysis process at 450°C at varying rates (0, 1, 2 and 5% by weight) with repeated dairy manure applications over a 56-week period was examined to evaluate the impact to leachate water quality.

What did we do? 

Four biochar treatments and a control were mixed and packed into soil columns by weight to a depth of 20 cm. Leachate from columns were measured in quadruplicate to assess differences in water quality over a 56-week study duration. Each treatment column received an initial manure application followed by additional applications at 14 week intervals, totaling four manure applications. All columns received a 300 mL DI water application once every two weeks.

The total volume of leachate, leachate pH and BOD5 and concentrations of nitrite (NO2-N), nitrite+nitrate (NO2-N+NO3-N), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) were measured for each column after each leaching event. After the first 14 week cycle (starting with the second manure application), leachate samples were also analyzed for ammonia+ammonium (NH3-N+NH4-N). After each application, manure samples were analyzed for these same parameters. At the end of the study, retention of the same nutrients was determined for mass balance analysis.

Leachate photo

Leachate photo

What have we learned?

Increasing levels of biochar amendment to sandy soil with repeated dairy manure application decreased leachate pH throughout the study and decreased peak levels of BOD5 after manure application. Increased levels of biochar also decreased cumulative TN, NH3-N+NH4-N and NO3-N in leachate, but slightly increased TP leaching. Nutrient retention in the columns at the end of the study indicated that N reduction in leachate was not due to increased retention in the columns. These results indicate that biochar could be a viable option to reduce N leaching from agricultural fields or treatment systems. However, more research is needed on the effect of biochar on gaseous N emissions and other biochar/soil interactions before amending soil with biochar can be recommended as a nutrient management strategy.

Future Plans 

Future work should focus on uncovering the mechanisms for N cycle changes in soils with biochar amendment, such as tracking N-labelled fertilizers in column leaching and emissions. Due to its high cost, biochar may be a more feasible option for treatment systems, such as filter strips or tile drains, which should be explored as a means to reduce nutrient leaching from agricultural fields in an economical manner. Field trials should also be conducted to determine appropriate biochar amendment methods, effects on plant growth and any differences in leaching and emissions under field conditions.

Authors

Alysa Bradley, PhD Student, Biological Systems Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison alysa.bradley@wisc.edu

Rebecca Larson and Troy Runge, Assistant Professors, Biological Systems Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional information                

Alysa Bradley, Biological Systems Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 460 Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706, alysa.bradley@wisc.edu

Acknowledgements      

This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, under ID number WIS01760.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Co-Pyrolyzing Plastic Mulch Waste with Animal Manures

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

*Abstract

The objective of this work was to investigate the feasibility of co-pyrolyzing agricultural plastic mulch wastes with animal manures. Dried swine manure and spent fumigation plastic mulch were used as a hybrid feedstock for a batch pyrolysis reactor system. The reactor sample was heated to 500 °C at an approximate heating rate of 7 °C/min and stayed at 500 oC for 2 hrs before cooled down to room temperature.  Gaseous, liquid, and solid end products were analyzed for their chemical and thermal properties. Preliminary results indicated that pyrolysis of spent fumigant plastic alone produced fumigant-free combustible gases, liquid oil, and paraffin-like waxes.  Results from thermogravimeteric analyses and chemical characteristics of end products will be presented at the meeting.

Why Study Co-Pyrolysis with Manure?

Pyrolyzing livestock and agricultural wastes produces combustible gas and value-added biochar.  However, the combustible gas produced from manure pyroysis alone does not provide enough energy to sustain the process. Spent agricultural plastics are usually disposed in landfills, which is not only expensive, but also not environmentally sustainable as the space for landfill is increasingly limited in the U.S. Pyrolysis of spent agricultural plastic produces high energy combustible gas, oil and wax. Thus, co-pyrolyzing animal manures with plastic may achieve an energetically sustainable pyrolysis process. The purpose of this work is to investigate the feasibility of co-pyrolyzing agricultural plastic mulch wastes with animal manures. Specific objectives are to 1) identify optimal pyrolysis processing conditions, 2) characterize byproducts, 3) evaluate potential pesticide emission, 4) perform energetics, and 5) determine biochar quality.

What Did We Do?

A mixture (2:1) of dried swine manure and spent fumigation plastic mulch used for vegetable production was used as a hybrid feedstock.  In addition, four different new plastic films (Hytibarrier, Thermic, Bayer CS, and 1 mil HDPE) frequently used as plastic mulch were pyrolyzed with the swine manure. Optimal pyrolysis temperatures for these hybrid feedstocks were determined via thermogravimetric analyses (TGA).  Subsequently, a bach pyrolysis reactor system was used to pyrolyze the hybrid feedstock samples (21 to 54 g).   The samples were heated without oxygen to 500 °C at an approximate heating rate of 7 °C/min and stayed at 500 oC for 2 hrs before cooled down to room temperature.  Gaseous, liquid, and solid pyrolysis product were analyzed for thermal and chemical properties.

What Have We Learned?

1. Nonisothermal plastic pyrolysis thermograms obtained at 10 oC/min heating rate is shown in Figure 1.  The plastic samples decomposed  rapidly at 450 oC, liberating volatile products.   In contrast, swine solids decomposed rather slowly over wider range of temperatures (161 to 891 oC) with the maximum decomposition occured at 294 oC.  The TGA results showed that pyrolysis temperature higher than 450 oC is necessary to completely decompose plastic samples and maximize combustible gas production, which can reduce energy requirement for pyrolyzing swine manure.

Figure 1 – Nonisothermal thermograms of plastic mulch films

2. Selected fumigants (methyl bromide, methyl iodide, 1,3-dichloropropene, and chloropicrin) widely used for vegetable production were not detected in the used plastic mulch pyrolysis gas samples.

3. Production of energy-rich gases such as methane, ethane, and propane was substantially increased from co-pyrolyzing swine manure with plastic mulch as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Major gas compositions of product gases from pyrolyzing swine manure, used plastic, and the mixture of swine manure and plastic mulch.

Future Plans

Mass and energy balances of the pyrolysis reactions along with pytotoxicity of biochar produced from co-pyrolyzing swine manure and plastic mulch will be evaluated in the near future.

Authors

Kyoung S. Ro, Environmental Engineer: USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water & Plant Research Center, Florence, SC. kyoung.ro@ars.usda.gov

Patrick, G. Hunt, Soil Scientist/ Research Leader; Keri B. Cantrell, Agricultural Engineer; Ariel A. Szogi, Soil Scientist: USDA-ARS, Florence, SC

Scott R. Yates, Research Leader/Technical Editor JEQ: USDA-ARS, Riverside, CA

Michael Jackson, Chemist; David Compton, Chemist: USDA-ARS, Peoria, IL

Additional Information

K.B. Cantrell, P.G. Hunt, M. Uchimiya, J.M. Novak, K.S. Ro. 2012. Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar. Biores. Technol. 107:419-428.

X. Cao, K.S. Ro, M. Chappell, Y. Li, J. Mao. 2011. Chemical structures of swine-manure chars produced under different carbonization conditions investigated by advanced solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Energy Fuels 25:388-397.

K.A. Spokas, J.M. Novak, C.E. Stewart, K.B. Cantrell, M. Uchimiya, M.G. DuSaire, K.S. Ro. 2011. Qualitative analysis of volatile organic compounds on biochar. Chemosphere 85:869-882.

K.S. Ro, K.B. Cantrell, P.G. Hunt. 2010. High-temperature pyrolysis of blended animal manures for producing renewable energy and value-added biochar.  Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49:10125-10131.

K.S. Ro, K.B. Cantrell, P.G. Hunt, T.F. Ducey, M.B. Vanotti, A.A. Szogi. 2009. Thermochemical conversion of livestock wastes: carbonization of swine solids. Biores. Technol. 100:5466-5471.

USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water & Plant Research Center Publication Website (https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-area/florence-sc/coastal-plain-soil-water-and-plant-conservation-research/)

Acknowledgements

This research was a part of USDA-ARS NP 214 Agriculture and Industrial Byproduct Utilization project. The authors are greatful to Mr. Melvin Johnson and Jerry Martin II for their technical assistance.

 

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

Reducing the Impacts of Poultry Litter on Water Quality by Developing Alternative Markets for Poultry Litter Biochar

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

Abstract

Manure from confined animal operations is an environmental liability because of the potential for water and air pollution. The poultry industry in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is under increased regulatory scrutiny due to nitrogen and phosphorous inputs into the Bay. Although poultry litter (PL) is valued as a fertilizer, the cost of shipping the bulky material out of the watershed is prohibitive. One potential solution is to turn the excess litter into energy through pyrolysis. If a market can be developed for poultry litter biochar, more N and P could be removed from the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Our overall program goals are to develop a comprehensive strategy to convert poultry litter from an environmental liability into an economic and ecological asset and to develop a comprehensive conceptual model for improving poultry litter waste management through market-driven alternatives. Our specific objectives are to characterize the properties and variability of biochar from a commercial poultry/ litter biochar producer, evaluate PL biochar for two potential commercial uses; greenhouse plant production and as an amendment for degraded mine soils.

Why Is It Important to Develop Alternative Markets for Biochar?
Figure 1. Our biochar supplier, Frye’s Poultry Farm in Wardensville, WV.

Excess phosphorus (P) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has created water quality problems within the Bay. A major source of this P originates from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); within the West Virginia portion of the watershed, primarily in the form of poultry production. The lack of sufficient, suitable cropland on which to spread the manure from these operations has created the need to export P out of the watershed. One potential solution to this challenge may come from the gasification of poultry litter. Gasification produces energy and a carbonaceous byproduct (Figure 1) for which a number of applications have been suggested, including use as a soil amendment. Our long-term objectives are to determine the beneficial uses for a commercially produced poultry litter biochar (PLB) with the goal of generating a market for PLBs that will promote the transport of P out of the Bay watershed. In this work, we describe the particle size distribution and nutrient content of two different pyrolysis oven batch runs of poultry litter from our commercial producer (M-type and W-type).We describe effects of these PLB types on lettuce seed germination and seedling growth and its use as a substitute greenhouse media for cyclamen production.  We also describe the results of an experiment using PLB for mine soil reclamation and cellulosic biomass production.

What did we do?

M-Type and W-type PLBs were mechanically sieved into six size classes in duplicate and then extracted with dilute hydrochloric (0.05M) and sulfuric (0.05M) acids. Solution sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and P concentrations were determined and converted to mg (kg PLB)-1. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. Black Simpson) seed was planted into a commercial top soil amended with two rates of M-type biochar (3.18 g kg-1) and (9.09 g kg-1), some of which had been rinsed with water for 24 or 48 hours to remove salts, with no biochar and fertilizer controls, in two 8 x 8 Latin Square designs. In one Latin Square seedlings were thinned to two per cell and allowed to grow until root bound. Germination percent and dry mass were determined. The second PLB product (W-type) was used untreated as a substitute potting media for greenhouse cyclamen (Cyclamen persicum) production The treatments were a commercial mix, 1:1 peat:perlite + 64 g dolomitic lime or + 112 g W-type PLB. One of the products (M-type) was washed in tap water in an attempt to reduce salt content and then leached and unleached PLB (2.5 kg m-2) was used (lime and fertilizer controls) in a factorial experiment using switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and Miscanthus sinensis transplants for mine soil reclamation.

What we have learned?

The M-type PLB had more, fine particles (<60 mesh) than did W-Type). The M-type fine particles (<60 mesh) had more Ca and K whereas the coarser W-type particles (>60 mesh) had more K. PLB did not have a significant effect on lettuce germination (> 85%) at either concentration or rinsing treatment. PLB treatments also had no effect on aerial biomass of lettuce yield. The inorganic fertilizer treatment was the only treatment with aerial biomass significantly different (higher) than the control. Cyclamen growth was initially slower, but by the end of the experiment, yields were equivalent. It is too soon to draw conclusions from the mine soil reclamation experiment.

Future plans

We will continue monitoring switchgrass and Miscanthus growth and mine soil property changes in response to biochar applications and are seeking additional disturbed soil sites for new experiments. Because biochar is known to sorb metal contaminants, we have initiated laboratory experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of biochar for the remediation of brownfield sites. We also have plans to determine the stability of biochar in a variety of soils and the effects of biochar applications on soil microbial communities and greenhouse gas emissions.

Authors

Louis M. McDonald, Professor, LMMcDonald@mail.wvu.edu

Andrew Burgess, Research Assistant Professor

Jeff Skousen, Professor

Joshua L. Cook, Graduate Student

Sven Verlinden

Walter E. Veselka, IV, Research Associate

James T. Anderson, Professor. Environmental Research Center, West Virginia University

Additional information

Anderson, J. T., C. N. Eddy, R. L. Hager, L M. McDonald, J. L. Pitchford, J. Skousen, and W. E. Veselka IV. 2012. Reducing impacts of poultry litter on water quality by developing markets for energy and mine land reclamation. Athens: ATINER’S Conference Paper Series, No: ENV2012-0069. 12pp. http://www.atiner.gr/papers/ENV2012-0069.pdf

Acknowledgements

Support for this project was provided by NOAA, NSF, blue moon fund, Frye Poultry Farms, and the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design and Environmental Research Center at West Virginia 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.

Posted on

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative: Using Excess Manure to Generate Farm Income in the Chesapeake’s Phosphorus Hotspots

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

Abstract

Currently, all the Bay states are working to achieve nutrient reduction goals from various pollution sources.  Significant reductions in phosphorus pollution from agriculture, particularly with respect to phosphorus losses from land application of manure are needed to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem.  Producers in high-density animal agricultural production areas such as Lancaster County region of Pennsylvania, the Delmarva Peninsula, and the Shenandoah Valley region of Virginia, need viable alternatives to local land application in order to meet nutrient reduction goals.

Field demonstrations will be monitored to determine whether the technologies are environmental beneficial, and economically and technically feasible. Specific measures of performance include: reliability and heat distribution, in-house air quality, avoided propane or electricity use, costs to install and maintain, fertilizer and economic value of ash or biochar produced, air emissions, and fate of poultry litter nutrients. Technology evaluation results will be shared on a clearinghouse website developed in partnership with eXtension.

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative is also supporting efforts to develop markets for nutrient rich ash and biochar co-products. Field trials using nutrient rich ash and biochar from poultry litter thermochemical processes for fresh market vegetable production are currently underway at Virginia Tech’s Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Experiment Station.

Purpose

The Farm Manure to Energy Initiative is a collaborative effort to evaluate the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of farm-scale manure to energy technologies in an effort to expand management and revenue-generating opportunities for excess manure nutrients in concentrated animal production regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

What Did We Do?

The project team went through a comprehensive review process and identified three farm-scale, manure to energy technologies that we think have the potential to generate new revenue streams and provide alternatives to local land application of excess manure nutrients.  Installation and performance evaluation of two of these technologies on four host farms in the Chesapeake Bay region are underway. Partners have also completed a survey of financing options for farm-scale technology deployment and published a comprehensive financing resources guide for farmers in the Chesapeake Bay region.

What Have We Learned?

To date, we have not identified any manure to energy technologies that also provide alternatives to local land application of excess manure nutrients for liquid manures.  Thermochemical manure to energy technologies using poultry litter as a fuel source seem to show the most promise for offering opportunities to export excess nutrients from phosphorus hotspots in the Chesapeake Bay region. Producing heat for poultry houses is the most readily available energy capture option.  We did not identify any vendors with a proven approach to producing electricity via farm-scale, thermochemical manure to energy technologies. With respect to the fate of poultry litter nutrients, preliminary air emissions data indicates that most poultry litter nitrogen (greater than 98%) is converted to non-reactive nitrogen in the thermochemical process. Phosphorus and potash are preserved in the ash or biochar coproducts. Preliminary field trial results indicate that phosphorus in ash and biochar is bioavailable and can be used as a replacement for commercial phosphorus fertilizer, but bioavailability varied according to the thermochemical process.

Future Plans

We are currenty in the process of installing and measuring the performance of farm-scale demonstrations in the Chesapeake Bay region.  We are collaborating with the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center to develop a clearinghouse website for thermochemical farm-scale manure to energy technologies that will be hosted on the eXtension website.  Performance data from our projects will be shared on this website, which can also be used as a platform to share information about the performance of other farm-scale, thermochemical technology installations around the U.S. Technical training events using farm demonstrations as an educational platform will be hosted during the later half of the project. Additional field and row crop trials to demonstrate the fertilizer value of the concentrated nutrient coproducts are also planned using ash from farm demonstrations.

Authors

Jane Corson-Lassiter, USDA NRCS, Jane.Lassiter@va.usda.gov; Kristen Hughes Evans, Executive Director, Sustainable Chesapeake

Additional partners in the Farm Manure to Energy Initiative include: Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies, University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Lancaster County Conservation District, the Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, Chesapeake Bay Commission, and International Biochar Institute.

Additional Information

www.sustainablechesapeake.org

www.fppcinc.org

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project is provided by a grant from the USDA Conservation Innovation Grant program, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation via the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program, the Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, as well as technology vendors and host farmers participating in the technology demonstrations.

 

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