Designer Manure: Customizing Manure Nutrients to Meet Crop Needs

What if we could create ‘designer’ manures to meet crop needs? This webinar ways to blend commercial fertilizers with manure to balance nutrients. This presentation was originally broadcast on February 21, 2020. More…

If you have difficulties please see our webcast troubleshooting page. If you need to download a copy of a segment, submit a request.

Introduction to Designer Manure

Melissa Wilson, University of Minnesota (3 minutes)

Prescription Manure with Growing Crops

Glen Arnold, The Ohio State University (18 minutes)
Presentation Slides

Organomineral Fertilizer: What it is and how to use it

Paulo Pagliari, University of Minnesota (13 minutes)
Presentation Slides

Custom Fertilizers from Composted Turkey Litter

Blaize Holden, Sustane Natural Fertilizers (20 minutes)
Presentation Slides

Questions and Answers

All Presenters (13 minutes)

Continuing Education Units


Certified Crop Advisers (CCA, CPAg, or CPSS)

View the archive and take the quiz. Visit the CCA continuing education page for additional CEU opportunities.


American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists (ARPAS)

View the archive and report your attendance to ARPAS via their website. Visit the ARPAS continuing education page for additional CEU opportunities.

Phosphorus contribution from distillers grains to corn and wheat in North Dakota

There is growing interest from farmers to know if distillers grains (DGs) could be used as a cheap alternative or supplemental input for cereal production. Condensed distillers solubles (CDS) and wet distillers grains (WDG) are co-products from ethanol production that are mainly used as sources of feed for livestock. They are sometimes available to farmers when in excess of demands as feed, or when for whatever reason, the plant encounters some storage limitations, and have to dispose of the products. Potential environmental problems and cost of freighting huge loads to distant places for disposal has been a concern for ethanol plants. However, the cost of procurement and transportation of DGs, storage, and availability of appropriate equipment to apply these products to farmlands, are some of the bottlenecks for farmers interested in their value as fertilizer sources. Despite these concerns, farmers who farm in close proximity to ethanol plants, or who have the means to transport and apply these products in nearby fields are the ones likely to benefit from the DGs as fertilizer inputs. Preliminary studies indicate that when DGs are applied to soil as sources of nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P), yields have been similar or better in comparison to synthetic fertilizers. Farmers also appreciate the environmental value in that nutrients removed with the corn following harvest from their fields to the ethanol plants can be recycled back to farmlands. Procurement of DGs by farmers also creates and enhances a synergism between farmers and the ethanol plants, considering the latter could cut down on storage, drying, or disposal costs if farmers are willing to buy or take any excess DGs.

What Did We Do?

Methods are reported for field studies that assess the effects of P from three sources on grain yield and quality of corn in 2017, and wheat in 2017 and 2018. Study sites were located at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center, Carrington (ND). The P sources were CDS, WDG, and triple super phosphate (TSP) fertilizer. Rates of P were 0, 40, and 80 lbs P2O5 for wheat in addition to 120 lbs/ac for corn. Wheat treatments in 2017 and 2018 included surface application versus incorporation following application. The weight or volume of WDG or CDS applied varied by year, depending on the nutrient analysis. In 2018, to apply 20 lbs P, 3.3 T/ac of WDG, and 270 gallons/ac of CDS were required. At these rates, 112 lbs N, 17 lbs S, and 27 lbs K2O were applied with WDG. CDS contributed 32 lbs N, 31 lbs K20, and 15 lbs S at the 40 lbs P rate. Urea was applied up to the N rate recommended (79 lbs) to prevent deficiency for the check (0 lbs P) and TSP treatments, and less for the 40 lbs P rate of CDS. Sulfur (as ammonium sulfate) was also added to the check plots and those that received TSP. Treatments were surface applied and incorporated. CDS was mixed with water to facilitate manual application to the small plots, 5 x 25 ft.

What Have We Learned?

In 2017, P did not impact yields for both corn and wheat trials. This was probably due to high soil P level, 16 and 13 ppm P from the corn and wheat respective fields, before planting. P sources did not affect yields. Following harvest, P removed with the grain, on a dry weight basis, was significantly greater with WDG (76.2 lbs/ac) compared to TSP (69 lbs). The difference in grain P removed between WDG and CDS (75.7 lbs/ac) was not statistically significant. Neither yields nor protein differed between P sources.

In 2018, yields improved significantly from P application with DGs and TSP as sources. The P unfertilized plot (0 lbs P) produced 42 bushels, which was significantly less (by 10 bushels) than yields at 40 lbs P. Yields were also significantly less at 40 lbs P (by 5 bushels) compared to 80 lbs P. Yields produced by CDS, WDG, and TSP were similar (54 bushels). Earlier in the season, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index data were collected using a remote sensor to provide an index of crop vigor. There were no differences in vigor between P rates. Meanwhile, the crop vigor of TSP treatment was significantly greater than for both DGs. This was likely due to better availability of P and N, early in the growing season, from urea and TSP. However, these nutrients were later available after mineralization from DGs, in amounts that were adequate to satisfy the crop’s needs similar to respective P rates from TSP. Grain P removal was not different between P sources. When averaged across P rates, P removal in the grain was 33 lbs P2O5. Grain P removal was 23, 30, and 35 lbs/ac at 0, 40, and 80 lbs rates, respectively.

effect of P sources on yield of spring wheat at three rates of P plot
Figure 1. Effect of P sources on yield of spring wheat at three rates of P (2017).

Grain protein was significantly greater with WDG compared to CDS and TSP, probably due to higher N applied with DGs at the 80 lbs rate of P, 223 lbs N at 80 lbs P compared to 79 lbs applied with TSP and CDS on a soil that already had 47 lbs and previous crop was soybeans.

Considering the 2018 results and results previously reported from the 2015 and 2016 trials, CDS and WDG can be valuable sources of P and other nutrients for grain crops in North Dakota. For farmers who can transport DGs short distances, pay little or nothing for it, and apply with their manure applicators, they should feel comfortable applying DGs as a good source of P and N.

Future Plans

Some farmers have been curious about the dried distillers grains as P sources. We will conduct another study in 2019 including the dry product (DDG), even though we understand it is very unlikely that farmers would make any profit with the dry product as a source of nutrients.

Authors

Jasper M Teboh, Research Soil Scientist, NDSU – Carrington Research Extension Center

Jasper.Teboh@ndsu.edu

Szilvia Yuja, Research Soil Specialist, NDSU – Carrington Research Extension Center

Additional Information

Where can people go to learn more about this project or research? List journal articles, websites, publications, articles, social media, or other resources.

Please contact me with questions at Jasper.Teboh@ndsu.edu, or by phone at 701-652-2951 (Ext 109).

Results from this research were first presented at the ASA/SSSA/CSSA 2016 annual conference in Phoenix and is accessible at: https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2016am/webprogram/Paper100533.html

A summary of findings was later presented on the NDSU – Carrington REC blog at: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/CarringtonREC/center-points/distillers-grains-impacted-yields-of-corn-and-spring-wheat-when-used-as-a-source-of-p

NDSU Carrington Research and Extension Center Annual report, 2018. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/carringtonrec/documents/annual-reports/2018-annual-report

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the North Dakota Corn Council, and North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission for funding the corn and wheat projects, respectively, and also to Tharaldson Ethanol (Casselton, ND) for supplying us with the distillers grains.   

 

 

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. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Sidedressing Corn: Swine Manure via Dragline Hose Produces Yields Comparable to Synthetic Fertilizer

Spring in the upper Midwest can be short, resulting in challenges for producers to apply manure and plant crops in a timely manner to maximize yield. This results in a significant       amount of manure applied in the fall after the crop is harvested. Fall applied manure has ample time to mineralize and leave the root zone before next season’s crop can utilize the nutrients. These nutrients can end up in rivers and other freshwater bodies decreasing water quality. Sidedressing manure in growing crops could provide producers with another window of opportunity to apply their manure, maximize nutrient uptake efficiency, and protect water quality. The summer of 2018 was the start of a two-year, on-farm study researching the effectiveness of sidedressing slurry swine manure to corn via dragline hose. The swine manure was compared to sidedressed anhydrous ammonia, 32% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN), and a  control that received no additional nitrogen at the time of sidedressing.

What we did

Corn was planted May 7th with a 12-row planter equipped to apply an in-furrow and top dressed liquid fertilizer. The total fertilizer applied at planting was 40.7 lbs of nitrogen (N), 19.8 lbs of P2O5 phosphorus (P), and 14.4 lbs of sulfur (S) per acre.

Sidedressing the nitrogen sources

We sidedressed all treatments on June 4-5 with 140 pounds of available N, except the control which had no additional N applied. All the equipment applied nutrients between 30-inch rows and fit a 12-row planter to match up on odd rows.

  • Anhydrous ammonia treatment = 12-row toolbar and tractor were supplied by the farmer.
  • Finishing hog manure dragline hose treatment = The toolbar for the dragline hose sidedress was supplied by Bazooka Farmstar. The toolbar is a coulter till 28-foot bar with 30-inch spacing.
  • UAN treatment = The tool bar for the UAN sidedress application was provided by a local farmer.
  • Control treatment = The control treatment did not receive any fertilizer at sidedress.
Swine manure slurry being applied via dragline hose and Bazooka Farmstar sidedress bar.
Swine manure slurry being applied via dragline hose and Bazooka Farmstar sidedress bar.

Soil data collection methods

Soil nitrate and ammonium samples were taken 5 times through the growing season, approximately every 4 weeks, to track nitrogen in the soil profile. Soil sample depths were 0-6, 6-12, and 12-24 inches from the soil surface. Soil

Two foot soil sampling with tractor probe.
Two foot soil sampling with tractor probe.

samples were taken from the middle of the interrow, 7.5 inches from both sides of the middle of the inter row and in the middle of the row. This sample method assured soil samples would be representative of the soil profile since banded fertilizer can skew results.

Yield data collection methods

Yield was harvested October 6th by a combine with a 6-row head. The combine took the middle 12 rows of the 24-row treatment reducing the side effects from neighboring treatments. A calibrated weigh wagon measured the weight of each combine pass which was calculated to find yield in bushels per acre for every sample.

What we have learned

First year data revealed all sidedressed nitrogen sources significantly increased corn yields over the control but were otherwise statistically similar (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Yield data from 2018 manure sidedress trial in bushels per acre. AA=anhydrous ammonia, UAN=urea ammonium nitrate, Control=received no additional N at sidedress, and Dragline=swine manure slurry applied via dragline hose.
Figure 1. Yield data from 2018 manure sidedress trial in bushels per acre. AA=anhydrous ammonia, UAN=urea ammonium nitrate, Control=received no additional N at sidedress, and Dragline=swine manure slurry applied via dragline hose.

When we analyzed the soil inorganic nitrogen by each date differently, nitrogen concentrations between treatments were only statistically different on the soil sample date of June 15th (Figure 2) This soil sample date was ten days after the sidedress application on June 4th.  All other soil nitrogen sample dates are not statistically different between treatments and even the control.  

Figure 2. Total soil inorganic N (ammonium and nitrate) by treatment and sample date.
Figure 2. Total soil inorganic N (ammonium and nitrate) by treatment and sample date.

Statistics have not yet been run on the whole plant nitrogen content data in the graph below but numerically there doesn’t seem to be a difference in nitrogen content between the three sidedress treatments but a difference from the control (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Percent nitrogen in harvest grain, R6 cobbs, and R6 stover between treatments.
Figure 3. Percent nitrogen in harvest grain, R6 cobbs, and R6 stover between treatments.

Future plans

The first year of data was collected during the 2018 growing season and a second year of data will be collected in the summer of 2019. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of sidedressed swine manure slurry compared to traditionally used synthetic fertilizers. Since we have seen promising results this first year an additional study that could follow this experiment would be a direct comparison of fall applied swine manure and sidedressed swine manure. This information would help us understand the efficiency of sidedressing compared to fall application. Soil samples from this study would also illustrate the difference in mineralization and nitrogen movement between fall-applied and sidedressed swine manure slurry.    

Authors

  • Chris Pfarr, M.S. student in the Land and Atmospheric Sciences Program, University of Minnesota, pfarr025@umn.edu
  • Melissa Wilson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, mlw@umn.edu

Additional information

Acknowledgements  

This project was partially funded by the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council and the Minnesota Pork Board.

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. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Assessment of Condensed Distillers Solubles (CDS) and Wet Distillers Grains (WDG) as Sources of Phosphorus Fertilizer for Corn and Wheat

Proceedings Home W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Some farmers in North Dakota are showing growing interest in applying coproducts from ethanol production, as sources of nutrients for crop production, especially corn and wheat. The majority of these coproducts are used as livestock feedstuff, but sometimes, due to a combination of factors, ethanol plants have a surplus of condensed distillers solubles (CDS) and wet distillers grain (WDG). Under those circumstances, the price of CDS and WDG can drop significantly, and due to their nutrient content, it might make financial sense to use them as a source of nutrients for crop production instead of commercial fertilizers. Cognizant of current low market prices of wheat and corn, farmers are seeking effective and less expensive sources of nutrients for their crops. Farmers also like the concept of recycling the nutrients exported in the corn kernels back into the soil in the form of CDS and WDG.

What Did We Do?

We conducted studies in Carrington (2015 and 2016) and Fairmount (2015), ND. We assessed the impact of CDS and WDG compared to triple super phosphate (TSP) fertilizer as sources of phosphorus (P), on grain yield and quality of corn (2015 and 2016) at rates of 0, 40, 80, 120 lbs P2O5/ac, and wheat (2016) at rates of 0, 40, 80 lbs P2O5/ac. Treatments were surface applied and incorporated. CDS was mixed with water to facilitate application. The check (0 lbs P) and TSP treatments received recommended N as urea.

Slides of weighing, applying, and mixing WDG

What Have We Learned?

In 2015, corn yields from CDS treatments were consistently greater than yields from WDG and TSP at each P level at Carrington. Corn did not respond to P application at Fairmount. In 2016, corn yields were significantly greater for WDG treatments than for CDS and TSP, which produced similar yields. Wheat yields and protein were also significantly higher for WDG compared to TSP. Therefore, CDS and WDG can be valuable sources of P and other nutrients for grain crops in North Dakota.

Future Plans

We will continue assessing the P fertilizer value of CDS and WDG for corn and wheat in 2017. A separate study will assess in-furrow treatments with CDS. Finally, we will assess soil residual effects from CDS and WDG application to soil on subsequent crops, as well as potential economic implications for farmers.

Authors

Jasper M Teboh, Research Soil Scientist, NDSU – Carrington Research Extension Center

Jasper.Teboh@ndsu.edu

Other Authors

Joel Ransom, Extension Agronomist – Cereal Crops, NDSU – Department of Plant Sciences

Szilvia Yuja, Research Soil Specialist, NDSU – Carrington Research Extension Center

J. Paulo Flores, Precision Ag Specialist, NDSU – Carrington Research Extension Center

Additional Information

Please contact me with questions at Jasper.Teboh@ndsu.edu or by phone at 701-652-2951 (Ext 109).

Results from this research were first presented at the ASA/SSSA/CSSA 2016 annual conference in Phoenix and is accessible at:

https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2016am/webprogram/Paper100533.html

A summary of findings was later presented on the NDSU – Carrington REC blog at

https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/CarringtonREC/center-points/distillers-grains-impacted-yields-of-corn-and-spring-wheat-when-used-as-a-source-of-p

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the North Dakota Corn Council, and North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission for funding the corn and wheat projects, respectively. Our gratitude also to Tharaldson Ethanol (Casselton, ND) especially Mr. Keith Finney and Mr. Brad Kjar; Mr. Greg LaPlante, Mr. Chad Deplazes (Research Specialist at NDSU), CREC technicians, staff, and students for field support.

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. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Fertilizer Value of Nitrogen Captured using Ammonia Scrubbers

Proceedings Home W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Over half of the nitrogen (N) excreted from broiler chickens is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia (NH3) before the manure is removed from the barns, resulting in air and water pollution and the loss of a valuable fertilizer resource. A two stage exhaust scrubber (ARS Air Scrubber) was developed by scientists with USDA/ARS to trap ammonia and dust emissions from poultry and swine facilities. One objective of this study was to determine the fertilizer efficiency of N, which is mainly present as ammonium (NH4), captured from the exhaust air from poultry houses using acid scrubbers, when applied to forages. The second objective was to determine if any of the scrubber solutions resulted in a decrease in phosphorus (P) runoff or soil test P.

What did we do?

This study was conducted using 24 small plots (1.52 x 6.10 m) located on a Captina silt loam soil at the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. There were six treatments in a randomized block design with four replications per treatment. The treatments were: (1) unfertilized control, (2) potassium bisulfate (KHSO4) scrubber solution, (3) alum (Al2(SO4)3.14H2O) scrubber solution, (4) sulfuric acid (H2SO4) scrubber solution, (5) sodium bisulfate (NaHSO4) scrubber solution and (6) ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) fertilizer dissolved in water. The four scrubber solutions, which were obtained from scrubbers attached to exhaust fans on commercial poultry houses, and the ammonium nitrate solution were all applied at an application rate equivalent to 112 kg N ha-1. Forage yields were measured periodically throughout the growing season. A rainfall simulation study was conducted five months after the solutions were applied to determine potential effects on P runoff.

ARS air scrubber in Arkansas

Applying scrubber solutions

Rainfall simulation

What have we learned?

Forage yields (Mg ha-1) followed the order: potassium bisulfate (7.61), sodium bisulfate (7.46) > ammonium nitrate (6.87), alum (6.72), sulfuric acid (6.45) > unfertilized control (5.12). These data indicate that forage yields with scrubber solutions can be equal to or even greater than that obtained with equivalent amounts of N applied as commercial fertilizer. This is likely due to the presence of other nutrients, such as K in acid salts, like potassium bisulfate. Nitrogen uptake followed similar trends as yields, although there were no significant differences among N sources.

 

Total P loads in runoff were 37, 25, 20, 19, 17, and 14 g P ha-1, for sulfuric acid, potassium bisulfate, sodium bisulfate, unfertilized control, ammonium nitrate, and alum. The alum solution resulted in significantly lower P loads than H2SO4. This was likely due to a decrease in the water extractable P (WEP) in the soil, since alum was also shown to significantly reduce WEP compared to the unfertilized control. None of the treatments affected Mehlich III extractable P.

 

Future Plans

Currently research is underway on using acid-tolerant nitrifying bacteria to generate the acidity needed to capture ammonia in the exhaust air from animal rearing facilities.

 

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Philip Moore, Soil Scientist, USDA/ARS

Corresponding author email

philipm@uark.edu

Other authors

Jerry Martin, USDA/ARS, Fayetteville, AR; Hong Li, University of Delaware

Additional information

Philip Moore
Plant Sciences 115
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Moore, P.A., Jr., R. Maguire, M. Reiter, J. Ogejo, R. Burns, H. Li, D. Miles and M. Buser. 2013.  Development of an acid scrubber for reducing ammonia emissions from animal rearing facilities.  Proc. Waste to Worth Conference. http://lpelc.org/development-of-an-acid-scrubber-for-reducing-ammonia-emissions-from-animal-rearing-facilities.

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. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Extraction and Recovery of Phosphorus from Pig Manure Using the Quick Wash Process

*Why Look at Phosphorus Recovery from Pig Manure?

Land disposal of manure is a challenging environmental problem in areas with intense confined pig production. When manure is land applied at optimal nitrogen rates for crop growth, phosphorus can accumulate in excess of soil assimilative capacity because of the disproportion of nitrogen and phosphorus contents in animal manures relative to plant biomass. In turn, excess manure phosphorus lost through soil leaching or runoff has the potential to reach and pollute water resources. To reduce manure phosphorus losses into the environment, a substantial amount of phosphorus needs to be moved off the pig farm but transporting manure to phosphorus-deficit croplands becomes less cost effective with increasing distance from the pig farm. Yet, conservation and recovery of phosphorus is a concern in modern agriculture because of the high cost and possible insufficient supply of mined phosphates in the future. Thus, manure management in regions with intense animal production could benefit from new technologies that would recover manure phosphorus in a concentrated, usable form. This approach would make more economical the long distance transfers of manure phosphorus while reducing both agronomic phosphorus imbalances and adverse effects of soil P losses on water resources.

What did we do?

diagram of the quick wash processA patented treatment process, called “Quick Wash”, was developed for extraction and recovery of phosphorus from animal manure solids, but research has shown that the approach is equally effective with municipal biosolids. In the Quick Wash process, phosphorus is selectively extracted from pig manure solids by using mineral or organic acid solutions. Following, phosphorus is recovered by addition of liquid lime and an organic poly-electrolyte to the liquid extract to form a calcium-containing P precipitate. The quick wash process generates two products: 1) manure solids low in phosphorus; and 2) recovered phosphorus material.

What have we learned?

The Quick Wash process selectively extracts and recovers as much as 90 % of the phosphorus from pig manure solids while leaving most of the nitrogen in the washed manure solids. Consequently, the washed solid residue has a more balanced nitrogen and phosphorus composition for crop production and is environmentally safer for land application. The concentrated phosphorus product contains more than 90% of its phosphorus in plant available form for use as crop fertilizer. The inclusion of this process in a waste management system offers pig producers a new and welcomed opportunity to minimize phosphorus losses into the environment, while recovering and recycling phosphorus as a valuable product.

Future Plans

USDA granted an exclusive license of the invention to Renewable Nutrients, LLC (Pinehurst, NC). The Quick Wash is being commercialized by Renewable Nutrients, LLC for the municipal wastewater treatment sector and its partner TRIEA Technologies, LLC (Frederick, MD) for phosphorus recovery in the animal agriculture market.

Authors

Ariel A. Szogi, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center, Florence, SC ariel.szogi@ars.usda.gov

Matias B. Vanotti, Patrick G. Hunt – USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant

Additional information

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00037/full

http://www.rnutrients.com/

http://www.trieatechnologies.com/quickwash

Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., Hunt, P.G., 2014. Process for removing and recovering phosphorus from animal waste. U.S. Patent 8,673,046 B1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of USDA-ARS National Program 214: Agricultural and Industrial Byproducts; ARS Project 6657-13630-005-00D “Innovative Bioresource Management Technologies for Enhanced Environmental Quality and Value Optimization.”

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.

Modeling water movement in beef cattle bedded manure pack


Why Examine Moisture Content of a Manure Pack?

Bedded manure is a valuable fertilizer source because it contains essential macronutrients (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)) for crop production. Previous research with beef cattle bedded manure packs demonstrated that water-soluble macronutrients accumulated toward the bottom of the packs with water movement. Thus, predicting water movement in bedded manure helps to estimate nutrient composition throughout the bedded pack. This work presents a development of a process-based model of vertical water movement that considers percolation and diffusion as the main processes of water and vapor movements in bedded manure packs. Evaporation from the top zone to the atmosphere was considered a process of convective mass transfer. The model predicts the change in moisture content of the different zones in the bedded manure and assists in estimating nutrient composition.

cattle loafing on a bed pack in their barnWhy Study Moisture Movement In a Bedded Pack?

Beef cattle producers that raise cattle in complete confinement, such as mono-slope or hoop barns, may apply bedding material to manage moisture and improve the environment for the animals. Some producers let the manure and bedding accumulate to form a bedded manure pack, which is compacted by cattle activity. The bedded manure contains valuable nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) that are essential for crop production and soil sustainability. Depending on temperature, bedding material, and storage time of the bedded pack, the concentration of water-soluble N, P and K compounds may increase in the bottom of the bedded pack where water accumulates. Thus, understanding and predicting water movements within the bedded manure is important to estimate fertilizer N-P-K content and distribution in the bedded manure.

What did we do?

The processes considered in this process-based model include evaporation, percolation, diffusion of water vapor and diffusion of liquid water for vertical water movement. The model by Seng et al. (2012) for static compost piles and a modified version of the Integrated Farm System Model (not yet released) by Rotz et al. (2014) for bedded manure were reviewed and compared. Ultimately, the model needs to be adaptable to estimate the water content of the pack over time for different environmental conditions, bedding materials, and storage times at varying depths within the bedded pack. Data for model calibration and validation were gained through laboratory-scale experiments by Ayadi et al. (in review).

What have we learned?

Percolation and liquid water diffusion are considered the main processes for vertical water movement between layers in the bedded manure. Evaporation occurs from the surface of the top zone of the bedded pack. The rates of percolation and liquid water diffusion are depth-specific and their rates therefore vary. The modified version of the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) is more adaptable to data gained through laboratory-scale experiments. Overall, IFSM is more applicable to producer-available data and thus more applicable to predict water movement for bedded manure packs in real-life conditions.

Future Plans

After predicting water movements in the bedded manure, the model will be used to estimate N, P and K movement through the different zones of the bedded manure pack as well as gaseous emission (ammonia and nitrous oxide) from the bedded pack surface. The final overall model will be a calculator that estimates fertilizer N-P-K content and value and ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions of the bedded manure packs from confined beef cattle facilities with respect to temperature, bedding material, storage time and depth of the bedded pack.

Authors

Erin Cortus, Ph. D., Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD

Ferouz Ayadi, M.S., Graduate Student, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD; Mindy Spiehs, Ph. D., Animal Scientist, USDA‐ARS Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE

Additional information

References

Ayadi, F. Y., M. J. Spiehs, E. L. Cortus, and D. N. Miller. In review. Physical, chemical and biological properties of different depths and ages of simulated beef bedded manure packs. Transactions of the ASABE.

Rotz, C.A., Corson, M.S., Chianese, D.S., Montes, F., Hafner, S.D., Bonifacio, H.F., Coiner, C.U., 2013a.

The Integrated Farm System Model Reference Manual, Version 4.1. USDA-Agricultural Research Service. Avaialble at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/80700500/Reference%20Manual.pdf

Seng, B., H. Kaneko, K. Hirayama, and K. Katayama-Hirayama. 2012. Development of water movement model as a module of moisture content simulation in static pile composting. Environmental Technology 33(15):1685-1694.

Acknowledgements

The support and assistance of Henry F. Bonifacio with the simulation of water movements in the bedded pack manure is very much appreciated. This project and all associated reports and support materials were supported by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture- National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed within do not necessarily reflect the view of the SARE program or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The 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 USDA.

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 Role of Computer Models in Environmental Phosphorus Management

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

Why Model Agricultural Phosphorus?

Computer models are excellent ways to integrate years of scientific research into decision tools that producers and policy makers can use to reduce the environmental impact of agricultural phosphorus. Models are playing more important roles in efforts to manage phosphorus at the farm and watershed scales, so it is increasingly important to make sure models are well developed to meet the needs of users, give reliable predictions, and are consistently updated to keep pace with scientific knowledge.

What Did We Do?

Our research over the past 10 years has concentrated on developing scientifically sound, reliable models that can be used to better manage agricultural phosphorus. This includes developing state-of-the-art models for soil phosphorus cycling and loss to the environment in surface runoff and leaching from soils, manures, and fertilizers. We have also concentrated on making sure models of different complexity, from daily processed-based models to annual empirical models, are based on the same principles and give similar predictions so there are a variety of model choices available to meet user needs.

What Have We Learned?

It is certainly possible to develop reliable, scientifically sound, phosphorus management models, as our research success demonstrates. The best model development requires interdisciplinary collaborations and excellent communication between experimentalists, model developers, and model users. Such a framework of interconnected experimentation and model development should symbiotically advance the science of agricultural P and environmental protection beyond the point that the two proceeding independently can achieve.

Future Plans

Model development research continues to make sure that available models are kept up to date with scientific knowledge and meet the needs of users concerning ease of use and data requirements.

Authors

Peter Vadas, Dairy Systems Scientist, USDA-ARS Dairy Forage Research Center,  peter.vadas@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

More information can be found at: http://ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=21763

 

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.

Process for Recovery of Phosphorus from Solid Manure

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

Why Study Phosphorus Recovery?

Land application of manure in regions with intense confined livestock and poultry production is an environmental concern when land is limiting because it promotes soil phosphorus (P) surplus and potential pollution of water resources. A net accumulation of soil P results from the disproportion between lower nitrogen (N) and P ratio (N:P) in animal manure and the higher N:P ratio in harvested crops. Although manure can be moved off the farm, its transportation becomes less economical with increasing distances from the source. Thus, management alternatives to land application are needed to resolve agronomic P imbalances for more effective recycling of manure P.

Litter washed solids residue – Low P content

What Did We Do?

A treatment process, called “quick wash”, was developed for extraction and recovery of P from poultry litter and animal manure solids. In the quick wash process, P is selectively extracted from solid manure or poultry litter by using mineral or organic acid solutions. Following, P is recovered by addition of liquid lime and an organic poly-electrolyte to the liquid extract to form a calcium-containing P precipitate. The quick wash process generates two products: 1) washed solid residue, and 2) concentrated recovered P material.

What Have We Learned?

Recovered concentrated P material

The quick wash process selectively removes up to 80 % of the phosphorus from manure solids while leaving most of the nitrogen in the washed litter residue. Consequently, the washed solid residue has a more balanced N:P ratio for crop production and environmentally safe for land application. The concentrated  P recovered materials contained more than 90% of its phosphorus in plant available form. The use of recovered P can provide a recycled P source for use as crop fertilizer while minimizing manure P losses into the environment from confined animal production.

Future Plans

USDA granted an exclusive license of the invention to Renewable Nutrients, LLC (Pinehurst, NC); a centralized plant for treating poultry litter is planned to be built and operated by Renewable Nutrients in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Authors

Ariel A. Szogi, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center,  Florence, SC. ariel.szogi@ars.usda.gov

Ariel A. Szogi, Matias B. Vanotti, Patrick G. Hunt – USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Rsearch Center,  Florence, SC.

Additional Information

https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2008/080229.htm

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00037/full

Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., Hunt, P.G., 2008. Process for removing and recovering phosphorus from animal waste. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Application Serial No. 12/026,346.

Szogi, A.A., Vanotti, M.B., and Hunt, P.G. 2008. Phosphorus recovery from poultry litter. Trans. ASABE 51(5):1727-1734.

Szogi, A.A. and Vanotti, M.B., 2009. Prospects for phosphorus recovery from poultry litter. Bioresour. Technol. 100(22):5461-5465.

Szogi, A.A., Bauer, P.J., and Vanotti, M.B. Fertilizer effectiveness of phosphorus recovered from broiler litter. Agron. J. 102(2):723-727. 2010.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of USDA-ARS National Program 214: Agricultural and Industrial Byproducts; ARS Project 6657-13630-005-00D “Innovative Bioresource Management Technologies for Enhanced Environmental Quality and Value Optimization.”

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.

Use of Filters in Drainage Control Structures to Reduce the Risk Associated with Manure Application on Tile-Drained Fields

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

Abstract

In livestock producing areas, animal manure is often applied to cropland to enhance soil fertility. Guidelines have been developed for manure application on fields underlain by subsurface (tile) drainage systems. Some of these guidelines, such as avoiding manure application if rain is predicted and not applying manure over a flowing tile, though effective, involve some level of risk. We believe that the level of risk can be reduced by filtering contaminants from the water leaving the drains. The control structures recommended for use with drainage systems underlying fields to which manure is applied, provide ready-made receptacles for filters. In this report we discuss the development and testing of a filter to remove contaminants from lagoon effluent.

Why Study Filters for Drainage Water?

The purpose of this project is to develop an economically feasible solution to capturing sediment bound nutrient loss from agricultural land as well as prevent herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, fertilizers and other contaminants from polluting the receiving waters of tile drained systems. In the event of a spill, these filters will presumably act as a barrier to capture pollutants in an attempt to prevent environmental degradation as well as fines to farmers.

What Did We Do?

We developed an activated carbon filter and tested it in our lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and in a controlled field setting in order to test the filters ability to meet physical parameters like allowing average tile flow rates through without backup and the effectiveness of the filter in improving water quality.

What Have We Learned?

We have learned that designing for agriculture is much more intensive than in a controlled setting and from that challenge, the project has helped us establish better research and development skills.

Check Out These Programs & Research About Tile Drainage

Swine Manure Timing & Subsurface Drainage

Tile Drainage Field Day

New Technologies for Drainage Water Management

Role of Drainage Depth and Intensity on Nutrient Loss

Future Plans

We plan to continue with alternative filter prototypes and continue testing so we have a product that is scientifically proven and farmers will want to use.

Authors

Stephanie Herbstritt, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Annie Kwedar, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

*The author can be contacted at: herbstr2@illinois.edu

Additional Information

For more information on using filters in subsurface tile drained systems, go to the January-February 2013 edition of the Illinois Land Improvement Contractors Of America’s newsletters which can be found at: https://www.illica.net/newsletters

Acknowledgements

Dr. Richard Cooke, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Julie Honegger, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 

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.