greenhouse gases – Page 11 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Best Management Practices for Reducing Gas Emissions from Manure Application in Semi-Arid Regions

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

*Abstract

Gas emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) create adverse impacts ranging from short-term local effects on air quality, particularly odor, to the long-term effects from greenhouse gas generation. Best management practices (BMPs) have been designed and implemented to mitigate gas emissions from farm operations. Our study investigates emission control strategies widely used in AFOs including manure management and land application. The primary objectives were to evaluate the efficiency and identify improvement of the currently available BMPs. We simulated and monitored gaseous emissions from a range of manure application and incorporation methods. The gaseous emissions were monitored using the closed dynamic chamber (CDC) method with a Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy gas analyzer, which is capable of monitoring 15 pre-programmed gases simultaneously including typical gaseous compounds and greenhouse gases emitted from manure sources; namely, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. In this presentation, we will discuss the efficiency of the current manure management BMPs to reduce air emissions from dairy operations, based on the gaseous emission monitoring during the course of our experiment. Results from our study should enhance development and implementation of more flexible and more efficient air quality management approaches for dairy operations.

Why Study Gas Emissions from Manure Application Sites?

Evaluate gaseous emissions from manure application. Identify ways to improve manure management and land application BMPs.

What Did We Do?

Manure application and incorporation methods were simulated and evaluated in a greenhouse setting. Scraped dairy manure was applied at a rate of 50 tons/acre to a Millville silt loam soil. Incorporation versus no incorporation was compared. Gaseous emissions were monitored using a closed dynamic chamber with a Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy gas analyzer, which is capable of monitoring 15-pre-programmed gases simultaneously including typical gaseous compounds and greenhouse gases emitted from manure sources; namely, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. On Day 3, after emissions had subsided, the soil surface was rewetted. Emissions were monitored for 7 days.

What Have We Learned?

Emission rates for CO2 and NH3 peaked after 24 hours, with the majority of emissions occurring within the first 2 days. Rewetting had limited impact. Based on this data, it appears that rapid incorporation is needed to have a meaningful impact on reducing gaseous emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Ammonia Emissions

Future Plans

Examine gaseous emissions from a range of manure application and incorporation methods in a field setting. The gaseous emissions will be monitored using the closed dynamic chamber method with a Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTiR) spectroscopy gas analyzer.

Authors

Rhonda Miller, Ph.D.; Agricultural Systems Technology and Education Dept.; Utah State University rhonda.miller@usu.edu

Pakorn Sutitarnnontr; Environmental Soil Physics Group; Utah State University

Enzhu Hu; Environmental Soil Physics Group; Utah State University

Markus Tuller, Ph.D.; Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Dept.; University of Arizona

Jim Walworth, Ph.D.; Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Dept.; University of Arizona

Scott B. Jones, Ph.D.; Plants, Soils, and Climate Dept.; Utah State University

Additional Information

Sutitarnnonntr, P., R. Miller, S. Bialkowski, M. Tuller, and S. B. Jones. 2012. A Multiplexing System for Monitoring Greenhouse and Regulated Gas Emissions from Manure Sources Using a Portable FTIR Gas Analyzer. ASABE 2012 Paper and Presentation No. 121337982. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.

Website: http://agwastemanagement.usu.edu

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from a USDA-CSREES AFRI Air Quality Program Grant #2010-85112-50524.

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.

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

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

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Purpose

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

Why Study the Carbon Footprint of Cow-Calf Systems?

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

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

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

What Have We Learned?

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

Future Plans

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

Authors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Mourakohman w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Effects of Climate Change on Pasture Production and Forage Quality

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Climate Change and Pastures?

Pastures cover more than 14 million hectares in the eastern half of the United States and support grazing animal and hay production while also contributing to the maintenance of overall environmental quality and ecosystem services. Climate change is likely to alter the function of these ecosystems. This manipulative field experiment evaluated the effect of warming and additional precipitation on forage production and quality.

What Did We Do?

We initiated a multi-factor climate change study, elevating air temperature (+3º C) and increasing growing season precipitation (+30% of long-term mean annual), in a central Kentucky pasture managed for hay production. Treatments began in May 2009 and have run continuously since. We measured the effects of warming and increased precipitation on pasture production, forage quality metrics, and for endophyte-infected tall fescue, ergot alkaloid concentrations.

Photo of the UK Forage Climate Change Experiment in Lexington, KY.

What Have We Learned?

Effects of warming and increased precipitation on total yearly pasture production varied depending on the year of study; however, climate treatments never reduced production below that of the ambient control. Effects on forage quality metrics were relatively subtle. For endophyte-infected tall fescue, warming increased both ergovaline and ergovalinine concentrations (+40% of that in control ambient plots) throughout the study. These results indicate that central Kentucky pastures may be relatively resilient to future climate change; however, warming induced increases in ergot alkaloid concentrations in endophyte-infected tall fescue suggests that animal issues associated with fescue toxicosis are likely to be exacerbated under future climatic conditions.

Aerial photo of the UK Forage Climate Change Experiment.

Future Plans

We will continue this study for one more growing season and then destructively harvest it (in Fall 2013).

Authors

Rebecca McCulley, Associate Professor, Dept of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, rebecca.mcculley@uky.edu

Jim Nelson – Research Scientist, Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky

A. Elizabeth Carlisle – Research Technician, Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky

Additional Information

http://www.ca.uky.edu/pss/index.php?p=997

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of DOE-NICCR grant DE-FC02-06ER64156, UK’s College of Agriculture Research Office, the USDA-ARS Forage Animal and Production Research Unit (specific cooperative agreement 58-6440-7-135), the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station (KY006045), and numerous undergraduates and graduate students who have helped collect the data presented herein.

McCulley w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 10, 2020

Climate Change Extension: Presenting the Science is Necessary But Insufficient

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Should We Consider How to Present Scientific Information?

To engage a wide spectrum of agricultural producers in the discussion of human-induced climate change and its mitigation.

What Did We Do?

Our initial Extension efforts on climate change in Kentucky were based on an information-deficit model, which assumes that citizens fail to accept climate change because they don’t understand the science. However, social science research indicates that this topic has cultural significance for many agricultural producers, suggesting that presentation of sound scientific information alone is likely to be unpersuasive. Based on social science research, we redesigned our outreach efforts to emphasize: (1) more selective presentation of geophysical data; (2) positive messages as frequently as possible; and (3) messages that speak to core identities of citizens with diverse worldviews.

What Have We Learned?

Starting discussions on this sensitive topic are more successful if we make it clear to producers how much we appreciate their role in producing our food and, yes, in helping to reduce climate change. For example, U.S. producers deserve to be congratulated for the dramatic improvements made in agricultural productivity over the decades, since this has resulted in substantial reductions in carbon emissions when expressed per unit of production (per bushel, per gallon of milk, etc). We also point out practices they already do that help to reduce climate change, including energy-conservation measures and capturing biogas.

Future Plans

We plan to continue providing and refining our outreach on climate change, based on feedback from audiences and research from the social sciences. While we recognize that our current efforts may not quickly result in increased action on climate-change mitigation, our approach is designed to build acceptance of climate change as a topic deserving of the engagement of a wide range of citizens. Our working assumption is that promoting discussion on this highly divisive topic requires sensitivity to, and respect for, the diversity of worldviews held by Americans

Authors

Paul Vincelli, Provost’s Distinguished Service Professor, University of Kentucky; pvincell@uky.edu

Rebecca McCulley, Associate Professor, University of Kentucky

Judith Humble, L.C.S.W., Lexington, KY

Additional Information

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/people/vincelli.htm

http://www2.ca.uky.edu/environment-files/ccflyervincelli.pdf

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id191/id191.pdf

McCulley and Vincelli w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 3, 2020

Dairy Manure Digestion Influenced by Wasted Milk from Milking Operations

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Waste Milk in Anaerobic Digestion?

Anaerobic digestion has many advantages both environmentally and economically. First, it produces renewable energy in the form of methane, a renewable energy source, which leads to a steady increase in the number of anaerobic manure digesters in the United States. According to the report from the World Dairy Expo held in Madison, Wisconsin in 2009 (Expo’09, 2009), the US dairy industry is taking the lead in adopting anaerobic technology because the majority (over 75%) of operating US manure digesters is installed on dairy farms. It is anticipated that this trend will continue as the country has determined to reduce its reliance on ever diminishing fossil-based energy resources.

Second, the technology can significantly reduce the polluting strength of the treated waste materials, such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), thus ameliorating their pollution potential to the environment when discharged. Due to the nature of dairy operations, a tangible amount of milk coming from the milking parlor wastewater is often discharged to the bulk manure, which can dramatically increase the COD level of such waste streams. The high COD content (190,000 mg/L) of milk makes the common practice of land applying the milk contaminated manure dangerous due possibly to the potential of causing severe contamination of surface and ground waters from runoff and leaching. Such practice is therefore drawing increased scrutiny from the public and environmental regulatory agencies. Fortunately, with the number of dairy producers willing to adopt anaerobic digesters on their farms continuing to grow, the concern for such pollution could be tempered.

However, a remaining question of this remedy is whether the added milk has any impact on the overall digestion process in terms of biogas production and pollutants removal.

What Did We Do?

In this project, the overall response of co-digesting dairy manure with milk added at 7 different levels, i.e., 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, and 19%, using lab-scale batch anaerobic digesters was investigated. The co-digestion performance was evaluated based on total biogas volume production, methane concentration, and its volume in the biogas generated. The changes and/or reductions in COD of the treated liquid were also presented.

What Have We Learned?

Cumulative Biogas Production Affected by Different Milk Content

First, increasing milk content could increase the cumulative biogas production during the operation, with the total volume of biogas produced being 5260, 5790, 6300, 7010, 7480, 8960, and 10150 mL for the milk treatments of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, and 19%, respectively, as opposed to the control (4980 mL). Second, higher milk content could significantly raise the initial biogas production rate. Third, the presence of milk appeared to have some influence on the stability of the digestion process, as evidenced by the fluctuation of biogas production at high milk concentrations. For instance, the treatments having milk content up to 7% demonstrated a similar trend. But for milk content of 9, 14, and 19%, the fluctuation in biogas production volume became progressively conspicuous. Especially for the 19% milk treatment, the biogas volume produced first jumped from 190 mL at 6 hour to 1190 mL at 12 hour after the digestion started, followed by a relatively moderate production period before it jumped again after 8 days of digestion. Considering the results from this study, it may be concluded that milk can increase biogas production when co-digested with dairy manure.

Cumulative CH4 Volumes Affected by Different Milk Content

The performance of different treatments in cumulative CH4 production indicates that adding milk to dairy manure digestion will promote the volumetric production of both biogas and methane. However, the CH4 content in the produced biogas deteriorated as the milk content increased (from 66.5% for the control to 63.5% for 19% milk treatment). It can thus be inferred that although the volumes of total biogas and methane were increased by increasing the milk content in the digester, the increase in methane volume was not in tandem with that in total biogas volume, implying that a significant amount of CO2 was concurrently produced. Apparently, the presence of milk in the digestion substrate is the only legitimate cause for the increasing production of CO2. In addition, although the effect of milk on lowering the CH4 content in biogas is observed for all milk treatments, the extent of such an effect is different. The milk impact on CH4 content in biogas was not significant for manure containing milk up to 3% (v/v), but it turned significant at 5%. Summarizing the above discussions leads to an intuitive suggestion that in order to avoid production of a substantial amount of CO2 due to the spilled milk in the digestion process, dairy producers should manage to control the milk content in the digester liquid ≤ 3%.

COD, TKN, and C/N Ratio Changes in Digestates From the Digestion of Dairy Manure with Milk

The added milk substantially increased the digester content COD as the amount of milk increased. However, at the end of the experiment, the final COD concentration in most digester effluent samples reached a fairly similar level, suggesting that the digestion process for the majority of the treatments was completed properly. In addition, since all the experiments were run on the same time schedule, the COD degradation efficiency obviously increased with increasing milk addition from 49.7% for the control to 77.8% for the 19% milk treatment. The improved COD removal efficiency in company with the increasing milk content could be attributed to the gradually elevated C/N ratio due to the added milk (from 5.19 for the control to 10.7 for the 19% treatment) because it is recognized that the optimum C/N ratio for anaerobic digestion is around 20/1 to 30/1, which could explain the continuous increase in COD removal as the C/N ratio increased. At the end of experiment, the effluent C/N ratio averaged 2.75, which was very close to the value for the digested dairy manure (2.83). As for TKN, the removal efficiency is almost negligible, which is the typical behavior commonly observed for anaerobic digestion, indicating that the digestion operation was carried out successfully. Based on the information obtained from this study, it may be concluded that milk content up to 19% (v/v) in dairy manure may have little negative impact on COD removal efficiency in the anaerobic digestion process.

Future Plans

Two stage digestion process to produce hydrogen and methane may be studied with milk addition.

Authors

Jun Zhu, Professor, University of Minnesota, zhuxx034@umn.edu

Wu, X., Postdoc, University of Minnesota

Dong, C., Associate Professor, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

Yao, W., Postdoc, University of Kentucky

Additional Information

Wu, X., C. Dong, W. Yao, J. Zhu. 2011. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure influenced by the wasted milk from milking operations. Journal of Dairy Science 94(8): 3778-3786.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Minnesota Legislature Rapid Agricultural Response Fund for providing financial support to this project.

Dairy Manure Digestion Influenced by Wasted Milk from Milking Operations from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019April 2, 2021

Impacts of Changing Climate in the Northeast on Manure Storage

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Manure storage design and operation are influenced by climate and weather. The Northeast United States has been identified as likely to experience more frequent and larger precipitation events in climate change models. The Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) predicts that particularly in New York and New England where the frequency of 2 inch rainfall events has increased since the 1950s and storms once considered a 1 in 100 year event have become more frequent. Such storms are now likely to occur almost twice as often. In consultation with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) the NRCC has put together a website www.precip.net that includes estimates of extreme rainfall for various durations (from 5 minutes to 10 days) and recurrence intervals (1 year to 500 years). Although the public website remains static, providing design criteria, updated data is continually collected. It is anticipated that this will show a continual shift in extreme rainfall amounts. Monthly and yearly rainfall also impact manure storage design. The impacts of both changing extreme rainfall and monthly rainfall amounts on manure storage design are explored. Higher freeboard amounts to protect from overtopping and more total storage to provide flexibility in abnormally wet weather are recommended to be incorporated in manure storage facility designs.

Observed precipitation change showing an increase in the northeast, from http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf draft for public comment Chapter 2 Our Changing Climate

Why Are We Concerned About Climate Change Impacts on Manure Storage?

The need to increase the storage capacity of manure storages due to climate change is evaluated. Although the weather is variable, climate change appears to increase precipatation especially during the winter storage period. This increase in precipatation and the increased control of winter manure spreading puts farms with too little storage at greater risk. Although in general the 25 year 24 hour storm has not increased in NY, farms have experienced less storage than anticipated. The use of average precipitation amounts based on the full period of record doesn’t take into account above average precipitation during the storage period or recent increases in winter precipitation.

What Did We Do?

Increase in precipitation for the 8 month storage period at Ithaca NY from 1980 to 2011.

Average winter precipatiation was determined in 3 periods of record, prior to 1950, 1950 to 1980, and 1980 to 2012 at five locations in NYS. This showed that the more recent period had an increased precipitation. This matches climate model predictions for increased winter precipitation in the northeast. The amount of winter precipitation that would not be exceeded 90% of the time was determined. Present design proceedures use the average precipitation for each month of winter storage. This means that 50% of the time a storage may experience more precipitation than designed. Maps were prepared to show the precipitation amounts that would not be exceeded 90% of the time for both 6 months and 8 month storage periods.

Winter precipitation amounts for the 8 month storage period with a 90% chance of not being exceeded.

What Have We Learned?

There are many reasons for manure storages to fill faster than design including; increased animal numbers, increased manure production, increased bedding or wash water, additional drainage area, and failure to empty prior to the storage period. Wetter weather than average and wet weather in the spring puts farms with storage at risk. The winter precipitation amount is increasing.. NYS farms with storage are experiencing stress during some seasons that then cause them to try to reduce the stress by spreading manure at times that can potentially pollute. Prudent manure storagedesign whould take this into account. Using updated and conservative precipitation amounts would increase the designed storage. This would increase the cost of the storage structures but allow farms to follow their Nutrient management plans more closely.

Future Plans

NY NRCS will change the precipitation amount used in the design of manure storages.

Authors

Peter Wright PE, State Conservation Engineer Natural Resources Conservation Service , Syracuse NY, peter.wright@ny.usda.gov

Jessica L. Rennells, Climatologist, Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University

Arthur T. DeGaetano, Director Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell University

Curt Gooch P.E. , Senior Extension Associate, PRO-Dairy, Cornell University

Additional Information

https://www.usda.gov/oce/energy-and-environment/climate

http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/download/NCAJan11-2013-publicreviewdraft-chap2-climate.pdf

Wright w2w 2013 from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 6, 2020

Treatment Technologies for Ammonia in Liquid Manure: Nitrification/denitrification and Anammox Based Deammonification

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Ammonia Removal from Livestock Wastewater?

Biological nitrogen removal is regarded as the most efficient and economically feasible method available for removal of ammonia from wastewater. Its implementation in concentrated livestock farms can help reduce surplus nitrogen and ammonia emissions.

High performance nitrifying sludge (HPNS) is used to start-up biological ammonia removal treatment in swine manure treatment plants. Picture shows second generation project treating manure from 5,200-head finishing operation in Sampson County, NC. The system used solids separation, N removal and P removal processes.

What Did We Do?

The effective use of biological nitrogen removal treatment in animal wastewater required development of new technologies and systems adapted to the higher-strength characteristics of liquid manure. These include: 1) development of a high performance nitrification bacterial mix; 2) systems that combine nitrification/denitrification with efficient liquid-solids separation; and 3) a new deammonification process using anammox bacteria for the removal of nitrogen in anaerobic digestion effluents.

What Have We Learned?

The discovery of a high-performing nitrifying bacterial sludge (HPNS) adapted to high ammonia concentrations (> 3,000 mg N/L) and low water temperatures (5 oC) significantly reduced biological nitrogen removal (BNR) plant footprint and costs. Nitrification/denitrification of fresh flushed manure was most effective after solid-liquid separation treatment, using a pre-denitrification configuration (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger or MLE process). The system is currently at its third generation. The third generation was demonstrated full-scale in 2012 in a farrow to finish swine operation that produced 30,500 hogs per year. It eliminated 99% of the ammonia contained in the manure effluent.

After nitrification/denitrification treatment, the manure effluent contains low ammonia concentration (< 10 mg/L). It is stored in a clean water tank and reused in the barns for recharging the pits or filling flush-tanks. Picture shows clean water tank in third generation project in Wayne county, NC, treating manure from both a 1,200-sow farrow to feeder operation and 12,960 feeder to finish farm.

However, the implementation of nitrification/denitrification process in anaerobic digestion systems is a problem, since both the biogas production and denitrification require carbon. It would require about 30% less biogas production so that there is sufficient carbon for N removal through nitrification/denitrification. The discovery of a novel anammox bacteria in manure, Brocadia caroliniensis, is helping us address this problem effectively, especially after recent advances with a single-tank configuration. The new deammonification process we present here (partial nitritation and anammox) is a completely autotrophic nitrogen removal approach that eliminates the carbon needs for denitrification. Thus, it can be a promising approach for the biological removal of ammonia from anaerobic digester effluents that are low in carbon and high in ammonia concentration. We obtained rapid deammonification reaction by mixing nitrifying and anammox sludges in a single, aerated tank. The single-tank approach was tested with digested swine wastewater. Compared with traditional N removal, the deammonification process reduced 57% of the aeration and 100% of the carbon requirement. Therefore, deammonification is a key technology for development of more economical and energy efficient biological ammonia removal systems in the near future.

Deammonification treatment using single-tank approach. It performs partial nitritation and anammox reaction in fluidized continuous flow reactor. Picture shows detail of single tank at USDA-ARS, Florence, SC. It used a mixture of HPNS and anammox bacteria Brocadia caroliniensis and biofilms plastic carriers to remove the ammonia from anaerobic digester effluents.

Future Plans

The nitrification/denitrification technology has been demonstrated full-scale and is at the commercialization phase. The single-tank deammonification has been pilot tested.

USDA has filed US patents for “high performance nitrifying sludge ” and “novel anammox bacterium isolate” (see reference list), and seeks commercial partners to bring deammonification technology to market. http://www.ars.usda.gov/business/docs.htm?docid=763&page=5

Authors

Matias Vanotti, USDA-ARS, Florence, South Carolina, matias.vanotti@ars.usda.gov

Matias Vanotti^1*, Patrick Hunt¹, José Martinez², Airton Kunz³, Takao Fujii⁴, Ariel Szogi¹, Kenji Furukawa⁵
1. USDA-ARS, Florence, South Carolina, USA

2. IRSTEA, Rennes, France

3. Embrapa Swine and Poultry, Concordia, SC, Brazil

4. Sojo University, Kumamoto, Japan

5. Kumamoto University, Japan

Additional Information

Nitrification/Denitrification:

“Development of a Second Generation Treatment System for Management of Livestock Manure”, research update at https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134/asaspecpub67.c22

Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A., Millner, P.D. and Loughrin, J.H. 2009b. Development of a second-generation environmentally superior technology for treatment of swine manure in the USA. Biores. Technol. 100(22):5406-5416.

Vanotti, M.B., A.A. Szogi, and T.F. Ducey. 2011. High performance nitrifying sludge for high ammonium concentration and low temperature wastewater treatment. US Patent Publication No. US2011/0000851 A1. US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.

Anammox based Deammonification:

“Deammonification of Swine Wastewater Using Partial Nitritation and Anammox”, research update at USDA-ARS-CPSWPRC website : http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=22883#Anammox

Matias Vanotti, José Martinez, Takao Fujii, Ariel Szögi, Daisuke Hira. 2012. Ammonia Removal Using Nitrification and Anammox in a Single Reactor. In Proceedings 2012 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Dallas, Texas. July 29 – August 1, 2012. Paper No. 121337837.

Vanotti, M.B., A.A. Szogi, and M.J. Rothrock. 2011. Novel anammox bacterium isolate. US Patent Application No. 13/013,874. US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.

Acknowledgements

This research was part of USDA-ARS National Program 214 Agricultural and Industrial Byproducts, Research Project 6657-13630-005-00D “Innovative Bioresource Management Technologies for Enhanced Environmental Quality and Value optimization”.

Treatment Technologies for Ammonia in Liquid Manure: Nitrification/denitrification and Anammox Based Deammonification from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019August 5, 2020

Livestock GRACEnet

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Livestock GRACEnet is a United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service working group focused on atmospheric emissions from livestock production in the USA. The working group presently has 24 scientists from 13 locations covering the major animal production systems in the USA (dairy, beef, swine, and poultry). The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of management practices that reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions from livestock agriculture. The working group fosters collaboration among fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices; supports the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information; fosters scientific transparency and rigor and transfers new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community. Success in the group’s mission will help ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, improve vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide beneficial environmental services. Some of the research highlights of the group are provided as examples of current work within Livestock GRACEnet. These include efforts aimed at improving emissions inventories, developing mitigation strategies, improving process-based models for estimating emissions, and producing fact sheets to inform producers about successful management practices that can be put to use now.

Why Was GRACEnet Created?

The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of livestock management practices to reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and to provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions.

What Did We Do?

The Livestock GRACEnet group is comprised of 24 scientists from 13 USDA-ARS locations researching the effects of livestock production on emissions and air quality.

Our goals are to:

Collaborate with fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices
Support the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information
Foster scientific transparency and rigor
Transfer new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community

Success in our mission will help to ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide environmental services benefits.

Authors

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

Additional Information

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

Livestock GRACEnet from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

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

Waste 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 Farm Manure to Energy Initiative: Using Excess Manure to Generate Farm Income in the Chesapeake’s Phosphorus Hotspots from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Money from Something: Carbon Market Developments for Agriculture

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.

For more than a decade, the potential to earn revenue from climate-saving activities in agriculture has been touted throughout farm-related industries. This presentation will assume a basic knowledge of the concept of carbon markets as a kind of ecosystem service market. The focus will instead be put on current market opportunities and the importance of learning from past mistakes. Included in the discussion will be carbon offset opportunities for methane capture from manure digesters and composting and nitrous oxide reduction from controls on nitrogen fertilization. Participants will learn about voluntary and compliance market opportunities and the value of offsets versus transactions costs in today’s markets. Sources of market information will also be discussed.

Topics:

Ecosystem services markets: Carbon credits and more.
Types of offsets relevant to livestock and crop producers (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide).
Rules of the road: How to read the key parts of project protocols.
Once and future markets: Consider the differences between voluntary and compliance markets.
Show us the money: Have any producers really made money from carbon markets?

Purpose

During the past decade, the potential to earn revenue from greenhouse gas reductions in agriculture, especially from anaerobic digestion projects, generated some enthusiasm for this emerging ecosystem market. In 2005, dairies in Washington and Minnesota received the first carbon credit payments for their digesters through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a pilot cap-and-trade market established in 2003. With the failure of the 111^th Congress to complete passage of a national cap-and-trade law in the summer of 2010, the CCX closed shop. What has happened since that time? What is the potential today for livestock producers to benefit from carbon markets or carbon pricing? We look at current markets and summarize the opportunities.

What Did We Do?

The Washington State University (WSU) Energy Program monitors technology, policy and market developments about anaerobic digestion as part of its land-grant mission to support industry and agriculture in Washington state. Because of the potential value of digesters to dairy producers, we follow developments in a wide range of existing and potential ecosystem markets, including renewable energy and fuels, carbon/GHGs, nutrients, and water. Preparation for this presentation included surveys of academic and popular literature, interviews with project developers and market insiders, and analysis of the participation in carbon trading by existing livestock digester projects in the U.S.

What Have We Learned?

The existing landscape of livestock anaerobic digestion projects illustrates three major types or models of carbon market finance: utility-based programs, voluntary carbon markets and compliance-based cap-and-trade markets.

Utility-Based Opportunities

Vermont is home to at least 15 operational dairy-based digesters. Only two digesters serve farms with more than 2,000 cows. Of the balance, about half are below and half above 1,000 cows. All of the Vermont digesters produce renewable electricity and participate in one or more utility-based incentive programs. One example is the Vermont’s Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development (SPEED) program, which establishes standard offer contracts between utilities and renewable energy project developers. The goal of the SPEED program is to support in-state production of renewable power from hydro, solar PV, wind, biomass, landfill gas and farm methane with an overall portfolio target of 20 percent by 2017.

A key mechanism of the program is the long-term (20-year) Standard Offer contract and default pricing for the different types of renewable power. Default prices were calculated to allow developers to recover their costs with a positive return on investment. The default prices established for the first two rounds of farm methane projects were $0.16/kWh and $0.14/kWh, respectively. This compares to an average retail price of $0.146/kWh for electricity in the state. The default prices do not account for the environmental attributes of the green power for farm methane projects.

Many of the Vermont digesters participate in the Cow Power Program, established by the former Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), now a part of Green Mountain Power, in 2004. The Cow Power Program offers customers the opportunity to purchase the environmental attributes (renewable energy and GHG reduction) from participating dairy digester projects at a rate of $0.04/kWh. This value was passed along to the suppliers of the dairy-based green power.

These two Vermont programs continue to operate in tandem and provide maximum benefit to Vermont’s diary digester projects. By one estimate, customers participating through the Cow Power program have provided to dairy digester operators more than $3.5 million in value for the environmental attributes created in the past eight years.

Other examples of this type of type of utility-based standard offer or incentive pricing for farm power can be found in North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Voluntary Carbon Offsets Opportunities

Voluntary carbon markets are built on decisions by utilities, corporations, and other businesses to offset their carbon footprint impacts through the purchase of third-party verified carbon credits. While the voluntary carbon market has suffered ups and downs, especially during the recent economic downturn, corporations continue to respond to pressures such as corporate stewardship policies or carbon disclosure programs that require accounting for environmental and greenhouse gas impacts.

The voluntary market is inhabited by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations that bring sellers and buyers together. The types and value of offsets are more varied, depending on the appetites and budgets of the buyers.

For example, the voluntary carbon market has been a preferred option for Washington-based Farm Power, which has agreements with The Carbon Trust (Portland, OR) and Native Energy (Burlington, VT) for carbon credits generated from the capture and destruction of methane from its farm digester projects in Washington state. Both The Carbon Trust and Native Energy use designated registries and protocols, such as the Carbon Action Registry (CAR) or Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), as the vehicle through which credits are registered, verified, and eventually retired on behalf of their customers.

The Climate Trust – Retires registered carbon offsets on behalf of at least five Oregon-based utilities that are required by state law to offset the GHG impacts that occur from installing new power plants in the state. The Trust also sources offsets for the Smart Energy program created by NW Natural as an opportunity for customers to support production of “carbon-neutral” natural gas through farm-based biodigesters.

Native Energy – Has a diverse base of individual and business customers. They source carbon offsets for a wide range of large, environmentally conscious businesses, such as eBay, Stonyfield Farm, Brita, and Effect Partners, who provided some funding up front for offsets from Farm Power’s Rainier Biogas project. Offset values vary widely depending on demand, supply, and the “value” of the project’s story. In a few cases, offset values may loosely track the prices for compliance-grade carbon offsets with a discount for funding provided in advance of project implementation.

Compliance Cap-and-Trade Offsets Opportunities

Finally, the compliance market opportunity refers to cap-and-trade programs established by state governments to reduce GHG pollution. These are formal regulatory systems. The government establishes caps on GHGs for targeted sources and issues permits or allowances that are distributed, sold, or auctioned to regulated entities for each ton of emissions they generate. Allowances are typically tradable instruments, so entities can easily manage their allowance needs and accounts. The goal of cap-and-trade systems is to use market-based mechanisms to achieve pollution reductions at the lowest possible cost and with the least disruption to the economy.

Systems might also allow covered entities to use offsets generated voluntarily by non-covered entities to meet some portion of their emission reduction target. Allowed offsets are generated using approved protocols, verified by approved third-party verifiers, and registered/sold through approved registries.

Two domestic cap-and-trade programs survived the past decade and are in operation today—the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which involves nine Northeastern states, and the California market, established by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Each of these systems operates under its own sets of rules.

The table below highlights features of these two market approaches.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)	AB 32 – California Market
Nine states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont	California only (may establish a market connection with Ontario, Canada)
Covers the electricity sector: 200 power plants	Covers power and industrial entities that generate more than 25,000 metric tons of CO₂e annually; will expand to include the transportation fuel sector in 2015
Allowances based on U.S. short tons of CO₂	Allowances based on metric tons of CO₂
Allowances are auctioned	Allowances are auctioned, with a minimum floor price of $10/MtCO₂e
Offsets are very limited – few types, very strict rules, only 3% of compliance allowed	Offsets are allowed in four categories: livestock methane, forestry, urban forestry, and ozone-depleting substances; entities may use offsets for up to 8% of their compliance obligation
Current auction prices: ~ $2.00	Current auction prices: ~$13.50; offset values are estimated to lag allowance prices by about 25%

Among farm digester project developers, interest in the California market is guarded. Agricultural methane capture and destruction is one of just four approved offset categories. The demand for these offsets could become strong, and the rules allow projects from any state to participate. On the other hand, the costs for monitoring equipment can be significant, $15,000 or more for start up, with similar sums every year for verification and registration. These monitoring and transaction costs will tend to favor projects with larger livestock numbers (1,500+ dairy animal units, or AUs). To date, 60 existing digester projects have listed with the Climate Action Registry—a first step to participation in the California market. Of these projects, 36 have registered more than 800,000 verified carbon credits.

Conclusions:

Values for carbon (i.e., GHG reductions) can be observed in the marketplace and measured in terms of market goodwill or as prices for environmental attributes or carbon credits from voluntary and compliance markets.

Developers of smaller farm digester projects (<1,500 AUs) may find their best value through utility-based incentive programs or through participation in voluntary carbon markets.

Developers of larger farm digester projects (>1,500 AUs) should explore the potential costs and benefits of registering to participate as an offset project in the California carbon market.

Future Plans

The WSU Energy Program will continue to monitor market developments related to this topic and encourage livestock producers to consider methane capture and anaerobic digestion as means to control odors, manage nutrients, and produce valuable biogas resources.