Dairy farmers in Washington state have been under significant pressure to reduce their carbon footprint in recent years. Dairy cooperative sustainability initiatives such as achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 have left many producers wondering what will be required of them to help their cooperatives meet this goal. Coupled with regulatory pressures to report on their greenhouse gas emissions and the threat of regulation to reduce them, uncertainty remains for producers around the types of climate-smart practices that will enable them to reduce their carbon footprint while remaining economically viable.
Without a thorough understanding of the costs and risks, pressures, or requirements to implement climate-smart practices may inadvertently drive consolidation and the accelerated loss of small to medium sized farms.
What Did We Do?
Utilizing Washington state dairy facility data, I conducted an economic cost benefit analysis of two climate-smart practices that capture GHGs from anaerobic storage: anaerobic digestors and the covered lagoon and flare system and the size of operation needed to implement both practices based on current and historic market conditions and technology costs. Private and public investment in climate-smart practices can have a substantial impact on whether they are economically feasible for producers to implement. I considered the impacts of various levels of cost-share on the size of farm able to adopt the technology based on several economic indicators.
What Have We Learned?
Most dairy farms cannot simply raise their prices to offset the costs of climate-smart practices, therefore it is critical to understand the broad economic impacts of imposing emissions reductions mandates. With consolidation being a well-documented trend across dairy farms in the United States, it is possible that climate regulations will only further exacerbate this trend due to the high capital costs and market risk associated with climate-smart farming that only facilities of scale can take on.
Future Plans
I am actively assisting research right now in Washington state with university and private researchers into dairy farm carbon intensities, across various farm sizes and facility types. An overview of this research may be available by Summer of 2025. Once this work is completed, we will have a better understanding of overall farm emissions and what climate-smart practices may be necessary for farms to implement to help achieve cooperative net zero targets.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Nina Gibson, Agricultural Economist and Policy Specialist, Washington State Department of Agriculture, KGibson@agr.wa.gov
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The safe and biosecure disposal of livestock mortalities is a vital concern for livestock producers and the environment. Traditional on-farm livestock disposal methods include composting and land burial, with burial posing environmental risks if leachate generated during carcass decomposition moves through the soil profile to reach groundwater. A 1995 study on the groundwater quality around six poultry mortality piles found elevated concentrations of ammonia and nitrate in the surrounding wells, demonstrating the risk of water contamination from carcass disposal (1). Moreover, the risk of disease transmission to nearby animal facilities associated with an outbreak and large mortality event, particularly due to a foreign animal disease outbreak, dictates that on-farm mortality disposal be conducted in a way that contains and eliminates pathogenic organisms. In the case of a large mortality event, landfills or rendering facilities may not have capacity to receive mortalities or they might refuse to accept them.
On-farm methods accepted in most states include land burial, composting, and incineration. While burial of mortalities often requires less labor and capital cost than composting or incineration, it comes with unique challenges, namely having sufficient space to bury large quantities of animals, adequate soil structure to contain leachate produced during decomposition, and sufficient depth to groundwater to avoid groundwater contamination. Composting is a valuable method as it can destroy many pathogens because of the heat produced in the process, and the by-product is useful. Some of its downsides include the nuisance odor produced and insects such as flies that often accompany the piles. Incineration, while highly effective at reducing volume of carcasses and disease-causing organisms, relies on access to a portable incinerator and sufficient fuel to operate it (2).
Shallow burial with carbon (SBC) is an emerging method for carcass disposal that combines the more common methods of composting and burial. With this method, a shallow pit is excavated in soil and 24 in of carbon material is placed in the trench prior to placing carcasses. The carcasses are then covered using the excavated soil. A field study comparing performance characteristics of SBC and composting for swine carcass disposal (3) found that SBC maintained thermophilic temperatures that met EPA 503(b) time-temperature standards (4), produced less leachate per unit mass of carcasses, and yielded lower contaminant loads (e.g. E. coli) than compost units, suggesting it may also be a suitable mortality disposal method during a foreign animal disease (FAD) outbreak. Further, SBC is a desirable mortality disposal option because it requires less carbon material than composting and does not require management beyond the establishment of the disposal site.
While the previous field study demonstrated lower leachate production from SBC than composting units, the potential may exist to further limit leachate production by identifying carbon materials with greater capacity to absorb liquid produced during carcass decomposition. The primary purpose of establishing a base of carbon material in SBC or composting disposal units is to absorb leachate released during decomposition, reducing the transport of contaminants to water sources. Therefore, this study explored absorbency of several organic materials for inclusion in SBC or mortality compost piles to reduce leachate losses.
What Did We Do?
Our team identified several alternative organic materials for pile construction including wood chips, silty clay loam soil, corn stover, recycled paper pulp (SpillTech(R) Loose Absorbent), and cellulose fiber (Pro Guard Cellulose Fiber). These were tested alone and in combination with 1% by mass (of base material) of sodium and potassium polyacrylate crystals, and 2-mm water gel beads (ZTML MS brand). Hydrogels (HG), sodium polyacrylate (SP), and potassium polyacrylate (PP) were demonstrated in previous studies to retain water in experimental greenhouses (5).
Five replicates of each treatment were enclosed in 4×6 inch cotton mesh bags (TamBee Disposable Tea Filter Bags, Amazon.com) and weighed prior to being submerged in deionized (DI) water at pH 7 for two hours (Figure 1). Bags were removed from the water and allowed to drain for 5 minutes before being weighed again. The bags were resubmerged for an additional 22 hours after which they were removed, allowed to drain for 5 minutes, and weighed again.
Figure 1. Methodology to evaluate absorptivity of treatments
Five replicates of each combination of base material and absorbent additive were also evaluated using DI water adjusted to pH 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and using 0.01M NaCl to evaluate the effect of pH on absorbency.
The swelling ratio (SR) of each treatment was calculated using the following formula:
SR = Ww – Wd
where Ww is the wet weight and Wd is the dry weight.
The expected water holding capacity (C) was calculated for each combination.
C = SR ⋅ D
Where C is measured in gallons of water per lb of treatment material and D is the density of base material.
The average of the SR value for the five replications of each combination was further used to determine economic feasibility for retaining leachate from a large-scale mortality compost or burial pile. This was done by first determining the average amount of leachate produced from the mortality piles during the preceding year-long field study in eastern Nebraska (6,030 gallons). This was considered the target volume of material held by an alternative material or combination of materials in the economic assessment.
The volume of leachate was converted to mass, and the swelling ratio average values were used to calculate the mass of base material needed to hold the target quantity of water. These values were then used to calculate the total cost (based on pricing from various sellers) to build a pile of each of these materials that would hold the target volume of leachate. Table 1 shows the price per pound of each material tested; the price of the wood chips, corn stover, and soil were estimated based on these sources, though true price will vary based on region and supplier.
Results from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the SR data showed that SR was not significantly impacted by the soaking time or by pH of the soaking solution. The results also showed that only the addition of 1% SP had a significant effect among the three superabsorbent additives when compared to no additive in the same base material. This effect was relatively equal between all base materials. The other super absorbents (1% HG and 1% PP) did not have a significant effect due to the high variability in the results. The most meaningful differences in absorptive capacity were attributed to base material (Figure 2). On average, the swelling ratio of cellulose fiber (no additives, 24-hour soak, pH 7) is 0.577 gallons water/lb base material. For corn stover, this value is only slightly lower, at 0.447 gallons water/lb base material. Wood chips, the material used in compost piles in the preceding study, had much worse results at only 0.188 gallons water/lb base material.
Figure 2. Mean swelling ratios for organic base materials tested (without additives) after 24-hours soaking in water, pH 7. Letters denote significant differences in water holding capacity, error bars show standard error.
The results of the economic analysis are included in Table 2. The corn stover (without super absorbents) emerged as the most cost-effective material, with an estimated $258 total cost of material required to absorb the average amount of leachate observed in a previous yearlong field study that evaluated leachate volume produced from six disposal piles, each containing 20 pigs with a mean weight of 5,826 lb (±90.8 lb). The next most economical option was soil alone ($392) and then corn stover with sodium polyacrylate added ($782).
Table 2. Material cost to retain a leachate volume of 6,030 gallons
Material
Mass Required of Base Material (lb)
Cost
Woodchips
36,425
$ 1,655
Woodchips + SP
36,126
$ 2,993
Corn Stover
14,202
$ 258
Corn Stover + SP
14,060
$ 782
Cellulose Fiber
10,442
$73,085
Cellulose Fiber + SP
10,338
$72,742
Soil
86,462
$ 392
Soil + SP
85,597
$ 3,596
Recycled Paper
27,289
$50,256
Recycled Paper + SP
27,016
$50,766
SP: sodium polyacrylate
Future Plans
To confirm the swelling ratios calculated in the lab are realistic, further testing of the effectiveness of the recommended base construction will be needed at field-scale. Additionally, analysis of evapotranspiration, rainfall, and temperature in the piles should be collected to build a working relationship of the leachate rates to important environmental conditions and provide insight into the variable water quantities that change with geographical location. Combining these measurements with climate information will form a better predictive model for broader applicability.
Authors
Presenting author
Alexis Samson, Undergraduate Researcher, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Corresponding author
Amy Schmidt, Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering and Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, aschmidt@unl.edu
Additional authors
Mara Zelt, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Gustavo Castro Garcia, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Castro, G., Schmidt, A. (2023). Evaluation of Swine Cadaver Disposal through Composting and Shallow Burial with Carbon (poster presentation). ASABE AIM. Omaha, NE.
This project was partially supported by the National Pork Board Award #22-073. The technical assistance of Maddie Kopplin and Josh Mansfield was critical to the completion of this study.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Scheduling conflicts, equipment breakdowns, and wet field conditions can wreak havoc on spring manure application and planting schedules. This webinar will provide valuable insights into maximizing the efficiency and timing of manure application for growing crops, especially corn. By exploring innovative techniques for liquid manure application and the potential for in-season poultry litter application, participants will learn possible ways to navigate challenges in crop management while ensuring nutrient efficiency and maintaining crop yield and quality. This presentation was originally broadcast on January 17, 2025. Continue reading “Application of Manure on Growing Crops”
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent in the environment and in humans. While agriculture is not the source of PFAS, feed and animal production are potential transfer points. This webinar shares experiences from Maine, where PFAS was detected in soil, feed, milk, and meat and initiated a multi-pronged response and remediation approach from multiple agencies, on multiple farms. Our speakers will share the important distinctions between PFAS chemicals, short- and long-term ramifications for local farms, and remediation techniques – both implementation and research scale. This presentation was originally broadcast on December 13, 2024.Continue reading “Responding to PFAS on Dairy Farms in Maine”
The agricultural industry consistently has the highest risk for occupational injuries and fatalities. This session will share some proven techniques for making changes to farm safety practices and manure management that could positively impact generations to come. We will explore dynamic and interactive teaching methodologies that could be adapted for use in at your facility and in your training programs. These methods employ activity-based learning, where participants have the opportunity to learn, apply and discuss real-world scenarios in a safe environment. This presentation was originally broadcast on November 22, 2024.Continue reading “Engaging Farm Safety and Manure Management: Innovative Teaching Methods in Action”
Manure is a valuable source of crop-essential nutrients that, when managed carefully, can help build soil organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, and improve overall soil health and climate resilience over time. In 2022, a statewide on-farm research project was initiated in New York State to quantify the nitrogen (N) replacement value, corn silage or grain yield, and soil health enhancements of various manure sources. Between 2022 and 2023, eleven on-farm field trials were implemented. Yield data are being used to quantify differences in most economic N rate between manured and non-manured strips, and to quantify the yield impact of the manure applications. In 2024, eight additional trials were added using various manure sources. Results so far indicate that manure can offset N fertilizer needs and increase corn silage yield beyond its nutrient contributions, but impacts are field-specific, reflecting differences in field histories and growing conditions. Assessments of soil microbial biomass for sites in 2023 and 2024 reflected the manure history for trial locations and suggest that mid-season assessments may help identify where nitrogen fertilizer addition is beneficial for the crop and where not. Assessment of variability of different manure sources point to the importance of manure sampling and analyses. Preliminary results will be shared. This presentation was originally broadcast on October 18, 2024.Continue reading “Managing Dairy Manure for Increased Soil Health and Forage Production Sustainability”
Agriculture is the largest source of ammonia emissions and contributes to nitrogen deposition which can impact ecosystem health. This webinar introduces the topic of nitrogen deposition and provides an overview of the role of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) in determining nitrogen deposition sources. In addition, the speakers provide an overview of a region being impacted by agriculture related nitrogen deposition and discusses agricultural management practices that may reduce ammonia emissions and nitrogen deposition. This presentation was originally broadcast on September 20, 2024.Continue reading “The Role of Agriculture in Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition: Sources, Impacts, and Management”
Many changes have occurred in the technology, management, and resulting productivity and environmental impacts of United States dairy farms over the past 50 years. Based on research recently published in the Journal of Dairy Science, Dr. Al Rotz will discuss how changes in production have impacted 13 environmental metrics and where improvements can still be made in the future. This presentation was originally broadcast on August 16, 2024.Continue reading “Fifty Years of Environmental Progress for US Dairy Farms”
Have you heard or read about circularity and the circular economy? These buzzwords describe sustainability concepts that are being adopted in many sectors, including food animal production. This webinar shares definitions for these concepts and how they can inform thinking about changes to animal systems and manure management. This presentation was originally broadcast on June 21, 2024.Continue reading “Staying in the Loop: Circularity in Integrated Crop and Livestock Production”
This webinar features theOregon NMPT, an internet-based record keeping and planning tool,and theRuminant Farm Systems (RuFaS) project, which aims to build an integrated, whole-farm model that simulates milk, meat, and crop production, and critical metrics of sustainability from ruminant farms. This presentation was originally broadcast on October 20, 2023. Continue reading “Models & Tools to Improve Manure Management: Part II”
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
