Tag: manure best management practices

Posted on

Methane Emissions from Dairy Cattle

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Diet Modification
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Methane

System Summary

There are a large number of options that can potentially be used to mitigate methane emissions from dairy cattle. The basic result of using these approaches is an improvement in the efficiency of nutrient use in the animal and increased productivity. Methane emissions per unit of milk produced will decrease as a result of these changes. An important component is continuing to improve forage quality. Higher quality forages have higher digestibility in the cow and less methane emissions than lower quality forages. A second approach is to better balance the diet protein and carbohydrate fractions to improve the efficiency of both rumen fermentation and feed nutrient use. Methane emissions will be reduced as a result. There are also opportunities to provide specific feed additives to decrease methane emissions from the cow. Their use is currently limited due to lack of data to demonstrate their efficacy in lactating dairy cows. Ionophores are one feed additive that does have data indicating improved feed efficiency and decreased methane emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

Potential mitigation options include:

  • Improved forage quality
  • Rations balanced to improve efficiency of rumen fermentation
  • Use of ionophores in rations

Limitations

  • Many options will require some financial investment
  • Management changes may be needed
  • Requires a systems approach
  • Feed additives that could be helpful in reducing methane emissions have not been tested in animal trials
  • Cost to benefit ratio cannot be defined for many practices that could be use

Cost

The cost of practices that could be implemented on a dairy farm to reduce methane emissions will be highly farm specific. Each farm will need to evaluate the available mitigation options to determine the best choices for their situation. The costs for implementation will also vary between farms due to differences in their current cost structures. The initial benefits to the farm will be improved efficiency of animal production, efficiency of nutrient use and improved profitability.

Authors

Larry Chase, Cornell University
Point of Contact:
Dr. L.E. Chase, lec7@cornell.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

A Review of Manure Injection to Control Odor and Ammonia Emissions During the Land Application of Manure Slurries

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Dairy, Beef
Use Area: Land Application
Technology Category: Management (manure injection/incorporation)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

Manure slurry injection provides a significant reduction in land application odor and ammonia emissions release when compared to conventional manure surface broadcasting. Release of odor and ammonia during land application can be reduced by more than 90% compared to conventional application methods (Ohio State University, 2007). Manure can be successfully injected in both conventional tillage and no-till systems with currently available equipment. Additionally, slurry tanker wagons currently used for broadcast application can also be retrofitted with Injection tool bars.

Research by Hanna et al., (2000) compared the odor and ammonia emissions from various types of manure injection techniques to slurry that was surface applied (broadcasted). Odor and ammonia tests were run for both fall and spring slurry application. Ammonia was below the detection limit (0.2 ppm) for all but two (measured at 0.6 and 1.3 ppm) of the 72 samples taken. Broadcast application required approximately four to five times more fresh air dilutions than injection to reach the odor threshold (the level at which the odor can no longer be detected) indicating much lower odor release associated with injection.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Injection tools create sub-surface cavities
  • Slurry is injected into the cavity directly behind the tool
  • Injection minimizes slurry exposure to air reducing odor and ammonia volatilization
  • Injection can be used with all slurry and liquid manures

Limitations

  • Injection systems are not currently commercially available for solid manures
  • Injection can require up to 30% more tractor horsepower than broadcast
  • Injection may not be desirable when the producer does not want the soil or crop root system disturbed (forages, pasture/sod)
  • Injection equipment requires more maintenance than broadcast equipment

Cost

Generally, injection is more costly than broadcast application. Injection requires more tractor horsepower and more equipment (injection tool bars). Because tool bars are pulled through the soil, wear and maintenance is greater with injection systems. Cost increases as application rate decreases and distance from the manure storage site increases. The increase in cost as application rate decreases is due to wear on the application equipment. At lower application rates, field speed is increased causing wear (and eventually maintenance) on the equipment to increase. At a 5,500 gallons per acre application rate, commercial drag hose injection cost is currently $.014/gal compared to $.0085/gal for broadcast (Puck, 2008).

Authors

Ross Muhlbauer1, Jeremy Puck2, Ben Puck2, Robert Burns1, 1Iowa State University, 2 Puck Custom Enterprises
Point of Contact:
Ross Muhlbauer, rmuhlbar@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Effect on Residue Cover and Crop Yield of Manure Incorporation Equipment

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Dairy, Beef
Use Area: Land Application
Technology Category: Management (manure injection/incorporation)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide

System Summary

Injection or incorporation application treatments other than broadcast almost always reduce odor during and immediately after application and have a neutral or beneficial effect on crop yield. Although the amount of odor reduction among various injection and incorporation treatments may be similar, the level of surface residue cover reduction is different. For land areas where erosion is a concern operating an application system with no more than an appropriate amount of soil and residue disturbance should be strongly considered. Costs of using injection or incorporation equipment are on the order of $0.001 to $0.003 per gallon applied depending on the type of equipment and annual volume applied. Additional application costs for using injection or incorporation equipment even in the upper end of this range are typically not greater than the cost of a secondary tillage pass. The choice of injection or incorporation style should be strongly influenced by balancing the needs for odor control, residue cover maintenance, and fertilizer placement for the subsequent crop.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Odor is reduced with minimal soil contact
  • Residue cover protects soil prone to erosion
  • Tillage and fertility placement may be beneficial depending on conditions
  • Greater options on flatter fields

Limitations

  • Fragile residue cover is strongly affected by equipment type and usage
  • Reduced residue cover may accelerate erosion
  • Drawbar power required may be increased
  • Needs of odor control, erosion control, and fertilizer placement should be considered

Cost

Factors affecting costs include the initial cost of the application toolbar, annual usage rate, and increased tractor power requirement to pull the injection device. Calculated costs are associated with either a custom annual application volume of 20 million gallons or private application volume of 3 million gallons, 5- (custom) or 15- (private) year equipment life, and application with a double-disc or narrow knife system. Costs of using a double-disc or narrow knife application toolbar are in the range of $0.001 and $0.002 per gallon, respectively, for the higher-volume custom applicator example. Costs are $0.0015 and 0.003 per gallon, respectively, for the lower-volume private applicator example. Costs of using additional tractor power are roughly one-third to one-half of total costs at the smaller annual application volume, but over three-fourths of costs at the higher application volume. Diesel fuel was valued at $3 per gallon. If the pass of a field tillage implement is eliminated (e.g., strip tillage) because of application, costs of injection or incorporation may be balanced by savings in the cost of the tillage pass.

Authors

H. Mark Hanna1, Steven K. Mickelson1, Steven J. Hoff11Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
H. Mark Hanna, hmhanna@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.]

Posted on

Effects of Waste Management Techniques to Reduce Dairy Emissions from Freestall Housing

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Volatile Organic Compounds, Ethanol & Methanol

System Summary

Recent dairy emission research has identified alcohols (methanol and ethanol) as the major volatile organic compound (VOC) group originating from fresh waste (Shaw et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2008). Effective control of these alcohols from dairies will help the dairy industry meet regulatory standards, satisfy public concerns, and improve local and regional air quality. Enhancing industry typical freestall waste management practices, which currently are predominant practices like flushing and scraping of fresh waste, may provide a large impact on mitigation of oxygenated VOC emissions in a cost effective manner.

Our research has shown that flushing is more effective than scraping in reducing methanol (MeOH) and ethanol (EtOH) emissions from barns. Flushing three times daily versus scraping three times daily yields an emission reduction efficiency of 50% for both MeOH and EtOH. Furthermore, flushing frequency by itself significantly reduces emissions. A comparison of 3 times versus 6 times flushing daily showed decreased emissions by 79% for MeOH and 63% for EtOH.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Oxygenated VOC (e.g., alcohols MeOH and EtOH) are produced by fermenting microbes present in fresh waste
  • Frequent waste removal effectively mitigates MeOH and EtOH emissions from fresh waste
  • VOC alcohols are water-soluble and become effectively trapped in water when flushed
  • Flushing is more effective than scraping, and increasing flushing frequency further decreases VOC emissions

Limitations

  • Scraping methods leave a thin film of manure on concrete ground that continues to produce emissions

Cost

There is no cost associated with increasing the flushing frequency of a liquid manure handling system. Essentially, flushing frequency is increased, while the amount of water per flushing event is decreased. Since the water used to flush barns is recycled water from the lagoons, there is no cost to re-circulate lagoon water through the barn alleys.

Authors

M. Calvo, K. Stackhouse, Y. Zhao, Y. Pan, Ts Armitage, and F. Mitloehner, University of California, Davis
Point of Contact:
Frank Mitloehner, fmmitloehner@ucdavis.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Characterizing Ammonia Emissions from Swine Farms in Eastern North Carolina – Part I. Conventional Lagoon and Spray Technology for Waste Treatment

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Anaerobic Lagoon, Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

The conventional lagoon and spray technology (LST), is the current system predominantly used in North Carolina to manage pig waste. It consists of anaerobic lagoons to store and biologically treat pig waste (~99.5% liquid). Effluent from the lagoons is sprayed on surrounding crop fields as a nutrient source. Four distinct components and associated processes of LSTs release NH3 to the atmosphere: (1) production houses, (2) waste storage and treatment systems such as lagoons, (3) land application through injection or spraying, and (4) biogenic emissions from soils and crops

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Anaerobic lagoons used to store and biologically treat hog manure
  • Manure sprayed on crops as source of nutrients

 

Limitations

  • Significant emissions of ammonia, odor and potential pathogens
  • Flooding during extreme weather events

 

Cost

Ten year annualized costs for a “Baseline” LST for a 4,320-head finishing farm using a pit recharge system of manure removal is predicted to be approximately $90 per 1,000 lbs. steady state live weight per year (Williams, 2006. see Table 8a, page 58 – Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. 2006. Phase 3 Technology Determination Report, published by NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 716 pgs, on file with NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center (March 8,2006). Also available at www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/

Authors

V.P. Aneja1, S.P. Arya1, I.C. Rumsey1, C.M. (Mike) Williams21Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State Univesity, 2 Department of Poultry Science, & Director, Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, North Carolina State University
Point of Contact:
Viney P. Aneja, viney_aneja@ncsu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Management of Dairy Operations to Prevent Excessive Ammonia Emissions

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Ammonia emissions data from open-lot and hybrid (combination of free-stalls and open-lots) dairies in the milder climate of southwest US indicated that summer emissions from these facilities were nearly 50% higher than winter emissions. Due to their large surface areas, lagoons and open-lot corrals were the highest contributors of NH3 emissions but little NH3 was emitted from lagoons during the winter months. Within open-lot corrals and free-stalls, NH3 emissions increased with greater manure loading and actively composting manure emitted considerable NH3 even during winter months. While reduction in dietary N intake is known to reduce manure nitrogen content, no information on technologies to mitigate NH3 emissions from these two types of dairy operations is available. Management practices such as frequent removal of manure from heavily loaded areas of open-lots and free-stalls, proper management of lagoons and other manure storage structures, summer irrigation of lagoon effluent during cooler temperatures, and where possible, incorporation or injection of effluent will help reduce excessive NH3 emissions. While frequent scrapping of targeted open-lot corral areas can be achieved without substantial increase in costs, covering lagoons to reduce NH3 emissions will be a very expensive mitigation practice.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia volatilization rate from dairy manure and processes generated waste water exposed to the environment depends upon total ammonium concentration, pH, moisture content, air velocity, temperature etc.
  • The management practices apply to mitigation of excessive NH3 emitting from open-lot corrals, lagoons, and free-stall surface of dairy operations
  • Existing dairy waste management practices can be adopted to reduce excessive NH3 emissions from critical sites at the dairy operation and during effluent irrigation during summer season

 

Limitations

  • Lack of excess fresh or recycled water for frequent flushing
  • Lack of extra storage capacity of retention control structures (RCS) to store additional flushed effluent.
  • Terminating or relocating the composting system out of the dairy operation

 

Cost

Increased frequency of flushing will require more fresh or recycled water as well as a higher storage capacity of an existing RCS or building a new one, adding higher costs to implement this practice. Another substantial cost may be covering large storage and treatment structures such as anaerobic lagoons to reduce NH3 emissions.

Authors

Saqib Mukhtar, Atilla Mutlu, Shafiqur Rahman
Texas A&M University System
Point of Contact:
Saqib Mukhtar, mukhtar@tamu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Managing Animal Production Areas for Mitigating Air Emissions

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center:

Home Page

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of:
Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

Management Practices to Mitigate Air Emissions from Animal Agriculture

Posted on

Litter Management Strategies in Relation to Ammonia Emissions from Floor-Raised Birds

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management, Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Managing floor-raised poultry offers options for providing a suitable environment for the bird productivity and an opportunity to reduce environmental pollution. Reduction of aerial ammonia (NH3) concentration within the poultry house will benefit bird health for improved production and reduce emissions from the building. Three management options are discussed: 1. new bedding every flock; 2. built-up litter; 3. built-up litter with acidifying product.

Indoor ammonia level and emissions are most improved with use of new litter every flock. Adoption of this practice is very limited in the USA. Built-up litter is most common in the USA. Acidifying treatments are applied to built-up litter in an attempt to reduce litter pH below 7 to overcome the substantial ammonia volatilization

Acid treatments have offered variable results under field conditions in reducing in-house aerial ammonia levels and associated emissions. Variable results are due, in part, to reduced ventilation rates to lower supplemental heat expenditures after application of acid treatment. Reduced ventilation fresh air exchange results in increased house humidity and ammonia concentration within the building. Attention to litter pH and aerial humidity after application of acid-treatment should improve results for more consistent aerial environment improvement.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Reducing ammonia during brooding improves bird productivity and lowers emissions to atmosphere.
  • Litter pH below 7 inhibits ammonia production and volatilization
  • New bedding every flock provides ~0 ppm ammonia in-house and NH3 emission for the first week

 

Limitations

  • Acid effectiveness lasts two to three weeks with re-application impractical
  • Affordable sources of suitable new bedding not available in all regions
  • Ammonia held in litter by acid is released later in flock for limited overall flock emissions reduction

 

Cost

Labor cost of implementing new litter every flock is close to the labor (16 hours) for managing built-up litter. Cost of new bedding material every flock may be equal to, but usually greater than acid treatment between flocks. New litter benefit reported here does not account for the savings from reduced energy use during the brooding period (lower ventilation rates possible) and increased bird placement numbers with the improved environment versus flocks raised on acid-treated built-up litter.

Authors

Eileen Wheeler1, Kenneth Casey2, Richard Gates3, Hongwei Xin4, Yi Liang5, Patrick Topper1
1Pennsylvania State University, 2 Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M System, 3University of Kentucky, 4Iowa State University, 5University of Arkansas
Point of Contact:
Eileen Fabian Wheeler, efw2@psu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Water Requirements for Dust Control on Feedlots

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Beef, Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Facility Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Odor

System Summary

Feedlot dust contributes to cattle illness along with potential non-attainment of PM10 emission standards in localized areas of North America. Increasing the surface moisture content decreases the potential for entrainment of PM10 particles during evening cattle activity resulting in improved cattle health and attainment with air quality standard. Individual feedlots vary in capacity, pen density and overall area necessitating educational outreach efforts including one-on-one technology transfer. A computer model was developed to enable feedlot owners to evaluate their particular facilities including the potential water requirements and cost of mitigating dust and other air emissions. The water requirement is estimated based on initial soil moisture, desired final moisture content, surface coverage area, soil wetting depth, sprinkler efficiency and application time. These parameters are used to estimate well capacity, main and branch water pipe size, number of wetting zones based on sprinkler head capacity, application time and nozzle requirements. Pumping requirements are based on application rate, pump efficiency and total head losses. Operational costs are based on an initial investment in the system along with pumping cost. This results in a total cost per head per month based on the fixed and variable cost.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Design sprinkler package for open lot dust control
  • Economic analysis of the dust control system
  • Spreadsheet based model – easy to use
  • Provides quick evaluation of when inputs parameters are varied
  • Estimates daily water requirements per head for dust control

Limitations

  • Results dependent on input parameters
  • Assumes water application is uniform
  • Assumes initial cost of installation of a sprinkler package is known
  • Adequate water availability for dust control

Cost

The cost of dust control on open feedlots ranges from $0.60 to $2.40 per marketed head. The cost of the infrastructure of the sprinkler system or water application equipment is reduced with increases in feedlot capacity or marketed head per year. The fixed cost represents 60 to 80 percent of the annual cost. The variable costs are dependent on the days per year necessary for attainment of PM10 emissions from open feedlots or earthen dry lots commonly found in the High Plains region of the North America.

Authors

Joseph Harner 1, Ronaldo Maghirang1, Edna Razote11Kansas State University
Point of Contact:
Joseph Harner, jharner@ksu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Pennsylvania’s Odor Siting Index

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Beef, Poultry, Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing and Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting and Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

The Pennsylvania Siting Index was developed in response to specific state legislation (PA Act 38 of 2005) in an effort to objectively evaluate locations for new or expanding regulated animal operations, then develop an Odor Management Plan to reduce the potential for community conflict from building and manure storage odors. The goal is to construct livestock operations where community odor conflict potential is minimized. Data from the site and site map are entered into the index and the resulting score indicates the complexity of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that must be adopted for a producer to develop the site. Scores of less than 50 index points do not require BMPs. Scores from 50 to 99.9 index points require “Level 1” BMPs, which are generally standard, industry-accepted practices. Scores greater than 100 points require more costly and complicated “Level 2” BMPs. The index cannot be used to prevent an individual from constructing an operation, nor is it used to mitigate specific air emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Required for new and expanding regulated animal operations in Pennsylvania.
  • Objectively scores sites on a numerical scale.
  • Encourages producers to locate animal operations on sites with a low risk of community odor conflict.
  • Requires odor-reduction Best Management Practices if the index score is high.
  • Requires approved Odor Management Plan and annual operation inspection.

Limitations

  • The index does not measure odors or gasses, nor assess effectiveness of BMPs.
  • Weighting of index scores is based on limited data.
  • Producers may not be required to implement BMPs when the number of surrounding homes is minimal, even if those homes are relatively close to the animal facility.
  • The index does not account for future development around an animal operation.
  • Potential for inversion odor conflict is not included in the index.

Cost

The Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission estimates the cost to producers will be approximately $1120 for an index and associated odor management plan. BMP installation and maintenance would vary, depending on BMP complexity. If producers choose a site with an index score of <50 points, BMPs would not be required thus erasing all BMP costs.

Authors

Robert Mikesell1, Karl Dymond2, 1Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science, 2 Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission
Point of Contact:
Robert Mikesell, rem9@psu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Proudly powered by WordPress