Feedlot Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator

logoThere are several techniques that animal feeding operation owners and managers can use to manage odors and gas emissions. Each technique has different costs and benefits. The Feedlot Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator is a tool that can be used to compare alternative technologies and designs with different costs and benefits. The calculator has information on biofilters, covers, scrubbers, manure belts, vegetative buffer and anaerobic digesters.

This spreadsheet tool is intended to assist the operator of a livestock or poultry operation to calculate the costs and benefits of installing technologies to treat odors and gases that could be emitted from the facility.

Download the Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator

The tool requires Excel 2007 or later versions. Download the spreadsheet. Note: This is a spreadsheet with active macros. Depending on your security settings, you may have to tell your spreadsheet program that it is OK to open it. The four videos below provide instructions on how to use the decision tool.

Instructional Videos for the Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator

Four videos below describe the cost calculator and how to use it.

Introduction

Biofilters and Covers

Scrubbers, Manure Belts, Buffers, Digesters

Benefits and Summary

Acknowledgements

Additional materials in this series (videos):

The Feedlot Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator was developed by Dr. Bill Lazarus (wlazraus@umn.edu) in the Applied Economics Department at the University of Minnesota for a multistate USDA funded research and Extension project. The calculator was suggested by stakeholders that included producers and managers of swine, poultry and dairy producing operations, equipment manufacturers and suppliers, human medicine, veterinary medicine, local and state regulators, local and county elected officials, Extension and NRCS.

Supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2010-85112-20520. If you have any questions about the project, contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota, kjanni@umn.edu

How Much Does Animal Mortality Composting Cost?

Composting livestock and poultry carcasses is a cost effective way to manage mortalities on a farm or ranch.

The cost of composting livestock depends largely on the cost of your local carbon source. Sometimes wood chips or shavings can be obtained locally for free from tree removing companies or from local county fair barns and arenas. If building a compost bin, a producer can spend around $50 per bin constructing when using tee-posts and net wire construction. Keep in mind that the carbon source and the bin can be reused for future mortalities.

Check out the other video FAQs on carcass management

Author: Joshua Payne, Oklahoma State University

Reviewers: Shafiqur Rahman, North Dakota State University and Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University

What Is Manure Worth Web Calculator


Livestock producers face uncertain markets and narrow margins

calculatorThis situation motivates growers to optimize production methods, utilizing all resources including manure. In addition, an increase in the price of commercial fertilizer experienced since 2009, has heightened interest in the use of manure for supplying crop nutrients and has significantly increased the value of manure as a nutrient source.

Estimates of the economic value of manure are important in comparing manure application rates and methods, valuing manure for off-farm sale, budgeting new facilities, and evaluating contract livestock production opportunities.

Free Manure Value Calculator

The University of Minnesota has developed a free calculator to rapidly estimate the value of manure for specific manure types, application methods, soil nutrient status, and crop need.

For more information, see the University of Minnesota’s page on Animal Waste/Manure Economics

The estimates are based on fertilizer replacement value and application costs. The manure economic value is calculated as shown below.

Net Economic Impact of Manure = Value of First-Year Fertilizer Replaced (N, P2O5, K2O, and micronutrients) & Fertilizer Application Costs Avoided + Residual Value in the Second Year or Later (if any, this relates to fertilizer nutrients that would have been purchased) +/- Non-NPK Yield Response (and possibly tillage impacts and weed control impacts)

Simple Steps to Evaluate Manure Value

In Step 1, enter current fertilizer (if using no manure) and N, P, K, and micronutrients needs for the crop.

In Step 2, choose the manure source, amount and nutrient content, and application method.

Step 3 considers some final adjustments such as second year benefits, tillage saving and yield boost impact.

Yield and Economic Impact of Fall Versus Spring Applied Manure on Wheat

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center:

Home Page

All articles about:

Research Summaries

Manure Nutrients

Many questions are asked concerning the right time or the right crop to apply manure.

  • Is there a difference in nitrogen (N) availability if it is applied in the spring or the fall?
  • Is there a difference between crops with early season N demand vs. late season N demand?

To answer these questions a study was initiated at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center in 2008 and repeated in 2009 to determine the impact of fall vs. spring applied beef feedlot manure on hard red spring wheat yield and kernel protein.

Activities

Treatments included; fall applied manure, spring applied manure, spring applied urea N and a check with no N. In 2008, the treatments were applied in a no-till situation and in 2009 the treatments were incorporated with one pass tillage. The treatments were applied to supply 150 lb N/acre after crediting soil residual N. The manure treatments were applied assuming 50% of the total N would be available in the first crop year of application. The fall manure was applied in early-November both years. Spring manure and urea were applied in mid-April both years preceding planting. To decrease N volatilization under no-till in 2008, the urea was applied during a rain event 4 hours before planting. In 2009, the urea was incorporated at the same time as application.

What Did We Learn?

According to Figure 1, the spring applied urea and fall manure treatment had the highest yield. The spring applied manure was significantly less yielding than the urea treatment, but not the fall manure treatment.

Wiederholt spring vs fall manure figure 1.jpg

 

As shown in Figure 2, the urea treatment also had the highest level of kernel protein percentage. The remaining three treatments were all statistically similar and significantly less than the urea treatment.

Wiederholt spring vs fall manure figure 2.jpg

 

 

Economics

To provide an economic perspective, nitrogen prices were factored into this study. Area fertilizer dealers provided urea price quotes that equated to $0.45/lb of available nitrogen. An $0.11/lb value of manure nitrogen was determined from manure fertility analysis combined with the cost of hiring a custom manure operator to haul and apply the manure at the Carrington Research Extension Center. The nitrogen input costs were $67.50/ac for urea and $16.50/ac for manure treatments, respectively. Costs associated with urea application were not included since it is often combined with other field operations.

Figure 3. Dollars netted from different nitrogen sources applied on spring wheat.

 

Gross income was determined by multiplying the price of a bushel of wheat (discounted for protein) by the yield for each treatment. By producing the most and highest quality wheat, the urea treatment grossed the highest at $273.60/ac for 48 bu/ac at $5.70/bu. Gross income on the fall-applied manure treatment was $243.00/ac for 45 bu/ac at $5.40/bu, and the spring-applied manure treatment grossed $198.00/ac for 40 bu/ac at $4.85/bu. The untreated check grossed $141.00/ac for 30 bu/ac at $4.80/bu.

Although the urea treatment grossed the most money the urea nitrogen bill was more than four times greater ($67.50/ac) than the manure treatments ($16.50/ac). Calculating the net return (market price less nitrogen costs) on the use of the fertilizer shows fall-applied manure ($226.50/ac) netted the most with traditional urea ($206.10/ac) second, followed by spring-applied manure ($181.50/ac). The untreated check ($141.00/ac) was last (Figure 3).

Discussion

After two years with different weather conditions, wheat response to manure assuming 50% availability was not as favorable as urea. Manure N needs to be converted by soil bacteria or fungi from an organic to an inorganic form to be available for plant uptake. Wheat is a short season crop with high N demand early in the growing season. Therefore, N mineralized from manure at rates assuming 50% availability may not be available soon enough for the quickly developing wheat crop.

Manure application studies conducted at the Carrington Research Extension Center using corn as the target crop have shown no differences in yield when manure or commercial N was used assuming manure N availability calculated at 50%. Several things happen that may impact the wheat vs. corn response to manure. Assuming 50% of the total N in manure is available for crop uptake in year 1 of application may not meet wheat N needs. More research is needed to determine what plant available N percentage assumption is needed for wheat and other short season cereal grains. Secondly, the spring weather conditions in both 2008 and 2009 were significantly cooler than the average ND spring weather. Since manure N mineralization is driven by biological processes, the cooler than average temperatures may have had more impact on N availability than is typical.

However, while urea out produces manure when only yield is considered, fall-applied manure can return a greater profit per acre because of its cost effectiveness. Producers who do apply manure as a fertilizer for spring wheat, may want to apply a low rate of commercial N fertilizer at planting to maximize yield and return. As a side note, fall manure applications produce higher yields and better quality spring wheat than spring-applied manure.

Authors

Ron Wiederholt and Chris Augustin, NDSU Nutrient Management Specialists
Carrington Research Extension Center, Carrington, ND

This research summary is not peer-reviewed and the authors have sole responsibility for the content.

Manure Use for Fertilizer and Energy: June 2009 Report to Congress

Animal manure can be used as a fertilizer, and it can improve soil quality. Manure can also be used as a feedstock for energy production. But excessive concentrations of manure, either in storage or in land application, can create environmental risks, and farmers are facing increased regulation of their manure management practices.

This web page summarizes the findings of an USDA Economic Research Service publication, Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy : June 2009 Report to Congress.

What Is the Issue with Animal Manure?

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 directed the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a study that would evaluate the role of animal manure as a source of fertilizer, and its other uses. The study was to provide:

  1. determination of the extent to which animal manure is utilized as fertilizer in agricultural operations by type (including species and agronomic practices employed) and size;
  2. an evaluation of the potential impact on consumers and on agricultural operations (by size) resulting from limitations being placed on the utilization of animal manure as fertilizer; and
  3. an evaluation of the effects on agriculture production contributable to the increased competition for animal manure use due to bioenergy production, including as a feedstock or a replacement for fossil fuels.

Livestock manure has value as a fertilizer and as an energy source. Photo courtesy USDA NRCS.

Animal manure is used as a crop fertilizer and soil amendment, but it can pose environmental risks when stockpiled or applied in excessive amounts. Federal, State, and local governments have responded to the environmental risks with regulations and conservation programs, and some State and local governments have also initiated lawsuits against livestock operations, claiming damages to water resources from manure. Efforts to comply with regulations impose costs on certain livestock operations and will likely lead to changes in manure use on those operations.

There is also increasing interest in using manure for energy production. Methane can be captured from the biogas in manure and burned for electricity generation, while manure can also be burned directly as a feedstock in combustion processes. This report assesses current patterns of use of manure as fertilizer and evaluates the likely impacts of emerging environmental regulations on manure use. The report also assesses current efforts to use manure for energy production and evaluates the impact of bioenergy investments on manure’s use as fertilizer.

What Did the Study Find?

Manure Nutrient Use

About 15.8 million acres of cropland, equivalent to about 5 percent of all U.S. cropland, are fertilized with livestock manure. Corn, which is planted on about one-quarter of U.S. cropland, accounts for over half of the land receiving manure. Patterns of manure use are driven by the agronomic needs of crops and by transport costs, which limit the distance that manure can be moved and create close links between types of livestock and certain crop commodities. Each favors the application of manure to corn.

Most manure applied to corn comes from dairy and hog operations. Manure from poultry and cattle feedlot operations is drier and less costly to transport, and is therefore often removed from the farm and shipped to other operations. Because broiler production is concentrated in the southern United States, crops like peanuts and cotton rely heavily on broiler manure when they use manure fertilizers.

The value of nutrients in this manure will vary with supply and demand. Photo courtesy Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska.

Large livestock operations are increasingly required to have nutrient management plans, which require balancing nutrient applications with the nutrient utilization of crops. Compliance with the plans can raise farm costs. Estimated costs vary sharply with the degree to which excess manure needs to be disposed of and the willingness of nearby farmers to accept manure for application to their cropland. A low willingness to accept among nearby farmers means that livestock producers will need to transport excess manure much farther for crop application. With a limited willingness to accept manure (defined as 20 percent of nearby farmers), we estimated that production costs, including those for manure management, would likely rise by 2.5-3.5 percent for large operations.

Such increases are unlikely to alter the emerging structure of livestock production, where large operations have substantial cost advantages over small operations. They are also unlikely to lead to substantial declines in production and consumption; the resulting percentage retail price changes would be less than the cost changes noted above because farm costs are only a fraction of retail costs, and retail demand for meat and milk is relatively insensitive to price changes. As a result, expanded regulation through nutrient management plans will likely lead to wider use of manure on cropland, at higher production costs, with little impact on the size structure of farming operations.

Manure-to-Energy Use

Manure-to-energy projects are not currently in widespread use. Digester systems, including those planned or in construction, cover less than 3 percent of dairy cows and less than 1 percent of hogs. The single operating combustion plant utilizes litter from 6.6 percent of U.S. turkey production, while an idled plant in California could utilize manure from about 3 percent of fed cattle.

This anaerobic digester produces energy from livestock manure. Photo courtesy Bill Lazarus, University of Minnesota.

Manure-to-energy projects may allow farmers to realize benefits from avoided purchases of electricity, from selling electricity, or from selling manure to generating plants, but few realize enough savings to justify the expense. But because such projects use existing resources, they could provide society with benefits if manure replaces newly mined fossil fuels in energy production, and if methane, a greenhouse gas, can be captured. Those societal benefits have led to proposals to support manure-to-energy projects through State utility mandates (to purchase electricity from farms and to invest in renewable production sites), through subsidies for capital costs, and through direct subsidies and credits for energy production. Expanded support could lead to a substantial growth of energy applications for manure.

Currently envisioned manure-to-energy projects are not likely to impose substantive constraints on the use of manure as fertilizer. Many of the nutrients that are beneficial to crop growth remain after energy production. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nutrients remain in the effluent of the digester process, to be spread on fields. Combustion processes do consume the nitrogen nutrients in manure, but leave phosphorus and potassium in an ash residue that, because of its concentrated form, is less costly to transport than raw manure. In addition, manure-to-energy projects function in markets for fertilizer and energy, and will be most economic in those areas in which the acquisition costs of manure are lowest. In turn, manure acquisition costs will be lowest where manure is in excess supply, with the least value as fertilizer.

Additional Reading About Manure for Fertilizer and Energy

Author

James MacDonald, chief of the Agricultural Structure and Productivity branch in USDA’s Economic Research Service, Resource and Rural Economics Division, macdonal@ers.usda.gov

Air Emission and Energy Usage Impacts of No Pit Fans in a Wean to Finish Deep Pit Pig Facility

What Is Being Measured?

The objectives of this research project are to monitor the indoor air quality of a deep-pit; wean-to-finish pig building over one pig-growth cycle (six months) by semi-continuously measuring concentrations of ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and intermittently measuring particulate matter (PM10) and odor. The project will also monitor semi-continuous emissions of NH3, H2S, CO2, CH4, and VOCs plus intermittent sampling of odor emissions from the barn’s pit and wall exhaust streams over the six month growth period. Energy usage, both electrical and LP gas usage will be measured for both pit and non-pit ventilated rooms over the pig growth, along with pig performance (daily gain, feed efficiency, and death loss) between the rooms.

Current Activities

A cooperating pork producer is being located in southern Minnesota with a tentative starting date of July 1, 2008 for data collection.

Does the Use of Pit Fans Make a Difference in Air Emissions from Deep-Pit Pig Barns?

Air emissions from tunnel ventilated pig finishing barns have been monitored and partitioned between pit and wall fans during the past two years in Minnesota. The results showed that a disproportionate amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) emissions were emitted from the deep pit finishing barn through pit fans even though it was concluded that “pit” ventilation has little effect on the barn’s indoor air quality (figure 1). Thus producers might be able to reduce emissions of these hazardous gases and the associated odor of these gases simply by limiting or not using pit ventilation fans. Such a strategy would save electrical energy use since larger more efficient wall fans could replace the less efficient pit fans.

Figure 1. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from a 1200 head pig finishing barn with varying pit ventilation rates during a winter (January 26 to March 4, 2006) period. Contributed to eXtension CC2.5

Why is This Important?

Data collected from the deep pit facility will be used to determine the benefit of pit fans to indoor air quality in swine wean to finish buildings and what impact the use of pit fans has on energy usage and gas, odor, and particulate matter emissions from this stage of pork production buildings .

For More Information

Jacobson, L.D., B.P. Hetchler, and D.R. Schmidt. 2007. Sampling pit and wall emission for H2S, NH3, CO2, PM, & odor from deep-pit pig finishing facilities. Presented at the International Symposium on Air Quality and Waste Management for Agriculture. Sept 15-19, 2007. Broomfield, CO. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE

Authors: Larry D. Jacobson, David Schmidt and Brian Hetchler, University of Minnesota

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Protocol for Determining the Cost/Benefit of a Manure Storage Lagoon Cover

Do Manure Storage Covers Pay?

A protocol was developed to determine the cost/benefit of installing a cover over a manure storage structure. Included are a discussion on the cost and selection of the cover, a procedure to determine the feasibility of biogas production and capture, the technique to estimate the dilution of the slurry resulting from precipitation, and tools to estimate ammonia emissions, thereby predict the increase in nitrogen content and the savings from reduced fertilizer hauling. By considering the combination of all of these factors, the payback period can be calculated.

Current Activity

The protocol has been developed and a case study was performed. A manuscript is in preparation.

What We Have Learned

Techniques to identify the items that determine the cost and benefit have been researched and refined for the protocol. Based on a sensitivity analysis a crucial benefit is the savings associated with keeping precipitation out of the manure thus avoiding extra hauling costs. As a result, relatively short payback periods can be realized.

Why is This Important

One of the most common practices to store manure is the use of open storage structures. Numerous problems for farmers are created by the open structure including ammonia loss, methane emissions, odor complaints, and increased hauling of manure slurry. Covering a lagoon offers substantial environmental benefits and can save farmers money.

a lagoon cover recently installed on a dairy farm

For More Information

Steve Safferman
Michigan State University
Biosystems Engineering
202 Farrall Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824

This report was prepared for the annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Odor Mitigation Using Vegetative Environmental Buffers Research Summary

Why Study Trees for Controlling Odors from Livestock and Poultry Buildings?

The objective of this research is to evaluate the bio-physical, economic and social efficacy of the use of Vegetative Environmental Buffers (VEBs) – purposefully planted linear arrangements of trees and shrubs – to incrementally mitigate livestock and poultry odor. Our research has demonstrated that tree barriers can help impede, alter, absorb, and/or dissipate livestock odor plumes and other emissions prior to contact with people. As air moves across vegetative surfaces, leaves and other aerial plant surfaces remove some of the dust, gas, and microbial constituents of airstreams. Trees and other woody vegetation also enhance localized air dispersion by increasing mechanical turbulence. Our research program into the efficacy of VEBs involves a multi-disciplinary, multi-species and multi-analytic perspective. Related: Archived webcast on “Trees, Shelterbelts, and Windbreaks for Mitigating Livestock and Poultry Odors

Activities

The efficacy of VEBs in mitigating livestock and poultry odor is being examined from a three- pronged perspective measuring efficacy in:

  1. field measured bio-physical terms (e.g. physical reductions in downwind movement of particulates, odor and ammonia and long-term tree health)
  2. financial feasibility terms at the farm-level (e.g. total costs of VEB establishment and maintenance vs. producer willingness to pay), and
  3. in terms of social approval of the use of VEBs (e.g. evaluation of the impact of VEBs on production site aesthetics and consumer willingness to pay for environmentally friendly meat products).

The quantification of physical odor mitigation via the use of VEBs is approached with field trials using full size VEB systems (multiple rows of trees) at working poultry and swine facilities as well as using scale models of these facilities for wind tunnel examinations and advanced computer simulation.

Custom rate financial data has been collected and applied to a range of livestock facilities (e.g. differing VEB designs, production scale, etc.) to calculate typical upfront and long-term costs. Producer willingness to pay has been determined via multi-state producer surveys. Social opinion data was collected via multi-state consumer focus groups (utilizing photo elicitation techniques) and a series of integrated social surveys.

Can Trees Reduce Odor Movement?

Baseline physical data suggests that VEBs can contribute up to a 10% reduction in the movement of odor downwind. The technology broadly applied at the farm level seems to be financially feasible to most swine producers – with total costs ranging from $0.01 to $0.33 per pig produced; these costs by and large being well below maximum producer willingness to pay for the use of VEBs. And social surveys in IA and NC show strong social support and appreciation of the use of trees for air quality purposes with strong social agreement that VEBs improve the aesthetics of confinement production.

Why is This Important?

Affordable, tertiary odor mitigation technology with the added benefit of being socially acceptable is a strong compliment to any comprehensive manure management program at production sites .

For More Information

Author: John Tyndall, Iowa State University

Visit the Iowa State University vegetative environmental buffers website.

Read the following article: Tyndall, J.C. and J.P. Colletti. 2007. Mitigating Swine Odor with Strategically Designed Shelterbelt Systems: A Review. Agroforestry Systems. Volume 69, Number 1/January, 2007.

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Manure as a Source of Crop Nutrients and Soil Amendment

What Is Manure Worth Compared to Commercial Fertilizer?

Animal manure is considered an agricultural commodity that can be utilized as a fertilizer source for pastureland, cropland and hay production. Manure is recognized as an excellent source of the plant nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). In addition, manure returns organic matter and other nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and sulfur to the soil, building soil fertility and quality.

Any financial valuation of manure would be dependent on the market value of the N, P, K, and other plant nutrients that the manure is replacing, organic matter as a soil amendment, and the nutrient needs of the crops and fields receiving the litter.

The nutrient content of manure will vary depending on animal type and diet, type and amount of bedding, manure moisture content, and storage method. For more information, see the Clemson University publication Livestock Manure Production Rates and Nutrient Content.

Buyers and sellers should have a lab analysis to determine moisture and nutrient concentration of the manure. Generally speaking, liquid manures will contain a lower nutrient content than solid manures, due to the dilution effect. Assuming all nutrients are needed by the crop, higher manure nutrient content corresponds to higher manure value. Higher values help to offset transportation and handling costs.

truck

CC2.5 LPELC

Manure Composition

Nitrogen in Manure

Nitrogen in manure is found in the organic and inorganic forms. The organic form (slow release) slowly mineralizes providing plant-available N, while inorganic forms (fast release) consist primarily of NH4-N and are immediately plant available. However, inorganic forms are also susceptible to loss through ammonia volatilization during storage and field application. Promptly incorporating the manure into the soil can reduce these N losses. Due to the slow release organic form and potential losses of the inorganic form, not all of the N is available to the crops during the year of application. Nitrogen that is expected to be available to the plant has value as a fertilizer. The N which is lost to the environment or which is not available to the crop in the year it is needed or subsequent years does not have value. The guide “Fertilizer Nutrients in Animal Manure” provides information on the amount of N expected to be available in the 1st year and subsequent years from various manure sources:

Phosphorus and Potassium in Manure

Phosphorus and Potassium in manure are mostly present in the inorganic form. This means that P and K are similar to commercial fertilizer in that they are readily available for plant uptake. Most nutrient management plans are based on a P-Index or P-threshold which may limit manure application on some fields. Therefore, the value of these nutrients is based on crop nutrient needs as determined by a soil test and yield goal.

Micronutrients in Manure

Other nutrients such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulfur (S) may be found in manure and are beneficial to the soil if a deficiency exists. Both Ca and Mg create an added value by producing a liming effect when added to the soil.

Organic Matter

Organic matter, primarily undigested feed and bacteria in the feces, increases infiltration of water, increases water holding capacity, enhances retention of nutrients, reduces wind and water erosion and promotes the growth of beneficial organisms when added to the soil. Although the value of organic matter is hard to quantify, higher quality soils are associated with increased yields and higher economic returns.

Manure As a Plant Fertilizer

Because manure is not a balanced fertilizer, some plant nutrient needs may be met while other nutrients may be under- or over-supplied. Any nutrient that is undersupplied by a manure application could incur a subsequent fertilizer application cost which would, in effect, lower the net value of the manure. Any nutrient that is oversupplied by a manure application would not have immediate value because it was not needed by the crop.

Additional Links

Authors: Josh B. Payne, Oklahoma State University and John Lawrence, Iowa State University

Reviewers: Ray Massey, University of Missouri and Kelsi Bracmort, NRCS

Business Arrangements for Manure Offsite Transfer

Why Are Business Agreements Important?

Regardless of whether manure will be land applied for crop production, composted for use in nurseries, or used to generate methane, if the manure moves out of the business where it was produced, a business arrangement has been used. Business arrangements need two willing participants, a way that they can meet, agreed on terms and price, and a document spelling out expectations and responsibilities.

Local Arrangements for Manure Marketing

Often the manure producer will merchandise manure locally by contacting crop producing neighbors that need a source of nutrients. Even among neighbors it is important to get the agreement in writing to assure that both parties understand the responsibilities, application rates and manure price. This sample form for a manure agreement provide a framework for negotiations between buyers and sellers of manure. In addition to negotiating application rates and prices, it is also important for the livestock producer to secure the land for manure application as part of his/her manure management plan. An easement is a tool for legally securing land for manure application. The easement defines the rights and terms of the agreement and it “goes with the land” such that if the land is sold, the livestock producer still has a right to apply manure to the land. Here are two publications about manure easements and agreements.

Marketing Manure Over a Larger Area

If the local supply and demand for nutrients are such that the manure producer needs to consider a broader geographic area he may then look to other methods of reaching manure buyers. These methods may include brokerage services or market finder services. Manure brokerage services are fairly common in poultry sectors because firms often specialize in litter removal and bedding replacement as a service to the building owner. These firms then merchandise the litter to land owners or tenants as fertilizer and/or soil amendment. Some states or regions are also establishing market finder websites for manure buyers and sellers. Brokers are often frequent users of these sites, but not exclusively. Examples include:

If regions have a manure surplus and manure must be transported further it is often necessary to reduce the moisture of the manure to reduce transport costs. One program, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, offers a Composted Manure Incentive Project.

The EPA and USDA are encouraging market based incentive programs to help improve water quality in agriculture by developing a Water Quality Credit Trading Agreement. EPA has a website with information about water quality trading, FAQs, and a map of existing programs and an online presentation. One example of environmental credit trading is in the Chesapeake Bay region including an example of nutrient trading for agriculture.

Nutrient trading programs are complex and must involve parties with excess nutrients and individuals that can make environmental improvements at lower cost than the excess nutrient parties. However, if well functioning markets for nutrients do not remove enough nutrients from a watershed, water quality trading credits may be a viable option. Often the value of manure nutrients as fertilizer is a sufficient incentive to encourage offsite movement of manure. It may be necessary to help fledgling markets evolve by getting buyers and sellers together, but typically profit minded farmers or service providers will put manure where it has the greatest economic value.

Page authors: John D. Lawrence, Iowa State University, and Raymond E. Massey, University of Missouri

Page reviewers: Kelly Zering, North Carolina State University and Josh B. Payne, Oklahoma State University