Tag: manure economics

Posted on

Estimating the Economic Value of the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Associated with Dairy Manure Anaerobic Digestion Systems Located in New York State

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

There is a worldwide concern in controlling the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHGs pertinent to this paper, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are measured in CO2 equivalents (CO2 eq.). On a 100-year basis, CH4 is 34 times as potent as CO2, while N2O is 298 times as potent as CO2 (IPCC, 2013); CO2 eq. is referred to as the global warming potential (GWP) of these gases. The carbon from feed used on a dairy farm originally comes from CO2 recently removed from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and so has a neutral impact on climate change. However, carbon that is converted to CH4 and N2O is a significant concern since their GWPs are much higher. Dairy farms create GHG emissions when they use fossil fuel-based sources to provide energy for the farm, when importing fertilizer to grow crops and to harvest milk. However, emissions from the animals in the form of enteric CH4 and GHGs from manure management ! are much more significant due to the GWP. While every farm is different, estimates from Thoma et al. (2012) show that of the 34.9 Tg of CO2 eq. in the US dairy supply chain, 19% comes from feed production and 53% comes from milk production. Of the milk production, CO2 eq., 49% is from enteric emissions while 44% is from manure management, predominately from CH4 emissions from manure storages.

New York State, the third largest dairy state in the nation (NASS, 2015), has established ambitious overall renewable energy goals including incorporating 50% renewable energy in the electricity used in the State by 2030 (Energy to Lead, 2015) and reducing GHG emissions 40% by 2040 based on 1990 year baseline values (Executive Order, 2009). The New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) is charged with the responsibility of developing a system that encourages utilities to help meet these goals. This includes reforming the energy vision, a new clean energy standard that is being developed to value electric products from distributed energy sources that includes an economic value for the environmental attributes (E).

An attempt at quantifying the environmental benefits of AD (E) might be expressed as follows:

Etotal=∑▒〖Eghg+Eair quality+Ewater quality+Esoil quality+E…〗

As the State’s renewable energy goals are realized, there needs to be a way for the process to include special provisions for those renewable energy sources that have extra societal benefits, including economic and environmental, and that support the rural character of upstate NY. The dairy industry is New York’s leading agricultural sector, accounting for more than one-half of the state’s total agricultural receipts. The increased milk supply has been very important in helping to meet the tremendous growth in the production of yogurt in NYS. However, the margin between the cost of producing milk and the price received for milk sales, is shrinking. Investing in farm facilities like ADSs will need to be analyzed carefully to ensure a return on investment that merits their implementation. An economic value for the environmental attributes of electricity produced from an ADS would aid in the analysis, showing a more positive overall benefit.

Dairy farms are also under increasing pressure to improve conditions environmentally. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) proposed revisions for the CAFO state permit, regulating the water quality impact of farms with more than 300 cows, will require manure storages to be built to limit spreading on at-risk fields during the winter and early spring seasons. These are farm sizes where manure-based ADSs have been built in the past and where many more could be implemented, given a reasonable rate of return. Manure storages are an important best management practice (BMP) to reduce the potential for water pollution by allowing farms to avoid manure spreading during inappropriate times. Unfortunately, if the manure system does not have a way to capture the GHGs produced, they are released into the atmosphere. Manure-based ADSs installed on farms would be a win-win-win to capture and reduce GHGs and to produce renewable energy from the captured! CH4, fur thermore helping to meet the NYS renewable energy and GHG reduction goals. ADSs installed on farms would stimulate the rural economy and also provide the farm and rural community with all the additional benefits contained in Appendix A.

This paper presents an analysis of the GHG reduction potential for a NYS dairy manure management system that includes AD, post-digestion solid-liquid separation (SLS) and long-term manure storage of SLS liquid effluent. This system is representative of almost all of the 27 ADSs currently operating on-farm in NYS today.

METHODS

The mass of GHG emission reductions (i.e., the mass of carbon dioxide equivalents [MT CO2 eq.]) associated with AD (in this analysis, AD followed by SLS with liquid effluent stored long-term) located in New York State (NYS), was quantified and is discussed in this paper. The following protocols were used: IPCC (2006), AgSTAR (2011), and EPA (Federal Register, 2009) combined with reasonable input values that are representative of a farm’s baseline condition (long-term manure storage with no pre-treatment by ADS). The reductions quantified include: 1) the replacement of fossil fuel-based electrical energy by using AD produced biogas to operate an on-site engine-generator set, and 2) GHG emissions from CAFO required (for water quality purposes) long-term manure storages. The difference between the baseline condition and the conditions post-implementation of an ADS yields the farm’s net GHG emission associated with manure storage. To quantify the economic value! of the G HG emission reductions, the EPA social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) was used (EPA, 2016).

What did we do? *

PROCEDURE

The baseline condition is represented in Figure 1. Typical liquid/slurry long-term manure storages have manure that consists of urine plus feces, solid bedding and milking center washwater, added continuously as is produced on the farm. A natural crust may form as lighter organic material floats to the surface. The storages are constructed as a designed earthen storage with 2:1 side slopes or fabricated from concrete or steel. The fabricated structures have straight sides so less surface area is exposed. A few storages have a SLS prior to storage, while very few have a manure storage cover. Without a cover, they are exposed to rainfall from both annual precipitation and from extreme storms. To determine the baseline condition, storage with no SLS and with a natural crust was considered.

Figure 1. Baseline emissions from dairy farm with no renewable energy system (per cow, per year)

Figure 1. Baseline Emissions from Dairy Farm with No Renewable Energy System (Per cow per year)

Establish Long-Term Manure Storage Baseline Emissions

Part I – Estimating typical CH4 emissions from a long-term manure storage

An independent panel of experts agreed (USDA, 2014) that GHG emission reductions are best estimated using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) Tier 2 method. For long-term manure storages, the daily methane emissions can be calculated by using Equation 1.

Equation 1. ECH4 = VS x Bo x 0.67 x (MCF/100)

where:

ECH4 = Mass of CH4 emissions (kg CH4/cow-day)

VS = Mass of volatile solids in manure going to storage (kg/cow-day)

Bo = Maximum volume of CH4 producing capacity for manure (m3 CH4/kg VS)

= 0.24 m3 CH4/kg VS (for dairy cow manure)

0.67 = Conversion factor for m3 CH4 to kg CH4

MCF = CH4 conversion factor for the manure management system

Yearly CH4 emissions (kg CH4/cow-yr.) can be estimated by summing the daily emissions (or multiplying an average representative daily emission by 365 days). The MCF is largely dependent on the temperature and the type of manure management system. The MCF will change throughout the year as the manure storage temperature changes. Using a summer ambient temperature representative of Upstate New York, of 18°C (64°F) and a winter ambient temperature of < 10°C (< 50°F), a farm can limit the amount stored and the time in storage during the warmer months to reduce the average yearly MCF. Different manure systems also have a different MCF based on the oxygen levels, interception of CH4 gases, and moisture content.

The two variables that can be controlled by the farm management are the VS loading per cow and the methane conversion factor (MCF). The VS loading rate can be reduced by any pre-manure storage treatment process that reduces the storage organic loading rate; fine tuning the diet to reduce VS in the manure and SLS are examples of two methods used to control the VS.

Typically in NYS, manure is stored both in the summer and winter in a liquid/slurry system with no natural crust. Using average typical winter and summer manure storage temperatures, average MCF values can be used in Equation 1 to estimate average methane emissions for these 6-month storage periods. The MCF values are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical Long-Term Manure Storage Methane Conversion Factors for Storage Periods in NYS1

Storage Period

Winter

Summer
Average Manure Storage Temperature (°C)

<10

18
MCF

17

35

1These numbers are based on liquid/slurry storage without a natural crust cover.  (Source:  IPCC, 2006)

Using these MCF values shown in Table 1 and a per-cow VS excretion rate of 7.7 kg/cow-day (representative of high producing NY dairy cows – ASABE, 2006), manure storages could be estimated to produce 38 kg CH4/cow (for the winter storage period) and 79 kg CH4/cow (for the summer storage period) or an average of 4 metric tons (MT) of CO2 eq. per cow per year since 1 kg of CH4 = 34 kg CO2 eq.

Part II – Estimating typical N2O emissions from a long-term manure storage

There could be N2O emissions from a raw manure storage facility. The CO2 equivalent from N2O emissions can be estimated by using Equation 2.

Equation 2. CO2eq = 298 CO2/N2O GWP x EF3 x N x44 N2O/28 N2O-N

where:

CO2eq = Equivalent global warming potential expressed as carbon dioxide

298 CO2/N2O = GWP factor for N2O

EF3 = Emission Factor for N2O-N emissions from manure management

N = Mass of N excreted per cow per day = 0.45 kg/cow-day (ASAE, 2005)

Using an EF3 value of 0.005 (USEPA, 2009) for long-term storage of slurry manure with a crust and multiplying it by 0.45 kg of N/cow-day and by 365 days per year yields an additional 0.38 MT of CO2 eq. per cow per year from N2O emissions from a long-term manure storage facility.

Summary of long-term storage GHG emissions

Combining both the CO2 eq. per cow per year from CH4 emissions and the CO2 eq. per cow per year from N2O emissions from a manure storage facility provides a baseline emission of 4.38 MT of CO2 eq. per cow per year from the manure storage systems that the NYS CAFO permit requires. These emissions can be mitigated by implementing a renewable energy system including an ADS with SLS of the digestate before storage.

Establish GHG Emissions and Emission Reductions for an ADS

If a manure-based ADS was installed on a farm, it could reduce the GHG emissions from manure management as well as replace fossil fuel use or energy for both the farm and other users. By capturing the CH4 produced, and combusting it for energy or simply flaring the excess, CH4 releases are converted back to the neutral CO2 originally consumed by the animals in the form of feed products. The ADS could help to meet NYS renewable energy and GHG reduction goals, however, farms with an ADS would need to manage the system to minimize leaks. With no incentives to control leaks, the CH4 produced potentially could add to overall farm GHG emissions.

Part I – Estimating typical CH4 emissions and emission reductions

There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration when estimating the GHG reductions that an ADS will provide. Leaks in the ADS can be very detrimental as more methane is produced in an ADS than is emitted naturally from a manure storage facility in the baseline condition. In addition, there are uncombusted CH4 losses from flares and even some from the engine as well. Although every farm system is different, typical values can be determined from the literature, on-farm measurements, and experience.

ADSs designed and built to supply only the quantity of electricity consumed on-farm and to reduce odors may not be as effective as systems designed specifically to reduce GHG emissions. The conservative values in Table 2 could be used to describe these types of systems. ADSs built specifically to reduce GHG emissions in addition to maximizing the renewable energy produced would achieve significantly better GHG reductions. The optimum numbers are achievable, while the obtainable values are based on ADSs that consider GHG emissions and are built to optimize CH4 production.

Table 2. ADS variables that can be controlled by the system equipment, operation, and management

Conservative

Optimum

Obtainable

Reference
Leaks from system (% CH4)

10

0

1

 AgSTAR (2011) and on-farm
Flare Efficiency (%)

90

99

95

 AgSTAR (2011) and on-farm
Engine capacity factor (decimal)

0.85

0.97

0.95

 On-farm measurements
Engine efficiency (%)

38

42

38

 On-farm measurements
ADS Parasitic load

(kWh/cow-yr)

0.30

0.07

0.18

 On-farm measurements
Biodegradability post-digestion (%)

70

50

60

 On-farm measurements
VS left after SLS (%)

60

20

50

 On-farm measurements

The additional societal benefit of this technology can be calculated using EPA’s SC-CO2 of $47.82 as the 2017-2019 average SC CO2 value per metric ton of C02 eq. (at a 3% discount rate) for the methane and nitrous oxide emissions (EPA, 2016).

Part II – Estimating typical N2O emissions and emission reductions for an ADS

An EF3 value of 0 (IPCC, 2006) for an uncovered liquid manure storage describes the typical emission factor from an ADS with SLS since post-digestion there would be no free oxygen, and after solids removal, there would not be a crust forming.

The resulting calculations from the conservative, optimum and obtainable ADS values are shown in Table 3. The fossil fuels avoided are based on the kilo-Watt hours (kWh) produced minus the parasitic load. The uncombusted CH4 from the engine is based on a rich burn engine. The CO2 equivalents from the system leaks and the digestate storage are the major emissions in the conservative scenario, the uncombusted emissions from the flare and the digestate storage are minor emissions from the optimum scenario, while storage contributes the most to the continuing emissions from the obtainable scenario.

Table 3. GHG Emissions from electric production converted with a $47.82 SC-CO2 into a value of E for conservative, optimum and obtainable ADS with solid separation of the digestate before storage.

Units Conservative Optimum Obtainable
Fossil Fuels Avoided
MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

0.70

1.16

0.99
Engine uncommuted CH4 MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

2.5 x 10-3

 3.2 x 10-3

3.1 x 10-3
Flare uncommuted CH4 MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

0.19

0.00

0.03
System Leaks CH4 MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

1.41

0.00

0.14
Storage emissions CH4 MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

2.98

0.50

1.9
ƩCO2eq emitted – FF avoided MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

3.81

0.65

1.06
Baseline MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

4.38

4.38

4.38
Reduction in CO2eq MT CO2 eq/cow-yr

0.57

5.03

3.32
SC-CO2 Benefit $/cow-yr

$27

$240

$149
Gross Electricity produced kWh/cow-yr

1,590

2,229

1,955
Value of E $/kWh

0.017

0.11

0.081

Summary of long-term storage GHG emissions

The obtainable value of E $0.081/kWh, for an ADS with SLS of the digestate could be used to better determine the value of renewable energy in meeting NYS’s goals of reducing GHG emissions, increasing renewable energy, and supporting the dairy industry and the upstate NY economy.

More specific values for each individual ADS could be determined as a more granulated value (i.e., a value based on a more detailed/thorough analysis) through the implementation of NYS’s renewable energy vision. By using a value of E that reflects the actual environmental benefit of an ADS, this would incentivize dairy farms with an ADS to improve their CH4 production to produce more electrical energy. This would also increase the interest of more dairy farms in controlling GHG emissions and producing renewable energy by investing in ADS on their farms.

What have we learned?

ADSs can be used to reduce the manure management generated GHG emissions from dairy farms. With careful management, 3.32 MT of CO2 eq. per cow-year can be credited to the ADS. Using EPA’s SC-CO2 average price during 2017-2019 of $47.82, this could amount to a GHG benefit of over $140/cow-year. At this time, the benefit to society is unrewarded and high costs for ADSs both to construct and to operate, discourage farms from installing them. Working towards New York State’s renewable energy goals, as well as the reduction in GHG emission goals by compensating farms for the societal value of $0.081 per kWh of electricity produced from a well-run ADS would better incentivize farms to both install and operate ADSs to the advantage of the State.

Future Plans

DISCUSSION

ADSs can provide additional GHG reductions by utilizing organic wastes that currently go to landfills or aerobic waste treatment facilities. Some landfills may be able to capture a portion of the CH4 that the organic waste produces as renewable energy, but typically the leaks from a landfill gas recovery system are greater than those of farm-based ADS. NYS has some interest in diverting organic waste from landfills to reduce: the fill rate, the potential GHG emissions, and O&M costs in landfills. The value of the diverted organic waste can be best recovered by society if the energy is recovered through manure-based AD since the nutrients would also be recovered by mixing the food waste with manure, digesting it and recycling the nutrients in the effluent to the land for growing crops.

Nutrients to grow crops that are currently utilized in the form of commercial fertilizer, could be offset by the nutrients contained in a post-digested liquid, which would also reduce the energy and accompanying fossil fuel emissions now emitted when manufacturing commercial nutrients.

Aerobic treatment of organic wastes requires additional energy that adds to the fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide emissions and typically does not recover nutrients. While anaerobic digestion creates renewable energy and preserves nutrients.

Typical ADSs produce a large portion of energy from CH4 as waste heat from the engine(s). Operating a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system in conjunction with an enterprise that would utilize the heat produced, would enable the system to harvest even more renewable energy.

ADSs could improve GHG mitigation efforts if the effluent storage was covered and if the gas collected was included in the biogas utilization system, eliminating any emissions from the effluent storage while producing even more renewable energy.

Farm Disadvantages

Managing a complex and expensive ADS requires dedication and a sophisticated management effort that clearly competes for time with other tasks on the farm. There is the potential to emit excess CH4 if: 1) leaks are not properly controlled, 2) the engine generator, boiler and/or flare are not efficient or 3) if the effluent storage continues to produce uncontained CH4. These can all be compounded if off-site organics are imported to the farm. The existing NYS net metering program makes the current price paid for exported electricity, very low. This reduces the motivation to produce and capture the maximum amount of CH4 from the ADS.

Planning and installing an on-farm ADS takes time to consider the benefits and costs so that a business decision can be reached. Capital costs of ADSs vary, but can range from $4,000 to $5,500 per kW of generation capacity. Operating costs have been estimated at $0.02 to $0.03 per kWh. Much of the capital investment is considered lost capital by lenders. The existing manure management system should be examined to determine any disadvantages from extra solids, contaminants, or dilution. If the successful operation of the ADS depends on tipping fees from imported organics, the reliability and quality of these sources needs to be determined. If electricity is to be sold, the utility should be consulted to determine how/if the distribution lines to the farm can handle what is expected to be generated.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Peter Wright, Agricultural Engineer, Cornell University

Corresponding author email

cag26@cornell.edu

Other authors

Curt Gooch, Dairy Environmental Systems and Sustainability Engineer, Cornell University

Additional information

www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu

Posted on

Early Stage Economic Modeling of Gas-permeable Membrane Technology Applied to Swine Manure after Anaerobic Digestion

 

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

The objective of this study was to conduct cost versus design analysis for a gas-permeable membrane system using data from a small pilot scale experiment and projection of cost versus design to farm scale.

What did we do?

This reported work includes two major steps. First, the design of a small pilot scale batch gas-permeable membrane system was scaled to process effluent volumes from a commercial pig farm. The scaling design maintained critical process operating parameters of the experimental membrane system and introduced assumed features to characterize effluent flows from a working pig farm with an anaerobic digester. The scaled up design was characterized in a spreadsheet model. The second step was economic analysis of the scaled-up model of the membrane system. The objective of the economic analysis was to create information to guide subsequent experiments towards commercial development of the technology. The economic analysis was performed by introducing market prices for components, inputs, and products and then calculating effects on costs and on performance of changes in design parameters.

What have we learned?

First, baseline costs and revenues were calculated for the scaled up experimental design. The commercial scale design of a modular gas-permeable membrane system was modeled to treat 6 days accumulation of digester effluent at 16,300 gallons per day resulting in a batch capacity of 97,800 gallons. The modeled large scale system is 19,485 times the capacity of the 5.02 gallon experimental pilot system. The installation cost of the commercial scale system was estimated to be $903,333 for a system treating 97,800 gallon batches over a 6 day period.

At $1/linear ft. and 7.9 ft./gallon of batch capacity, membrane material makes up 86% of the estimated installation cost. Other installation costs include PVC pipes, pumps, aerators, tanks, and other parts and equipment used to assemble the system, as well as water to dilute the concentrated acid prior to initiating circulation. The annual operating cost of the system includes concentrated sulfuric acid consumed in the process. Using limited experimental data on this point, we assume a rate of 0.009 gallons (0.133 pounds) of acid per gallon of digester effluent treated. At a price of $1.11 per gallon ($0.073/lb) of acid, acid cost per gallon of effluent treated is $0.010. Other operating costs include electric power, labor, and repairs and maintenance of the membrane and other parts of the system estimated at 2% of investment cost for non-moving parts and 6% of investment for moving parts. Potential annual revenue from the system includes the value of ammonium sulfate produced. Over the 6 day treatment period, if 85% of the TAN-N in the digester effluent is removed by the process, and if 100% of the TAN-N removed is recovered as ammonium sulfate, and given the TAN-N concentration in digester effluent was 0.012 pounds per gallon (1401 mg/l), then 0.01 pounds of TAN-N are captured per gallon of effluent treated. At an ammonium sulfate fertilizer price of $588/ton or $0.294/pound and ammonium sulfate production of 0.047 pounds (0.01 pounds TAN-N equivalent), potential revenue is $0.014 per gallon of effluent treated. No price is attached here for the elimination of internal and external costs associated with potential release to the environment of 0.01 pounds TAN-N per gallon of digester effluent or 59,073 pounds TAN-N per year from the system modeled here.

Several findings and questions, reported here, are relevant to next steps in experimental evaluation and commercial development of this technology.

1. Membrane price and/or performance can be improved to substantially reduce installation cost. Membrane material makes up 86% of the current estimated installation cost. Each 10% reduction in the product of membrane price and length of membrane tube required per gallon capacity reduces estimated installation cost per gallon capacity by 8.6%.

2. The longevity and maintenance requirements of the membrane in this system were not examined in the experiment. Installation cost recovery per gallon of effluent decreases at a declining rate with longevity. For example, Cost Recovery Factors (percentage of initial investment charged as an annual cost) at 6% annual interest rate vary with economic life of the investment as follows: 1 year life CRF = 106%, 5 year life CRF = 24%, 10 year life CRF = 14% . Repair costs are often estimated as 2% of initial investment in non-moving parts. In the case of the membrane, annual repair and maintenance costs may increase with increased longevity. Longevity and maintenance requirements of membranes are important factors in determining total cost per gallon treated.

3. Based on experimental performance data (TAN removal in Table 1) and projected installation cost for various design treatment periods ( HRT = 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 days), installation cost per unit mass of TAN removal decreases and then increases with the length of treatment period. The minimum occurs at HRT = 4 days when 68% reduction of TAN-N in the effluent has been achieved.

Table 1. Comparison of installation cost and days of treatment capacity

4. Cost of acid relative to TAN removal from the effluent and relative to fertilizer value of ammonium sulfate produced per gallon of effluent treated are important to operating cost of the membrane system. These coefficients were beyond the scope of the experiment although some pertinent data were generated. Questions are raised about the fate of acid in circulation. What fraction of acid remains in circulation after a batch is completed? What fraction of acid reacts with other constituents of the effluent to create other products in the circulating acid solution? What fraction of acid escapes through the membrane into the effluent? Increased efficiency of TAN removal from the effluent per unit of acid consumed will reduce the cost per unit TAN removed. Increased efficiency of converting acid to ammonium sulfate will reduce the net cost of acid per gallon treated.

5. Several operating parameters that remain to be explored affect costs and revenues per unit of effluent treated. Among those are parameters that potentially affect TAN movement through the membrane such as: a) pH of the effluent and pH of the acid solution in circulation, b) velocity of liquids on both sides of the membrane, and c) surface area of the membrane per volume of liquids; effluent and acid solution, in the reactor. Similarly, the most profitable or cost effective method of raising pH of the digester effluent remains to be determined, as it was beyond the scope of the current study. Aeration was used in this experiment and in the cost modeling. Aeration may or may not be the optimum method of raising pH and the optimum is contingent on relative prices of alternatives as well as their effect on overall system performance. Optimization of design to maximize profit or minimize cost requires knowledge of these performance response functions and associated cost functions.

6. Management of ammonium sulfate is a question to be addressed in future development of this technology. Questions that arise include: a) how does ammonium sulfate concentration in the acid solution affect rates of TAN removal and additional ammonia sulfate production, b) how can ammonium sulfate be removed from, or further concentrated in, the acid solution, c) can the acid solution containing ammonium sulfate be used without further modification and in which processes, d) what are possible uses for the acid solution after removal of ammonium sulfate, e) what are the possible uses for the effluent after removal of some TAN, and f) what are the costs and revenues associated with each of the alternatives. Answers to these questions are important to designing the membrane system and associated logistics and markets for used acid solution and ammonium sulfate. The realized value of ammonium sulfate and the cost (and revenue) of used acid solution are derived from optimization of this p art of the system.

7. LCA work on various configurations and operating parameters of the membrane system remains to be done. Concurrent with measurement of performance response functions for various parts of the membrane system, LCA work will quantify associated use of resources and emissions to the environment. Revenues may arise where external benefits are created and markets for those benefits exist. Where revenues are not available, marginal costs per unit of emission reduction or resource extraction reduction can be calculated to enable optimization of design across both profit and external factors.

Future Plans

A series of subsequent experiments and analyses are suggested in the previous section. Suggested work is aimed at improving knowledge of performance response to marginal changes in operating parameters and improving knowledge of the performance of various membranes. Profit maximization, cost minimization, and design optimization across both financial and external criteria require knowledge of performance response functions over a substantial number of variables. The economic analysis presented here addresses the challenge of projecting commercial scale costs and returns with data from an early stage experimental small pilot; and illustrates use of such preliminary costs and returns projections to inform subsequent experimentation and development of the technology. We will continue to refine this economic approach and describe it in future publications.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Kelly Zering, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Corresponding author email

kzering@ncsu.edu

Other authors

Yijia Zhao, Graduate Student at BAE, NCSU; Shannon Banner, Graduate Student at BAE, NCSU; Mark Rice, Extension Specialist at BAE, NCSU; John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs at BAE, NCSU

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by NRCS CIG Award 69-3A75-12-183.

Posted on

Recovery of Proteins and Phosphorus from Manure

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

*Purpose

The recovery of phosphorus and proteins from manure could be advantageous to both offset costs and to improve and lessen the environmental impacts of manure storage and treatment. Phosphorous in manure can contaminate rivers, lakes, and bays through runoff, if applied onto cropland at excessive rates. Thus, recovering phosphorous from manure can not only help reduce phosphorus loss in runoff, but also reduces the use of commercial fertilizer based upon phosphate rock. Phosphorus mines have limited reserves and viable alternatives for replacing rock phosphate as fertilizer do not exist. Protein is a natural resource used in a wide range of commercial applications from pharmaceuticals to dietary supplements, foods, feeds, and industrial applications.

What Did We Do?

A new method for simultaneous extraction of proteins and phosphorus from biological materials has been developed and is presented.  The experiments used swine manure solids fraction after solids-liquid separation.  From raw manure, wet solids are dissolved in acidic solution and then treated with a basic solution so phosphorus will precipitate and be reclaimed.  The proteins in the washed solids can be extracted and concentrated with ultrafiltration and flocculation.

Test tubes filled with proteins from manure

What Have We Learned?

On a dry-weight basis, it was found that the separated manure solids contained 15.2-17.4% proteins and 3.0% phosphorus.  Quantitative extraction of phosphorus and proteins from manures was possible with this new system. The phosphorus was first separated from the solids in a soluble extract, then the proteins were separated from the solids and solubilized with an alkali solvent.  Both phosphorus and protein recovery were enhanced about 19 and 22%, respectively, with the inclusion of a rinse after the washing. The recovered phosphorus solids had 20.4% phosphates (P2O5).  The protein extract was concentrated using ultrafiltration (UF) and lyophilization to obtain a protein solids concentrate.  UF of 5 and 10 kDa captured all the proteins, but 30 kDa resulted in 22% loss.  The protein solids were converted into amino-acids using acid hydrolysis.  Further, the system was proved effective in extracting phosphorus and proteins from other biological materials, such as algae or crops. The recovered proteins could be used for production of amino acids and the recovered phosphorus could be used as a recycled material that replaces commercial phosphate fertilizers.  This could be a potential new revenue stream from wastes.

Future Plans

Further research will be conducted to reduce process costs and separate the amino acids.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Matias Vanotti, USDA-ARS

Corresponding author email address

matias.vanotti@ars.usda.gov

Other Authors

A.A. Szogi, P.W. Brigman

Additional Information

Vanotti, M.B. and Szogi, A.A.  (2016).  Extraction of amino acids and phosphorus from biological materials. US Patent Application SN 15/350,283. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

USDA-ARS Office of Technology Transfer, Invention Docket No: 080.15, Contact: thomas.valco@ars.usda.gov

Acknowledgements

This research is part of USDA-ARS Project 6082-12630-001-00D “Improvement of Soil Management Practices and Manure Treatment/Handling Systems of the Southern Coastal Plains.”  We acknowledge the field and laboratory assistance of William Brigman and Chris Brown, USDA-ARS, Florence, SC.  Support by The Kaiteki Institute, Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Group through ARS Cooperative Agreement 58-6082-5-006-F is acknowledged.

Posted on

Renewable Energy Set-asides Push Biogas to Pipeline

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Deriving the most value from the harvesting of organic wastes, particularly waste produced through farming operations, can be quite challenging. This paper describes an approach to overcome the challenges of realizing the best value from harvested farming wastes through aggregation. Included in this description is an overview of the first swine waste-to-energy project in North Carolina based on aggregation of the value stream rather than aggregation of the feedstock, or manure. Also included in the description are an overview of the challenges encountered, approaches to overcome these challenges, and the solutions developed for this breakthrough approach that will foster further development of successful ventures to maximize the value derived from recycled farming wastes.

What did we do?

Increasingly, our civilization is turning to bioenergy sources as an environmentally-friendly, sustainable alternative to harvesting long-buried fossil fuel sources to supply our energy needs. As the land that farmers have cultivated for years becomes encroached more and more by non-farming land uses, society seeks innovations to address its concerns for our future food needs produced in a manner that addresses environmental concerns associated with modern food production, including nutrient recovery, water conservation and reuse, and controlling odors and emissions from agricultural wastes and manures. Collectively, these innovations have been described as ‘sustainable farming’ approaches.

North Carolina is a significant agricultural producer, and as such, a large producer of agricultural wastes. This state also became the first state in the Southeast to adopt a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, and is the only state in the U.S. to require a certain percentage of that renewable energy must be generated from agriculture waste recovery, with specific targets for swine and poultry waste. Naturally, the plentiful resources coupled with a regulatory driver for renewable energy worked together to create attention and efforts toward cost-effective and efficient means of supplying our energy needs through organic waste recovery, or bioenergy approaches.

We are only beginning to see a surge in commercial development for the recovery of additional value stream from the waste, such as through the recovery of nutrients, enzymes, and monetized environmental attributes associated with pollution abatement. While manyOptima-KV swine waste to pipeline RNG project forward-thinking farmers have learned that their waste is valuable for supplying renewable energy, it has been unfortunately difficult for an individual farmer to implement and manage advanced value recovery systems primarily due to costs of scale. Rather, it seems, success may be easier achieved through the aggregation of these products from several farms and through the collaborative efforts of project developers, product offtakers, and policy. A shining example of such aggregation and collaboration can be observed from the Optima-KV swine waste to pipeline renewable gas project, located in eastern North Carolina in an area of dense swine farm population.

The Optima-KV project combines, or aggregates, the biogas created from the anaerobic digestion of swine waste from five (5) adjacently located farms housing approximately 60,000 finishing pigs. The Optima-KV project includes the construction of an in-ground anaerobic digester at each farm. The resulting biogas is captured from each farm, and routed to an adjacent, centralized biogas upgrading facility, or refinery, where the biogas undergoes purification and cleaning to pipeline quality specifications. The renewable natural gas produced from this system will be sold to an electric utility subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, and will result in reduced emissions from both the receiving electricity generating unit and the farms, reduced emissions of odors from the farms, and reduced fossil fuel consumption for the production of electricity. The upgraded biogas (RNG) will be transmitted to the electricity generating unit through existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure.

What have we learned?

The innovative design, permitting, and financing for the project is very different than a conventional feedstock aggregation approach, and thus much has been learned. To deliver the RNG to the end user, in this case, multiple contracts with multiple utilities wereGraphic showing how it works required, which presented challenges of negotiating multiple utility connections and agreements. This learning curve was steepened as, at the time of the inception of Optima KV, the state of North Carolina lacked formal pipeline injection standards, so the final required quality and manner of gas upgrading was established through the development of the project.

The project is currently in the beginning stages of construction, and completion is expected by the end of 2017. Given this schedule, the Optima KV project will provide the first pipeline injection of gas – from any source – in the state of North Carolina (all natural gas presently consumed in the state is sourced from out of state).

Future Plans

North Carolina’s potential for agricultural waste-to-energy projects is enormous, given its vast agricultural resources. Combining the potential from agriculture with the bioenergy potential from wastewater treatment plants and landfills, it is estimated to be third in capacity behind only California and Texas. The unique approach to aggregation of value streams from multiple sources, as exhibited by this project, will open the doors for similar aggregation strategies, including the anaerobic digestion of mixed feedstocks such as food waste, poultry and swine waste, animal mortality, fats, oils and grease and energy crops.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Gus Simmons, P.E., Director of Bioenergy, Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A.

Corresponding author email

gus.simmons@cavanaughsolutions.com

Additional information

http://www.cavanaughsolutions.com/bioenergy/

1-877-557-8923

gus.simmons@cavanaughsolutions.com

https://www.biocycle.net/2016/11/10/anaerobic-digest-67/

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Microarthropods as Bioindicators of Soil Health Following Land Application of Swine Slurry


Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

*Purpose 

As producers of livestock and agricultural crops continue to focus significant efforts on improving the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of their systems, increasing the utilization of livestock manure in cropping systems to offset inorganic fertilizer use benefits both sectors of agriculture. However, promoting manure based purely upon nutrient availability may not be sufficient to encourage use of organic versus inorganic fertilizer. The value of livestock manure could increase significantly with evidence of improved soil fertility and quality following manure application. Therefore, understanding the impact of manure addition and application method on both soil quality and biological health is an important step towards improving the value and desirability of manure for agricultural cropping systems.

For edaphic ecosystems, collection, analysis, and categorization of soil microarthropods has proven to be an inexpensive and easily quantified method of gathering information about the biological response to anthropogenic changes to the environment (Pankhurst et al., 1995; Parisi et al., 2005). Arthropods include insects, crustaceans, arachnids, and myriapods; nearly all soils are inhabited by a vast number of arthropod species. Agricultural soils may contain between 1,000 and 100,000 arthropods per square meter (Wallwork, 1976; Crossley et al., 1992; Ingham, 1999). Soil microarthropods show a strong degree of sensitivity to land management practices (Sapkota et al., 2012) and specific taxa are positively correlated with soil health (Parisi et al., 2005). These characteristics make soil microarthropods exceptional biological indicators of soil health.

This study focused on assessing the chemical and biological components of soil health, described in terms of soil arthropod population abundance and diversity, as impacted by swine slurry application method and time following slurry application.

What did we do? 

A field study was conducted near Lincoln, Nebraska from June 2014 through June 2015 on a site that has been operated under a no-till management system with no manure application since 1966. Experimental treatments included two manure application methods (broadcast and injected) and a control (no manure applied).

Soil samples were collected twelve days prior to treatment applications, one and three weeks post-application of manure, and every four weeks, thereafter, throughout the study period. Samples were not collected during winter months when soil was frozen.

Two types of soil samples were collected. Samples obtained with a 3.8-cm diameter soil probe were divided into 0-10 and 10-20 cm sections for each of the plots for nutrient analysis at a commercial laboratory. Samples measuring 20 cm in diameter and 20 cm in depth, yielding a soil volume of 6,280 cm3, were stored in plastic buckets with air holes in the lids, placed in coolers with ice packs, and transported to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln West Central Research & Extension Center in North Platte, Nebraska within 12 h of collection. These samples were then transferred to Berlese-Tullgren funnels for extraction of arthropods, a commonly used technique to assess microarthropods in the soil (Ducarme et al., 2002). A 70% ethanol solution was used to preserve the organisms for later analysis.

The QBS method of classification was employed to assign an eco-morphological index (EMI) score on the basis of soil adaptability level of each arthropod order or family (Parisi et al., 2005). Preserved arthropods from each soil sample were identified and quantified using a Leica EZ4 stereo microscope (Leica Biosystems, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL) and a dichotomous key (Triplehorn and Johnson, 2004). Arthropods were classified to order or family based on the level of taxonomic resolution necessary to assign an EMI value as described by Parisi et al. (2005). For some groups, such as Coleoptera, characteristics of edaphic adaptation were used to assign individual EMI scores.

The impacts of swine slurry application method and time following manure application on soil arthropod populations and soil chemical characteristics was determined by performing tests of hypotheses for mixed model analysis of variance using the general linear model (GLM) procedure (SAS, 2015). The samples were tested for significant differences resulting from time and treatment, as well as for variations within the treatment samples. Following identification of any significant differences, the least significant differences (LSD) test was employed to identify specific differences among treatments. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

What have we learned? 

A total of 13,311 arthropods representing 19 orders were identified, with Acari (38.7% of total arthropods), Collembola: Isotomidae (26.8%), Collembola: Hypogastruridae (10.4%), Coleoptera larvae (1.6%), Diplura (1.2%), Diptera larvae (0.9%), and Pseudoscorpiones (0.6%) being the most abundant soil-dwelling taxa. These taxa had the greatest relative abundance in samples throughout the study and were, therefore, chosen for statistical analysis of their response to manure application method and time since application.

The most significant responses to application method were found for collembolan populations, specifically for Hypogastruridae and Isotomidae. However, Pseudoscorpiones were also significantly affected by application method. Time following slurry application had a significant impact on most of the analyzed populations including Hypogastruridae, Isotomidae, mites, coleopteran larvae, diplurans, and dipteran larvae. The positive response of Hypogastruridae and Isotomidae collembolans to broadcast swine slurry application was likely due to the addition of nutrients (in the form of OM and nitrates) to the soil provided by this form of agricultural fertilizer.

Future Plans   

Research focused on the role of livestock manure in cropping systems for improved soil quality and fertility is underway with additional soil characteristics being monitored under multiple land treatment practices with and without manure.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation       

Dr. Amy Millmier Schmidt, Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Corresponding author email 

aschmidt@unl.edu

Other authors   

Nicole R. Schuster, Julie A. Peterson, John E. Gilley and Linda R. Schott

Additional information               

Dr. Amy Millmier Schmidt can also be reached at (402) 472-0877.

Dr. Julie Peterson, Assistant Professor of Entomology, University of Nebraska – Lincoln can be reached at (308) 696-6704 or Julie.Peterson@unl.edu.

Acknowledgements      

Eric Davis, Ethan Doyle, Mitchell Goedeken, Stuart Hoff, Kevan Reardon, and Lucas Snethen are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance with field data collection. Kayla Mollet, Ethan Doyle, and Ashley Schmit are acknowledged for their assistance with data processing. This research was funded, in part, by faculty research funds provided by the Agricultural Research Division within the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

 

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Comprehensive Physiochemical Characterization of Poultry Litter: A First Step Towards Manure Management Plans in Argentina


Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose 

For the last decade, Argentinian CAFO’s have been increasing in number and size. Poultry farming showed remarkable growth and brought to light the absence of litter and nutrient management plans. Land application of poultry litter is the most common practice, but there is insufficient data to support recommended agronomic rates of application.

In this study, we developed the first comprehensive physiochemical characterization of poultry litter to accurately state average nutrient concentrations and data variability to support development of future litter best management practices. Simultaneously, we estimated the crop fertilization potential of poultry litter in Entre Rios Province.

What did we do? 

Entre Rios Province contributes 51% of total Argentinian broiler production, holding over 2,600 chicken farms. Thus, the Ministry of Agriculture Industry contacted integrated broiler farmers, which all seemed to share a modern production protocol related to housing conditions, feed ration, and bedding management, and who were willing to participate in the sampling project. A sampling protocol was written following recognized literature sources (Zhang and Hamilton) and hands-on training sessions were developed with producers in charge of poultry litter sampling. A total of 55 broiler farms were sampled with 3 replicates per farm.

The following parameters were selected for analysis: organic matter, total nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, organic nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, zinc, copper, electrical conductivity, pH and moisture content. Analytical procedures were stated with a certified local lab following recommended methods for manure analysis. A survey was also conducted at each sampling farm to assess variability on bedding age and material.

What have we learned? 

The average stocking density was 11.3 chickens/m2. The number of flocks grown on the litter before house cleaning ranged from 1 to 11 with an average of 4.7. However, 47.3% of the farms’ litter had less than 5 flocks while 52.7% presented 5 or more flocks. There was no significant correlation between the physiochemical parameters measured and bird density, nor with the number of flocks raised on the litter.

Table 1. Litter Type

Litter Type Farms (%)
Woodchips 50.91
Rice hulls 23.64
Woodchips + rice hulls 21.82
Peanut hulls  3.63

While total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus means were comparable to normal values reported in U.S. literature (Britton and Bullard; Zhang et al.), the variability of data was significant. Table 2 shows a summary of the most relevant analytical results obtained.

Table 2. Physical and Chemical Average Litter Composition (Dry Basis). SEM*: Standard Error of the Mean

  Mean SEM* St. Deviation C.V. (%)
Organic matter (%) 79.13 0.62 4.61 5.82
Total nitrogen (%) 2.96 0.05 0.38 12.86
Phosphorus (%) 0.97 0.04 0.30 30.83
Sodium (%) 0.41 0.02 0.16 39.42
Electrical conductivity (mmhos/cm) 8.63 0.49 3.66 42.48
pH (I.U.) 7.56 0.04 0.31 4.07
Moisture content (%) 31.50 0.63 4.65 14.78

The coefficients of variation were especially high for phosphorus, sodium and electrical conductivity. This could be a critical factor governing poultry litter land application rates that promote neither phosphorus loss via surface runoff nor buildup of salts or sodium in the soil profile.

Raising over 359 million chickens annually, broiler litter value in Entre Rios Province would surpass 51 million dollars if it were fully used as commercial fertilizer substitute. Based upon the average nutrient content, 51,100 tons of nitrogen, 17,100 tons of phosphorus and 23,600 tons of potassium would be available; enough to fertilize 349,000 hectares of corn based upon crop nitrogen requirements whilst a plan based upon phosphorus would supply 629,000 hectares. Other critical factors like storage duration of litter outdoors, land application method, and the availability of litter nitrogen will impact the final calculation of plant available nitrogen (PAN), which is generally assumed to be 50% of TN when surface applied (Chastain et al.). Entre Rios farmers sow around 245,000 hectares of corn annually, hence 71% of the planted area could potentially be fully nitrogen fertilized using broiler litter instead of commercial fertilizer.

These results showed that while there is strong potential for litter land application at agronomic rates in Entre Rios, individual litter samples properly taken and analyzed are still needed to sustain environmentally sound nutrient management plans due to the large variability of the analytical results.

Future Plans    

The information presented will be utilized as input data for developing draft Broiler Farms’ Nutrient Management Plans that will serve as a model for other Argentinian CAFO. Currently, laboratory results from Buenos Aires Province hen farms are being analyzed.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation        

Roberto Maisonnave, President at AmbientAgro – International Environmental Consulting

Corresponding author email   

robermaison@hotmail.com

Other authors   

Karina Lamelas, Director of Poultry and Swine Production at Ministry of Agriculture (Argentina). Gisela Mair, Ministry of Agriculture (Argentina). Norberto Rodriguez, Ministry of Agricultrue and University of Tres de Febrero (Argentina).

Additional information 

Britton, J. and G. Bullard. 1998 Summary of Poultry Litter Samples in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. CR-8214.

J. Chastain, J. Camberato and P. Skewes. Poultry manure production and nutrient content. Poultry Training Manual. Clemson University. http://www.clemson.edu/extension/camm/manuals/poultry_toc.html

Maisonnave, R.; Lamelas, K. y G. Mair. Buenas prácticas de manejo y utilización de cama de pollo y guano. Ministerio de Agroindustria de la Nación Argentina. 2016.

Zhang, H. and D. Hamilton. Sampling animal manure. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. PSS-2248.

Zhang, H.; Hamilton, D. and J. Payne. Using Poultry Litter as Fertilizer. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. PSS-2246.

Acknowledgements       

Dr. Jorge Dillon and Ing. José Noriega (SENASA)

Ing. Agr. Juan Martin Gange and Lic. Corina Bernigaud (INTA)

Ing. Agr. Alan Nielsen and M. Vet. Juan Nehuén Rossi (Granja Tres Arroyos)

Lic. Pablo Marsó (Las Camelias)

Sra. Nancy Dotto (Soychú)

Posted on

Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet and Gaseous Waste Streams: Challenges and Opportunities

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

To provide an initial characterization of the wet and gaseous organic feedstocks available in the continental U.S., and to explore technological possibilities for converting these streams into biofuels and bioproducts.

What did we do?

The Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) of the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned an in depth resource assessment by teams at the the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL). Concurrently, BETO conducted a series of workshops, informed by an extended literature review and several rounds of peer review to ascertain the states of technologies for making biofuels and bioproducts from these resources. These efforts resulted in a January 2017 report that is available here:

https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/beto-publishes-analysis-biofu…

What have we learned?

Terrestrial feedstocks are currently the largest resource generated for the bioeconomy, estimated at 572 million dry tons for 2017 (Billion Ton 2016), and have traditionally constituted the primary focus of the Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO). However, the resource assessment conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab and Pacific Northwest National Lab indicates that wet waste feedstocks (Summarized in Table ES-1) could also make significant contributions to the bioeconomy and domestic energy security goals.

Summary of Annual Wet and Gaseous Feedstock Availability

Table 1. Annual Resource Generation

1 116,090 Btu/gal. This does not account for conversion efficiency.

2 The moisture content of food waste varies seasonally, ranging from 76% in the summer to 72% in the winter.

3 Methane potential. This does not include currently operational landfill digesters (>1,000 billion cubic feet [Bcf] annually) and may double count potential from wastewater residuals, food waste, and animal waste.

4 DDGS = Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles

BCF- Billion cubic feet

When combining the primary waste streams of interest: sludge/biosolids, animal manure, food waste, and fats, oils, and greases, a supplemental 77 million dry tons per year are generated. Of this total, 27 million dry tons is currently being beneficially used (e.g. fertilizer, biodiesel, compost), leaving 50 million dry tons available for conversion to biofuels, bioproducts or biopower. Gaseous waste streams (biogas and associated natural gas) contribute an additional 734 trillion Btu (TBtu), bringing the total energy potential of these feedstocks to over 2.3 quadrillion Btu. Additionally, these streams contain methane, the second most prevalent greenhouse gas, which constituted 12% of net U.S. emissions in 2014 according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory. Thus, there is significant potential to valorize these energy dense streams while simultaneously reducing harmful emissions.

As illustrated by example in Figure ES-1, wet and gaseous waste streams are widely geographically distributed, frequently in areas of high population density, affording them unique current and emerging market opportunities. The size of publicly owned treatment works, landfills, rendering operations, and grease collectors overlay with the largest population centers nationwide. Therefore, when compared to terrestrial feedstocks, these waste streams are largely aggregated and any derivative biofuels, bioproducts, or biopower are close to end markets.

Figure ES-1. Spatial distribution and influent range of 14,581 US EPA 2012 Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) catalogued treatment plants

At the same time, however, this close proximity to populations markets often correlates with more stringent regulatory landscapes for disposal. Therefore, the value proposition presented by these waste streams commonly includes avoiding disposal costs as opposed to an independent biorefinery that requires stand-alone profitability. Aided by these and related factors, public and private entities are actively exploring and deploying novel solutions for waste stream valorization. Potential competition between biofuels, bioproducts, and other beneficial uses will likely be a key element of future markets, and clearly merits further analytical and modeling investigation.

Future Plans

This report concludes that wet and gaseous organic waste streams represent a significant and underutilized set of feedstocks for biofuels and bioproducts. They are available now, in many cases represent a disposal problem that constitutes an avoided cost opportunity, and are unlikely to diminish in volume in the near future. As a result, at least in the short and medium term, they may represent a low-cost set of feedstocks that could help jump start the Bioeconomy of the Future via niche markets. While much modeling, analysis, and technological de-risking remains to be done in order to bring these feedstocks to market at significant scales, the possible contributions to the overall mission of the Bioenergy Technologies Office merit further attention.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Mark Philbrick, Waste-to-Energy Coordinator, Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy

Corresponding author email

mark.philbrick@hq.doe.gov

Other authors

see report

Additional information

Future activities are contingent upon Congressional appropriations.

Acknowledgements

see report

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Manure Management Technology Selection Guidance

Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose

Manure is an inevitable by-product of livestock production. Traditionally, manure has been land applied for the nutrient value in crop production and improved soil quality.With livestock operations getting larger and, in many cases, concentrating in certain areas of the country, it is becoming more difficult to balance manure applications to plant uptake needs. In many places, this imbalance has led to over-application of nutrients with increased potential for surface water, ground water and air quality impairments. No two livestock operations are identical and manure management technologies are generally quite expensive, so it is important to choose the right technology for a specific livestock operation. Information is provided to assist planners and landowners in selecting the right technology to appropriately address the associated manure management concerns.

What did we do?

As with developing a good conservation plan, knowledge of manure management technologies can help landowners and operators best address resource concerns related to animal manure management. There are so many things to consider when looking at selecting various manure treatment technologies to make sure that it will function properly within an operation. From a technology standpoint, users must understand the different applications related to physical, chemical, and biological unit processes which can greatly assist an operator in choosing the most appropriate technology. By having a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these technologies, better decisions can be made to address the manure-related resource concerns and help landowners:

• Install conservation practices to address and avoid soil erosion, water and air quality issues.

• In the use of innovative technologies that will reduce excess manure volume and nutrients and provide value-added products.

• In the use of cover crops and rotational cropping systems to uptake nutrients at a rate more closely related to those from applied animal manures.

• In the use of local manure to provide nutrients for locally grown crops and, when possible, discourage the importation of externally produced feed products.

• When excess manure can no longer be applied to local land, to select options that make feasible the transport of manure nutrients to regions where nutrients are needed.

• Better understand the benefits and limitations of the various manure management technologies.

Picture of holding tank

Complete-Mix Anaerobic Digester – option to reduce odors and pathogens; potential energy production

Picture of mechanical equipment

Gasification (pyrolysis) system – for reduced odors; pathogen destruction; volume reduction; potential energy production.

Picture of field

Windrow composting – reduce pathogens; volume reduction

Picture of Flottweg separation technology

Centrifuge separation system – multiple material streams; potential nutrient
partitioning.

What have we learned?

• There are several options for addressing manure distribution and application management issues. There is no silver bullet.

• Each livestock operation will need to be evaluated separately, because there is no single alternative which will address all manure management issues and concerns.

• Option selections are dependent on a number of factors such as: landowner objectives, manure consistency, land availability, nutrient loads, and available markets.

• Several alternatives may need to be combined to meet the desired outcome.

• Soil erosion, water and air quality concerns also need to be addressed when dealing with manure management issues.

• Most options require significant financial investment.

Future Plans

Work with technology providers and others to further evaluate technologies and update information as necessary. Incorporate findings into NRCS handbooks and fact sheets for use by staff and landowners in selecting the best technology for particular livestock operations.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Jeffrey P. Porter, P.E.; National Animal Manure and Nutrient Management Team Leader USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Corresponding author email

jeffrey.porter@gnb.usda.gov

Other authors

Darren Hickman, P.E., National Geospatial Center of Excellence Director USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service; John Davis, National Nutrient Management Specialist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, retired

Additional information

References

USDA-NRCS Handbooks – Title 210, Part 651 – Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook

USDA-NRCS Handbooks – Title 210, Part 637 – Environmental Engineering, Chapter 4 – Solid-liquid Separation Alternatives for Manure Handling and Treatment (soon to be published)

Webinars

Evaluation of Manure Management Systems – http://www.conservationwebinars.net/webinars/evaluation-of-manure-management-systems/?searchterm=animal waste

Use of Solid-Liquid Separation Alternatives for Manure Handling and Treatment – http://www.conservationwebinars.net/webinars/use-of-solid-liquid-separation-alternatives-for-manure-handling-and-treatment/?searchterm=animal waste

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Inclusion of the Environment Bottom Line in Waste to Worth: The Interaction Between Economics, Environmental effects, and Farm Productivity in Assessment of Manure Management Technology and Policy

Proceedings Home | W2W Home waste to worth 2017 logo

Purpose

In a global context, the pork industry constitutes a huge economic sector but many producers operate on very thin margins. In addition, pork is one of the largest and most important agricultural industries in North Carolina and the United States but faces a number of challenges in regards to waste management and environmental impacts.On more local scales, swine producers face a number of additional constraints including land availability, waste management options (technical and regulatory), nutrient management costs, profits, risk, and return on investment. In the face of increasingly stringent environmental regulations, decreasing land availability, and higher costs for fertilizer, it is necessary to consider alternative technologies with the potential for improving environmental conditions and creating value added products. Technology assessments generally focus on technical performance as the measure of “utility” or usefulness. Primary physical performance measures such as efficiency, production rate, and capacity, while necessary may not be sufficient for capturing the overall value of a technology. A significant amount of research has evaluated the feasibility of technology adoption based on traditional economic measures but far less research has attempted to “value” environmental performance either at farm-scale or in the larger context (e.g. supply chain response to changes in technology or policy and regulation). Considering response over time, the extent to which environmental and economic policies and regulations positively or negatively affect technology innovation, emission and nutrient management, competitiveness, and productivity, remains largely unknown.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental and economic tradeoffs between current swine waste management practices in North Carolina and alternative scenarios for future on-farm decision making that include new technologies for waste removal, treatment, and nitrogen recovery. In addition, we begin to understand these economic and environmental tradeoffs in the context of various environmental policy and regulation scenarios for markets of carbon, electricity, and mineral fertilizer.

What did we do?

Using waste samples from swine finishing farms in southeastern NC, laboratory and bench scale experiments were conducted to determine the quantity and quality of biogas generation from anaerobic digestion and nitrogen recovery from an ammonia air stripping column. Based on these data as well as information from literature, six trial life cycle assessment scenarios were created to simulate alternatives for annual manure waste management for one finishing barn (3080 head) on the farm. Materials, energy, and emissions were included as available for all system components and processes including but not limited to waste removal from barns (flushing or scraping), treatment (open air lagoon or covered lagoon digester), nitrogen recovery (ammonia air stripping column), and land application (irrigation). A description of the scenarios as well as processes that are included/excluded for each can be found in Table 1. All scenarios were modeled over a one year operational period using a “gate to gate” approach where the mass and energy balance begins and ends on the farm (i.e. production of feed is not included and manure is fully utilized on the farm). It was assumed that each scenario included an existing anaerobic treatment lagoon with manure flushing system (baseline, representative of NC swine farms). In the remaining scenarios, the farm had an option of covering the lagoon and using it as a digester to produce biogas (offsetting natural gas); covering the digester and ammonia air stripping column for nitrogen recovery (offsetting mineral ammonium sulfate); installing a mechanical scraper system in the barn (replaces flushing); and/or different combinations of these. Open LCA, an open source life cycle and sustainability assessment software, was used for inventory analysis and the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI 2.0) was used to characterize environmental impacts to air, water, and land. From Table 2 preliminary results indicate that all scenarios had a similar pattern in terms of impact for the assessed categories. The open air lagoon had the highest overall environmental impact followed by scraping manure with digestion and recovery and scraped slurry digestion with no nutrient recovery. Flushed manure to the digester with nutrient recovery had the lowest overall environmental impact, followed closely by scraped whole slurry to the digester with nutrient recovery.

Table 1. Life cycle assessment scenarios with waste management processes included in evaluation

Table 2. Relative impact of scenarios for selected environmental indicators

Using energy and emissions data from the initial life cycle assessment on alternative scenarios for swine waste management systems we have started to characterize the environmental and economic outcomes arising from selected on farm technologies. More specifically we began to examine the regulatory, institutional, and market barriers associated with technology adoption within the swine industry. We provide a theoretical model to support quantification of the change in revenues and expenses that result from changes in three major markets connected to swine production – carbon, electricity, and fertilizer. We examine some of the economic characteristics of environmental benefits associated with changes to farm practices. Finally, we discuss implications for innovation in technology and policy.

What have we learned?

Preliminary results are somewhat mixed and further research is needed to see how sensitive the life cycle assessment inputs and outputs are to system components. While there is a clear indication that covering lagoons, with or without additional nutrient recovery, reduces environmental impact – farm scale systems can be quite expensive and no further determination can be made until a full economic analysis has been conducted. Modeling secondary effects, such as increased ammonia emissions in barns from flush water recirculated from digesters, remains to be included. Besides farm level cost and returns, review of literature has pointed to additional barriers to adoption of reduced environmental impact technologies. Examples of barriers include deficient or non-existent markets for environmental benefits, and various state and federal regulations and policies related to renewable energy, carbon offsets, new farm waste management technology, etc. Solutions such as better cooperation between energy firms, regulatory agencies, and farmers as well as increased financial incentives such as carbon credits, renewable energy credits, net metering options, and enabling delivery of biogas to natural gas pipelines can greatly increase the profitability and implementation of this technology on NC hog farms.

Future Plans

As this is an ongoing multi-disciplinary project, future plans include the expansion of existing data to form a more comprehensive life cycle inventory with options for both new and existing swine farms, which include additional options for waste treatment, nutrient recovery, and land application/fertilizer methods, etc. Energy and emissions data from the life cycle model will continue to be utilized as inputs into a more fully integrated model capable of reflecting the true “cost” and “values” associated with waste management treatment systems. In addition, it is expected that the integrated model will include the flexibility to simulate overall costs and returns for various sizes of operations within the county, region, and if possible state-wide.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Shannon Banner, Graduate Student, North Carolina State University

Corresponding author email

sbcreaso@ncsu.edu

Other authors

Dr. John Classen, Dr. Prince Dugba, Mr. Mark Rice, Dr. Kelly Zering

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by a grant from Smithfield Swine Production Group

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Valorization of Manure Treatment for Poultry and Swine Operators


Proceedings Home | W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose 

Current practices for nutrient removal or recovery of phosphorus focus on chemical precipitation technologies, where the recovered products are low-grade, slow-release, low-value land applied fertilizers. Three significant deficiencies re this process – the cost of recovery is greater than the market value as commercial P fertilizer; the land application of such materials perpetuates the current cycle of pollutant nutrient “leakage” into surface waters; and the approach is not viable to address non-point source pollution or the legacy P present in impaired water bodies. Hence, research was initiated based on commercially available Hybrid Ion Exchange Nanomaterials (HIX-Nano), which remove naturally occurring arsenic from drinking water, and apply it to remove, recover, reconcentrate, reuse and recycle soluble reactive phosphorus from diverse organic waste and wastewaters.

What did we do? 

The infusion of high surface area nano iron oxide into conventional ion exchange resins, HIX-(Fe) Nano makes it possible to remove phosphates from wastewater and this has been proven by Lehigh U., ESSRE Consulting and others. Thus, residual dissolved phosphorus not chemically precipitated is captured and removed to supplement and complement the current P recovery processes or capture all of the dissolved P where nutrient recovery does not occur. The key to nutrient recovery is regeneration of the spent media and the conventional chemistry to achieve this is with a weak alkaline (caustic soda) rinse to desorb captured phosphate. The end product is a phosphate solution with a peak concentration of about 1600 mg/L. However, Na does not add any nutrient value whereas potassium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide or both will add N and K to desorbed P and allow the custom formulation of N-P-K liquid products for hydroponic growers and greenhouse horticulturists. Moreover, when the source of concentrated N and P is livestock manures, there is a way to impart the micronutrients, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc. into the liquid formulations that will result in an N-P-K Plus product.

What have we learned? 

We know that making liquid fertilizer products from manures will help valorize manure treatment because hydroponic growers will pay a premium for a premixed N-P-K product and such an approach will limit the recycled nutrients “leakage” when direct land application is avoided. We also know that commercial synthetic fertilizer production is energy intensive and that any form of pollutant nutrient recovery/reuse will reduce GHG emissions via avoided fertilizer production.

We have also learned that we can do better in terms of manure valorization, if we take the view that even small amounts of soluble reactive phosphorus serve as a “biocatalyst” for intense and frequent harmful algae blooms in fresh and coastal waters. Hence, why not convert recovered nutrients into non-fertilizer products that are more highly valued in the marketplace. In mind are inorganic chemical catalysts that contain P and happen to be widely used in the Oil & Gas sector and Energy Storage sector, as follows:

1) Fluidized Catalytic Catalysts (FCC) – Phosphate-Zeolites (Oil Refineries)

2) Li-ion Battery Cathode Materials – LiFePO4 (Energy Storage)

Finally, we have also learned of recent advances in HIX-Nano technology, where the oxide of Nano Fe particles are replaced with that of Zirconium (Zr) particles. The HIX-(Zr) Nano resin exhibits enhanced P removal/regeneration potential and concurrent removal/recovery of pollutant nutrient N-Nitrate.

The attributes of the HIX-nanomaterial capabilities in manure treatment manifest in the advancement of 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship for fertilizers including land application of manure – Right type, Right place, Right rate and Right time – into “5Rs” of livestock manure management of the dissolved nutrient losses:  Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle.

The HIX-Nano can be configured and operated with equal efficiency for wastewater streams with high concentrations of nutrients (direct manure treatment after liquid/solids separation) or dilute runoff concentrations or very dilute legacy concentrations in surface or groundwater sources.  A commercial business model of HIX 5Rs treatment is established as a “hub” and “spoke” system.  The spokes are all of the pollutant nutrient pathways to surface waters shown in Figure 1, adapted from Wind’s version (2007).

 

Thus, the application of HIX-Nano technology serves as a barrier to pollutant nutrient leakage from all sources.  Hence, each farm, wastewater treatment plant, each urban stormwater runoff source within the watershed is a “spoke”.  Spent HIX-Nano is transported to a nearby Regeneration Center (Hub) and “refreshed” media is sent (i.e., recycled) back to the source (Spoke) for continued removal of nutrients.   At the Regeneration Center, the further processing of recovery via regeneration and reconcentration generates custom liquid fertilizer products and the aforementioned inorganic chemical catalysts and materials.  Hence, the Regeneration Center also serves as a Product Distribution Center – an all-purpose Hub.  Moreover, regardless of the location of the Hub within or outside the watershed, the recycling of nutrients in products that are not land applied fertilizer in essence “export” pollutant nutrients out of the watershed irrespective of the location of use.  Add the quantification of recycled nutrients to manufacture specific formulations, the HIX-Nano Hub-Spoke model becomes an additional revenue stream to producers for nutrient trading credits, where these programs exist, and a useful tool to develop trading credit programs where they do not exist.

Future Plans 

The potential to simultaneously Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle pollutant nutrients N and P from manures doubles the work ahead. For the reuse/recycle of fertilizer products confirmation is needed that N-P-K products will be free of impurities and commercially accepted after fertilization testing; similar confirmation path for N (NH4+ and N-NO3)-P-K products. Once established for reuse, HIX-Nano filters can be applied to the flushing discharge of spent fertilizer/nutrient solution for capture of N or P, thus closing the pollutant overload loop and recycling recycled pollutant nutrients.

For the reuse/recycle of treated water deficient in P when removing soluble P only, this needs to be tested for spray application onto soils oversaturated with P to assure compliance with the Nutrient Management Plans for N and P and thus safe reuse and reclamation of this water.

For the catalytic products thorough testing of composition (impurities), stability and performance testing needs to be carried out to gain acceptance as “green” catalysts or solution precursors for “green” catalysts. In either case, reconcentration must be carried out (thermal or mechanical) in a cost-effective way and in a way that carries out manure pathogen total destruction when the source of removed nutrients is from livestock manures .Similar research efforts are needed for battery cathode material manufactured from recycled pollutant P.  Moreover for both catalysts and battery materials, if the final disposition of these materials is landfilling, the application of HIX-Nano on landfill leachate containing P will close the nutrient pollution loop by applying 5Rs treatment principles.

Lastly, to address the Food-Energy-Water nexus challenge the future plans will favor HIX-Nano application on manure digestate after liquid/solids separations.  Nutrient recycling using HIX-Nano will also come into play with biomass to energy technologies such as Anaerboic Digestion and Hydrothermal Liquefaction, where the output is biofuels or biofuels and biochemical.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation       

Ed Weinberg, PE, President, ESSRE Consulting, Inc.

Corresponding author email    

edweinberg_essre@verizon.net

Additional information               

Ed Weinberg can be reached at (215) 630-0546. Additional key people:

Dr. Mark Snyder, Lehigh U.; Dr. Raul Lobo, U of Delaware.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1LYFVS7wY8

Acknowledgements       

Dr. Arup K. SenGupta, Lehigh U.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress