manure handling – Page 6 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

Case Study of Contaminated Compost: Collaborations Between Vermont Extension and the Agency of Agriculture to Mitigate Damage Due to Persistent Herbicide Residues

Why Study Herbicide Contamination of Compost?

Picloram, clopyralid, aminopyralid and aminocyclopyrochlor are broadleaf herbicides commonly used in pastures due to effectiveness in controlling undesirable plants and the very low toxicity for animals and fish. In fact, some of these herbicides do not require animal removal post application. The grazing animals can ingest treated leaves with no ill health effects, but may pass the herbicides through to the manure. Also see: Composting Livestock or Poultry Manure

When a complaint driven problem of damaged tomatoes and other garden crops in Vermont was traced back to a single compost provider in Chittenden County in Vermont, a series of actions and reactions commenced. Complaints were fielded and investigated by personnel from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VT-AG) and the University of Vermont Extension (UVM-EXT). The compost provider sent samples of various components of the compost to a single laboratory and received positive results for persistent herbicides in sources of equine bedding/manure components. Subsequent interviews by the facility manager in both print and television media seemed to cast blame on Vermont equine operations for ruining Vermont gardens. Coincidentally, the composter had recently changed compost-processing methods. Initial samples sent to a separate laboratory did not support the composter’s laboratory results. Samples of feed, manure, shavings, and many other components which were shipped to several laboratories by VT-AG, resulted in extremely inconsistent and/or contradictory data between laboratories running the exact same samples.

What did we do?

Several processes were underway by several agencies in a coordinated and collaborative effort to resolve and mitigate the herbicide issues:

• Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets was receiving and investigating complaints.

• University of Vermont Extension plant biology personnel were identifying, documenting, and sampling affected plants, as well as counseling gardeners.

• University of Vermont equine extension worked with horse owners and media to mitigate unsubstantiated claims of “horses poisoning garden plants”.

• A more thorough investigation by VT-AG involved collection of raw samples (feed, hay, shavings, manure) from 15 horse farms who utilized the compost facility to dispose of manure and bedding.

• The VT Secretary of Agriculture and the VT-AG Agri-chemical Management Section Chief were brought together with equine and compost experts attending the NE-1041 Equine Environmental Extension Research group annual meeting hosted by UVM equine extension.

• VT-AG worked with herbicide manufacturers to use high quality testing equipment and procedures to gather consistent data from samples.

What have we learned?

More extensive details of this particular case have been published in the Journal of NACAA (http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=201).

• The levels of persistent herbicides were low enough that they were below the acceptable limits for water, yet they still harmed sensitive garden plants.

• Nationally and locally manufactured grains tested positive for persistent herbicides; most likely due to the individual components being treated within legal limits during field production.

• Many of the laboratories were unable to provide accurate or consistent results when testing for the persistent herbicides.

• Discussions between the NE-1041 group and VT-AG resulted in a fruitful exchange of information, as well as development and delivery of pertinent information for the general public and County Agricultural Agents.

Future Plans

Several proactive activities have already been initiated and/or completed. A peer reviewed case study on all aspects of the contaminated compost has been published in the Journal of NACAA; and two episodes of Vermont’s Agricultural television show (Across the Fence) were created to educate and update the general public on the situation. A Vermont compost working group has been assembled and set goals to create potential educational materials including a horse owner pamphlet (in final editing phase), a farmer/livestock pamphlet, and press releases for the public education on challenges with persistent herbicides. The VT-AG website has a Compost FAQs page addressing the most common questions associated with compost and herbicides.

Authors

Betsy Greene, Professor/Extension Equine Specialist, University of Vermont Betsy.Greene@uvm.edu

Carey Giguere, Agrichemical Management,Vermont Agency of Agriculture

Rebecca. Bott, Extension, South Dakota State University

Krishona. Martinson, Extension, University of Minnesota

Ann Swinker, Extension, Penn State University

Additional information

• Greene, E.A., R.C. Bott, C. Giguere, K.L. Martinson, and A.W. Swinker. 2013. “Vermont Horses vs. Twisted Tomatoes: A Compost Case Study. J of NACAA. 6:1 (http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=201)

• Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets Compost FAQ’s: http://agriculture.vermont.gov/node/696

• Davis, J. Dept. of Horticultural Science, NC State University. 2010. Herbicides in Manure: How Does It Get there and why Should I Care?, Proceedings 8th Annual Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference, Timonium, MD. pp 155-160.

• Across the Fence Television Show: An Update on Green Mountain Compost Contamination and Testing-Greene/ Gigliuere (9/14/12)

• Across the Fence Television Show: Information from NE 1041 Meetings and National Equine Specialists-Greene (9/17/12)

• Article from Minnesota Extension explaining the problem in hay and how to avoid it. The article is devoted to “ditch hay”, but the information is relevant to all hay. https://extension.umn.edu/horse-nutrition/managing-herbicides-ditch-forages

• Washington State University Web site on clopyralid carryover includes pictures of affected vegetables, research results, and the bioassay protocol http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/soilmgmt/Clopyralid.htm

• Dow Agrosciences United Kingdom website with information on aminopyralid: http://www.manurematters.co.uk/

• CDMS Agro-chemical database with access to all the herbicide labels: http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx?t

Acknowledgements

The State University Extension Equine Specialists that make up the NE-1441: Environmental Impacts of Equine Operations, Multi-State Program. USDA.

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. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019May 7, 2019

Composting and the Benefits: Achieving Practice Change through Education to Reduce Nutrient Loads and Increase Adoption of Best Management Practices

Purpose

Florida houses roughly 500,000 horses and is also home to 700 freshwater springs; Marion County is, “Horse Capital of the World” and houses two first magnitude springs and each is currently in a restoration plan with the Florida Department Environmental Protection Agency (FDEP). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) equine Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual recommends composting as an excellent manure management option.

Composting is a controlled biological process that decomposes and heats up organic material to produce a biologically stable humus, which can then be used as a rich soil amendment. Composting provides protection to the ground and surface waters by preventing excess nutrients from being leached out and running-off into the waters. It destroys up to 90% of weed seeds contained in manure and kills parasite eggs and pathogens. Additionally, the organic matter/compost helps prevent and control soil erosion and can improve both soil quality and productivity.

What did we do?

Individual and group programming has been developed to educate farm owners and managers about the benefits derived from composting horse manure/spent bedding. Since 2007, Over 800 farms have been seen in the county. In 2013 alone, 132 participants were involved in individual farm consultations or farm revisits, group presentations and composting workshops. Education was provided and supplemental materials were developed for clientele about composting manure, compost bin construction and composting’s soil-improvement capabilities. Compost Countryside

What have we learned?

Pre and post-test results showed a 62% (82 of 132 total participants) knowledge gain from information taught. A total of 71% (n=12 of 17 farm revisit consultations) of farms revisited improved and adopted recommended manure handling practices after receiving education. Additionally, seven farms and facilities have begun cost-share planning with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for compost bin construction. Results/impacts show improved management practices and a greater understanding of BMPs, allowing for a decrease in nutrient levels to the ground and surface waters. Pictures show sample bins which were constructed as a result of individual and group programming.

Future Plans

Continued group and individual programming needs to be continued, in partnership with trade journal articles being written about manure management, protection of the ground and surface waters and the benefits derived from composting manure/bedding. Cost-share dollars, coming from state organizations, will further incentivize farms to construct and use compost facilities as part of a regular manure management plan.

Author

Jamie Cohen, Farm Outreach Coordinator, UF/IFAS Extension Marion County jamiecohen@ufl.edu

Additional information

My eXtension.org Manure Management Strategies Webcast: https://connect.msu.edu/p8yko9zhhoq/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

eXtension.org –Manure Management page: https://lpelc.org/horse-manure-management/

A Guide to Composting Horse Manure: www.whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/horsecompost.htm

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

Making Dairy Manure More Valuable Than Milk

Can Anaerobic Digestion Lead to Additional Revenue Streams On a Dairy Farm?

CowPots are the invention of necessity. Brothers Matt and Ben Freund are second generation dairy farmers in the northwest hills of Connecticut. In dairy farming, the most challenging job is to manage the nutrient stream in an environmentally sound manner. In 1997 the brothers installed a methane digester to heat the manure coming out of a cold barn to be able to separate the liquid year round for field application with a drag line system. This made the farm much more efficient and timely while at the same time reducing soil compaction and improving crop yields. The solids which are composted were first used for bedding the herd and are now used to mold the CowPots, whose value far exceeded bedding value. Farmers and gardeners have always considered cow manure a wholesome organic soil amendment for their crops. The challenge was to find a new and better way to get manure to these soils while maintaining value to consumers.

CowPots are a patented, environmentally friendly product made from the nutrient rich manure and are a vehicle for exporting the farm’s excess nutrients. Through production and sales of CowPots the Freunds have reduced the nutrient load on their farm by approximately 11% and have added a significant 2nd income to the dairy operation.

Examples of CowPots Root Example

Emblems of sound stewardship, CowPots are the ideal product for farmers, growers, gardeners — and for the planet.

What did we do?

The idea for using manure solids to fashion a horticultural pot occurred in the mid 1990’s. The dairy farmer’s wife, Theresa owns a seasonal farm market and garden center adjacent to the dairy farm. Matt noticed that when his wife was tilling the soil each spring, the supposed biodegradable pots were still fully intact.

Confronting stricter regulations on nutrient management through state and federal rules, he needed an alternative to the status quo of storing and spreading manure on their 260+ cow dairy farm. Comparing the fibers found in the peat pots to the fibers of the manure solids, he brought his idea to the kitchen. In Matt’s spare time he began forming, pressing, pasting and molding manure fibers into pots (initially working in the greenhouse and using equipment from his wife’s kitchen and not wanting to get divorced, he moved outside to the farm shop). Nearly a decade was spent experimenting through trial and error.

In the mid 2000’s a production prototype was constructed in one bay of the farm shop where 4” pots were formed and placed by hand onto a drying oven. In 2006, CowPots worked with a local company to shrink wrap stacks of pots and sold them for resale at local garden centers and hardware stores in the tri-state area. That same year Freunds received an SBIR grant to further investigate the horticultural benefits of growing in CowPots. Concurrently, UConn and Cornell University conducted trials in greenhouse settings. In 2009, a standalone manufacturing facility was built and the lineup of sizes offered grew. Today the Freunds manufacture 12 size pots for horticultural uses as well as custom shapes for customers.

What have we learned?

Freunds have learned not all dairy fibers are the same. There are numerous activities on any farm which affect the characteristics of this material. Changes in feed, added minerals, digester upsets,composting temperatures, duration in the in-vessel composer and pasturing the herd have been the most influential on Freund’s farm.

Matt Freund with Product CowPots

Future Plans

The Freunds had many goals one of which was not to have CowPots dictate the management of the dairy. Every bucket of manure fiber needs to be tested before it is used for production of CowPots. The equipment is adjusted in response to any changes.

Another goal was to design a production facility with no waste stream. Dry matter of the fiber is very important to achieve this goal. By having nothing but water vapor and finished product exiting the facility, permitting becomes much less difficult and our footprint becomes much smaller.

The CowPots manufacturing facility is fast approaching their production capacity with shifts that run 24/6. New automation in the packaging system will be installed in the coming months for a total of three robots in the facility. Currently, Freunds are putting together an expansion plan to include an additional production line. They are also working with a company in a similar business to look for synergies. Freunds are investigating other waste streams which could be blended with CowPots products to make the end product even better and at a reduced cost. Recently an engineer came on board to identify production inefficiencies within the manufacturing system to help reduce costs. As the market builds, Freunds will be looking for partners to work with in different areas of the country.

Author

Matt Freund, Owner/Inventor matt@cowpots.com

Additional information

http://cowpots.com/

https://www.youtube.com/user/CowPots

Acknowledgements

Northeast SARE, SBIR, USDA NRCS and Rural Development, CT Dept of Agriculture and CT Dept of Energy and Environmental Protection

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Manure Technology Video Series

Can Video Be Used as a ‘Virtual’ Tour?

Producers are reluctant to adopt new technologies without firsthand experience with the technology. It is particularly difficult to get positive exposure for manure related issues in traditional media. Creative methods are needed to expose producers to useful technologies for handling and treating animal wastes. The OSU Waste Management Youtube channel was created to provide virtual tours of manure treatment and handling technologies.

What did we do?

Fourteen videos highlighting innovative manure handling and treatment technologies were filmed, edited, and produced by the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. We specifically sought out producers who successfully adopted technologies to the particular conditions of their farms.

What have we learned?

In its five years of existence, the OSU Waste Management Youtube channel has been viewed more than 53,000 times (120,000 minutes viewed) from 183 countries and all fifty states – plus Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

Future Plans

We will continue to add new videos to the channel.

Authors

Douglas W. Hamilton, Associate Professor Oklahoma State University dhamilt@okstate.edu

Craig A. Woods, Video Producer/Director Ag Communication Services, Oklahoma State University

Additional information

https://www.youtube.com/user/OSUWasteManagement

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Field Scale Management of Separated Dairy Manure Fractions

Why Look at Separated Manure for Crops?

Research at Pacific Agriculture Research Centre (PARC) by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) in Agassiz, B.C. has shown that targeted application of separated liquid and thicker sludge fractions from dairy manure slurry on grass and corn, respectively, can improve crop nutrient efficiencies, reduce the requirement for commercial fertilizer, and reduce nutrient losses to the environment. These benefits are in comparison to the traditional practice of surface broadcast application of agitated raw slurry manure. More specifically, the liquid fraction, applied via surface banding to grass fields, helps to improve infiltration, reduces ammonia emissions, and improves grass yield and nitrogen recovery. The thicker sludge fraction, which contains more phosphorus, is precision deep injected, then planted with corn near or over the injection furrows. This replaces the need for commercial phosphorus fertilizer normally applied as a starter during corn planting. The sludge fraction is obtained from sedimented slurry.

precision manure injector and tractor The overall objective of our two year project is to assess these improved manure application practices at the farm scale through various sub-objectives. First, sedimentation efficiency is being evaluated on farms with contrasting manure management by sampling liquid storages at various depths prior to agitation. The goal is to assess natural stratification of nutrients under different bedding and water management, and to assess the practicality of sequentially pumping the thin supernatant (late Mar- early Apr) and thicker sludge (late Apr- early May). Second, improved equipment is being developed to precision deep inject slurry sludge (6 – 11% dry matter) prior to corn planting. Third, on-farm field scale trials using improved manure application equipment are assessing the agronomic and economic benefits of managing separated dairy manure fractions, compared to the traditional practice of surface broadcasted agitated raw manure.

What did we do?

We have completed one year of this two year project. Progress has been made on all three sub-objectives, but most notably on the first. Under the first sub-objective we have sampled manure at various depths for 18 liquid manure storages, and collected management information on bedding management and water inputs into these storages.

We also utilized a custom manure operator to mount a farm scale 4 row deep manure injector onto a dragline system. This was used to precision deep inject thicker dairy sludge and compare with traditional surface broadcast application and incorporation, prior to corn planting on a farm field near Agassiz, B.C. On this same farm a different custom manure operator applied thinner dairy slurry on a grass field using first a shallow disc injector and then a trailing hose. These two treatments were compared with the farmer’s surface broadcast application.

These manure applications on grass occurred two times, once in March and once in May. While it would have been preferable to use agitated raw manure for the farmer’s surface broadcast application on both grass and corn, this is not feasible when managing a farm’s manure supply from a single storage system. Rather the same manure sources, ie. thin slurry on grass and thicker sludge on corn, were used for all application treatments, including the farmer’s broadcast application.

What have we learned?

Average nutrient content of liquid manure in storages varied greatly between farms, ranging from 0.58 to 2.80 kg/m3 for total nitrogen and 0.17 to 1.51 kg/m3 for total phosphorus (expressed as P₂O₅). These nutrient values were closely correlated with dry matter content, which ranged from 0.58 to 10.02%. Variation in dry matter content is determined primarily by the amount of water inputs into the manure storage, the amount of organic bedding imported onto the farm, and whether the raw manure undergoes a mechanical solid/liquid separation process prior to the liquid manure entering the storage.

Seven out of 18 storages had little or no sedimentation of solids or nutrients. Four storages showed slight stratification and the remaining seven storages had considerable settling of solids and nutrient concentration increasing with depth. For storages with considerable stratification average dry matter content ranged from 1.5% for the shallowest depths to 7.7% for the deepest depths. For these same depth positions average total nitrogen increased from 0.090% to 0.193%, and average total phosphorus from 0.015% to 0.041%. Preliminary assessment of manure sample analysis compared to manure management practices suggests that sedimentation of solids and nutrient stratification is minimal or reduced when coarse solids are mechanically separated from liquid manure prior to entering storage, and/or there is considerable disturbance of manure when transferring it from the barn into the manure storage. For example, manure pumping involves more disturbance than scraping.

Preliminary results from land applied manure suggest small but likely insignificant increases in dry matter yield for trailing hose and shallow injection on grass compared to surface broadcast manure. On corn land there was no difference in yield between deep injected and surface broadcast/incorporated dairy sludge. Part of the reason for little or no difference is due to using the same manure source and application rate for all treatments. Also, the corn land result may be due to the majority of nutrients for both treatments being supplied by another source, surface broadcast poultry manure.

Future Plans

In the winter of 2015 most liquid manure storages will be resampled. An additional 5 liquid manure storages have been chosen for sampling in 2015, to include some manure management systems not accounted for in 2014. Our 4 row deep manure injector is being modified to a 6 row unit. This will enable easier alignment of the manure furrow with subsequent 6 row corn planter. We plan to add two more farm sites to land apply separated manure fractions on grass and corn, for the 2015 growing season.

Authors

Dennis Haak, Senior Soil Resource Specialist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada dennis.haak@agr.gc.ca

Shabtai Bittman, Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Derek Hunt, Biologist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Additional information

1. Precision Placement of Separated Dairy Sludge Improves Early Phosphorus Nutrition and Growth in Corn (Zea mays L.), https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/41/2/582

2. Removing Solids Improves Response of Grass to Surface-Banded Dairy Manure Slurry: A Multiyear Study, https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/40/2/393

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis of an Anaerobic Co-digestion Facility Processing Dairy Manure and Industrial Food Waste in NY State

While the theoretical benefits of anaerobic digestion have been documented, few studies have utilized data from commercial-scale digesters to quantify impacts. Previous studies have analyzed a range of empirical studies to constuct emission factors for a generic European AD plant processing source separated municipal solid waste. However, most U.S. studies have applied reporting protocols and have been based upon theoretical assumptions. Furthermore, GHG analyses of U.S. co-digestion facilities are limited to one scenario in protocol based analysis of community digester options.

Purpose

We are not aware of any peer-reviewed studies of US anaerobic co-digestion. Several case studies have presented calculations of impacts using GHG reporting protocols, however significant portions of the lifecycle have been neglected such as the feedstock reference case emissions, digestate storage emissions and fertilizer displacement impacts. Furthermore, they have often been modeled using general theoretical assumptions such as number of cows rather than empirical data on feedstock volume and characteristics and digester operation.

What did we do?

A lifecycle GHG analysis was performed based upon data reported on a farm-based anaerobic co-digestion system in New York State, resulting in an 71% reduction in GHG impact relative to conventional treatment of manure and food waste.

The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of GHG emissions based upon a NYS digester that co-digests manure and industrial-sourced food waste. Empirical data on feedstock (t-km transport, avoided disposal, TS, VS, TKN), digester operation (m3CH4, KWh, exhaust emissions) and effluent properties (TS,VS,TKN) were combined with regional parameters (i.e., climate, soil type and management practices) to represent a state-of-the-art, anaerobic co-digestion facility in NYS. This data was combined with information collected through interviews in order to model a reference case, representing the business-as-usual food waste disposal and manure management practices en lieu of the anaerobic co-digestion system.

What have we learned?

Displacement of grid electricity provided the largest benefit followed by avoidance of food waste landfill emissions and reduced impacts associated with storage of digestate vs. undigested manure. Nominal land application N2O emissions were offset by inorganic fertilizer displacement and carbon sequestration in both cases. The higher volume of digestate increased net land application emissions as did increased transportation distance to the fields and lower carbon sequestration. Digestate is a by-product of the co-digestion process and its treatment must be considered in an LCA. Modeling of land application impacts are highly uncertain and can be significant.

The largest source of direct emissions was CH4 emissions. N2O emissions were larger in the land application phase than during storage. Direct fossil fuel emissions had a minor impact. Emissions were offset by displacement of grid electricity and fossil based fertilizers along with carbon sequestration.

Future Plans

More empirical research is needed to measure emissions and to provide emission factors that incorporate key variables and characteristics affecting emissions. A whole system, dynamic approach is necessary to incorporate complex interdependencies between stages of farm and manure management.

Authors

Jennifer L. Pronto, Research Assistant, Cornell University jlp67@cornell.edu

Ebner, Jackie jhe5003@rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology

Rodrigo A. Labatut, Matthew J. Rankin, Curt A. Gooch, Anahita A. Williamson, Thomas A. Trabold

Additional information

www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu

Figure 1: Contributional analysis of GHG impacts for the reference and anaerobic co-digestion cases.

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Wisconsin Professional Manure Applicator Education

Why Look at Manure Applicator Educational Programs?

Based on 2013 statistics, Wisconsin has a dairy herd of 1.2 million cows that produce 12,000,000,000 gallons of manure and waste water. Custom manure haulers in Wisconsin handle an estimated fifty percent of the dairy manure and forty per cent of all livestock manure generated in Wisconsin. Because custom manure applicators are a critical component of nutrient management plan (NMP) implementation, University of Wisconsin Extension initiated manure hauler education across the state in the early 1990’s. In 2000, the applicators sought UW – Extension advisory support in forming the Professional Nutrient Applicators Association of Wisconsin (PNAAW). This began a long term relationship between UW – Extension and the professional applicators in Wisconsin and across the upper Midwest.

Following a needs assessment of the industry, the board of directors of PNAAW expressed an interest in a voluntary training and certification program. The overall goal of the training was to educate the custom manure haulers and their employees in safe handling and application practices, spill response, regulations and nutrient management. Road safety, neighbor relations, and confined space safety education modules were added later.

What did we do?

In March of 2002, the board of directors of the PNAAW and a group of Michigan manure applicators independently approached Extension in each state to initiate a voluntary certification and training program. Over the next 5 months, applicators and Extension staff examined the 5 existing manure applicator certification programs and created the program currently in use in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan.

Manure expo 2012, checking out a new dragline applicator.

The UW – Extension Nutrient Management Team’s Custom Manure Hauler Workgroup joined with Extension faculty in Illinois and Michigan to develop a three-state certification program with three levels of training/certification. The certification includes a partnership with the insurance industry to provide a market-based incentive to participate. Business and employee management issues are addressed during an annual multi-state regional symposium coordinated by UW-Extension.

Certification: The program is segmented into three certification levels. Firms must meet level 1 requirement to gain level 2, and meet level 2 requirements to achieve level 3.

Level 1: Requires each employee to be trained and tested on spill response techniques, state specific regulations (including CAFO regulations) and common sense application techniques. Firms that document compliance are eligible for a 10% vehicle liability premium reduction. Training is ~3 hours in length and is completed annually.
Level 2: Requires crew supervisors and business owners to attend 6 hours of continuing education over a 2 year period. Classes are offered at field days and the annual conference. Once a firm has achieved Level 2, they may conduct Level 1 training in-house.
Level 3: Develop and implement an EMS (Environmental Management System). The EMS requires the firm to document their process and ensure all employees know their job responsibilities. Insurance auditors will evaluate each firm’s EMS annually to insure compliance. Premium reductions include 10-40% on vehicle liability and 50% on environmental liability.

Not your typical Wisconsin “boat” show. PNAAW 2014 manure boat agitation demonstration, organized with UW-Extension.

All certification levels also require that the firm complete the PNAAW Performance Standards Checklist at least once per year.

Membership in the state’s applicator association is required for certification, as certification is granted by the association and not by Extension. Each state association may also require additional performance standards, such as documentation of equipment calibration, to grant certification.

One area of continuing education began in 2002, when UW – Extension with permission from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), conducted manure spill response training using actual manure. The basic educational focus was containing, controlling, cleaning up, and then meeting reporting requirements of a spill. Since 2002, 20 live action demonstrations have occurred. Training has expanded to include calibrating of manure equipment and determining manure application rate per acre.

What have we learned?

PNAAW requested that Extension assist in filling an educational need not met by current farm shows – being able to compare different manure agitation and application equipment side by side in the field (using actual manure) to help determine which best meets individual needs. The result was the first Manure Expo in August 2001, which drew 432 people from 5 states and Canada.

The Manure Expo has grown to an annual 2-day educational and demonstration event. 2015 is the 13th Expo; the event has been hosted by Extension and custom applicators in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania in the US and Guelph, Ontario, Canada. An average Expo will draw over 1,000 people from industry, university, farm, and application professionals.

PNAAW 2014

The pit before the boat demonstration begins 2014.

The voluntary certification program has saved Wisconsin and Michigan over $100,000 annually because regulatory mandates require state finances for staff and office to run mandated programs. In addition to the sharing of curriculum in multiple Midwestern universities the training and educational sessions are a success in the formation/enhancement of three state associations in Michigan (now inactive), Pennsylvania, and Indiana/Ohio.

Applicator and industry partnerships contributed to a multi – state agriculture weight study based at the Minnesota DOT/University of Minnesota, MN Road Research Center. Over $640,000 was pooled from applicators and Applicator Associations (WI, MI, MN, IA, and OH), industry and agencies to fund research on the impact of larger manure hauling and agriculture equipment on pavement.

Custom manure applicators are a key component in the environmental application of manure. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) has tracked crop acres managed with a NMP. In 2004, 0.7 million crop acres were managed using a NMP; in 2014 the NMP managed acres increased to 2.58 million acres in Wisconsin.

Future Plans

Each year a new need will arise. Education will be provided for employee relations, business planning, family/work balance and the need to review new technology. A few projects that began in 2014: manure boat agitation field day and precision manure application. Education will be developed in the future as a need arises from the manure application industry.

Authors

Richard Halopka, CCA, Clark County UW-Extension Crops & Soils Agent richard.halopka@ces.uwex.edu

George Koepp, Columbia County UWEX Agriculture Agent, Jerry Clark,Chippewa County UWEX Crops/Soils Educator, Ted Bay, Grant County UWEX Crops/Farm Management Agent, Kevin Erb, UWEX Conservation Professional Devp. & Training Cord., Becky Larsen, UW Biowaste Specialist, Jim Leverich, UW On Farm Research, Kim Meyer, UW Arlington ARS, Cheryl Skjolaas, UW Agriculture Safety Specialist

Additional information

In 2014, over 400 custom manure applicators in Wisconsin were certified in at least one level of the program. Eight PNAAW member application firms revised their level 3 status in 2013 and are saving $44,000 annually on pollution insurance policies, while PNAAW firms achieving level 1 and level 2 certification reduced pollution insurance policies premiums by an additional $78,000 per year.

The collaboration of PNAAW, University of Wisconsin Extension, University of Wisconsin Specialists, WDNR, DATCP and UW – Extension County Agents has provided the foundation of a proactive approach to education and training, leading to problem solving results from a knowledgeable application industry.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Nonprofit-Organization/Professional-Nutrient-Applicators-Association-of-Wisconsin-2223955430983054/

2009 U.S.A. water quality poster, manure spills

Bulletin for manure spill response developed by UW-Extension nutrient management team PNAAW workgroup.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

The Natural Farming Concept: A New Economical Waste Management for Small Family Swine Farms

Why Look at Inoculated Deep Litter Systems?

The most critical issue facing livestock and other small family operations nationwide is the development and implementation of cost effective pollution prevention technology. Our livestock producers, especially swine, continue to seek a best management practice (BMP) that is effective, economical, and practical, and in compliance with new US EPA laws. The Department of Health, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Hawaii Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Cooperative Extension Service have been working diligently to address both federal and state waste management compliance needs of the local pork producer. As a result, the industry currently implements effluent irrigation, composting, deep litter technology, lagoon storage and solid separation as possible solutions for on-farm nutrient management. Unfortunately, due to new and revised EPA regulations, which now include nuisance odor and vector components, many of these strategies no longer meet federal criteria for BMPs.

In 2006, a system of waste management, with the potential to be implemented as a BMP under federal regulations, was discovered in Korea during a visit to the Janong Natural Farming Institution. The concepts of naturally collected micro-organisms, green waste deep litter, and a piggery design with strategic solar and wind positioning was being practiced in several countries in Asia and the Pacific Basin. Over the past six years, these concepts have been tested in Hawaiʻi to provide small swine farms with another BMP that is in compliance with current EPA regulations.

What did we do?

For the past six years, the Extension Service has been touring many hog farms and conducting numerous educational seminars on the Inoculated Deep Litter System (IDLS). The number of IDLS piggery operators has increased dramatically due to farmers coming out of retirement, producers retrofitting and replacing their wash-down swine operations as well as new farmers trying their hand at raising hogs. A major factor of the great interest toward the IDLS piggery is the minimal labor and time to operate the system compared to the traditional style of raising hogs with daily wash downs of the pig pens. Other important factors include the concept of collected micro-organisms, a layering of the deep litter green waste system, and designing piggery housing with strategic solar and wind positioning to keep the facility cool and dry. The success of the IDLS system is exemplified by the following: 1) Low maintenance since litter pens never have to be cleaned, 2)has no odor or ve ctor problems if managed correctly and 3) development of cost effective housing.

What have we learned?

IDLS incorporates four components: 1) self-collected, site-specific (or indigenous) micro-organisms (IMOs), 2) green waste, 3) natural ventilation, and 4) facility positioning relative to sunlight. The livestock facility is kept dry with natural ventilation and sunlight, which promotes proper fermentation of the pen litter (combination of green waste and livestock waste) thus preventing nuisance fly breeding and odors generated by proliferation of undesirable organisms.

Solar positioning. The building’s foundation is positioned from north to south, with the south end serving as the entrance to the facility. This takes advantage of maximizing sunlight traveling east to west, which provides adequate ultraviolet light, heating, and drying. Sunlight and ventilation help to promote drying, thus preventing liquid accumulation (from livestock waste, watering nipples or troughs, rain) in the litter, which deters the fermentation process from turning anaerobic, and eliminates conditions ideal for odor and fly breeding. (Note: orientation applies to the Northern Hemisphere and positioning should be reversed for application in the Southern Hemisphere.)

Natural ventilation. The building is designed with a high (14 ft H), vented roof, and walls (10 ft H) which have openings to the outside. Cool trade winds are allowed to blow through the building, forcing warm air to rise and be eliminated through the vented roof. This helps to dissipate heat generated from microbial fermentation in the litter, keeps the litter dry through constant air movement, and cools the facility during the hot season. During the rainy season, simple roll-down siding can be installed to keep rain out.

Deep Litter. In order to fulfill EPA regulations that require an impervious bottom to all waste handling facilities, there must be either a concrete slab or a thick (30 mil) plastic liner as the base of the building. Green waste, with a minimum depth of 4 feet, is then strategically layered to start the IDLS. The first layer consists of roughly a half foot of cinders mixed with bio-char (not charcoal briquettes). The second layer consists of 2 feet of cut logs. Logs should be at least 3 to 4 feet long and can range in diameter from 2” or more (larger, longer logs deter pigs from rooting them to the surface). The third layer is comprised of either leaves or fronds covered with assorted green waste. The next step is too lightly spread about one pound of IMO-4 and soil to every 50 square feet of surface area in the IDLS pen. For example, a 100 sq ft pen will require 2 pounds of IMO-4 applied in the third layer. The final step is to add about a half foot of sawd ust. Two weeks before introducing animals into the pens, activate the microbes once with a mist spray of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and fermented plant Juice (FPJ). You can add animals to the pen once you smell a yeasty odor in the litter, a sign that the microbes have been activated and are at work in the pen.

Micro-organisms: The only micro-organisms used are self-collected by the producer from the specific site of the facility. The profile of indigenous micro-organisms may vary greatly from place to place, from windward to leeward coasts, and even between neighboring properties. The initial, one-time misting with lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and fermented plant juice (FPJ) activates the microbes to increase in numbers. To learn how to make these activators, please attend a Natural Farming Input-Making class, or contact the Hawaiʻi Cooperative Extension Service (mduponte@hawaii.edu).

LAB and FPJ: These are self-made inputs. Go to CTAHR website for free publication

Future Plans

Adaptation of concept overcome a major hurdle when the IDLS piggery became cost sharable with the federal government on November 15, 2012 and deemed a best management practice. Hog farmers who practice the IDLS are eligible in entering into a cost-share agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) assistance and may file an application at any time and will further enhance the participation in the IDLSTo date nearly 50 retrofitted or new operations have been established in Hawaii. The IDLS has been introduced and being practiced in 11 states, Micronesia and various countries of the world. Future plans include implementing the technology to large scale operations, making of feed utilizing other natural farming techniques and evaluating the compost for organic plant propagation. The system is currently being tested with Poultry Production

Author

Michael DuPonte, Extension Agent University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). mduponte@hawaii.edu

Additional information

Publications

H. Park and M.W. DuPonte., 2010., How to Cultivate Indigenous Microorganisms, Biotechnology, CTAHR., June, BIO-9.

M. DuPonte and D. Fischer., Most Frequently Asked Questions on the IDLS Piggery, The Natural Farming Concept A New Economical Waste Management Stem for the Small Family Swine Farms in Hawaii., 2012., Livestock Management., Sept. , LM-23

D. M. Ikeda, Weinert Jr., E., Chang K.C.S., Mc Ginn, J.M., Miller S., Keliihoomalu, and DuPonte, M.W., 2013., Natural Farming: Fermented Plant Juice, Sustainable Agriculture, CTAHR., July, SA-7.

S. Miller, Ikeda, D.M., Weinert Jr., E., Chang K.C.S., Mc Ginn, J.M., Keliihoomalu, and DuPonte, M.W., Natural Farming: Lactic Acid Bacteria, Sustainable Agriculture, CTAHR., August, SA-8.

Acknowledgements

Kang Farms of Kurtistown, Hawaii, David Fischer (NRCS), Justin Perry III (NRCS) and Lehua Wall (CTAHR)

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Fertilizer Value of Swine Manure: A Comparison of a Lagoon and a Deep Pit Slurry System

Why Compare Liquid and Slurry Systems for Pig Production?

Since 2000 the cost of fertilizer has more than doubled. According to information provided by the USDA Economic Research Service (2013), the national average price per pound of N has increased between 2000 and 2012 by a factor of 2.6. Over the same time period, phosphate price increased by a factor of 2.8, and potassium price increased by a factor of 4.0. As a result, fertilizer costs now contribute 30% to 40% of the annual variable costs to grow many cereal grains. Table 1. Fertilizer price During the same time period environmental regulations have greatly decreased the construction of swine finishing facilities that use liquid manure handling systems that require the use of a lagoon or storage pond. In response to these economic and regulatory realities, some swine production companies are considering the use of deep pit slurry systems instead of an outdoor lagoon or storage. Benefits of the deep pit slurry system include the exclusion of rainfall, reduction in storage visibility, and conservation of valuable major plant nutrients (N, P, K) for the purpose of reducing production costs for feed grains. The objective of this presentation is to compare the fertilizer value of the manure produced from swine finishing barns that use a liquid manure handling with a treatment lagoon, and swine finishing barns that store manure below slotted floors in pits.

What did we do?

Plant nutrient content and volume data were collected from a swine finishing farm that used a lagoon treatment system. The system was designed to provide storage of manure, anaerobic treatment of volatile solids, and storage for sludge for 3520 pigs. Treated lagoon surface water (total solids = 0.5%) was recycled through the four buildings to provide water to remove manure from the building using a pull-plug, pit-recharge design. Lagoon surface water was applied to nearby cropland annually to provide all major plant nutrients using traveling gun irrigation. Data were also collected concerning the plant nutrient content of lagoon sludge, and sludge volumes were estimated using the ASABE Standard (2011).

Image of barn The realized value of swine manure was calculated for using lagoon water, and sludge to provide all or a portion of the N, P2O5, K2O used by corn based on typical crop needs. Only the portion of plant nutrients that met the recommendations was assigned value. No value was assigned to major plant nutrients applied in excess of plant uptake. The value was assigned based on price data obtained from USDA-ERS (2013). The prices used were $0.71/lb of N, $0.69/lb of P2O5, and $0.50/lb of K2O.

Two application rates were calculated for lagoon water. The first rate was to provide the N needs for corn and the second was to provide the P2O5 needs of the crop. The pounds of N, P2O5, and K2O applied per acre were determined and the value of the nutrients that met the fertilization rates was calculated.

Lagoon sludge (total solids = 10%) contained 4 times as much P2O5 as plant available N (PAN) per 1000 gallons (47.3 lb P2O5/1,000 gal vs 11.7 lb PAN/1,000 gal). Therefore, the only sludge application rate used was the rate needed to meet the fertilizer recommendation for P2O5. The realized value of the sludge was determined in the same way as for lagoon water.

Diagram lagoon system for finishing swine When lagoon water was applied to supply the N needs of one field, and sludge was applied to meet the P2O5 needs of another field the realized value of swine manure was $5.69 per hog-space per year. Application of lagoon water and sludge to meet the P2O5 needs of corn increased the annual value of manure to $6.64 per hog-space.

The analysis was repeated for the same size farm using volume and nutrient data for deep pit barns that provided 1 year of storage for swine slurry (total solids = 7.5%). The realized economic value of deep pit slurry was also calculated based on application of slurry, using direct injection, to meet the N and P2O5 needs of corn with the same price assumptions as for the lagoon system. The results indicated that spreading deep pit slurry based on the agronomic rate for N provided a realized manure value of $24.35/hog-space/yr. Application of slurry based on the agronomic rate for P2O5 yielded a manure value of $28.95/hog-space/year.

What have we learned?

Treatment lagoons were originally designed to provide treated water used to remove manure from flush or pit-recharge swine buildings. However, little consideration was given to the value of the N lost or the value of P and K. Essentially, lagoons provided the treatment needed for recycled flush or pit-recharge systems, but they wasted nitrogen that could be used to off-set fertilizer costs.

Over the last decade, fertilizer prices have increased greatly, and continue to fluctuate. As a result, the nutrients lost by manure treatment are now viewed as a valuable input for production of feed grains.

Using a deep pit barn eliminated the need for manure treatment and allowed plant nutrients to be stored until needed. It was estimated that a deep pit slurry system would allow a producer to increase nutrient value per hog-space by a factor of 4.3 from $6.68 to $28.95/hog-space per year. On a 4-house farm that provided housing for 3520 hogs the annual manure value may be as high as $101,920 per year.

Future Plans

The results from this study are being used to develop extension programs for swine producers. Information is being used to help plan farms and to encourage integration of swine and feed grain production.

Author

John P. Chastain, Ph.D., Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Clemson University jchstn@clemson.edu

Additional information

Reference Cited

ASABE (2011). ANSI/ASAE EP403.4 FEB2011 Design of Anaerobic Lagooons for Animal Waste Management. In ASABE STANDARDS. ASABE, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.

USDA-ERS (2013). Fertilizer Use and Price. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx.

Acknowledgements

Support for this work was provided by the Confined Animal Manure Management Program of Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Converting Manure, Food Wastes and Agricultural Production Wastes into Bio-Secure Fertilizer, feed, and/or beeding

Purpose

To find a way to completely eliminate bio-hazards in manure, food wastes, municipal sludge, and agricultural production wastes.

What did we do?

We adapted existing dry extrusion technology to bio-hazard agricultural wastes. To test the hypothesis we developed [ Dry Extrusion Technology can be adapted to convert bio-degradable hazardous wastes into Bio-Secure class “A” fertilizer, feed, and/or bedding more economically, with less environmental impact, greater sustainability, and in less time with a smaller foot print]

Once we proved our Hypothesis we further developed the process to allow the technology to be utilized in a large stationary plant suitable for a large waste generator and in a portable plant that can be used to assist smaller waste generators, such as, most agricultural producers and smaller municipalities.

What have we learned?

Our tests showed that we could validate our hypothesis by:

1) utilizing finely ground dry agricultural production wastes, mixed with the wet food and manure to reduce the moisture content of the wet wastes to a level compatible to the requirements of the dry extruder,
2) The Dry extruder effectively sterilized the wastes by high temperature, high pressure inside the extruder, and sudden drop in atmospheric pressure inside the cell walls of all the materials when exiting the Dry Extruder, thereby destroying the cell walls of not only the bio-mass materials but also of all micro organisms ova, and pathogens inside the final product.