manure nutrients – Page 4 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to demonstrate the effects of adding natural clinoptilolite zeolites to a dairy manure compost mix at the moment of initiating the composting process on ammonia emissions, nitrogen retention, composting performance, and characteristics of the final compost product. A typical dairy cow in the U.S. produces approximately 148 lb of manure daily (feces and urine, not counting bedding; Lorimor et al., 2000). This amounts to millions of tons of monthly manure production. On-farm composting of manure is one of the most-used practices to manage dairy manure in Idaho. Composting reduces manure volume between 35 and 50%, which allows the material to be significantly more affordable to transport than fresh, wet manure. Composting converts the nitrogen (N) present in the raw manure into a more stable form, which is released slowly over a period of years and thereby not totally lost to the environment. Composting contributes to alleviating problems associated with ground and surface water contamination and also reduces odor complaints (Rink et al., 1992; Fabian et al., 1993). During the manure handling and composting process, between 50 and 70% of the nitrogen can be lost as ammonia if additional techniques are not used to increase nitrogen retention. In most cases, manures from dairies and other livestock operations don’t have the proper carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio to be composted efficiently without added carbon (usual straw bedding has a C:N of 60 to 90). Dairy cow manure is rich in nitrogen (C:N ratios below 18:1), causing a great proportion of the available nitrogen to be lost as ammonia due to the lack of carbon to balance the composting process. The loss of nitrogen from manures as ammonia reduces the nutrient value of the manure, produces an inefficient composting process, and generates local and regional pollution. Lack of carbon also results in a lower-grade compost that can carry elevated concentrations of salts, potassium and phosphorous. In many arid zones there are not enough sources of carbon to balance the nitrogen present in the manure.

Zeolite is a mineral defined as a crystalline, hydrated aluminosilicate of alkali and alkaline earth cations having an infinite, open, three-dimensional structure. Zeolites are able to further lose or gain water reversibly and to exchange cations with and without crystal structure (Mumpton, 1999). Zeolites are mined in several western U.S. states where dairy production also is concentrated. This paper showcases a project that explored the effects of adding natural zeolites to dairy manure at the time of composting as a tool to reduce ammonia emissions and retain nitrogen in the final composted product.

What did we do?

This on-farm research and demonstration study was conducted at an open-lot dairy in southern Idaho with 100 milking Jersey cows. Manure stockpiled during the winter and piled after the corral’s cleaning was mixed with freshly collected manure from daily operations and straw from bedding and old straw bales, in similar proportions for each windrow. The compost mixture was calculated using a compost spreadsheet calculator (WSU-Puyallup Compost Mixture Calculator, version 1.1.; Puyallup, WA). Moisture was adjusted by adding well water to reach approximately 50% to 60% moisture on the initial mix. Windrows were mixed and mechanically turned using a tractor bucket. Three replications were made on control and treatment. The control consisted of the manure and straw mix as described. The treatment consisted of the same mix as the control, plus the addition of 8% of clinoptilolite zeolite by weight during the initial mix. Windrows were actively composted for four months or more. Ammonia emissions were measured using passive samplers (Ogawa & Co., Kobe, Japan) for the first five to seven days after building each windrow (called turn 1 in Figure 1) and after the two subsequent turns. Ammonia emissions per measurement period and per turn were obtained. Three periods of one to three days at the time of building each windrow and after the first turn were measured. After the second turn, two measurement periods of three to four days were made. Values of mg NH3-N/m3 are time-corrected by minutes of sampling (Figure 1). Complete initial manure (compost feedstock mix) and final screened compost nutrient lab analyses were performed for each windrow. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) on lab data and on ammonia samples were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

What have we learned?

The addition of 8% w/w natural zeolites to the dairy manure compost mix on a mechanically turned system using a tractor bucket reduced cumulative ammonia emissions by 11% during the first three turns (Figure 2) and showed a significant reduction trend in ammonia emissions. Figure 1 shows the differences and trend line in ammonia emissions per monitoring period and per turn. Treated windrows’ cumulative emissions were significantly lower (P<0.05) at 2.76 mg NH3-N/m3 from control windrows at 3.09 mg NH3-N/m3. Nitrates (NO3) on the composted treatment (702 ppm) were 3 times greater (p=0.05) than the control (223 ppm) (Figure 3). These results demonstrate that the addition of natural zeolites has a positive effect on reducing ammonia emissions during the composting process and increasing the conversion to nitrates, retaining nitrogen in the compost in a form that is more available to crops.

Future Plans

Field days and journal publications about this project are expected to occur within the next year.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

M. E. de Haro-Martí. Extension Educator. University of Idaho Extension, Gooding County, Gooding, Idaho.

Corresponding author email

mdeharo@uidaho.edu

Other authors

M. Chahine. Extension Dairy Specialist. University of Idaho Extension, Twin Falls R&E Center, Twin Falls, Idaho. H. Neibling. Extension Irrigation Engineer. University of Idaho Extension, Kimberly R&E Center, Kimberly, Idaho. L. Chen. Extension Waste Management Specialist,

Additional information

References:

Fabian, E. F., T. L. Richard, D. Kay, D. Allee, and J. Regenstein. 1993. Agricultural composting: a feasibility study for New York farms. Available at: http://compost.css.cornell.edu/feas.study.html . Accessed 04/28/2011.

Lorimor, J., W. Powers, A. Sutton. 2000. Manure Characteristics. Manure Management System Series. Midwest Plan Service. MPWS-18 Section 1. Iowa State University.

Mumpton, F.A. 1999. La roca magica: Uses of Natural Zeolites in Agriculture and Industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, No. 7 (Mar. 30, 1999), pp. 3463-3470

Rink, R., M. van de Kamp, G.B. Willson, M.E. Singley, T.L. Richard, J.J. Kolega, F.R. Gouin, L.L. Laliberty Jr., D.K. Dennis. W.M. Harry, A.J. Hoitink, W.F.Brinton. 1992. On-Farm Composting Handbook. NRAES-54. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. Cooperative Extension. Ithaca, New York.

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible through a USDA- ID NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) # 68-0211-11-047. The authors also want to thank the involved dairy farmer and colleagues that helped during this Extension and research project. Thanks to Dr. April Leytem and her technicians at USDA-ARS in Kimberly, ID, for the loan of the Ogawa passive samplers and for sample analysis.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Nutrient Recovery Membrane Technology: Pilot-Scale Evaluation

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Animal manure contains nutrients and organic matter that are valuable to crop production. Applying manure to nearby fields can be a significant source of environmental contamination, however, if managed incorrectly. In many cases, concentrated animal production facilities are not close enough to sufficient cropland to fully utilize these resources and management of manure becomes more of a disposal issue rather than a utilization opportunity. One potential solution is to remove and concentrate manure nutrients so they can be cost effectively transported longer distances to cropland that is lacking in nutrients. The objective of this work was to design and test a pilot-scale system to implement a hydrophobic, gas-permeable, ePTFE (a synthetic fluoropolymer) membrane (U.S. patent held by USDA) to recover ammonia from swine wastewater in a solution of sulfuric acid. The pilot-scale system was designed to replicate the laboratory results and to determine critical operational controls that will assist in design of farm-scale systems.

What did we do?

Through a series of preliminary experiments, we established operational criteria and selected a membrane with an inside diameter of 0.16 in., wall thickness of 0.023 in., and a density of 0.016 lb in-3. A test system was developed (Figure 1) with 19 membrane tubes within a 2.01-inch diameter, 24.7-inch-long reactor, giving a membrane density of 3.83 sq. in. per cubic inch of reactor volume. Wastewater first passed through a CO2 stripping column (4.016 in. diameter, 55 in. length) where a small air stream (0.0614 cfm) stripped CO2 from the wastewater and raised the pH one full unit, shifting the equilibrium to NH3 and enhancing transport across the membrane. Batch tests (0.706 ft3) were run for 9-12 days with wastewater recirculating at a rate of 0.16 gpm. The recovery fluid inside the tubular membranes was a 0.01 N sulfuric acid solution with the pH automatically maintained below 4.0 standard units and recirculating at a rate of 1/100th the wastewater flow rate. Freshly collected settled wastewater and anaerobic digester effluent were tested to determine the mass of ammonia collected, the acid required to maintain the low pH of the recovery solution, and potential ammonia losses to the atmosphere.

Figure 1. Schematic of membrane system

What have we learned?

The freshly collected wastewater had an initial mass of 35.6 g nitrogen but the NH3 was only 14.5 g, leading to a recovery of 11.8 g (33% of initial content) over 12 days. The anaerobic digester effluent had an initial mass of 33.2 g nitrogen with an NH3 mass of 31.3 g. The higher fraction of ammonia helped push the recovery to 25.7 g or 77% of the initial nitrogen content (see Figure 2). Very little ammonia was lost with the exhaust air.

Figure 2. Nitrogen recovery from swine manure with ePTFE membrane

Future Plans

An optimized membrane reactor could be a viable tool in ammonia nitrogen recovery from a manure treatment system if used in conjunction with digestion. Higher economic value could be generated by further concentrating the ammonium sulfate product.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

John J. Classen, Associate Professor, Biological & Agricultural Engineering, NCSU

Corresponding author email

john_classen@ncsu.edu

Other authors

J. Mark Rice, Extension Specialist, NCSU; Alison Deviney, Graduate Research Assistant, NCSU

Additional information

John J. Classen

Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Campus Box 7625

North Carolina State University

919-515-6755

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by NRCS CIG Award 69-3A75-12-183. The authors are grateful for the analytical work of the BAE Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Dr. Cong Tu, manager.

March 5, 2019May 2, 2019

Partnerships in the Manure Nutrient Management Field

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Responsible manure nutrient management improves environmental quality while maintaining agricultural productivity. Multiple organizations and individuals play a part in improving the understanding and practice of responsible management. But how does manure nutrient management information flow? The “Pathways” project’s goals were to understand and delineate pathways for effective information dissemination and use among various agricultural professional audiences that facilitate successful integrated (research/outreach/education) projects and programs. This presentation examines the relevance of partnerships within the manure nutrient management network and barriers to these partnerships.

What did we do?

We disseminated the “Pathways” survey online utilizing the mailing lists of several professional and producer organizations and listservs associated with manure management. There were 964 surveys started and 608 completed. The six types of organizations with more than 10% of the total survey population’s responses were university/Extension; government non-regulatory agencies; government regulatory agencies; producers; special government agencies; and sale or private enterprises.

The South Dakota State University Institutional Review Board deemed the survey exempt under federal regulation 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (IRB-1402010-EXM and IRB-1502001-EXM).

What have we learned?

The survey posed “How important is collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management?” Figure 1 shows the mean relevance among all survey participants, evaluated on a scale of 1 (Not important/somewhat unimportant) to 4 (Highly important). On average, all potential partner groups were recognized as important (>2). Partnerships with producers were deemed most important (3.68) by all survey respondents.

After assessing relevance, we asked survey participants to indicate what barriers, if any, deter them from collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management (select all that apply). For all potential partners listed, with the exception of tribal governments, “No Barriers to Use” was the most selected option. “Do Not Have a Relationship” was a common and stronger barrier for commodity, sales and service partners, compared to government agencies, for example.

The barriers “Discouraged or Not Allowed” and “No Incentive to Collaborate” were relatively small selections. The barrier “Do Not Have a Relationship” is possible to overcome at both individual and organizational levels, where needed.

Figure 1. The average relevance and the distribution of barriers to collaborating or partnering with the types of organizations specified, for purposes of manure nutrient management

Future Plans

In the future, assessing the reasons for specific partnerships can further aid improving communication and collaboration in the manure nutrient management network.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Erin Cortus, Associate Professor and Environmental Quality Specialist at South Dakota State University

Corresponding author email

erin.cortus@sdstate.edu

Additional information

lpelc.org/the-pathways-project

Acknowledgements

The Pathways Project greatly appreciates the support of the North Central Region Water Network Seed Grant, South Dakota Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and the collaborative groups of educators, researchers and agency personnel, for improving and advocating the survey.

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.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Developing Science-Based Estimates of Best Management Practice Effectiveness for the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a regional partnership that leads and directs Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection. The CBP uses a suite of modeling and planning tools to estimate nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment loads contributed to the Bay from its watershed, and guide restoration efforts. Non-point source (NPS) pollutant sources (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff) are largely related to diverse land uses stretching across six states and the District of Columbia. On-the-ground pollutant reductions are achieved by implementing both management and structural best management practices (BMPs) on those diverse land uses. Short and long-term reductions in NPS pollutant loads that result from BMP implementation are estimated using the CBP modeling suite of tools. The CBP recognizes (i.e., represents pollutant reduction credits for) over 150 BMPs across 66 land uses total for all sectors in its Phase 6 suite of modeling tools. The estimated pollutant reduction performance (i.e., effectiveness) of each BMP is parameterized in the CBP modeling suite. Within the CBP, BMP effectiveness is determined by groups of qualified scientific and technical experts (BMP Expert Panels) that review the relevant literature and make an independent determination regarding BMP performance which are reviewed and approved by the CBP partnership before being integrated in to the modeling tools by the CBP modeling team.

BMP Expert Panels are primarily convened under the auspices of the CBP’s Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and tasked to specific sector workgroups for oversight and management. Panels are tasked with addressing a specific BMP, or a suite of related BMPs. Panel members, in coordination with the CBP partnership, are selected based on their scientific expertise, practical experience with the BMP, and expertise in fate and transport of nutrients and sediment. Panels review the relevant literature and through a deliberative process and form recommendations on BMP pollutant production performance, and how the BMP(s) should be accounted for/incorporated into the CBP modeling tools and data reporting systems. Convening BMP Expert Panels is an ongoing focus and priority of the CBP partnership, given the integral role BMP implementation plays in achieving the pollution reduction goals required by the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

What Did We Do?

Expert panels follow the process and adhere to expectations outlined in the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Protocol for the Development, Review, and Approval of Loading and Effectiveness Estimates for Nutrient and Sediment Controls in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (aka the “BMP Protocol”). The expert panel process functions as an independent peer review, similar to that of the National Academy of Sciences.

Each panel reviews and discusses all current published literature and available unpublished literature and data related to the BMP(s), and formulates recommendations using the guidance provided in the BMP Protocol to help weigh the applicability of each data source. Consensus panel recommendations are recorded in a final report, which is presented to relevant CBP partnership groups, including the CBP partnership’s Agriculture Workgroup for feedback and approval.

Panel recommendations are built into the modeling tools following CBP partnership approval of the panel’s report.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Map

Basic Diagram of the Chesapeake Bay Program Expert Panel BMP Review Process

What Have We Learned?

The availability of published, peer-reviewed data varies greatly based on the scope of the panel. Some panels have dozens of articles to analyze while others may have a limited number of published studies to supplement gray literature, unpublished data and their best professional judgment. Even panels with a large amount of relevant literature at their disposal identify important gaps and future research needs. Given the wide range of stakeholders in the CBP partnership, regular updates and communication with interested parties as the panel formulates its recommendations is extremely important to improve understanding and acceptance of final panel recommendations.

Future Plans

The Chesapeake Bay Program evaluates BMP effectiveness estimates as new research or new conservation and production practices become available. Thus, expert panels sometimes revisit BMPs that were previously reviewed, but new and innovative BMPs are also considered. The availability of resources and new research limit the frequency of these reviews in conjunction with the priorities of the CBP partnership. Given the CBP partnership’s interest in adaptive management and continually improving its scientific estimates of BMP effectiveness, there will continue to be BMP expert panels for the foreseeable future.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Jeremy Hanson, Project Coordinator – Expert Panel BMP Assessment, Virginia Tech

Corresponding author email address

jchanson@vt.edu

Other Authors

Mark Dubin, Agricultural Technical Coordinator, University of Maryland Extension

Brian Benham, Professor and Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech

Each expert panel has at least several other authors and contributors, which is not practical for listing here. Each individual report identifies the panel members and other contributors for that specific panel.

Additional Information

The BMP Review Protocol is available online at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publications/title/bmp_review_protocol

All final expert panel reports are posted on the Chesapeake Bay Program website under “publications”: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/groups/group/bmp_expert_panels

Acknowledgements

These BMP expert panels would not be possible without the generosity of expert panel members who volunteer their valuable time and perspectives. Staff support, coordination and funding for these panels is provided by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, specifically through Cooperative Agreements with Virginia Tech and University of Maryland, with additional contract support from Tetra Tech as needed. The work of these expert panels is strengthened through the participation, review and comments of the CBP partnership.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Valorization of Manure Treatment for Poultry and Swine Operators

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

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.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Panel Discussion: A Look at Extension Programs Working with Commercial Manure Haulers

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Commercial manure haulers are an important link in the nutrient management process. Panelists from different areas of the country will discuss how they work with manure haulers in their state – examples that range from targeted workshops to certification programs and even professional associations. Information on building relationships with this important audience will be shared along with challenges, successes, and future plans.

Panelists

Melony Wilson – Georgia (moderator)

Leslie Johnson – Nebraska

Mary Berg – North Dakota

Doug Hamilton – Oklahoma

Glen Arnold – Ohio

March 5, 2019September 4, 2020

Poultry Mortality Freezer Units: Better BMP, Better Biosecurity, Better Bottom Line.

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Why Tackle Mortality Management? It’s Ripe for Revolution.

The poultry industry has enjoyed a long run of technological and scientific advancements that have led to improvements in quality and efficiency. To ensure its hard-won prosperity continues into the future, the industry has rightly shifted its focus to sustainability. For example, much money and effort has been expended on developing better management methods and alternative uses/destinations for poultry litter.

In contrast, little effort or money has been expended to improve routine mortality management – arguably one of the most critical aspects of every poultry operation. In many poultry producing areas of the country, mortality management methods have not changed in decades – not since the industry was forced to shift from the longstanding practice of pit burial. Often that shift was to composting (with mixed results at best). For several reasons – improved biosecurity being the most important/immediate – it’s time that the industry shift again.

The shift, however, doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, i.e., mortality management can be revolutionized without developing anything revolutionary. In fact, the mortality management practice of the future owes its existence in part to a technology that was patented exactly 20 years ago by Tyson Foods – large freezer containers designed for storing routine/daily mortality on each individual farm until the containers are later emptied and the material is hauled off the farm for disposal.

Despite having been around for two decades, the practice of using on-farm freezer units has received almost no attention. Little has been done to promote the practice or to study or improve on the original concept, which is a shame given the increasing focus on two of its biggest advantages – biosecurity and nutrient management.

Dusting off this old BMP for a closer look has been the focus of our work – and with promising results. The benefits of hitting the reset button on this practice couldn’t be more clear:

Greatly improved biosecurity for the individual grower when compared to traditional composting;
Improved biosecurity for the entire industry as more individual farms switch from composting to freezing, reducing the likelihood of wider outbreaks;
Reduced operational costs for the individual poultry farm as compared to more labor-intensive practices, such as composting;
Greatly reduced environmental impact as compared to other BMPs that require land application as a second step, including composting, bio-digestion and incineration; and
Improved quality of life for the grower, the grower’s family and the grower’s neighbors when compared to other BMPs, such as composting and incineration.

What Did We Do?

We basically took a fresh look at all aspects of this “old” BMP, and shared our findings with various audiences.

That work included:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
2. Freezer unit capacity,
3. Power consumption, and
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors,
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects;
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
3. Biosecurity measures
4. Nutrient management comparisons
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Ensuring the results of the above topics/tests were communicated to
1. Growers
2. Integrators
3. Legislators
4. Environmental groups
5. Funding agencies (state and federal)
6. Veterinary agencies (state and federal)

What Have We Learned?

The breadth of the work at times limited the depth of any one topic’s exploration, but here is an overview of our findings:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Farm visitation by scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, that previously dined in the composting shed daily slowly decreased and then stopped entirely about three weeks after the farm converted to freezer units.
  2. The fly population was dramatically reduced after the farm converted from composting to freezer units. [Reduction was estimated at 80%-90%.]
2. Freezer unit capacity
  1. The test units were carefully filled on a daily basis to replicate the size and amount of deadstock generated over the course of a full farm’s grow-out cycle.
  2. The capacity tests were repeated over several flocks to ensure we had accurate numbers for creating a capacity calculator/matrix, which has since been adopted by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine the correct number of units per farm based on flock size and finish bird weight (or number of grow-out days) in connection with the agency’s cost-share program.
3. Power consumption
  1. Power consumption was recorded daily over several flocks and under several conditions, e.g., during all four seasons and under cover versus outside and unprotected from the elements.
  2. Energy costs were higher for uncovered units and obviously varied depending on the season, but the average cost to power one unit is only 90 cents a day. The total cost of power for the average farm (all four units) is only $92 per flock. (See additional information for supporting documentation and charts.)
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
  1. It was determined that the benefits of installing the units under cover (e.g., inside a small shed or retrofitted bin composter) with a winch system to assist with emptying the units greatly outweighed the additional infrastructure costs.
  2. This greatly reduced wear and tear on the freezer component of the system during emptying, eliminated clogging of the removable filter component, as well as provided enhanced access to the unit for periodic cleaning/maintenance by a refrigeration professional.
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
  1. After tracking two years of full farm collection/hauling data, we were able to increase the per unit capacity number in the calculator/matrix from 1,500 lbs. to 1,800 lbs., thereby reducing the number of units required per farm to satisfy that farm’s capacity needs.
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Both farms reported improved quality of life, largely thanks to the elimination or reduction of animals, insects and smells associated with composting.
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Both farms reported elimination or reduction of the scavenging animals and disease-carrying insects commonly associated with composting.
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects
  1. With the benefit of two years of actual use in the field, we entirely re-designed the sheds used for housing the freezer units.
  2. The biggest improvements were created by turning the units so they faced each other rather than all lined up side-by-side facing outward. (See additional information for supporting documentation and diagrams.) This change then meant that the grower went inside the shed (and out of the elements) to load the units. This change also provided direct access to the fork pockets, allowing for quicker emptying and replacement with a forklift.
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. More research confirming the connection between farm visitation by scavenger animals and the use of composting was recently published by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center:
    1. “Certain wildlife species may become habituated to anthropogenically modified habitats, especially those associated with abundant food resources. Such behavior, at least in the context of multiple farms, could facilitate the movement of IAV from farm to farm if a mammal were to become infected at one farm and then travel to a second location. … As such, the potential intrusion of select peridomestic mammals into poultry facilities should be accounted for in biosecurity plans.”
    2. Root, J. J. et al. When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources. Sci. Rep. 5, 14354; doi:10.1038/ srep14354 (2015) at page 6 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
  1. Animals and insects have long been known to be carriers of dozens of pathogens harmful to poultry – and to people. Recently, however, the USDA National Wildlife Research Center demonstrated conclusively that mammals are not only carriers – they also can transmit avian influenza virus to birds.
    1. The study’s conclusion is particularly troubling given the number and variety of mammals and other animals that routinely visit composting sheds as demonstrated by our research using a game camera. These same animals also routinely visit nearby waterways and other poultry farms increasing the likelihood of cross-contamination, as explained in this the video titled Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits.
    2. “When wildlife and poultry interact and both can carry and spread a potentially damaging agricultural pathogen, it’s cause for concern,” said research wildlife biologist Dr. Jeff Root, one of several researchers from the National Wildlife Research Center, part of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services program, studying the role wild mammals may play in the spread of avian influenza viruses.
3. Biosecurity measures
  1. Every day the grower collects routine mortality and stores it inside large freezer units. After the broiler flock is caught and processed, but before the next flock is started – i.e. when no live birds are present, a customized truck and forklift empty the freezer units and hauls away the deadstock. During this 10- to 20- day window between flocks biosecurity is relaxed and dozens of visitors (feed trucks, litter brokers, mortality collection) are on site in preparation for the next flock.
    1. “Access will change after a production cycle,” according to a biosecurity best practices document (enclosed) from Iowa State University. “Empty buildings are temporarily considered outside of the [protected area and even] the Line of Separation is temporarily removed because there are no birds in the barn.”
4. Nutrient management comparisons
  1. Research provided by retired extension agent Bud Malone (enclosed) provided us with the opportunity to calculate nitrogen and phosphorous numbers for on-farm mortality, and therefore, the amount of those nutrients that can be diverted from land application through the use of freezer units instead of composting.
  2. The research (contained in an enclosed presentation) also provided a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various nutrient management BMPs – and a finding that freezing and recycling is about 90% more efficient than the average of all other ag BMPs in reducing phosphorous.
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Local and county governments in several states have been compiling a lot of research on the various approaches for ensuring farmers and their residential neighbors can coexist peacefully.
  2. Many of the complaints have focused on the unwanted scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, as well as the smells associated with composting.
  3. The concept of utilizing sealed freezer collection units to eliminate the smells and animals associated with composting is being considered by some government agencies as an alternative to instituting deeper and deeper setbacks from property lines, which make farming operations more difficult and costly.

Future Plans

We see more work on three fronts:

First, we’ll continue to do monitoring and testing locally so that we may add another year or two of data to the time frames utilized initially.
Second, we are actively working to develop new more profitable uses for the deadstock (alternatives to rendering) that could one day further reduce the cost of mortality management for the grower.
Lastly, as two of the biggest advantages of this practice – biosecurity and nutrient management – garner more attention nationwide, our hope would be to see more thorough university-level research into each of the otherwise disparate topics that we were forced to cobble together to develop a broad, initial understanding of this BMP.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Victor Clark, Co-Founder & Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Corresponding author email address

victor@farmfreezers.com

Other Authors

Terry Baker, Co-Founder & President, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Additional Information

https://rendermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Render_Oct16.pdf

Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits

One Night in a Composting Shed

www.farmfreezers.com

—

Transmission Pathways

Avian flu conditions still evolving (editorial)

USDA NRCS Conservation fact sheet Poultry Freezers

Nature.com When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources

How Does It Work? (on-farm freezing)

Influenza infections in wild raccoons (CDC)

Collection Shed Unit specifications

Collection Unit specifications

Freezing vs Composting for Biosecurity (Render magazine)

Manure and spent litter management: HPAI biosecurity (Iowa State University)

Acknowledgements

Bud Malone, retired University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist and owner of Malone Poultry Consulting

Bill Brown, University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist, poultry grower and Delmarva Poultry Industry board member

Delaware Department of Agriculture

Delaware Nutrient Management Commission

Delaware Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Maryland Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Cultivation of Duckweed on Anaerobically Digested Dairy Manure for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

The purpose of this research included identifying the optimum cultivation conditions of five different strains of duckweed while evaluating the nutrient uptake of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in anaerobically digested dairy manure to promote biomass production.

What did we do?

The growth of duckweed was assessed on the cultivation parameters of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, light intensity, nutrient concentrations, and biomass production. Three strains, namely Landoltia punctata, Lemna gibba and Lemna minuta, were identified as the promising candidates for their high levels of nutrient uptake and biomass production. The temperature and light intensity were maintained in an environmental chamber at 25°C and 10,000 lux, respectively. The nutrient uptake through duckweed cultivation, characterized by the changes of total nitrogen (TN), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (TP), was assessed on the anaerobically digested dairy manure in three dilution ratios i.e., 1:13, 1:18, and 1:27 by volume.

What have we learned?

In the dilution ratios 1:18 and 1:27 all duckweed strains grew successfully. However, in dilution ratio 1:13 all three duckweed species were inhibited by the high nutrient concentration. The batch system created an aerobic environment within the anaerobically digested dairy manure medium with a dissolved oxygen content of 2-6 mg/L. At the high light intensity of 10,000 (lux) a buffer was needed in order to keep the medium’s pH constant to promote duckweed growth. This research compared the nutrient reduction of the microbial growth within the anaerobically digested dairy manure and a standard solution of 1.6 g/L of Hoagland E-medium to the nutrient reduction from the three strains of duckweed at the dilution ratios of 1:13, 1:18, and 1:27. Experimental results revealed that the average duckweed productivities were 1.50, 1.30 and 0.50 grams per square foot per day for Landoltia punctata, Lemna gibba, and Lemna minuta, respectively. At the dilution ratio of 1:27 the highest significant reductions came from Landoltia punctata at 86.0% for TN, 87.5% for TKN, and a TP of 89.5%. At the dilution ratio of 1:18 Lemna gibba got the next highest at 83.8% for TN, 85.6% for TKN, and a TP of 76.2%. Lemna minuta came in last with the highest nutrient reductions in dilution ratio 1:18 with 83.1% for TN, 84.7% for TKN, and a TP of 76.5%. A light intensity of 10,000 lux, pH of 6.5, a temperature of 25°C and a dilution ratio of 1:27 promoted active duckweed growth on anaerobically digested dairy manure.

Future Plans

We will continue the duckweed cultivation work to optimize manure nutrient uptake and to convert duckweed biomass into bioethanol.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Lide Chen, Assistant Professor/Waste Management Engineer, University of Idaho

Corresponding author email

lchen@uidaho.edu

Other authors

Kevin Kruger (University of Idaho)

Additional information

Kevin Kruger is a graduate student who conducted the duckweed cultivation tests.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the USDA NIFA and Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

EPA’s Nutrient Recycling Challenge

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Come to this session to learn about the Nutrient Recycling Challenge and meet some of the involved partners and experts, as well as some innovators who are competing to develop nutrient recovery technologies that meet the needs of pork and dairy farmers. This session will begin with an overview of the challenge. Next, innovators will provide snapshot presentations about the technology ideas they are working on, followed by live feedback/Q&A sessions on each technology where we can harness the buzzing brainpower at Waste to Worth. Finally, we will move into a “workshop” designed to support innovators participating in the Nutrient Recycling Challenge as they refine their designs before they build prototypes.

What did we do?

Background on the Nutrient Recycling Challenge

At Waste to Worth 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a brainstorm session about developing technologies that livestock farmers want to help manage manure nutrients. That session sowed the seeds for the Nutrient Recycling Challenge—a global competition to find affordable and effective nutrient recovery technologies that create valuable products farmers can use, transport, or sell to where nutrients are in demand. Pork and dairy producers, USDA, and environmental and scientific experts saw the tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits, and partnered with EPA to launch the challenge in November 2015 (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What have we learned?

There is a tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits from manure by-products, but further innovation is needed to develop more effective and affordable technologies that can extract nutrients and create products that farmers can use, transport, or sell more easily to where nutrients are in demand.

In the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, innovators have proposed a range of technology systems to recover nitrogen and phosphorus from dairy and swine manure, including physical, chemical, biological, and thermal treatment systems. Some such systems may also be compatible with manure-to-energy technologies, such as anaerobic digesters. Farms of all sizes are interested in nutrient recovery, and there is demand for diverse types of technologies due to a diversity in end users. To improve the adoptability of nutrient recovery systems, it is critical that innovators are mindful of the affordability of technologies, and work to lower capital and operations and maintenance costs, and improve the potential for returns on investment. A key factor for offsetting the costs of a technology and improving its marketability will be in its ability to generate valuable nutrient-containing products that are competitive in the market.

Future Plans

The challenge has four phases, in which innovators are turning concepts into designs, and eventually to pilot these working technologies on livestock farms. Thirty-four innovator teams whose concepts were selected from Phase I are refining technology designs in Phase II. Design prototypes will be built in Phase III. This workshop is designed to help innovators maximize their potential for developing nutrient recovery technologies that meet farmer needs.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Session Agenda

Overview of the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, Hema Subramanian and Joseph Ziobro of EPA
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partner Introductions, Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partners (including National Milk Producers Federation, Newtrient, Smithfield Foods, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Energy, and Water Environment & Reuse Foundation)
Showcase of Innovators’ Technology Ideas
- Decanter Centrifuge and Struvite Recovery for Manure Nutrient Management, Hiroko Yoshida
- Manure Solids Separation BioFertilizer Produccion Drinking Water Efluente, Aicardo Roa Espinosa
- Nutrient Recovery from Anaerobic Digestates, Rakesh Govind
- Organic Waste Digestion and Nutrient Recycling, Steven Dvorak
- Manure Treatment with the Black Solder Fly, Simon Gregg
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Workshop for Innovators
- Developing technologies: From concept to pilot (to full-scale), Matias Vanotti
- Waste Systems Overview for Dairy and Swine and Innovative Technologies: What Steps Should be Taken (Lessons Learned), Jeff Porter

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Spotlight on Manure Management in North Carolina and the Atlantic Coastal Plains

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

To provide information about commonly-found manure management systems and approaches in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains, and discuss opportunities for technological innovation in the areas of manure management and nutrient recovery/utilization. Hear from a diverse panel of researchers, animal agriculture producers, and agency representatives who will provide background on the environmental conditions of the region and discuss specific technical considerations for innovative research and development. Learn about what has and hasn’t worked in past attempts to recover nutrients at animal agriculture farms in the area, and about the exciting possibilities for innovation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Nutrient Recycling Challenge (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What did we do?

N/A

What have we learned?

N/A

Future Plans

N/A

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Other authors

Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

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

Additional information

Session Agenda

Background, history, and technical information about manure management in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains

Presenter: Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

Lessons Learned from the Smithfield Agreement

Presenter: Dr. Kelly Zering, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Panel: Challenges and Opportunities around Manure Management Systems

Moderator: Hema Subramanian

Panel to include the above speakers plus representatives from the local animal agriculture industry, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.