Tag: manure pathogens

Posted on

Surface runoff transport of Escherichia coli after poultry litter application on pastureland

Escherichia coli transported in surface runoff from dissolution of applied poultry litter is a major variable in assessing fecal contamination of streams. However, the relative magnitude of the E. coli concentration from a specific poultry litter application and relative to the time lag between litter application and rainfall are not completely understood. This research investigated E. coli transport in runoff on fourteen 2 m × 2 m pastureland plots. Poultry litter was manually applied (4,942 kg ha‐1) in twelve plots followed by artificial rainfall with intensities equivalent to 2‐year and 5‐year storm events. Rainfall was applied in duplicate plots immediately after poultry litter application and 24 and 120 h after litter application. Experiments were also conducted on two control plots without poultry litter application. Surface runoff was collected using a flume installed in a trench. E. coli was quantified from sampled runoff and used as an indicator of fecal contamination by the most probable number (MPN) technique. Significant differences in the average event mean concentrations (EMCs) for the various treatments were determined using ANOVA. No significant differences were observed in average EMCs relative to storm intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed in average EMCs relative to time lag between litter application and rainfall (P < 0.05). A nonlinear relationship was observed between average E. coli EMC and time lag, with the EMC decreasing between 0 h (1.6 × 105 MPN/100 mL) and 24 h (1.3 × 104 MPN/100 mL) and then increasing at 120 h (4.3 × 104 MPN/100 mL). E. coli were always detected in the control plots (average EMC of 6.8 × 103 MPN/100 mL), indicating the presence and transport of fecal bacteria from sources independent of the immediate poultry litter application. Even though poultry litter application may increase E. coli concentrations in runoff, other sources of fecal contamination serve as a significant component of the total E. coli EMC, especially as the time lag between litter application and rainfall events increases.

Purpose          

Poultry litter is recognized as an excellent source of the plant nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. In addition, litter returns organic matter and other nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and sulphur to the soil, building soil fertility and quality.

Questions exist concerning E. coli contamination of waterways following manure land application events. Oklahoma State University researchers conducted a field study evaluating surface runoff transport of E. coli following poultry litter application to pastureland.

Figure 1. Illustration of the down slope outflow flume.What did we do?

Pasture plots, which consisted of ryegrass, fescue grass, bermudagrass and some Johnsongrass, were established at the Eastern Oklahoma Research Station located in Haskell, OK. Cattle had not been allowed access to the pasture for over one year and poultry litter had previously been applied one year prior to the study. Broiler litter was applied to 14 plots at a rate of 2.2 tons/acre. Two control plots received no litter application.

An artificial rainfall simulator was used to produce 2 yr and 5 yr storm events. Rainfall was applied at 0 h, 24 h and 120 h after litter application. Surface runoff was collected using a flume installed in a trench (Figures 1 and 2). Water samples were tested for E. coli populations.

Figure 2. Rainfall simulator.

What have we learned?

Results of this study showed that E. coli event mean concentrations (EMC) in sampled runoff decreased at 24 h and 120 h when compared to 0 h after litter application (Table 1). However, a slight increase in populations was observed at 120 h as compared to 24 h. This slight growth may have been due to litter in contact with the soil surface and protected from ultraviolet light and moisture loss by vegetative cover.

In control plots, E. coli was always detected, indicating other sources of E.coli aside from poultry litter. Other sources may include rodents, birds, and other small mammals.

Table 1. E. coli event mean concentration (EMC, MPN/100 ml)

In conclusion, poultry litter applications may contribute to runoff of E. coli when rainfall events occur shortly after litter application. However, other sources of fecal contamination may serve as a significant component of the total E. coli EMC, especially as the time lag between litter application and rainfall event increases. The implications of this study may affect poultry litter application timing decisions based on predicted rainfall events.

Future Plans  

Future studies using more advanced biological analysis techniques (i.e., DNA profiling) should be conducted to identify sources of background E. coli concentrations.

Authors      

Josh Payne, Area Animal Waste Managment Specialist, Oklahoma State University joshua.payne@okstate.edu

Jorge Guzman, Senior Engineer, Waterborne Environmental; Garey Fox, Professor, Oklahoma State University

Additional information              

Guzman, J. A., G. A. Fox and J. B. Payne, 2010. Surface runoff transport of Escherichia coli after poultry litter application on pastureland. Trans. ASABE. 53(3):779-886.

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.

Posted on

Environmental Antibiotic Resistance Bacteria and Genes: A Link to Public Health?


Purpose

The emergence of antibiotic resistant bacterial genes in previously susceptible pathogens has become a major challenge in treatment of infectious diseases in the 21st century. I will describe how environmental antibiotic resistance genes and resistant bacteria affect and interact with human health issues and the connection between human, animal and environmental health using the One Health model.

diagram of One Health

Figure 1. Antibiotic resistant genes and antibiotic resistant bacteria are shared by animals, humans and the environment.

 

What did we do?

The 2013 CDC publication estimates ~2 million people develop antibiotic-resistant infections with ~ 23,000 dying as a direct result of these infections. The rapid development of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and the identification of many new antibiotic resistant genes (ARG) over the last few decades is a recent event following the large-scale production and use of antibiotics in clinical/veterinary medicine, agriculture, aquaculture and horticulture over the past 70 years. The majority of today’s antibiotics are produced by soil Streptomyces spp. These microbes have genes which are able to protect their host from the action of these naturally produced antibiotics. These protection proteins often have similar action to “classical ARGs” or are genetically related to ARGs found in pathogens. Environmental bacteria are thought to be one ancestral source for many of the clinically relevant antibiotic resistant genes ass ociated with pathogens infecting humans and animals today. Another example is the qnrA gene which is associated with plasmid-linked fluoroquinolone resistance that originated in the aquatic bacterium Shewanell algae. Gene cluster conferring glycopeptide resistance in enterococci, which create vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE), have been identified in many Gram-positive bacteria including common soil bacteria, some of which are plant pathogens. These same soil bacteria are also resistant to daptomycin, a relative newly developed antibiotic, which currently has restrictive use in clinical medicine. Recently it has been determined that municipal wastewater treatment does not remove antibiotics, ARGs and may be enriched for ARBs which contaminate the water environment. Indicating that human civilization, unknowingly is contaminating the environment, and contributes to the development of new ARB/ARGs.

In recent years, carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) have increased throughout the USA and the world. Carbapenemase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC) have been associated with USA hospital outbreaks while other CREs carrying the New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1) producing Enterobacteriaceae have generally been imported and still rarely cause disease in the USA. The NDM-1 containing Enterobacteriaceae have been found in sewage and drinking water and the environment in India, sewage in China and more recently in Brazilian waters. Where these resistant genes have come from is not clear. However, our recent work suggests that we can isolated environmental bacteria that can grow in the presence of meropenem and by qPCR we can get positive reactions for some CRE genes in environmental as well as sewage samples. All together suggests that their may be environmental sources for carbapenemase resistances.

What have we learned?

Data is accumulating to indicate that antibiotic resistant genes from the environment play an important role not only as reservoirs for antibiotic resistance genes found because of human/animal contamination but also independently providing new antibiotic resistant genes which can then be spread to humans and animals and create serious problems as is currently occurring with CRE.

Future Plans

Verify the potential sources of CRE genes within the environment including identification of the bacteria which are current resistant to carbapenems and what their mechanism of resistance is.

Author

Marilyn C. Roberts, Professor, Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195-7234 marilynr@uw.edu

Additional information

http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013- 508.pdf
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full.pdf+html
http://mmbr.asm.org/content/74/3/417.full.pdf+html

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.

Posted on

Manure Irrigation: Airborne Pathogen Transport and Assessment of Technology Use in Wisconsin

This presentation will outline the completed research on manure irrigation pathogen transport including field data, transport models, and a quantitative microbial risk assessment.  Details will also be provided on the workgroup recommendations for use of this technology in Wisconsin.

Why Study Irrigation of Manure?  

Manure irrigation is of increasing interest to producers in Wisconsin as it allows for multiple application of manure throughout the growing season. This can reduce application costs while providing nutrients to a growing crop as opposed to a single manure application in the spring or fall. With increasing interest and potential for practice expansion many communities were concerned with the potential human health (pathogens), odor, and environmental issues associated with the practice.

What did we do?

The University of Wisconsin-Extension formed an 18 person workgroup representing many stakeholders and experts to review the practice of manure irrigation for impacts to odor, water quality, air quality, and human health among others. The workgroup developed recommendations for the practice which will be available in early May 2015 at http://fyi.uwex.edu/manureirrigation/. In addition, a research team evaluated manure pathogen drift in the field to assess concentrations at increasing distance away from the source. These results were used to develop an air dispersion model as well as develop a quantitative risk assessment. These models and assessment were used to evaluated practice recommendations and to determine if there are reasonable setback distances which reduce risk to a level deemed acceptable by the workgroup.

What have we learned?        

There are a number of concerns and benefits that may be realized when using manure irrigation. There may be scenarios in which manure irrigation is a beneficial practice, but there may be locations in which it is not suitable due to sensitive environmental factors or proximity to neighbors. Like many manure system components management of the system is key, and if improperly manged can lead to negative impacts. Detailed recommendations of the workgroup will be available in May 2015.

Future Plans

The workgroup intends to complete the report by May 2015 to be made available to interested parties on the webpage. The research team is currently evaluating expanding the measurement of pathogens to other areas of the farm and additional land application techniques for comparison.

Authors

Dr. Becky Larson, University of Wisconsin, ralarson2@wisc.edu

Susan Spencer, Tucker Burch, Yifan Liang, Chris Choi

Additional information            

http://fyi.uwex.edu/manureirrigation/

Acknowledgements      

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the USDA ARS in Marshfield, Wisconsin.

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.

Posted on

Economical Anaerobic Digestion of CAFO Animal Waste


Purpose

The application of manure on croplands is increasingly under regulatory scrutiny, especially from impaired watersheds. The challenge facing many small farms is to find cost-effective and innovative solutions for manure reuse whilst responding to environmental, regulatory and public concerns. One option is to install an anaerobic digester (AD) in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. However, not all farmers are financially able to install an AD but do need the AD’s benefits to keep their livestock operation sustainable. This paper discusses a novel, cost effective and patented manure treatment system which can reduce the volume of manure for field application (see Figure 1).Earthmentor N2RTS Schematic

What did we do?

The EarthMentor® Natural Nutrient Reclamation and Treatment System (EMS), uses a combination of innovative sand separation technology (if necessary) and anaerobic treatment to concentrate manure nutrients into solid phases and treat approximately 70% of manure liquids into a product which can be applied to active cropland as low-nutrient liquid using irrigation methods. The primary economic advantage of using an EMS to treat livestock manure prior to land application is lower total manure disposal costs. The total manure handling costs are reduced because up to 75 % of the original manure volume can be handled as low-nutrient value irrigation quality liquid in bulk instead of hauling it by tanker for land application. This fact alone reduces total manure handling costs by over 50 %. Other tangible benefits of using an EMS include low odor, minimized environmental risks, and greater flexibility in proper land application of the treated manure. It can be installed at farms with as few as 250 cows. Depending on farm size, operators can realize a return on investment in as little as three years. Compared to a traditional AD installed to generate biogas the EMS is simple to operate, requires less energy, requires no chemicals or substrates to treat the waste, and reduces manure disposal costs.

The EMS involves six major steps: 1) collection of raw manure and transport to the processing center, 2) sand bedding is separated from the manure stream, 3) coarse manure components are removed from the liquid manure stream, 4) additional settling of the fine manure solids and sand particles occurs in a settling basin to a concentration of 8 to 10 percent solids, 5) AD treatment of the liquid manure and dissolved solids occurs in anaerobic treatment lagoon (ATL), and 6) The ATL effluent is stored in a Storage Pond for eventual discharge to active growing crops; additional natural treatment of the liquid manure occurs while in the Storage Pond.

All settling basins and ATL lagoon must meet state guidelines, such as Natural Resource Conservation Service technical guidelines or state requirements for waste storage facilities.

The ALT of the EMS system has a smaller footprint compared to traditional ALTs (primarily use in the south and western United States) because the majority of the nutrient-rich semi-solids are removed from the manure before discharge to the ATL. Due to this major operational change the EMS is economical to install and operate even in the northern climates of the United States where many of the top producing dairy states are located. While many facilities separate solids before land application, the EMS is different because is adds the AD step which converts the manure into a low-nutrient liquid capable of irrigation-style land disposal.  The method of solid separation can be as simple as a sloped screen followed by additional gravity separation as described in Step 4 above. The EMS ATL must be sized to account for reduced biodegradation during the colder weather. The EMS has successfully operated at multiple swine facilities and several Midwestern dairy farms.

If there is sufficient land near the farmstead, the EMS can be installed at existing dairies with minimum difficulty since the treatment system works equally well with multiple bedding materials and varying manure collection methods. Another benefit of the EMS is that is allows application on fields that may be high in phosphorus since much of the phosphorus will be stored in the accumulating ATL sludge. For dairies bedding with sand, a patented sand removal system can be provided that relies on a decanting method of sand separation. Once the sand is removed, it can be reused in the barn. 

What have we learned?

Typical Cost Savings for Manure Application Using EMS
Component
Disposal Method
Conventional Manure Handling
EarthMentor® Treatment System Handling
Liquid Manure

 

 Land Application 100% $0.02/gallon 0% $0
Separated Solids Land Application 0% $0 10% $0.016/gallon
($4/ton equiv.)
Heavy Slurry Land Application 0% $0 20% $0.02/gallon
Treated Wastewater Center Pivot over Crop 0% $0 70% $0.002/gallon
Combined Cost   100% $0.02/gallon 100% $0.007/gallon
(weighted average of all components)

Using financial data from 2010 for a 2,000-cow Michigan dairy, it was estimated that the cost to handle manure using an EMS is reduced from $0.02/gallon to $0.007/gallon. The cost saving using the EMS is based on the assumption that the average dairy cow produces nearly 25 gallons/day of manure, including wastewater but excludes bedding since farms used different types and volumes of bedding for their dry and lactating cows. Based on the financial analysis, installation of an EMS benefits the farm’s economic sustainability while providing other benefits including reduced environment risk associated with manure land application.

Far beyond the obvious cost savings associated with the EMS installation, a livestock producer will realize many other benefits. A partial list is provided below:

  • This practical and manageable manure treatment system requires little or no additional farm labor commitments yet greatly reduces overhead expenditures to keep the farm sustainable and competitive,
  • All manure is treated prior to land application (environmentally sound),
  • The more consistent high solids slurry can be precisely applied to fields with the greatest need as opposed to the highly variable manure nutrient concentrations recovered from a traditional manure pond,
  • Minimizes the environmental risks (ecologically viable) and farm nuisance potential,
  • The window of opportunity for manure application is extended to over 200 days instead of being limited to spring and fall applications for typical liquid manure,
  • Can provide a safe unlimited recycled bedding source for cattle, if so desired, by the dairy owner,
  • Permits farmer to follow BMPs for soil conservation,
  • Permits farmer to follow timing, rate, source, and place for fertilizer/crop nutrient applications,
  • Benefits the non-farm neighbors and community through reduced nuisance odors, and
  • Continues using the farm’s manure as a soil amendment for crop production, the most efficient use known.

Future Plans

The immediate future plans for EMS is to target small livestock producers, especially those within impaired watersheds.  Since many ADs need a substrate material imported from outside the farm to be economically sustainable, the EMS is ideal for those farms that want to be good neighbors with reduced farm air emissions, need greater convenience in manure management, and desire to maximize the real cash value of their manure.

As the EMS adapts well to any bedding material, by investing time and dedicating property for the ATL any size operation can begin to treat their manure prior to land application and reduce their overall cost for manure management.

In addition to small farms we envision four possible adaptations of EMS; these examples are provided to show the transferability of this technology to farms desiring various outcomes from an EMS:

  1. Installation of an Energy-Generating AD – if a farm wishes to generate energy using a traditional AD, it would be installed prior to the EMS system whereby the AD digestate discharges into the settling ponds. Since the residence time of a traditional AD is measured in days, there is a great deal of additional treatment that can occur so that the cost savings for land application can still be realized.
  2. Use manure solids for other uses besides land application – if the livestock producer decides to bed their cattle on manure solids or to compost the manure solids for sale off-farm to landscapers or bag and sell direction from the farm then the solids from the SS can be further treated with a screw press or roller then composting by various means.
  3. Greenhouse gas capture and sale of carbon credits – a geosynthetic liner cover can be added to the ATL and all captured gases burned through a flare. However, it should be noted that by removing a significant amount of high organic solids during the initial fiber solids separation step, much less organic material is subject to organic degradation into methane gas.
  4. Greenhouse gas capture and burning of the gases – to generate electricity or heat water (typically for on-farm use or export to an adjoining business, such as a greenhouse).

One future issue to resolve includes educating state governments on the benefits of installing an EMS, especially for those farms that may be under a Consent Order or other regulatory actions or those farms that may need to implement a manure treatment system to mitigate odors from the livestock operation.  The duration to install an EMS and get it operational is much shorter than the lead time to design and install a traditional AD so the EMS can help when farms need to implement changes quickly.  A second issue to overcome is to properly educate producers on the benefits of EMS and differences between traditional ADs.  Swine, beef, and dairy producers who already have a farm irrigation system will have a lower capital investment to begin achieving the reduced manure management costs referenced above.

Author

Matthew J. Germane, P.E., President at Germane Environmental Consulting, LLC MGermane@GECEnvironmental.net

Additional information

https://www.gecenvironmental.com, Envirolytic Technologies, LLC

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements to Envirolytic Technologies, LLC, Greenville, OH manufacturer of the Earthmentor® N2RTS system and RAM Technologies, LLC, manufacturer of the sand separation equipment used in the EMS for their assistance in providing the laboratory data used in this paper.

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.

Posted on

Evaluation of a Continuously-Mixed Farm-Based Anaerobic Co-Digestion System Following the U.S. EPA Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting on the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manures – Final Project Results

This paper compliments another paper proposed for this conference “Lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a New York State dairy farm anaerobically co-digesting manure and food waste.”

Purpose 

New York State’s largest manure-based anaerobic co-digestion facility was evaluated continuously for a 2-year period following the U.S. EPA Protocol for quantifying and reporting on the performance of anaerobic digestion systems for livestock manures. Overall, we assessed and determined the system’s performance with respect to the: 1) conversion of biomass to biogas, 2) conversion of biogas to useful energy, and 3) system’s economics. The information developed by this project can be used to compare performance information developed from other manure-based anaerobic digestion systems. Related: Treatment Technologies for Livestock Manure

What did we do? 

After initial system evaluation and monitoring plan development, the farm was visited monthly for 24 months to collect data. In addition to the digester influent and effluent samples taken during each monthly sampling date, on-site measurements were taken and data were manually recorded from equipment and plant logs. A particularly important log, were the imported feedstocks brought on-site for inclusion to the AD. This log recorded the date and time feedstock was delivered, the type of feedstock, and the volume delivered. The specific data collected/measured are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Data collected/measured on-site at each sampling date.

Item
1. Date and time of readings
2. Methane (CH4), Carbon dioxide (CO2), Oxygen (O2), and Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations in biogas after digester
3. CH4, CO2, O2, and H2S concentrations in biogas after bio-scrubber
4. Engine-generator set run time
5. Cumulative electricity purchased and sold
6. Daily animal populations since previous sampling event
7. Logs of imported feedstocks
8. Problems occurred during period

Further, data (Table 2) from the system’s supervisory, control, and data acquisition (SCADA) unit were downloaded, compiled and analyzed for each period. SCADA data were generated from an array of sensors and meters originally installed by the company that designed and built the digester, i.e., Bigadan A/S.

Table 2. Data obtained from the SCADA system for each period.

Parameter
1. Total influent to pasteurization
2. Food waste to pasteurization
3. Manure to pasteurization
4. Biomass from pasteurization to digester
5. Effluent digester to storage tank
6. Biogas production digester
7. Biogas to generator
8. Generator electrical energy output
9. Generator thermal energy recovered
10. Digester vessel upper temperature
11. Digester vessel lower temperature

Overall, digester influent and effluent samples were collected with the goal of obtaining representative samples. To do this, grab samples were collected directly from both the digester influent and effluent lines over a period of approximately 30 min during a pumping sequence, to develop a 5-gallon composite, master-sample. The entire volume of this sample was then agitated using a paint mixer powered by a portable electric drill until visibly determined to be homogenized. A 1-liter composite sample was immediately taken and stored on ice, and subsequently frozen before being sent for laboratory analysis. Samples were taken in this fashion approximately every 30 days over the 24-month monitoring period. Additionally, samples coming from the raw manure receiving tank and from the combined imported feedstocks tank were also obtained for two sampling dates at the beginning of the monitoring project to characterize the individual influent streams to the digester.

All samples collected during the 24-month monitoring period were sent for analysis to Certified Environmental Services’ (CES) laboratory in Syracuse, NY, approved by the New York State Department of Health, Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (NYSDOH-ELAP #11246). All samples were analyzed in triplicate for: total solids (TS), total volatile solids (VS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, and total volatile acids as acetic acid (TVFA). In addition, the following nutrients were determined in triplicate: total phosphorus (TP), ortho-phosphorus (OP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) and potassium (K). CES followed the appropriate testing methods outlined in Table 3 for each parameter measured.

Table 3. Standard analytical methods used by CES laboratory for sample analyses.

Parameter Standard
Total Solids (TS) EPA 160.3
Total Volatile Solids (VS) EPA 160.4
Fixed Solids (FS) EPA 160.4
Volatile Acid as Acetic Acid (TVFA) SM18 5560C
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) SM18 5220B
pH SW846 9045
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) EPA 351.4
Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) SM18 4500F
Organic-Nitrogen (ON) By subtraction: TKN – NH3-N
Total Phosphorous (TP) EPA 365.3
Ortho Phosphorous (OP) EPA 365.3
Total Potassium (K) EPA SW 846 6010

Methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and oxygen (O2) concentration in biogas, were measured on-site during monthly visits using a Multitec 540 (Sewerin GmbH, Germany), a portable hand-held gas measuring device equipped with infra-red/electrochemical sensors.

What have we learned? 

For the entire monitoring project, an average of 1,891±62 lactating cows per day from Synergy Dairy contributed manure to the digester. The average daily loading rate of the digester was 80,408±19,266 gal, where the average percent of imported waste (mostly food-grade residues) co-digested with manure was 25±6% on a volume-to-volume (v/v) basis. The average reduction of organic matter thru the monitoring project was 42% with respect to the influent, while 75% of the odor-causing volatile fatty acids were reduced. In comparison, a previous monitoring study reported by the authors in five manure-based co-digestion operations showed a reduction in organic matter and volatile acids between 36% and 53% and 85% and 91%, respectively. The average daily digester biogas production for the entire monitoring project was 495±78 ft3 per 1,000 lbs of total influent added to the digester, or 173±34 ft3 per cow contribut ing to the digester. The engine-generator set produced an average of 23±7 MWh of electricity per day, from which the average daily parasitic load of the AD system was 3±1 MWh, accounting for approximately 14% of the electricity generated by the plant. Overall, the average capacity factor and online efficiency of the anaerobic digester system during the entire monitoring project were 0.66±0.22 and 80±23%, respectively. The electrical energy generated translated into an overall thermal conversion efficiency of 42±4%. Also, an additional 13±5% of the total energy in the biogas was recovered by the engine as hot water. Thus, an overall 55% (electrical + thermal) of the total energy contained in the input biogas was recovered by the engine-generator set during the monitoring project.

The majority of the challenges experienced by the Synergy AD system were of mechanical origin, whereas 20% were related to the biological process; only 8% of the downtime was due to scheduled systems maintenance. Some of the problems were related to the extreme cold conditions experienced in the Northeast during the period from December 2013 to February 2014. According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, this period was the 34th coldest for the contiguous 48 states since modern records began in 1895, with an average temperature of 31.3F, 1.0F below the 20th century average (NOAA, 2014).

Future Plans 

This manure-based anaerobic digester is the 8th New York State digester we have extensively monitored and reported on. Near-term future planned work includes monitoring a lower cost horizontal plug flow digester on a 2,000-cow farm. This digester uses high density polyethylene (HDPE) material heat welded together as the digester vessel.

Authors

Curt Gooch, Senior Extension Associate, Cornell PRO-DAIRY Program cag26@cornell.edu

Rodrigo Labatut

Additional information 

A full report, written for the project sponsor, can be found on the Cornell PRO-DAIRY dairy environmental systems website, https://prodairy.cals.cornell.edu/environmental-systems/.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we wish to thank the Synergy Dairy Farm, Synergy Biogas, and CH4 Biogas for their collaborative efforts that made this project possible. We also like to thank the project sponsor, the Wyoming County (New York) Industrial Development Agency.

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.

Posted on

Composting Swine Slurry to Reduce Indicators and Antibiotic Resistance Genes


Purpose 

Over the last twenty years there have been considerable increases in the incidence of human infections with bacteria that are resistant to commonly used antibiotics. This has precipitated concerns about the use of antibiotics in livestock production. Composting of swine manure has several advantages, liquid slurries are converted to solid, the total volume of material is reduced and the stabilized product is more easily transported off-site. The goal of this study was to determine if composting can also be used to reduce the concentration of indicators and bacteria containing genes for antibiotic resistance (AR) in swine manure.

What did we do? 

Sample Analysis:

Compost trials were conducted in either fall (FT) or spring (ST) and piles were turned once, three times or upon reaching 65 ºC. Microbial indicators and populations with AR genes for tetracycline, erythromycin and sulfonamide resistance were quantified by culture and/or quantitative, real-time (qPCR) analysis.

Compost materials and conditions:

Decomposed materials (a mixture of swine slurry and woodchips) were obtained on two separate occasions from swine high-rise finishing facilities (HRFF) located in western Kentucky. The HRFF houses between 4,000 and 4,800 swine which are placed in the facility at 18 to 20 kg and are removed after three months (weighing about 105 kg). The high-rise floor raises the living area 3.7 m above the ground. Manure, excess feed, water and wastewater drop through slatted floors into 2.5 cm screened woodchips (average size 1.9 ± 0.9 cm). The slurry-woodchip material was turned up to three times per week while under the HRFF. When the material was visibly moist, reducing its ability to absorb additional waste materials, it was removed from the facility for finishing in windrows. In fall 2011 (FT) and Spring 2012 (ST), HRFF slurry-woodchip mix (approximately 60 m3 weighing 48.4 Mg) was brought by semi-trailer trucks to the Western Kentucky University Agricultural complex where ma terials were divided into three or four windrow piles. In the FT, swine slurry-woodchip mixes having a bulk density of 849.6 kg m-3 and consisting of around 19.6 m3 of material were formed into three piles of approximately 10.4 m x 2.1 m x 0.9 m (L x W x H). In the ST, swine slurry-woodchip mixes having a bulk density of 778.4 kg m-3 and consisting of around 18.8 m3 of material were formed into three piles of approximately 5.8 m x 2.7 m x 1.2 m (L x W x H) and a fourth batch (unturned) was left piled at the side (0X; 3.6 m3). In each study, piles were turned using a windrow compost turner either once per week (1X), three times per week (3X) or upon the internal compost temperature reaching 65 ºC (@65). Compost for the FT @65 treatment heated to 65 ºC by day 14 and was turned 11 times over the course of the trial. However, during the ST, the @65 pile did not heat for the first 63 days (mean temperature 27 ± 8 ºC) therefore weekly turning was initiated at that time. Samples were taken on days 0 and three and then weekly for the first 12 weeks and bi-weekly until composting was stopped at day 112 for the FT and day 142 for the ST.

What have we learned? 

In the FT, concentrations of enterococci decreased below culturable detection within 21 days, corresponding with a 99% decrease in detection by qPCR (Fig. 1). Similar decreases in qPCR detection in the ST took longer (day 49 or day 77 of composting). Changes in the concentration of bacteria with AR genes varied by antibiotic type (erythromycin (36% – 97%), tetracycline (94% to 99%) and sulfonamide (53% to 84%) and compost season (greater decreases in ST). There were few differences based on turning regime. Even the unturned compost pile had 90%, 98% and 56% reduction in bacteria resistant to erythromycin, tetracycline and sulfonamide, respectively.

Results suggest that composting effectively decreases the concentration of indicators and AR genes in swine manure. As concerns over antibiotic resistance and pathogens increase, composting provides a valuable manure management tool for decreasing contaminants and improving the value of this material as a soil conditioner.

Future Plans    

Volume reduction, low moisture and low readily degradable organic matter suggest that the finished compost would have lower transportation costs and should provide value as a soil conditioner. Studies are warranted to evaluate its agronomic value as an alternative source of plant nutrients. Future studies will be conducted to evaluate the nutrient value this compost as an organic fertilizer for row crop production.

Authors       

Kimberly Cook, Research Microbiologist, USDA ARS kim.cook@ars.usda.gov

Carl Bolster, USDA ARS; Karamat Sistani, USDA ARS

Additional information                

http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=50-40-05-00

Acknowledgements      

This research was conducted as part of USDA-ARS National Program 214: Agricultural and Industrial By-products: CRIS 6445-12630-004-00D. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA.

Proceedings cook figures 1

Proceedings cook figures 1
Proceedings cook figures 2

Proceedings cook figures 2

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Posted on

The Effect of Broiler Litter, Swine Effluent, and Municipal Biosolids Land Application on Small Plot Pathogen, Antibiotic Resistance, and Nutrient Levels

Purpose

Land applying agricultural and municipal wastes carries an inherent risk associated with nutrient and pathogen runoff and contamination, but with that risk comes a potentially sustainable process to reclaim otherwise residual waste material. Few studies compare the two residuals. The purpose of this study was to investigate the land application of municipal waste water treatment solids (biosolids) versus manure (broiler and swine) and their effect on pathogens, antibiotic resistance and nutrients.

What did we do?

A 5×4 randomized block design comprised of broiler litter, swine effluent, and municipal biosolids treatments were land applied at a rate of 5-8 tons ha-1 for the broiler litter and biosolids, respectively, while effluent was applied at a rate of 32 ha-cm on a cooperator farm established with forage plots over a three-year period. Swine effluent was applied to the surface or surface-applied then incorporated to approximately 7.5 cm; applications were applied once per season. Soil core samples to 15 cm were collected from plots and were specifically targeted to include waste-residual. Samples were collected in the days, weeks and months following land application. Samples were processed for heterotrophic plate count bacteria, thermotolerant coliforms, enterococci, staphylococci, gram-negative bacteria, Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes, and 16S rRNA.

What have we learned?

Immediately following land application, most pathogens and indicator bacteria were detected; however, by the end of the first month, most were at background levels. One day following land application (Figure 1), most indicators were noticeably enriched, but following 1 week, levels began to drop to background by week 8 (Figure 2). Pathogens were rarely dependent on waste, for instance, Salmonella was rarely detected, but was detected in both effluent and biosolids-applied plots. Clostridium perfringens, on the other hand was typically found in swine effluent-applied plots, though biosolids-applied plots were also positive for C. perfringens. Campylobacter spp. was not detected at any time point, and E. coli was fleetingly detected. Differences in phenotypic antibiotic resistance weren’t detected, while antibiotic resistance genes were equally detected in most applied treatments. Overall, the influence of waste didn’t alter 1 6S rRNA levels. Microbial ecology, only briefly investigated via terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms, yielded slight differences between plot treatments. Overall, waste type had a small influence on pathogen/indicator presence and levels following land application, most likely as a result of minimal pathogen levels and application rates such that detection was limited. The overarching results of this study indicate microbial risks associated with any of the tested waste types will be similar, given overall low pathogen levels; however, further investigation into antibiotic resistance, which should be dependent on waste type, will be a focus of interest. Additionally, given the variability of manures, pathogen levels may vary significantly based on region, climate, and concentrated animal feeding operation.Microbial indicators detected

Future Plans

Quantitative microbial risk assessment modeling will be conducted on data, projecting the risks associated with each practice, taking into account a function of waste and time.

Authors

Brooks, John P., Research Microbiologist, Genetics and Precision Agriculture Unit, USDA-ARS, Mississippi State, MS 39762 john.brooks@ars.usda.gov

McLaughlin, M.R., Adeli, A., and Read, J.J.

Additional information

John Brooks
john.brooks@ars.usda.gov
662-320-7411
Manure Pathogens and Microbial Byproducts

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the work of Cindy Smith, Renotta Smith, Jim Robbins, and our farm and wastewater treatment cooperators.

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.

Posted on

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.

Future Plans 

Develop new niche markets for agricultural waste generators by adding additional value to their wastes.

Authors

Joe E. Busby joebusby@wfeca.net 

Moses Braxton, Bill Ansley, William Andrews, Duncan Nesbit, and Dr. Carm Parkhurst

Acknowledgements

Insta Pro International, North Carolina State University

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.

Posted on

Natural Rendering: Composting Horse Mortality


poster of the mortality composting processPurpose          

Understanding Livestock Composting as there are few methods to safely dispose of livestock mortality

What did we do?         

CWMI has been working on mortality disposal since 1990. Research was completed methodically as new questions arose. We started with large livestock(deadstock) migrated to research on managing animals hit by cars, generally wild animals. Moved to managing disease outbreak and drugs residual that might end up in compost if it does not degrade.

What have we learned?           

See attached paper

Future Plans  

Responding to Routine Mortality and Disasters

Authors

Jean Bonhotal, Director CWMI, Cornell University jb29@cornell.edu

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute Craig Williams, Penn State University, Ann Swinker, Penn State University

Additional information      

http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/mortality.htm

Acknowledgements      

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute

Craig Williams, Penn State University

Josh Payne, Oklahoma State University

Ann Swinker, Penn State University

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.

Posted on

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

Antibiotic resistant bacteria

               A major area of concern with the general public has focused on the potential for antibiotic resistant bacteria that reside in both animal manures and biosolids, due to the potential for subsequent transfer of the resistance to pathogens. Bacteria are prokaryotic organisms with the ability to metabolize and replicate very quickly.  They are also very adaptable genetically.  When confronted with an antibiotic, there need only be one bacterial cell with a genetic or mutational change that confers resistance to that antibiotic that subsequently allows for the proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria.  Thus the more that antibiotics are used, the greater the likelihood of antibiotic resistant strains developing.  The greatest concern with antibiotic resistance is the potential for human pathogenic strains to become resistant to overused antibiotics, which subsequently cannot contain the infectious agent.  As is typical in most niches, commensal bacteria tend to dominate the pathogenic bacteria at levels which are orders of magnitude greater than the pathogens.  This creates a haven for antibiotic resistance genes, which all have the potential to transfer to true or opportunistic pathogens.  The widespread, sometimes indiscriminant, use of antibiotics has raised the questions: i) “Can antibiotic resistant genes be transferred from nonpathogenic bacteria to human pathogenic strains in the environment?” ii) “Can antibiotic resistance in the environment, via residual land application, be transferred to the public?”

Brooks (2006) evaluated the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARBs) in biosolids and a variety of other environmental samples and foodstuffs.  Table1.docx shows that Class B biosolids did not contain unusually high numbers of ARBs, and that in fact, the relative incidence was less than that found in pristine soil.  Interestingly, ARB concentrations were also lower than those found in common foodstuffs such as lettuce. Therefore food itself could be an important route of exposure to ARBs.  Rates of gene transfer in soil are thought to be a relatively infrequent event without selective pressure (Neilson et al., 1994), which reduces the risk of antibiotic resistant gene transfer to human pathogenic bacteria. Finally, note that soil itself is the original source of human antibiotics.

               Antibiotic use in the livestock and poultry industries has gradually increased over the past three decades in direct relation to the increasing number of CAFOs in operation.  Throughout this gradual cultural shift in livestock production, the need for antibiotics has increased as stocking densities and production cycles have increased.  The Union of Concerned Scientists predicted the number of antibiotics used in the industries at up to 50 million pounds annually (Chee-Sanford et al., 2009), with nearly half being used as a means to increase production.  The Animal Health Institute refutes this number stating that approximately 20.5 million pounds of antibiotic are used annually with approximately 1/10 of these used to increase production (Chee-Sanford et al., 2009).  These discrepancies highlight how little is known regarding this topic, and how contentious these issues truly are, particularly with news-cycles reporting increasing antibiotic resistance in our food supply or higher incidences of nosocomial infections.  Regardless, livestock industries account for a large amount of antibiotic use in the United States.  Antibiotics are used: 1) to treat infections and to prevent diseases; and 2) as a prophylactic, thus increasing production.  It is with the latter, that most concern or blame is placed. 

               In either case, as opposed to human antibiotic use, treating livestock with antibiotics is conducted in a manner that promotes the treatment of non-diseased animals.  Typically, CAFO animals are not individually treated for a disease.  If there is an outbreak of a disease-causing pathogen, farm managers typically react by not treating just the diseased individuals (perhaps only 100 of 20,000), but by treating the entire flock or herd.  This increases the likelihood for antibiotic resistance, as resistance genes can be promoted in healthy as well as diseased members of the host population.

               Brooks and McLaughlin (2009a) and Brooks et al. (2010) described the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in swine and poultry CAFOs.  The presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in swine CAFOs appeared to be influenced by the type of management employed by the producer, specifically; the presence of younger piglets increased the amount of resistance in commensal E. coli.  In general, younger piglets led to resistance to an extra class of antibiotics (Brooks and McLaughlin, 2009a).  In some instances, regulatory and media pressures have forced industries to reduce antibiotic use, as has been noted in the poultry industry.  Brooks et al. (2010) noted the overall lack of antibiotic resistance in poultry CAFO manure, and an overall decrease among staphylococci, enterococci, and E. coli when compared to previous studies (Brooks et al., 2009a).    

                 Ultimately, the concern is for the potential movement of antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes from the “farm to the plate”.  Movement from the farm to the product and ultimately the consumer remains a poorly understood area (Marshall et al., 2011).  Three potential routes exist for the transfer to occur: 1) via consumption of undercooked food; 2) clonal spread from the occupationally exposed; 3) or from indirect manure contamination onto fresh food crops (e.g. environmental spread).  Sufficient evidence exists to support clonal spread from the occupationally exposed (Marshall et al., 2011), while the other two routes are poorly understood.  Contamination of fresh food crops either via runoff, land application of manure/biosolids, or feral animal has been hypothesized as a potential sources of contamination (Brooks et al., 2012a).  Antibiotic resistance phenotypes have been demonstrated to move via aerosols or runoff, though in very small amounts and over small distances from the CAFO (Brooks et al., 2009b, 2012b; Chinivasagam et al., 2009).  Brooks et al. (2009b) demonstrated that runoff from plots receiving litter was more concentrated with antibiotic resistant enterococci, which was characteristic of the litter and thus demonstrated that antibiotic resistant bacteria will transport as readily as any other bacteria.

Modified from Environmental Microbiology, 3rd Ed, Ed. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and T.J. Gentry.  Chapter 26 “Land application of organic residuals: municipal biosolids and animal manures” by J.P. Brooks, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper.  

Question or concerns, contact John Brooks (john.brooks@ars.usda.gov)

Proudly powered by WordPress