manure proceedings – Page 39 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

Use of Filters in Drainage Control Structures to Reduce the Risk Associated with Manure Application on Tile-Drained Fields

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In livestock producing areas, animal manure is often applied to cropland to enhance soil fertility. Guidelines have been developed for manure application on fields underlain by subsurface (tile) drainage systems. Some of these guidelines, such as avoiding manure application if rain is predicted and not applying manure over a flowing tile, though effective, involve some level of risk. We believe that the level of risk can be reduced by filtering contaminants from the water leaving the drains. The control structures recommended for use with drainage systems underlying fields to which manure is applied, provide ready-made receptacles for filters. In this report we discuss the development and testing of a filter to remove contaminants from lagoon effluent.

Why Study Filters for Drainage Water?

The purpose of this project is to develop an economically feasible solution to capturing sediment bound nutrient loss from agricultural land as well as prevent herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, fertilizers and other contaminants from polluting the receiving waters of tile drained systems. In the event of a spill, these filters will presumably act as a barrier to capture pollutants in an attempt to prevent environmental degradation as well as fines to farmers.

What Did We Do?

We developed an activated carbon filter and tested it in our lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and in a controlled field setting in order to test the filters ability to meet physical parameters like allowing average tile flow rates through without backup and the effectiveness of the filter in improving water quality.

What Have We Learned?

We have learned that designing for agriculture is much more intensive than in a controlled setting and from that challenge, the project has helped us establish better research and development skills.

Check Out These Programs & Research About Tile Drainage

Swine Manure Timing & Subsurface Drainage

Tile Drainage Field Day

New Technologies for Drainage Water Management

Role of Drainage Depth and Intensity on Nutrient Loss

Future Plans

We plan to continue with alternative filter prototypes and continue testing so we have a product that is scientifically proven and farmers will want to use.

Authors

Stephanie Herbstritt, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Annie Kwedar, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

*The author can be contacted at: herbstr2@illinois.edu

Additional Information

For more information on using filters in subsurface tile drained systems, go to the January-February 2013 edition of the Illinois Land Improvement Contractors Of America’s newsletters which can be found at: https://www.illica.net/newsletters

Acknowledgements

Dr. Richard Cooke, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Julie Honegger, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Use of Filters in Drainage Control Structures to Reduce the Risk Associated with Manure Application on Tile-Drained Fields from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Silage Runoff Treatment

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Agricultural filter strips are commonly used to treat runoff from agricultural farmstead areas. Many filter strips have been assessed in terms of surface water quality impacts but have failed to determine the fate of pollutants once they have infiltrated the soil subsurface. Two side-by-side filter strips plots were installed to assess the performance of and determine the fate of contaminants in a filter strip system. One of the two plots also contained a pretreatment system to facilitate nitrogen removal in an attempt to reduce nitrate leaching. Both plots were lined with an impermeable membrane to collect subsurface leachate as well as surface runoff. A mass balance could then be determined for these filter strip systems to assess the fate of nutrients and the ability of a low cost pretreatment system to reduce nitrate leaching.

Filter-strip Construction

Why Is It Important to Prevent Runoff from Silage Piles from Reaching Water?

Silage runoff, or the flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage or silage leachate, contains nutrients harmful to watersheds. A filter-strip, a long narrow buffer strip used in agriculture as a BMP, could be used to reduce nutrient concentrations within silage runoff. A study that investigates design storm loading and seasonal operation could benefit producers and their surrounding watershed. A pre-treatment design consisting of an aerobic and anaerobic section, is also analyzed to quantify improvements in pollutant reduction.

What Did We Do?

Before Establishment of Vegetation

Two experimental filter-strips, one control and one pre-treatment design, were applied with silage runoff at volumes and rates corresponding to a 25 year – 24 hour and a 2 year – 24 hour design storm. Design storm rates and volumes were determined from the runoff modeled from a 1:1 dairy bunker to filter strip area. Three runs of each design storm were accomplished throughout the months of October, November, and early December 2012.

What Have We Learned?

The pre-treatment filter strip design distributed higher BOD5 reduction however, nitrite concentrations increased in the effluent. Application in November and December had lower infiltration and changes in ammonia reduction were illustrated.

Experimental Filter-strip and Sampling

Future Plans

Applications in the spring and summer will determine further seasonal variation. Expanding design storms applied will help determine prescriptive loading and aid in modeling.

Authors

Michael Holly, Master’s Candidate Biological System Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, maholly@wisc.edu

Dr. Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Acknowledgements

Zach Zopp, Lab and Field Tech

Shayne Havlovitz, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Silage Runoff Treatment from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Waste Disposal by the Veterinary Community

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) offers several resources to its members and the public regarding various disposal issues encountered by the veterinary community and animal owners. With its veterinary medical expertise, the veterinary profession can be a valuable resource for clients, the general public, regulators, and other stakeholders on carcass and other animal waste disposal issues, especially those involving potential health risks to other animals or the public. The purpose in developing these resources is to further increase awareness by the veterinary profession and its stakeholders of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning disposal of animal waste and carcasses.

What Did We Do?

The AVMA has established policies related to the disposal of animal waste and carcass disposal. Three key policies include “Appropriate Animal Carcass Disposal,” “Animal Carcass Risk in Natural Disasters,” and “Animal Agriculture Waste Management.” All of the AVMA policies related to waste issues can be found at https://www.avma.org/PracticeManagement/Administration/Pages/AVMA-Policies-Relevant-to-Waste-Disposal.aspx.

Appropriate Animal Carcass Disposal

The AVMA advocates safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses, whether on an individual animal basis or during mass mortality events. As such, the AVMA supports increased research and education towards the development of appropriate methods and guidelines for animal carcass disposal.

Animal Carcass Risk in Natural Disasters

Consistent with current scientific literature and the conclusions of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the AVMA recognizes that animals that die from injuries, including massive animal deaths in cases of natural disasters, generally do not represent a health hazard for humans. The presence of dead bodies that result from a disaster, without the presence of another risk factor, is not the cause for the spread of infectious diseases. (¹PAHO Manual, Ch 3, Conclusions; p. 81)

¹Management of Dead Bodies in Disaster Situations, Disaster Manuals and Guidelines Series, number 5. Pan American Health Organization, Area on Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief, and the World Health Organization, Department for Health Action in Crisis. Washington, DC, 2004.

Animal Agriculture Waste Management

The AVMA supports the basic premises of current federal and state legislation and regulations enacted to prevent negative environmental impacts from wastes generated by terrestrial or aquatic animal productions. Veterinarians should be aware of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning animal waste.

Therefore the AVMA supports the following:

Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements. This includes aid in establishing and implementing nutrient management plans as well as design and construction of effective waste management facilities to prevent contamination of the environment.
Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.

Additionally, the AVMA has developed the microsite, www.avma.org/wastedisposal. Sections of the microsite addressing topics such as “Federal Regulations of Waste Disposal,” “State-based Waste Disposal Resources,” and “AVMA Policies Relevant to Waste Disposal,” are accessible by the general public. Specific “Clinical Resources” pages, such as “Animal Carcass Disposal,” “Animal Waste Disposal,” “Recordkeeping,” and more are accessible only by AVMA members. On a similar note and because of its expertise, the Association was consulted during the development of the Veterinary Compliance Assistance (VetCA) website (www.vetca.org) by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences under the National Compliance Assistance Centers program. Funding for this latter project has been provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition to the pharmaceutical disposal information within the aforementioned resources, the AVMA has partnered with the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce to combine efforts and develop a joint outreach and educational campaign for veterinary clients regarding proper pharmaceutical disposal. Information and products associated with the collaborative effort are available at www.avma.org/unwantedmeds.

The “Green Veterinary Practices” microsite has also been developed by the AVMA. The web pages provide AVMA members and the public information on sustainable practices. Not only does the site discuss what the AVMA is doing, it also provides resources for integrating eco-friendly features into veterinary practices as well as opportunities for including eco-friendly practices in facility designs. The microsite is available at https://www.avma.org/green-veterinary-practices

In addition to policy and resource development, the AMVA is active in advocacy. Related to waste issues, the Association has weighed in on Federal Register items such as Docket Number [EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0188], the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule and Docket Number [EPA-OW-2011-0466], Draft Recreational Water Quality Criteria and Request for Scientific Views. To see additional topics as well as the AVMA’s comments, please visit https://www.avma.org/advocacy/national-advocacy. In 2012, the AVMA joined the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition urging Congress to support the $325 million for the AFRI in the President’s Fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. To view all of the AVMA’s advocacy information, please click on “Advocacy” from the AVMA’s home page, www.avma.org.

What Have We Learned?

Integrative efforts of multiple disciplines and stakeholders are needed to better enhance the science of waste management as well as to help bridge the gaps between such science and sociopolitical opinions.

Future Plans

As stated in its policies, the AVMA will continue to advocate for safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses as well as support:

Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements
Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.

Authors

Kristi Henderson, DVM, Assistant Director, Scientific Activities Division, American Veterinary Medical Association khenderson@avma.org

Additional Information

http://www.avma.org

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Silage Runoff Characterization

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Silage leachate is a high strength waste which contributes to surface and groundwater contamination of various pollutants from runoff, direct leaching through concrete storage structures, and infiltration of runoff. Feed storage is required for the majority of dairy operations in the country (which are expanding in size and fed storage requirements) leading to widespread potential contamination. Limited data on silage leachate quality and treatment has made management and regulation based solely on observation. This project investigated three bunker silage storage sites to assess the water quality characteristics of silage leachate and runoff from various feed sources and surrounding environmental factors. Surface samples were collected from feed storage structures and analyzed for numerous water quality parameters. Using collected hydrologic data, contaminant loading was analyzed for various storm events and assessed for first flush effects and potential to impact handling and treatment designs. Determination of first flush provides essential data for separation of waste streams (high and low strength) to ease management in terms of operation and cost, reduce loading to treatment systems, and reducing the overall environmental impact.

Why Is It Important to Characterize Silage Leachate?

Silage Runoff Samples from an October Rain Event

Silage runoff, or the flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage or silage leachate, contains nutrients harmful to watersheds. Nutrient concentrations within silage runoff are variable and are dependent on event size, seasonality, bunker condition, and concentration of silage. Knowledge of nutrient loading thoughout a storm can benefit silage runoff storage and treatment standards.

What Did We Do?

Three horizontal bunkers in south central Wisconsin were anzlyzed over the seasons of fall, spring and summer. Two of the bunkers sampled were designed with subsurface leachate collection. Runoff was collected using ISCO automated samplers and samples were triggered by flow rate. Water quality analysis was completed on the campus of University of Wisconsin – Madison and alkalinity, NH3, BOD5, COD, NO2, NO3, ortho-p, pH, TKN, TP and TS were analyzed. Thirty-five storms in total were analyzed ranging from 0.03 – 1.74 inches.

Horizontal Dairy Bunker During a Storm Event

What Have We Learned?

Seasonality can impact the nutrient concentrations within silage runoff. Normalized cumulative pollution load curves illustrate moderate first flush in the fall and a moderate delayed load curve in the summer.

Future Plans

Correlating silage runoff concentrations with bunker conditions such as date, amount filled, moisture content, and amount of litter present on pad could help explain seasonal variability. Collection of future storms could aid in explaining variances and facilitate modeling.

Authors

Michael Holly, Master’s Candidate Biological System Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, maholly@wisc.edu

Dr. Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Acknowledgements

Zach Zopp, Lab and Field Tech

Shayne Havlovitz, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Silage Runoff Characterization from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Swine Manure & Aqua-ammonia Nitrogen Application Timing on Subsurface Drainage Water

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In Iowa and many other Midwestern states, excess water is removed artificially through subsurface drainage systems. While these drainage systems are vital for crop production, nitrogen (N) added as manure or commercial fertilizer, or derived from soil organic matter, can be carried as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to downstream water bodies. A five-year, five-replication, field study was conducted in north-central Iowa with the objective to determine the influence of seasonal N application as ammonia or liquid swine manure on flow-weighted NO3-N concentrations and losses in subsurface drainage water and crop yields in a corn-soybean rotation. Four aqua-ammonia N treatments (150 or 225 lb-N/acre applied for corn in late fall or as an early season side-dress) and three manure treatments (200 lb-N/acre for corn in late fall or spring or 150 lb-N/acre in the fall for both corn and soybean) were imposed on subsurface drained, continuous-flow-monitored plots. Four-year average flow-weighted NO3-N concentrations measured in drainage water were ranked: spring aqua-ammonia 225 (23 ppm) = fall manure 150 every year (23 ppm) > fall aqua-ammonia 225 (19ppm) = spring manure 200 (18 ppm) = fall manure 200 (17 ppm) > spring aqua-ammonia 150 (15 ppm) = fall aqua-ammonia 150 (14 ppm). Corn yields were significantly greater (p=0.05) for the spring and fall manure-200 rates than for non-manure treatments. Soybean yields were significantly greater (p=0.05) for the treatments with a spring nitrogen application to the previous corn crop. Related: LPELC Manure Nutrient Management resources

Check Out These Other Presentations About Tile Drainage

Tile Drainage Field Day

Use of Filters in Drainage Control Structures

New Technologies for Drainage Water Management

Role of Drainage Depth and Intensity on Nutrient Loss

Why Study Sub-Surface Drainage and Manure Application?

Subsurface agricultural drainage has allowed for enhanced crop production in many areas of the world including the upper Midwest, United States. However, the presence of nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) in subsurface tile drainage water is a topic of intense scrutiny due to several water quality issues. With the growing concern for the health of the Gulf of Mexico and local water quality concerns, there is a need to understand how recommended nitrogen management practices, such as through nitrogen rate and timing, impact nitrate-N concentrations from subsurface drainage systems. The objective of this presentation is to summarize results of studies from Iowa that have documented the impact of nitrogen application rate and timing on tile drainage nitrate loss.

What Did We Do?

The field experimental site was located near Gilmore City in Pocahontas County, IA. In the fall of 1999, seven treatments were initiated on 35 plots at the site to determine the effect of N source, rate, and application timing on crop yield and subsurface drainage water quality in a corn and soybean (CS) rotation. Two fertilizer N rates (168 or 252 kg ha^-1) applied in the spring or fall and liquid swine manure (LSM) applied in spring or fall (218 kg ha^-1) for corn production, and fall applied LSM for both crops in a CS rotation (168 kg ha^-1) were randomly distributed in five blocks. Flow-weighted drainage samples were collected and volume measurements recorded for each plot through sampling/monitoring systems during drainage seasons in 2001-2004.

What Have We Learned?

This multi-year experiment demonstrated that rate and to a lesser extent timing affect concentration and losses and even at constant rates, these can be highly variable depending on precipitation patterns, N mineralization/denitrification processes and crop utilization in a given season. As expected, as nitrogen application rate to corn increases, the nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface tile drainage water increase. This highlights the need for appropriate nitrogen application to corn and to avoid over application. However, it is important to note that even when recommended nitrogen application rates are used, nitrate-N concentrations in subsurface drainage are still elevated and may exceed the EPA drinking water standard for nitrate-N of 10 mg L^-1. Relative to timing of nitrogen application, i.e. moving from fall to spring application, our studies showed little to moderate potential to decrease nitrate-N concentrations. Likely the largest factor when looking at the effect from fertilizer application timing is when precipitation and associated nitrate-N loss occurs. Although timing of nitrogen application is important, perhaps the most important factor is to apply the correct amount of N. Manure treatments out yielded commercial N in all years. No significant differences in corn yield for any year were noted between application timing. Soybean yields were affected by N timing and less so by application rate.

click on image to enlarge

Future Plans

Other management practices need to be explored for their potentials in reducing nitrate loads from tile drained systems. Promising practices include drainage management, alternative cropping systems and edge-of-field practices.

Authors

Matthew Helmers, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, mhelmers@iastate.edu

Xiaobo Zhou, Assistant Scientist, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State Univeristy

Carl Pederson, Agricultural Specialist, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University

Additional Information

Lawlor, P.A., A.J. Helmers, J.L. Baker, S.W. Melvin, and D.W. Lemke. 2011. Comparison of liquid swine manure and ammonia nitrogen dynamics for a corn-soybean crop system. Trans. ASABE 54(5): 1575-1588.

LPELC Manure Nutrient Management home

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship through the Agricultural Water Management fund.

Impacts of Swine Manure & Aqua-Ammonia Nitrogen Application Timing on Subsurface Drainage Water Quality from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Model of a Successful Regulatory-Industry Partnership to Address Air Emissions from Dairy Operations in Yakima, WA

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Is It Important for Industry and Regulators to Work Together?

The community in the Yakima Region of Washington State has raised concerns over the potential adverse effects of air emissions from dairy operations. To address these concerns, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) proposed a policy process in October 2010 to control and mitigate emissions through implementation of site-specific best management practices (BMPs) on dairy operations. Absent a lack of reliable methodologies for estimating emissions from dairies, the YRCAA enrolled experts and scientists to help create tools that could be used for estimation of emissions from dairy operations. The assessment of BMPs aimed at mitigating air emissions from dairies was also included to determine their effect on the character, amount, and dispersion of specific air pollutants. This project assessed the effect of voluntary verses policy driven action on the dairy industry, community, and environmental impacts of air emissions from dairy operations.

What Did We Do?

The Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) proposed a draft policy in October 2010 to control and mitigate emissions through implementation of site-specific best management practices (BMPs) on dairy operations. To validate the policy, a “Pilot Research Project” was launched in February 2011 to gather information for one year to test the feasibility of implementing and determining policy effectiveness. Twelve operations, representing ~40% of the estimated regional cow numbers, volunteered to participate.

A description of proven BMPs and a BMP selection-guide were created to help producers develop site-specific Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP). Each AQMP identified, systematically, specific BMPs to mitigate emissions from each area of the dairy system (nutrition, feed management, milk parlor, housing-drylot, housing-freestall, grazing, manure management, land application, other) based on effectiveness, practicality and economics. The pollutants addressed in each AQMP included ammonia, nitrous oxide, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, odor, particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and methane. A universal score-sheet was created to assess implementation of BMPs at each dairy. The YRCAA inspectors were trained to evaluate, score, and record BMP implementation. A whole-farm score was generated during each visit, which identified areas of improvement to be addressed.

The process was very unique in that the dairy industry took a proactive role and actively participated. Using science and air quality experts to create and validate the evaluation tools and process also brought authority to the process. The policy was revised based on information collected from the pilot project and was adopted in February 2012. To date, 22 operations, representing 57% of total cow numbers in the Yakima Region, are enrolled.

What Have We Learned?

The voluntary approach used during the pilot project phase of the policy was very effective in enrolling the dairy community. Producers stepped up to volunteer and cooperatively participate in an unknown process. Even though they were very robust and integrated a large amount of scientific information, the emission assessment tools created as an outcome of the pilot project were very user friendly and easy to interpret by planners and producers. The air quality BMP assessment tool is currently being evaluated for use by other agencies and institutions.

Future Plans

The YRCAA has entered into phase two of the policy process and are now mandating that dairies participate in the air quality assessment. Starting in March 2013, all dairy operations in the Yakima basin will be either voluntarily or mandatorily inspected and assessed for air quality improvements. This provides an opportunity to compare voluntary and mandatory policy processes. The long-term impact of the process is yet unknown.

Authors

Nichole M. Embertson, Ph.D., Nutrient Management Specialist, Whatcom Conservation District, Lynden, WA, nembertson@whatcomcd.org

Gary Pruitt, Executive Director, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Air, Yakima, WA

Hasan Tahat, Engineering and Planning Supervisor, Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Air, Yakima, WA

Pius Ndegwa, Biological and Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA

Additional Information

https://www.yakimacleanair.org/site/files/file_manager/page/shared/Resource%20Guide%20for%20BMP%20for%20Dairy%20Oparation%20Aug18.pdf

Model of a Successful Regulatory-Industry Partnership to Address Air Emissions from Dairy Operations in Yakima, WA from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Assessment of Bioaerosol Transport at a Large Dairy Operation

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In an effort to assess the off-site transport of bioaerosols, airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin were collected at a 10,000 cow dairy operation. Compared to background locations, the general trend was that bioaerosol concentrations were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature and solar radiation. Bioaerosol concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. An analysis of clones generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequence matches were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to otherwise healthy humans. Results from ongoing research to better understand bioaerosol formation and drift losses during spray irrigation events of dairy wastewater will also be discussed.

Using glass impingers to capture airborne bacteria at a downwind location from a dairy.

Why Study Bioaerosols at Dairies?

Because confinement of cattle increases the microbioal load at dairy production facilities, there are concerns about on-site and off-site exposures to airborne microorganisms and microbial byproducts. The purpose of this study was to monitor concentrations of airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy and fields being irrigated with wastewater to assess their potential to be transported off site. This information is important, as inhalation or ingestion of some bioaerosols can be detrimental to health through infection, allergy, or toxicosis.

Open-face filters for capture of airborne endotoxin.

What Did We Do?

Over a one-year period at the dairy, bioaerosols were collected at upwind (background) and downwind sites using glass impingers, direct impaction on media, and a wetted-wall cyclone. Bacteria and fungi were quantified using culture-dependent techniques, while bacteria were also characterized to the genus and species levels by analyzing a region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Airborne endotoxin were captured on filters, then extracted and subsequenetly quantified using the Limulus amebocyte lysate assay.

Wetted-wall cyclone being used to capture bioaerosols for subsequent identification using PCR-based approach.

What Have We Learned?

Compared to background sites, the general trend was that concentrations of airborne bacteria and endotoxin were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation. Bacteria and endotoxin concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. Analysis of cloned 16S rRNA genes generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequences were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to healthy humans.

Future Plans

Conduct a quantitative microbial risk assessment for zoonotic bacterial pathogens in dairy wastewaters that are land applied using center pivot irrigation systems.

Authors

Robert Dungan, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory, Kimberly, Idaho, robert.dungan@ars.usda.gov

April Leytem, Soil Chemist, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho

David Bjorenberg, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho

Additional Information

Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2009. Airborne endotoxin concentrations at a large open-lot dairy in southern Idaho. J. Environ. Qual. 38:1919-1923.

Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Year-long assessment of airborne endotoxin at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:141-148.

Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, S.A. Verwey, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Assessment of bioaerosols at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:171-184.

Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2011. Ambient endotoxin concentrations and assessment of transport at an open-lot and open-freestall dairy. J. Environ. Qual. 40:462-467.

Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2011. Concentrations of airborne endotoxin and microorganisms at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy. J. Anim. Sci. 176:426-434.

Dungan, R.S. 2012. Use of a culture-independent approach to characterize aerosolized bacteria at an open-freestall dairy operation. Environ. Int. 41:8-14.

Acknowledgements

Independent Dairy Environmental Action League (IDEAL)

Assessment of Bioaerosol Transport at a Large Dairy Operation from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

Feeding Cattle Without the Feedlot

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Typically cattle producers can have improved animal performance through controlled systems such as an open lot feedlot. Open lots provide for improved control of diet, health, and monitoring of activity of the animals. Feeding areas such as these also can have disadvantages such as solid manure accumulation, surface water contamination when runoff water is uncontrolled, such systems are labor and machine intensive, and can contribute herd health issues because of high stocking densities, dust, or mud. Forage based grazing can negate many of these issues and is arguably more sustainable and environmentally friendly. However intensive grazing strategies must be employed to obtain comparable productivity. Development of technology that allows for these benefits is needed. Cross fencing and rotational grazing practices would benefit from more flexible and less labor intensive ways of controlling the grazing area.

Figure 1. Calves waiting for new windrows of oats.

A device has been developed by UNL Extension that adapts a center pivot irrigation system into a moveable fence by placing the fence on the center pivot structure. Livestock producers can move anywhere from several hundred to several thousand feet of fence by simply moving the center pivot (while not irrigating). Swath grazing, forage grazing, or crop residue grazing can be accomplished more efficiently by only allowing minimal access to the forage. Essentially moving the animals to the feed rather than bringing the feed to the animals. Advancing a cross fence periodically not improves the grazing efficiency, but it encourages a natural spread of manure and gives the producer more control of remaining crop residue, a necessary requirement to maintain pasture status and avoid the Animal Feeding Operation designation. The device was tested on working farms over a two year period and improved profitability and minimized environmental impact compared to the operator’s previous practices.

Can Intensive Forage Grazing Be Profitable?

The project started from a request for some alternatives to help reduce the cost of gain for feeder calves in 2010. Eliminating the forage activities of baling / stacking, transporting, grinding, feeding and also the spreading of manure can significantly reduce labor and equipment expenses. Keeping feeder calves in a grazing operation instead of concentrated feeding operation has the potential to minimize surface water contamination. The health and welfare of the calf can be improved by having a lower stock density, larger area for exercise, and with crop residue a reduced impact of dusty or muddy conditions. Forage based grazing is arguably more sustainable and environmentally friendly than concentrated feeding areas. However intensive grazing strategies must be employed to obtain comparable productivity. Development of technology that allows for these benefits is necessary. Cross fencing and rotational grazing practices would benefit from more flexible and less labor intensive ways of controlling the grazing area.

Figure 2. Calves grazing standing oats.

What Did We Do?

The project was focused for fall / winter grazing opportunities for newly weaned spring born calves of the semi-arid region of western Nebraska. A successful grazing operation of windrowed or standing forage will have to include a method of controlling daily forage intake through cross fencing( Figures 1 & 2). This would reduce waste and give the producer a feedlot like control of dry matter intake so a desired daily gain could be achieved. Current portable fencing has to be manually installed and moved which is labor intensive especially in frozen soils. A new development in portable fencing was developed by UNL Biological Systems Engineering that a device attaches to a center pivot and properly suspends an electrified wire under tension. This gives the producer a portable cross fence (1,300 ft) that can be moved by the center pivot’s control panel or wirelessly with a computer.

In the fall of 2011 and 2012, four grazing programs were developed to demonstrate this new cross fence. Two were fall planted oats and two were grazed corn stalk residues. The fall oats were grazed as a standing forage and also as a windrow. The corn stalk residue was grazed in a manner to minimize the overgrazing of downed corn ears and reduce the protein supplement.

What Have We Learned?

The projects demonstrated that calves can be successfully maintained in theses grazing systems. The management and the relocations of the cross fence was done easily done though the center pivot’s control panel (average time of 15 minutes). The

Figure 3. Natural manure distribution.

forage quality of the windrowed oats maintained its quality throughout the 105 (fall 2011) and the 120 (fall 2012) day grazing period. In 2011 the oat forage deteriorated only 17% in crude protein and 14% in total digestible nutrients. In 2012 the oat forage deteriorated only 2% in crude protein and 3% in total digestible nutrients. Cost savings in the fall oat grazing are reported at$7,268.85 total or $28.70 / ton grazed ($22.16 per head) for 105 days in the 2011 trial. In the 2012 trial the savings were a total of $4,625.60 or $29.50 / ton ($25.70 per head) for a 120 day trial. The cost savings for the corn stalk residue weren’t measured. The project only demonstrated the control of grain intake in the calves or cow, which it accomplished. The manure was naturally spread throughout the fields and the cattle health and welfare was maintained (Figure 3).

Future Plans

A future plan is being developed to continue to demonstrate the ability to control dietary intake of calves or cows on irrigated forages. With a portable and mechanically moveable cross fence the conveniences of a concentrated feeding operation can be placed into a grazing operation in large scale.

Authors

Jason Gross, Engineering Tech, UNL Extension, jgross3@unl.edu

Additional Information

http://water.unl.edu/web/manure/small-afos

Feeding Cattle Without the Feedlot from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 5, 2019

Estimation of On-Farm Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Poultry Houses

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

*Abstract

Much of the greenhouse gases (GHG) generated from the poultry industry is primarily from feed production. The poultry producer does not have control over the production and distribution of the feed used on the farm. However, they can control other emissions that occur on the farm such as emissions from the utilization of fossil fuels and from manure management. A series of studies were conducted to evaluate on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from broiler, breeder and pullets houses in addition to an in-line commercial layer complex. Data was collected from distributed questionnaires and included; the activity data from the facility operations (in the form of fuel bills and electricity bills), house size and age, flock size, number of flocks per year, and manure management system. Emissions were calculated using GHG calculation tools and emission factors from IPCC. The carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions were computed and a carbon footprint was determined and expressed in tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

The results from the study showed that about 90% of the emissions from the broiler and pullet farms were from propane and diesel gas use, while only 6% of the total emissions from breeder farms were from propane and diesel gas use. On breeder farms, about 29% of GHG emissions were the result of electricity use while the pullet and broiler farms had only 3% emissions from electricity use. Emissions from manure management in the layer facility were responsible for 53% of the total emission from the facility, while electricity use represented 28% of the total emissions. The results from these studies identified the major sources of on-farm of GHG emissions. This will allow us to target these areas for abatement and mitigation strategies.

Why Study Greenhouse Gases on Poultry Farms?

Human activities, including modern agriculture, contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 1996). Agriculture has been reported to be responsible for 6.3% of the GHG emissions in the U.S., of this 53.5% were a result of animal agriculture. Of the emissions from animal agriculture, poultry was responsible for only 0.6%. Much of the CO₂e that is generated from the poultry industry is primarily from feed production, the utilization of fossil fuels and manure management (Pelletier, 2008; EWG, 2011). While the poultry producer does not have control over the production of the feed that is used on the farm, there are other GHG emissions that occur on the farm that are under their control. These emissions may be in the form of purchased electricity, propane used for heating houses and incineration of dead birds, diesel used in farm equipment which includes generators and emissions from manure management.

What Did We Do?

A series of studies were conducted to examine the GHG emissions from poultry production houses and involved the estimation of emissions from; broiler grow-out farms, pullet farms, breeder farms from one commercial egg complex. Data collection included the fuel and electricity bills from each farm, house size and age, flock size and number of flocks per year and manure management. The GHG emissions were evaluated using the IPCC spreadsheets with emission factors based on region and animal type. We separated the emissions based on their sources and determined that there were two main sources, 1. Mechanical and 2. Non-mechanical. After we determined the sources, we looked at what contributed to each source.

What Have We Learned?

When all GHG emissions from each type of operation was evaluated, the total for an average broiler house was approximately 847 tonnes CO₂e/year, the average breeder house emission was 102.56 tonnes CO₂e/year, pullet houses had a total emission of 487.67 tonnes CO₂e/year, and 4585.52 CO₂e/year from a 12 house laying facility. The results from this study showed that approximately 96% of the mechanical emissions from broiler and pullet houses were from propane (stationary combustion) use while less than 5% of these emissions from breeder houses were from propane use. The high emission from propane use in broiler and pullet houses is due to heating the houses during brooding and cold weather. Annual emissions from manure management showed that layer houses had higher emissions (139 tonnes CO₂e/year) when compared to breeder houses (65.3 tonnes CO₂e/year), broiler houses (59 tonnes CO₂e/year) and pullet houses (61.7tonnesCO₂e/year). Poultry reared in management systems with litter and using solid storage has relatively high N₂O emissions but low CH₄ emissions.We have learned that there is variability in the amount of emissions within each type of poultry production facility regardless of the age or structure of houses and as such reduction strategies will have to be tailored to suit each situation. We have also learned that the amount of emissions from each source (mechanical or non-mechanical) depends on the type of operation (broiler, pullet, breeder, or layer).

Future Plans

Abatement and Mitigation strategies will be assessed and a Poultry Carbon Footprint Calculation Tool is currently being developed by the team and will be made available to poultry producers to calculate their on-farm emissions. This tool will populate a report and make mitigation recommendations for each scenario presented. Best management practices (BMP) can result in improvements in energy use and will help to reduce the use of fossil fuel, specifically propane on the poultry farms thereby reducing GHG emissions, we will develop a set of BMP for the poultry producer.

Authors

Claudia. S. Dunkley, Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia; cdunkley@uga.edu

Brian. D. Fairchild, Casey. W. Ritz, Brian. H. Kiepper, and Michael. P. Lacy, Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia

Integrating Probable Fieldwork Days into Nutrient Management Plans from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

What Practices are Reducing Environmental and Economic Risks on Wisconsin Farms?

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

This workshop will focus on how dairy farmers in Wisconsin evaluate the risk of nutrient and sediment loss on their operations and what best management practices are adopted to reduce these risks. Dennis will describe how farm families evaluate all the risk factors facing their operation (weather, production, marketing, labor, safety and environmental risks) and discuss how a farmer has to balance the risk and rewards for each of these challenges. It is helpful to gain an appreciation for the numerous challenges farmers face on a daily basis and the amount of time committed to the evaluation and implementation of soil and water best management practices on each farm. Conservation practices are often applied in a “one size fits all” approach and are not developed and implemented to fit the needs of each farming operation. The large diversity of both farming systems and physical settings require a collaborative evaluation and implementation process between producers and conservation technicians to develop economic, effective, and practical conservation practices to fit the specific circumstances of individual farming operations.

What Are Some of the Lessons Learned in Managing Environmental Risks?

The focus of this talk is to explain when and where we saw nutrient and sediment losses that could have been avoided with improvements in management. We will also discuss what we have learned about unavoidable losses and try and explain the difference between unacceptable risk and acceptable risk.

What Did We Do?

Over the past twelve years UW – Discovery Farms has worked on many farms evaluating a variety of farming systems and identifying the positive and negative impacts that production agriculture can have on the environment. Data collection through this program includes over 120 sites years of edge-of-field monitoring, in-stream monitoring and monitoring tile drainage systems. All the monitoring was done in partnership with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and this data set is one of the largest and best on-farm sets known to exist.

What Have We Learned?

Discovery Farms has studied a variety of farming systems including no-till, minimal tillage, tillage and rotational grazing. The settings for these farming systems ranged from very steep (the driftless region with slopes up to 32%) to gently rolling (<3%) with a variety of unique challenges including manure management, tile drainage systems and close distance to surface water. On each of the operations that were studied, the farm operators have selected a farming system (tillage, planting, pest control, manure management, harvest, crop rotation, etc) that works for them. For the first two years of the study we asked the producers not make changes to their farming systems so that we could evaluate nutrient and sediment loss from their current practices. It quickly became apparent that on real farms, nothing stays the same. All of our cooperators made adjustments in management based not only on the data we were collecting, but also based on economics, changes in demand and changes on the operation (equipment, land base, labor, increase in cattle numbers). It is also apparent that even with the best farming system, implemented almost perfectly; mother nature can throw some unanticipated events which have a tremendous impact on nutrient and sediment losses.

Future Plans

In 2010, the UW – Discovery Farms Program expanded their on-farm research program to include not only edge-of-field and in-stream work on individual farms; they are now working with multiple farms in small watersheds. The goal of these studies is to better understand the relationsihp betweeen edge-of-field losses and what actually happens in lakes and streams.

Authors

Dennis R. Frame, Director, UW – Discovery Farms Program; Professor UW – Extension, drframe@wisc.edu

Amber Radatz, Outreach Specialilst, UW – Discovery Farms

Eric Cooley, Outreach Specialist, UW-Discovery Farms

Additional Information

UW Discovery Farms makes every effort to develop materials from all of the on-farm research projects. These materails are available on our website (uwdiscoveryfarms.org or by contacting our office at 1-715-983-5668).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the farmers who have participated in our program. Without their guidance and support this program would not be possible. We would also like to acknowledge the support and guidance of all the non-governmental agricultural organizations in Wisconsin who continue to provide support financially and politically.