Responsible manure nutrient management improves environmental quality while maintaining agricultural productivity. Multiple organizations and individuals play a part in improving the understanding and practice of responsible management. But how does manure nutrient management information flow? The “Pathways” project’s goals were to understand and delineate pathways for effective information dissemination and use among various agricultural professional audiences that facilitate successful integrated (research/outreach/education) projects and programs. This presentation examines the relevance of partnerships within the manure nutrient management network and barriers to these partnerships.
What did we do?
We disseminated the “Pathways” survey online utilizing the mailing lists of several professional and producer organizations and listservs associated with manure management. There were 964 surveys started and 608 completed. The six types of organizations with more than 10% of the total survey population’s responses were university/Extension; government non-regulatory agencies; government regulatory agencies; producers; special government agencies; and sale or private enterprises.
The South Dakota State University Institutional Review Board deemed the survey exempt under federal regulation 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (IRB-1402010-EXM and IRB-1502001-EXM).
What have we learned?
The survey posed “How important is collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management?” Figure 1 shows the mean relevance among all survey participants, evaluated on a scale of 1 (Not important/somewhat unimportant) to 4 (Highly important). On average, all potential partner groups were recognized as important (>2). Partnerships with producers were deemed most important (3.68) by all survey respondents.
After assessing relevance, we asked survey participants to indicate what barriers, if any, deter them from collaboration with each of the following groups related to manure nutrient management (select all that apply). For all potential partners listed, with the exception of tribal governments, “No Barriers to Use” was the most selected option. “Do Not Have a Relationship” was a common and stronger barrier for commodity, sales and service partners, compared to government agencies, for example.
The barriers “Discouraged or Not Allowed” and “No Incentive to Collaborate” were relatively small selections. The barrier “Do Not Have a Relationship” is possible to overcome at both individual and organizational levels, where needed.
Future Plans
In the future, assessing the reasons for specific partnerships can further aid improving communication and collaboration in the manure nutrient management network.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Erin Cortus, Associate Professor and Environmental Quality Specialist at South Dakota State University
The Pathways Project greatly appreciates the support of the North Central Region Water Network Seed Grant, South Dakota Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and the collaborative groups of educators, researchers and agency personnel, for improving and advocating the survey.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a regional partnership that leads and directs Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection. The CBP uses a suite of modeling and planning tools to estimate nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment loads contributed to the Bay from its watershed, and guide restoration efforts. Non-point source (NPS) pollutant sources (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff) are largely related to diverse land uses stretching across six states and the District of Columbia. On-the-ground pollutant reductions are achieved by implementing both management and structural best management practices (BMPs) on those diverse land uses. Short and long-term reductions in NPS pollutant loads that result from BMP implementation are estimated using the CBP modeling suite of tools. The CBP recognizes (i.e., represents pollutant reduction credits for) over 150 BMPs across 66 land uses total for all sectors in its Phase 6 suite of modeling tools. The estimated pollutant reduction performance (i.e., effectiveness) of each BMP is parameterized in the CBP modeling suite. Within the CBP, BMP effectiveness is determined by groups of qualified scientific and technical experts (BMP Expert Panels) that review the relevant literature and make an independent determination regarding BMP performance which are reviewed and approved by the CBP partnership before being integrated in to the modeling tools by the CBP modeling team.
BMP Expert Panels are primarily convened under the auspices of the CBP’s Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and tasked to specific sector workgroups for oversight and management. Panels are tasked with addressing a specific BMP, or a suite of related BMPs. Panel members, in coordination with the CBP partnership, are selected based on their scientific expertise, practical experience with the BMP, and expertise in fate and transport of nutrients and sediment. Panels review the relevant literature and through a deliberative process and form recommendations on BMP pollutant production performance, and how the BMP(s) should be accounted for/incorporated into the CBP modeling tools and data reporting systems. Convening BMP Expert Panels is an ongoing focus and priority of the CBP partnership, given the integral role BMP implementation plays in achieving the pollution reduction goals required by the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
What Did We Do?
Expert panels follow the process and adhere to expectations outlined in the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s Protocol for the Development, Review, and Approval of Loading and Effectiveness Estimates for Nutrient and Sediment Controls in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (aka the “BMP Protocol”). The expert panel process functions as an independent peer review, similar to that of the National Academy of Sciences.
Each panel reviews and discusses all current published literature and available unpublished literature and data related to the BMP(s), and formulates recommendations using the guidance provided in the BMP Protocol to help weigh the applicability of each data source. Consensus panel recommendations are recorded in a final report, which is presented to relevant CBP partnership groups, including the CBP partnership’s Agriculture Workgroup for feedback and approval.
Panel recommendations are built into the modeling tools following CBP partnership approval of the panel’s report.
What Have We Learned?
The availability of published, peer-reviewed data varies greatly based on the scope of the panel. Some panels have dozens of articles to analyze while others may have a limited number of published studies to supplement gray literature, unpublished data and their best professional judgment. Even panels with a large amount of relevant literature at their disposal identify important gaps and future research needs. Given the wide range of stakeholders in the CBP partnership, regular updates and communication with interested parties as the panel formulates its recommendations is extremely important to improve understanding and acceptance of final panel recommendations.
Future Plans
The Chesapeake Bay Program evaluates BMP effectiveness estimates as new research or new conservation and production practices become available. Thus, expert panels sometimes revisit BMPs that were previously reviewed, but new and innovative BMPs are also considered. The availability of resources and new research limit the frequency of these reviews in conjunction with the priorities of the CBP partnership. Given the CBP partnership’s interest in adaptive management and continually improving its scientific estimates of BMP effectiveness, there will continue to be BMP expert panels for the foreseeable future.
Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)
Jeremy Hanson, Project Coordinator – Expert Panel BMP Assessment, Virginia Tech
Mark Dubin, Agricultural Technical Coordinator, University of Maryland Extension
Brian Benham, Professor and Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech
Each expert panel has at least several other authors and contributors, which is not practical for listing here. Each individual report identifies the panel members and other contributors for that specific panel.
These BMP expert panels would not be possible without the generosity of expert panel members who volunteer their valuable time and perspectives. Staff support, coordination and funding for these panels is provided by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, specifically through Cooperative Agreements with Virginia Tech and University of Maryland, with additional contract support from Tetra Tech as needed. The work of these expert panels is strengthened through the participation, review and comments of the CBP partnership.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program assesses nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay. There is a need to determine the impact of manure treatment technologies on reducing the nitrogen and phosphorus loading from agriculture. Furthermore, many states within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed control nutrient discharges through watershed nutrient trading programs. Tables of standard nutrient removal efficiencies of various technologies will allow states to implement these programs.
What did we do?
An expert panel was convened by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to determine nutrient removal potential of manure treatment technologies. The following seven technology categories were reviewed: thermochemical processing, anaerobic digestion, composting, settling, mechanical solid-liquid separation, and wet chemical treatment. Within these categories, the panel defined 24 named technologies for detailed review. The scientific literature was reviewed to determine the ability of each technology to transfer volatile nitrogen to the atmosphere and transfer nutrients to a waste stream more likely to be used off-farm (or transported out of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed).
What have we learned?
Manure treatment technologies are used reduce to odors, solids, and organic matter from the manure stream, with only minor reductions in nutrient loading. The panel determined that Thermo-Chemical Processing and Composting have the potential to volatilize nitrogen, and all of the technologies have the ability to transfer nutrients into a more useful waste stream. The greatest effect of treatment technologies is the transformation of nutrients to more stable forms – such as precipitation of insoluble phosphorus from dissolved phosphorus.
Future Plans
The panel’s report is undergoing final authorization from the Chesapeake Bay Program for release to the public. Future panels may choose to revisit the issue of nutrient reduction from manure treatment technologies. The current panel recommends future panels expand the categories of technologies to include liquid aerobic treatment, and examine more named technologies as they become available within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Douglas W. Hamilton, Associate Professor Oklahoma State University
Keri Cantrell, KBC Consulting;John Chastain, Clemson University; Andrea Ludwig, University of Tennessee; Robert Meinen, Penn State University; Jactone Ogejo, Virginia Tech; Jeff Porter, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Eastern Technology Suppor
Funding for this panel was provided by the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program and Virginia Tech University through EPA Grant No. CB96326201
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
In a global context, the pork industry constitutes a huge economic sector but many producers operate on very thin margins. In addition, pork is one of the largest and most important agricultural industries in North Carolina and the United States but faces a number of challenges in regards to waste management and environmental impacts.On more local scales, swine producers face a number of additional constraints including land availability, waste management options (technical and regulatory), nutrient management costs, profits, risk, and return on investment. In the face of increasingly stringent environmental regulations, decreasing land availability, and higher costs for fertilizer, it is necessary to consider alternative technologies with the potential for improving environmental conditions and creating value added products. Technology assessments generally focus on technical performance as the measure of “utility” or usefulness. Primary physical performance measures such as efficiency, production rate, and capacity, while necessary may not be sufficient for capturing the overall value of a technology. A significant amount of research has evaluated the feasibility of technology adoption based on traditional economic measures but far less research has attempted to “value” environmental performance either at farm-scale or in the larger context (e.g. supply chain response to changes in technology or policy and regulation). Considering response over time, the extent to which environmental and economic policies and regulations positively or negatively affect technology innovation, emission and nutrient management, competitiveness, and productivity, remains largely unknown.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental and economic tradeoffs between current swine waste management practices in North Carolina and alternative scenarios for future on-farm decision making that include new technologies for waste removal, treatment, and nitrogen recovery. In addition, we begin to understand these economic and environmental tradeoffs in the context of various environmental policy and regulation scenarios for markets of carbon, electricity, and mineral fertilizer.
What did we do?
Using waste samples from swine finishing farms in southeastern NC, laboratory and bench scale experiments were conducted to determine the quantity and quality of biogas generation from anaerobic digestion and nitrogen recovery from an ammonia air stripping column. Based on these data as well as information from literature, six trial life cycle assessment scenarios were created to simulate alternatives for annual manure waste management for one finishing barn (3080 head) on the farm. Materials, energy, and emissions were included as available for all system components and processes including but not limited to waste removal from barns (flushing or scraping), treatment (open air lagoon or covered lagoon digester), nitrogen recovery (ammonia air stripping column), and land application (irrigation). A description of the scenarios as well as processes that are included/excluded for each can be found in Table 1. All scenarios were modeled over a one year operational period using a “gate to gate” approach where the mass and energy balance begins and ends on the farm (i.e. production of feed is not included and manure is fully utilized on the farm). It was assumed that each scenario included an existing anaerobic treatment lagoon with manure flushing system (baseline, representative of NC swine farms). In the remaining scenarios, the farm had an option of covering the lagoon and using it as a digester to produce biogas (offsetting natural gas); covering the digester and ammonia air stripping column for nitrogen recovery (offsetting mineral ammonium sulfate); installing a mechanical scraper system in the barn (replaces flushing); and/or different combinations of these. Open LCA, an open source life cycle and sustainability assessment software, was used for inventory analysis and the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI 2.0) was used to characterize environmental impacts to air, water, and land. From Table 2 preliminary results indicate that all scenarios had a similar pattern in terms of impact for the assessed categories. The open air lagoon had the highest overall environmental impact followed by scraping manure with digestion and recovery and scraped slurry digestion with no nutrient recovery. Flushed manure to the digester with nutrient recovery had the lowest overall environmental impact, followed closely by scraped whole slurry to the digester with nutrient recovery.
Using energy and emissions data from the initial life cycle assessment on alternative scenarios for swine waste management systems we have started to characterize the environmental and economic outcomes arising from selected on farm technologies. More specifically we began to examine the regulatory, institutional, and market barriers associated with technology adoption within the swine industry. We provide a theoretical model to support quantification of the change in revenues and expenses that result from changes in three major markets connected to swine production – carbon, electricity, and fertilizer. We examine some of the economic characteristics of environmental benefits associated with changes to farm practices. Finally, we discuss implications for innovation in technology and policy.
What have we learned?
Preliminary results are somewhat mixed and further research is needed to see how sensitive the life cycle assessment inputs and outputs are to system components. While there is a clear indication that covering lagoons, with or without additional nutrient recovery, reduces environmental impact – farm scale systems can be quite expensive and no further determination can be made until a full economic analysis has been conducted. Modeling secondary effects, such as increased ammonia emissions in barns from flush water recirculated from digesters, remains to be included. Besides farm level cost and returns, review of literature has pointed to additional barriers to adoption of reduced environmental impact technologies. Examples of barriers include deficient or non-existent markets for environmental benefits, and various state and federal regulations and policies related to renewable energy, carbon offsets, new farm waste management technology, etc. Solutions such as better cooperation between energy firms, regulatory agencies, and farmers as well as increased financial incentives such as carbon credits, renewable energy credits, net metering options, and enabling delivery of biogas to natural gas pipelines can greatly increase the profitability and implementation of this technology on NC hog farms.
Future Plans
As this is an ongoing multi-disciplinary project, future plans include the expansion of existing data to form a more comprehensive life cycle inventory with options for both new and existing swine farms, which include additional options for waste treatment, nutrient recovery, and land application/fertilizer methods, etc. Energy and emissions data from the life cycle model will continue to be utilized as inputs into a more fully integrated model capable of reflecting the true “cost” and “values” associated with waste management treatment systems. In addition, it is expected that the integrated model will include the flexibility to simulate overall costs and returns for various sizes of operations within the county, region, and if possible state-wide.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Shannon Banner, Graduate Student, North Carolina State University
Dr. John Classen, Dr. Prince Dugba, Mr. Mark Rice, Dr. Kelly Zering
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by a grant from Smithfield Swine Production Group
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The purpose of this research included identifying the optimum cultivation conditions of five different strains of duckweed while evaluating the nutrient uptake of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in anaerobically digested dairy manure to promote biomass production.
What did we do?
The growth of duckweed was assessed on the cultivation parameters of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, light intensity, nutrient concentrations, and biomass production. Three strains, namely Landoltia punctata, Lemna gibba and Lemna minuta, were identified as the promising candidates for their high levels of nutrient uptake and biomass production. The temperature and light intensity were maintained in an environmental chamber at 25°C and 10,000 lux, respectively. The nutrient uptake through duckweed cultivation, characterized by the changes of total nitrogen (TN), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (TP), was assessed on the anaerobically digested dairy manure in three dilution ratios i.e., 1:13, 1:18, and 1:27 by volume.
What have we learned?
In the dilution ratios 1:18 and 1:27 all duckweed strains grew successfully. However, in dilution ratio 1:13 all three duckweed species were inhibited by the high nutrient concentration. The batch system created an aerobic environment within the anaerobically digested dairy manure medium with a dissolved oxygen content of 2-6 mg/L. At the high light intensity of 10,000 (lux) a buffer was needed in order to keep the medium’s pH constant to promote duckweed growth. This research compared the nutrient reduction of the microbial growth within the anaerobically digested dairy manure and a standard solution of 1.6 g/L of Hoagland E-medium to the nutrient reduction from the three strains of duckweed at the dilution ratios of 1:13, 1:18, and 1:27. Experimental results revealed that the average duckweed productivities were 1.50, 1.30 and 0.50 grams per square foot per day for Landoltia punctata, Lemna gibba, and Lemna minuta, respectively. At the dilution ratio of 1:27 the highest significant reductions came from Landoltia punctata at 86.0% for TN, 87.5% for TKN, and a TP of 89.5%. At the dilution ratio of 1:18 Lemna gibba got the next highest at 83.8% for TN, 85.6% for TKN, and a TP of 76.2%. Lemna minuta came in last with the highest nutrient reductions in dilution ratio 1:18 with 83.1% for TN, 84.7% for TKN, and a TP of 76.5%. A light intensity of 10,000 lux, pH of 6.5, a temperature of 25°C and a dilution ratio of 1:27 promoted active duckweed growth on anaerobically digested dairy manure.
Future Plans
We will continue the duckweed cultivation work to optimize manure nutrient uptake and to convert duckweed biomass into bioethanol.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Lide Chen, Assistant Professor/Waste Management Engineer, University of Idaho
Current practices for nutrient removal or recovery of phosphorus focus on chemical precipitation technologies, where the recovered products are low-grade, slow-release, low-value land applied fertilizers. Three significant deficiencies re this process – the cost of recovery is greater than the market value as commercial P fertilizer; the land application of such materials perpetuates the current cycle of pollutant nutrient “leakage” into surface waters; and the approach is not viable to address non-point source pollution or the legacy P present in impaired water bodies. Hence, research was initiated based on commercially available Hybrid Ion Exchange Nanomaterials (HIX-Nano), which remove naturally occurring arsenic from drinking water, and apply it to remove, recover, reconcentrate, reuse and recycle soluble reactive phosphorus from diverse organic waste and wastewaters.
What did we do?
The infusion of high surface area nano iron oxide into conventional ion exchange resins, HIX-(Fe) Nano makes it possible to remove phosphates from wastewater and this has been proven by Lehigh U., ESSRE Consulting and others. Thus, residual dissolved phosphorus not chemically precipitated is captured and removed to supplement and complement the current P recovery processes or capture all of the dissolved P where nutrient recovery does not occur. The key to nutrient recovery is regeneration of the spent media and the conventional chemistry to achieve this is with a weak alkaline (caustic soda) rinse to desorb captured phosphate. The end product is a phosphate solution with a peak concentration of about 1600 mg/L. However, Na does not add any nutrient value whereas potassium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide or both will add N and K to desorbed P and allow the custom formulation of N-P-K liquid products for hydroponic growers and greenhouse horticulturists. Moreover, when the source of concentrated N and P is livestock manures, there is a way to impart the micronutrients, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc. into the liquid formulations that will result in an N-P-K Plus product.
What have we learned?
We know that making liquid fertilizer products from manures will help valorize manure treatment because hydroponic growers will pay a premium for a premixed N-P-K product and such an approach will limit the recycled nutrients “leakage” when direct land application is avoided. We also know that commercial synthetic fertilizer production is energy intensive and that any form of pollutant nutrient recovery/reuse will reduce GHG emissions via avoided fertilizer production.
We have also learned that we can do better in terms of manure valorization, if we take the view that even small amounts of soluble reactive phosphorus serve as a “biocatalyst” for intense and frequent harmful algae blooms in fresh and coastal waters. Hence, why not convert recovered nutrients into non-fertilizer products that are more highly valued in the marketplace. In mind are inorganic chemical catalysts that contain P and happen to be widely used in the Oil & Gas sector and Energy Storage sector, as follows:
Finally, we have also learned of recent advances in HIX-Nano technology, where the oxide of Nano Fe particles are replaced with that of Zirconium (Zr) particles. The HIX-(Zr) Nano resin exhibits enhanced P removal/regeneration potential and concurrent removal/recovery of pollutant nutrient N-Nitrate.
The attributes of the HIX-nanomaterial capabilities in manure treatment manifest in the advancement of 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship for fertilizers including land application of manure – Right type, Right place, Right rate and Right time – into “5Rs” of livestock manure management of the dissolved nutrient losses: Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle.
The HIX-Nano can be configured and operated with equal efficiency for wastewater streams with high concentrations of nutrients (direct manure treatment after liquid/solids separation) or dilute runoff concentrations or very dilute legacy concentrations in surface or groundwater sources. A commercial business model of HIX 5Rs treatment is established as a “hub” and “spoke” system. The spokes are all of the pollutant nutrient pathways to surface waters shown in Figure 1, adapted from Wind’s version (2007).
Thus, the application of HIX-Nano technology serves as a barrier to pollutant nutrient leakage from all sources. Hence, each farm, wastewater treatment plant, each urban stormwater runoff source within the watershed is a “spoke”. Spent HIX-Nano is transported to a nearby Regeneration Center (Hub) and “refreshed” media is sent (i.e., recycled) back to the source (Spoke) for continued removal of nutrients. At the Regeneration Center, the further processing of recovery via regeneration and reconcentration generates custom liquid fertilizer products and the aforementioned inorganic chemical catalysts and materials. Hence, the Regeneration Center also serves as a Product Distribution Center – an all-purpose Hub. Moreover, regardless of the location of the Hub within or outside the watershed, the recycling of nutrients in products that are not land applied fertilizer in essence “export” pollutant nutrients out of the watershed irrespective of the location of use. Add the quantification of recycled nutrients to manufacture specific formulations, the HIX-Nano Hub-Spoke model becomes an additional revenue stream to producers for nutrient trading credits, where these programs exist, and a useful tool to develop trading credit programs where they do not exist.
Future Plans
The potential to simultaneously Remove, Recover, Reconcentrate, Reuse and Recycle pollutant nutrients N and P from manures doubles the work ahead. For the reuse/recycle of fertilizer products confirmation is needed that N-P-K products will be free of impurities and commercially accepted after fertilization testing; similar confirmation path for N (NH4+ and N-NO3)-P-K products. Once established for reuse, HIX-Nano filters can be applied to the flushing discharge of spent fertilizer/nutrient solution for capture of N or P, thus closing the pollutant overload loop and recycling recycled pollutant nutrients.
For the reuse/recycle of treated water deficient in P when removing soluble P only, this needs to be tested for spray application onto soils oversaturated with P to assure compliance with the Nutrient Management Plans for N and P and thus safe reuse and reclamation of this water.
For the catalytic products thorough testing of composition (impurities), stability and performance testing needs to be carried out to gain acceptance as “green” catalysts or solution precursors for “green” catalysts. In either case, reconcentration must be carried out (thermal or mechanical) in a cost-effective way and in a way that carries out manure pathogen total destruction when the source of removed nutrients is from livestock manures .Similar research efforts are needed for battery cathode material manufactured from recycled pollutant P. Moreover for both catalysts and battery materials, if the final disposition of these materials is landfilling, the application of HIX-Nano on landfill leachate containing P will close the nutrient pollution loop by applying 5Rs treatment principles.
Lastly, to address the Food-Energy-Water nexus challenge the future plans will favor HIX-Nano application on manure digestate after liquid/solids separations. Nutrient recycling using HIX-Nano will also come into play with biomass to energy technologies such as Anaerboic Digestion and Hydrothermal Liquefaction, where the output is biofuels or biofuels and biochemical.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Ed Weinberg, PE, President, ESSRE Consulting, Inc.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This mini-workshop will highlight tools and techniques for revving up posters, publications, or demonstrations through augmented reality (AR). AR is different from virtual reality in that it is not immersive, but rather, adds a layer to the physical world. We will explore how to create interactive print (posters, publications), enhance web publications (3D), and look at possibilities for virtual tours (Introduce an app and some examples, including Extension-produced ones).
Finally, we will walk through the steps to add AR to a print publication. Prior to this workshop, if possible, download the free Aurasma app and follow the LPELC channel (all uppercase – important).
Some apps highlighted in this workshop:
Aurasma – there is a free version, not as full-featured as Layar
Guidigo – virtual tours, can create tours that function without Internet, educators can create 2 free but they have worked with educators to do more
Sketchfab – 3D, universal
Google Translate/Word Lens
Layar – interactive print, most popular, pay per page created
Michele Kroll, University of Missouri and Allan Dennis, Oregon State University for some of the examples presented in this workshop.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Commercial manure haulers are an important link in the nutrient management process. Panelists from different areas of the country will discuss how they work with manure haulers in their state – examples that range from targeted workshops to certification programs and even professional associations. Information on building relationships with this important audience will be shared along with challenges, successes, and future plans.
Panelists
Melony Wilson – Georgia (moderator)
Leslie Johnson – Nebraska
Mary Berg – North Dakota
Doug Hamilton – Oklahoma
Glen Arnold – Ohio
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Tackle Mortality Management? It’s Ripe for Revolution.
The poultry industry has enjoyed a long run of technological and scientific advancements that have led to improvements in quality and efficiency. To ensure its hard-won prosperity continues into the future, the industry has rightly shifted its focus to sustainability. For example, much money and effort has been expended on developing better management methods and alternative uses/destinations for poultry litter.
In contrast, little effort or money has been expended to improve routine mortality management – arguably one of the most critical aspects of every poultry operation. In many poultry producing areas of the country, mortality management methods have not changed in decades – not since the industry was forced to shift from the longstanding practice of pit burial. Often that shift was to composting (with mixed results at best). For several reasons – improved biosecurity being the most important/immediate – it’s time that the industry shift again.
The shift, however, doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, i.e., mortality management can be revolutionized without developing anything revolutionary. In fact, the mortality management practice of the future owes its existence in part to a technology that was patented exactly 20 years ago by Tyson Foods – large freezer containers designed for storing routine/daily mortality on each individual farm until the containers are later emptied and the material is hauled off the farm for disposal.
Despite having been around for two decades, the practice of using on-farm freezer units has received almost no attention. Little has been done to promote the practice or to study or improve on the original concept, which is a shame given the increasing focus on two of its biggest advantages – biosecurity and nutrient management.
Dusting off this old BMP for a closer look has been the focus of our work – and with promising results. The benefits of hitting the reset button on this practice couldn’t be more clear:
Greatly improved biosecurity for the individual grower when compared to traditional composting;
Improved biosecurity for the entire industry as more individual farms switch from composting to freezing, reducing the likelihood of wider outbreaks;
Reduced operational costs for the individual poultry farm as compared to more labor-intensive practices, such as composting;
Greatly reduced environmental impact as compared to other BMPs that require land application as a second step, including composting, bio-digestion and incineration; and
Improved quality of life for the grower, the grower’s family and the grower’s neighbors when compared to other BMPs, such as composting and incineration.
What Did We Do?
We basically took a fresh look at all aspects of this “old” BMP, and shared our findings with various audiences.
That work included:
Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
Freezer unit capacity,
Power consumption, and
Operational/maintenance aspects;
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
Freezer unit capacity
Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors,
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
Operational and collection/hauling aspects;
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
Pathogen/disease transmission,
Biosecurity measures
Nutrient management comparisons
Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Ensuring the results of the above topics/tests were communicated to
Growers
Integrators
Legislators
Environmental groups
Funding agencies (state and federal)
Veterinary agencies (state and federal)
What Have We Learned?
The breadth of the work at times limited the depth of any one topic’s exploration, but here is an overview of our findings:
Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
Farm visitation by scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, that previously dined in the composting shed daily slowly decreased and then stopped entirely about three weeks after the farm converted to freezer units.
The fly population was dramatically reduced after the farm converted from composting to freezer units. [Reduction was estimated at 80%-90%.]
Freezer unit capacity
The test units were carefully filled on a daily basis to replicate the size and amount of deadstock generated over the course of a full farm’s grow-out cycle.
The capacity tests were repeated over several flocks to ensure we had accurate numbers for creating a capacity calculator/matrix, which has since been adopted by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine the correct number of units per farm based on flock size and finish bird weight (or number of grow-out days) in connection with the agency’s cost-share program.
Power consumption
Power consumption was recorded daily over several flocks and under several conditions, e.g., during all four seasons and under cover versus outside and unprotected from the elements.
Energy costs were higher for uncovered units and obviously varied depending on the season, but the average cost to power one unit is only 90 cents a day. The total cost of power for the average farm (all four units) is only $92 per flock. (See additional information for supporting documentation and charts.)
Operational/maintenance aspects;
It was determined that the benefits of installing the units under cover (e.g., inside a small shed or retrofitted bin composter) with a winch system to assist with emptying the units greatly outweighed the additional infrastructure costs.
This greatly reduced wear and tear on the freezer component of the system during emptying, eliminated clogging of the removable filter component, as well as provided enhanced access to the unit for periodic cleaning/maintenance by a refrigeration professional.
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
Freezer unit capacity
After tracking two years of full farm collection/hauling data, we were able to increase the per unit capacity number in the calculator/matrix from 1,500 lbs. to 1,800 lbs., thereby reducing the number of units required per farm to satisfy that farm’s capacity needs.
Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Both farms reported improved quality of life, largely thanks to the elimination or reduction of animals, insects and smells associated with composting.
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
Both farms reported elimination or reduction of the scavenging animals and disease-carrying insects commonly associated with composting.
Operational and collection/hauling aspects
With the benefit of two years of actual use in the field, we entirely re-designed the sheds used for housing the freezer units.
The biggest improvements were created by turning the units so they faced each other rather than all lined up side-by-side facing outward. (See additional information for supporting documentation and diagrams.) This change then meant that the grower went inside the shed (and out of the elements) to load the units. This change also provided direct access to the fork pockets, allowing for quicker emptying and replacement with a forklift.
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
More research confirming the connection between farm visitation by scavenger animals and the use of composting was recently published by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center:
“Certain wildlife species may become habituated to anthropogenically modified habitats, especially those associated with abundant food resources.Such behavior, at least in the context of multiple farms, could facilitate the movement of IAV from farm to farm if a mammal were to become infected at one farm and then travel to a second location. … As such, the potential intrusion of select peridomestic mammals into poultry facilities should be accounted for in biosecurity plans.”
Root, J. J. et al. When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources. Sci. Rep. 5, 14354; doi:10.1038/ srep14354 (2015) at page 6 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).
Pathogen/disease transmission,
Animals and insects have long been known to be carriers of dozens of pathogens harmful to poultry – and to people. Recently, however, the USDA National Wildlife Research Center demonstrated conclusively that mammals are not only carriers – they also can transmit avian influenza virus to birds.
The study’s conclusion is particularly troubling given the number and variety of mammals and other animals that routinely visit composting sheds as demonstrated by our research using a game camera. These same animals also routinely visit nearby waterways and other poultry farms increasing the likelihood of cross-contamination, as explained in this the video titled Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits.
“When wildlife and poultry interact and both can carry and spread a potentially damaging agricultural pathogen, it’s cause for concern,” said research wildlife biologist Dr. Jeff Root, one of several researchers from the National Wildlife Research Center, part of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services program, studying the role wild mammals may play in the spread of avian influenza viruses.
Biosecurity measures
Every day the grower collects routine mortality and stores it inside large freezer units. After the broiler flock is caught and processed, but before the next flock is started – i.e. when no live birds are present, a customized truck and forklift empty the freezer units and hauls away the deadstock. During this 10- to 20- day window between flocks biosecurity is relaxed and dozens of visitors (feed trucks, litter brokers, mortality collection) are on site in preparation for the next flock.
“Access will change after a production cycle,” according to a biosecurity best practices document (enclosed) from Iowa State University. “Empty buildings are temporarily considered outside of the [protected area and even] the Line of Separation is temporarily removed because there are no birds in the barn.”
Nutrient management comparisons
Research provided by retired extension agent Bud Malone (enclosed) provided us with the opportunity to calculate nitrogen and phosphorous numbers for on-farm mortality, and therefore, the amount of those nutrients that can be diverted from land application through the use of freezer units instead of composting.
The research (contained in an enclosed presentation) also provided a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various nutrient management BMPs – and a finding that freezing and recycling is about 90% more efficient than the average of all other ag BMPs in reducing phosphorous.
Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Local and county governments in several states have been compiling a lot of research on the various approaches for ensuring farmers and their residential neighbors can coexist peacefully.
Many of the complaints have focused on the unwanted scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, as well as the smells associated with composting.
The concept of utilizing sealed freezer collection units to eliminate the smells and animals associated with composting is being considered by some government agencies as an alternative to instituting deeper and deeper setbacks from property lines, which make farming operations more difficult and costly.
Future Plans
We see more work on three fronts:
First, we’ll continue to do monitoring and testing locally so that we may add another year or two of data to the time frames utilized initially.
Second, we are actively working to develop new more profitable uses for the deadstock (alternatives to rendering) that could one day further reduce the cost of mortality management for the grower.
Lastly, as two of the biggest advantages of this practice – biosecurity and nutrient management – garner more attention nationwide, our hope would be to see more thorough university-level research into each of the otherwise disparate topics that we were forced to cobble together to develop a broad, initial understanding of this BMP.
Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)
Victor Clark, Co-Founder & Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC
Bud Malone, retired University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist and owner of Malone Poultry Consulting
Bill Brown, University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist, poultry grower and Delmarva Poultry Industry board member
Delaware Department of Agriculture
Delaware Nutrient Management Commission
Delaware Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
Maryland Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
In the spring of 2014, the farmer with a 2020 finishing pig barn, wanted to change from burial of mortality to composting the mortality. We will document the change and the use of the composting barn from July 2014 to Dec 2016.
What did we do?
This 2020 finish pig barn space has about 3% mortality and expects about 250 deaths per year to compost. We discussed building a PA Michigan single wall compost barn design. The farmer built a 24×40 compost barn, with a 3 feet center dividing wall. The barn was completed in the summer of 2014 and we will track the pig barn turns and compost barn mortality loadings from July 2014 to December 2016. The barn has used about 56 cubic yards of woodchips/ bark mulch the first year and then replaced with about 40 cubic yards of sawdust for the second year.
The compost temperatures have reached 130 Degrees F and the farmer is very pleased with how the barn works and how he can mix and turn the compost. The presentation will cover barn costs, barn design and sawdust mortality loading and turning.
PA Michigan compost barn built at the end of the hog barn
Excellent example of free flowing air into the compost piles while
having a center push up wall to help turn the piles
What have we learned?
We have documented the farmers use of the barn, the mortality rates, compost sawdust and woodchip use, and mixing schedules. We have also documented the mortality cost rates for this farm.
Future Plans
We will highlight this PA Michigan compost barn type to other pig barns and document the use of them in Pennsylvania.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
