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
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.
The economics and environmental impacts of livestock production cross watershed boundaries and affects both rural and urban populations. In particular, the issue of manure management has been the subject of debate and new policies in recent years as the non-point source discharge of nutrients and bacteria can be substantial if manure is not managed properly. Like most policies and rules, every five years the National Conservation Practice Standard (590) on Nutrient Management undergoes review and revision. This year, 2013, marks the initial year for adoption and implementation of state-specific and/or revised 590 standards across the United States. Despite “guiding” national standards and policies, there are different, unique approaches and tools used for nutrient management within different states and regions.
Why Discuss Nutrient Management Standards?
This session explores how different states are moving forward with nutrient management policies, standards and practices, and in particular, related to the NRCS 590 Standard. This session will include a panel discussion on unique adaptations by states to phosphorus indices, nitrogen leaching indices, winter application guidelines, air quality, and general nutrient management planning. The panel will also discuss if and how stakeholders have come together to develop these standards and practices. The discussion is also open to audience members wishing to share approaches and ideas. The session will conclude with a planning session to identify how we can, cooperatively, prepare for future policy and standard development, including discussion of collaborative research opportunities. This is a great opportunity to start building multi-state research projects to provide answers to manure management questions and issues that we might face in another five years.
Presenters
Erin Cortus, Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University erin.cortus@sdstate.edu and Nichole Embertson, Nutrient Management and Air Quality Specialist, Whatcom Conservation District, Lynden, Washington nembertson@whatcomcd.org
All presenters were invited to speak on the panel as experts on their State’s 590 revisions and/or adoption and implementation process. Their unique perspectives and processes will shed light on the regional differences in Nutrient Management and how it is affected by policy, social considerations, and regional resource concerns.
Laura Pepple, Livestock Extension Specialist, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Melony Wilson, Animal and Dairy Science Public Service Representative, University of Georgia
Bonda Habets, Certified Crop Advisor, Washington State
James Sharkoff, State Conservation Agronomist, USDA-NRCS Colorado State
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.
Soil microbial communities have been proposed as indicators of soil quality due to their importance as drivers of global biogeochemical cycles and their sensitivity to management and climatic conditions. Despite the importance of the soil microbiota to nutrient transformation and chemical cycling, physio-chemical properties rather than biological properties of soils are traditionally used as measures of environmental status. In general, much is unknown regarding the effect of management fluctuations on important functional groups in soils systems (i.e., methanogens, nitrifiers and denitrifiers). It is only recently that it has been possible, through application of sophisticated molecular microbiological methods, to sensitively and specifically target important microbial populations that contribute to nutrient cycling and plant health present at the field-scale and in differentially managed soil systems.
Fig. 1. Swine slurry surface application.
In this study, quantitative, real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to quantify changes in denitrifiers (narG) and methanogens (mcrA) in agricultural soils with three different swine effluent application methods including surface application, direct injection, and application in combination with soil aeration. Results show that concentrations of bacteria were high in all treatments (2.9 ± 1.4 X 109 cells per gram of soil); about 25% higher than in controls with no slurry added. Concentrations of methanogens and denitrifiers were slightly higher (around 50%) when slurry was applied by injection or aeration (5.3 ± 2.4 X 107 cells and 2.8 ± 1.8 X 107 cells per gram of soil, respectively) as compared to no till (2.4 ± 1.6 X 107 cells and 1.6 ± 1.0 X 107 cells per gram of soil, respectively).
These results suggest that application method has little influence on concentrations of functional groups of microorganisms. These results will be discussed in light of results of GHG sampling conducted during the same study.
Fig. 2. Swine slurry application by direct injection.
Why Study Greenhouse Gases and the Manure-Soil Interaction?
Although agricultural production has been identified as a significant source of green house gas (GHG) emissions, relatively little scientific research has been conducted to determine how manure management strategies effect GHG production upon land application. Even fewer studies have taken into consideration the microorganisms associated with applied manures. Microbial communities are responsible for nutrient transformation and chemical cycling in soil systems and many important functional groups (i.e., methanogens, nitrifiers and denitrifiers) are extremely sensitive to environmental management and climate conditions. The goal of this study was to evaluate how swine slurry land application methods effect microbial communities associated with nitrogen cycling and GHG production.
Fig. 3. Swine slurry application in combination with soil aeration.
What Did We Do?
We used molecular microbial methods to quantify changes in nitrifiers (amoA), denitrifiers (nirK, nosZ and narG) and methanogens (mcrA) in agricultural soils receiving swine slurry applied by (A) surface application (Fig. 1) (B) direct injection (Fig. 2) or (C) application in combination with soil aeration (Fig. 3). Soil samples were taken from triplicate plots 13 days after effluent application.
Above – Fig. 4. Concentration of methanogens (mcrA) and nitrate reducing bacteria (narG) as measured by quantitative, real-time PCR analysis of targeted genes (in parentheses). Swine slurry was applied by three methods surface, direct injection (Inj) or in combination with aeration (Aer). Chemical fertilizer (Fert) and plots with no fertilizer (Control) were also included. Initial slurry was removed before application. Cells in soils from plots with surface applied slurry were sampled at two depths (1.3 cm and 5.1 cm). Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate plot samples.
Below – Fig. 5. Concentration of nitrifying bacteria or archaea as measured by quantitative, real-time PCR analysis of the amoA specific for each group. Swine slurry was applied by three methods surface, direct injection (Inj) or in combination with aeration (Aer). Chemical fertilizer (Fert) and plots with no fertilizer (Control) were also included. Initial slurry was removed before application. Cells in soils from plots with surface applied slurry were sampled at two depths (1.3 cm and 5.1 cm). Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate plot samples.
What Have We Learned?
Sampling cell concentrations at different soil depths (1.3 cm or 5 cm) from plots with surface applied slurry significantly influenced results (Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig 6).
Slurry applied by any method significantly increased (7 logs) concentrations of nitrate reducing bacteria and methanogens (Fig 4). Methanogens were present in the slurry while nitrate reducers were not measurable in slurry or control plots.
Nitrifying bacteria significantly increased in concentration after slurry addition (i.e. 7, 31, 2 and 68 times higher than control plots for slurry applied by injection, aeration or surface application (1.3 cm and 5 cm), respectively); concentrations of nitrifying archaea did not change from initial levels after slurry addition (Fig. 5).
Concentrations of bacteria, fungi and denitrifiers on plots with slurry applied were two to nine times higher than concentrations in controls with no slurry (Fig. 6).
Future Plans
Findings from this study underscore the importance of measuring both microbial populations and gas production when evaluating the impact of manure application on emissions. Emission data provided important information about the kind and rate of GHG emissions (see reference below for details; Sistani et al (2011) Soil Sci. America J. 74(2): 429-435). However, microbial analyses showed that select groups of nitrifiers and denitrifiers (but not all groups) were affected by manure application. Findings from microbial analyses will be the basis for development of future studies to target and manipulate specific microbial populations in ways that inhibit their ability to produce GHG.
Fig. 6. Change in concentration of targeted population in each treatment relative to that in the control with no slurry or fertilizer added. Concentrations of bacteria (16S RNA gene), fungi (18S RNA gene), nitrite reducing bacteria (nirK) or nitrous oxide reducing bacteria (nosZ) were measured by quantitative, real-time PCR analysis of targeted genes (in parentheses). Swine slurry was applied by three methods surface, direct injection (Inj) or in combination with aeration (Aer). Chemical fertilizer (Fert) and plots with no fertilizer (Control) were also included. Initial slurry was removed before application. Cells in soils from plots with surface applied slurry were sampled at two depths (1.3 cm and 5.1 cm). Error bars represent the standard deviation of triplicate plot samples.
Authors
Dr. Kimberly Cook, Research Microbiologist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, kim.cook@ars.usda.gov
Dr. Karamat Sistani, Research Soil Scientist, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Sistani, K.R., Warren, J.G., Lovanh, N.C., Higgins, S., Shearer, S. 2010. Green House Gas Emissions from Swine Effluent Applied to Soil by Different Methods. Soil Sci. America J. 74(2): 429-435.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jason Simmons and Rohan Parekh for valuable technical assistance. This research is part of USDA-ARS National Program 214: Agricultural and Industrial By-products
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.
Native Americans placed great value on the four elements of life, earth, water, air and fire. They recognized, as we do today, that fire is the most powerful land management tool. The 4.8 million acre Flint Hills region of Kansas is the largest remaining expanse of tallgrass prairie in North America. Prescribed fire is routinely practiced in the region to enhance livestock forage quality, control invasive species, provide grassland wildlife habitat and improve plant vigor. But where there is fire, there is smoke, and there are public health concerns when excessive smoke is in the atmosphere. Ground level ozone can have serious public health consequences and major cities adjacent to the Flint Hills, have recorded excessive ozone levels resulting from Flint Hills prescribed fire. A collaborative effort including the Kansas Dept of Health & Environment, EPA, K-State Research & Extension, Kansas Livestock Association and other groups completed the Flint Hills smoke management plan in December, 2010, with the objective of reducing health concerns from prescribed fire, while retaining it as a land management tool. The plan established a website of “best smoke management practices” and a comprehensive education and outreach effort for land managers was implemented, involving prescribed fire schools, news articles and radio airplay. Results of the plan are positive, indicating that Kansas has responded to the smoke issue appropriately and will retain prescribed fire as a management practice that maintains both the tallgrass prairie of the hills, and the air quality of adjacent metro areas. The inter-relationships of earth, water, air and fire are continual, each impacting the other. The Kansas Flint Hills now has a plan to ensure harmony of these essential elements of life.
A prescribed fire in the Kansas Flint Hills
Prescribed Fire in Tallgrass Prairie
The Flint Hills Smoke Management Plan is a collaborative effort designed to maintain the benefit of prescribed fire on the private grasslands of the Flint Hills, while also protecting the air quality of ajor metropolitan areas such as Kansas City and Wichita. The Flint Hills have particular environmental implications, as they are the largest expanse of tallgrass prairie remaining in North America.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment wrote the plan, but embraced those involved with the issue, including K-State Research and Extension, the KS Livestock Association, Farm Bureau, Tallgrass Legacy Alliance, KS Prescribed Fire Council, Cities of Wichita and Kansas City, Natural Resource Conservation Service, KS Dept. of Wildlife Parks & Tourism to develop a plan that would address the goals of all those involved. A website was developed to give ranchers day by day information regarding smoke emission and direction from a prescribed fire that day or the following day.
What Have We Learned?
Those that practice prescribed fire in the Kansas Flint Hills respect the health and environment of their city neighbors. Conversely, those living in neighboring metropolitan areas understand the economic importance of prescribed fire as related to beef cattle production, and the role fire plays in preserving the integrity of the tallgrass prairie. By engaging all entities involved, agreements can be reached, solutions can be found and advancements can be made.
Prescribed fire controls woody species, maintaining the integrity of the tallgrass prairie.
Future Plans
In the years ahead, KS Dept of Health and Environment will continue monitoring smoke emissions due to prescribed fire in the Flint Hills. Those practicing prescribed fire will be encouraged to use the best smoke management methods of prescribed fire. This will be done through K-State Research & Extension prescribed fire schools, the KS Prescribed Fire Council workshops and the KDHE website.
Authors
Jeff Davidson K-State Research & Extension Watershed Specialist Kansas State University jdavidso@ksu.edu
K-State Research & Extension, Kansas Precribed Fire Council, Kansas Livestock Association, KS Dept. of Health & Environment, Tallgrass Legacy Alliance, KS Dept. of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Farm Bureau, Cities of Wichita and Kansas City.
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.
Why Study Air Emissions from Mono-slope Beef Barns?
Mono-slope buildings (Figure 1) are one type of roofed and confined cattle feeding facility that is becoming increasingly popular in the Northern Great Plains. However, little is known about the impact of these housing systems and associated manure management methods on the air quality inside and outside the barn. The objective of this study was to determine gas concentrations in mono-slope beef cattle facilities and relate these concentrations to environmental and manure management factors.
Figure 1. View of a monoslope cattle facility from the northeast. Adjustable curtains in the rear (north) wall are used to limit airspeed through the barn during colder weather.
What Did We Do?
Four producer-owned and operated beef deep-bedded mono-slope facilities were selected for monitoring. Two barns maintained deep-bedded manure packs (Bedpack), whereas two barns scraped manure and bedding from the pens weekly (Scrape). Each site was monitored continuously for one month each quarter for two years to capture both daily and seasonal variations. At each facility, the environment-controlled instrument trailer and associated equipment were located adjacent to the barn. The trailer contained: a gas sampling system (GSS) that consisted of Teflon tube sample lines connected to a computer-controlled sampling manifold, gas analyzers, computer, data acquisition system, calibration gas cylinders, and other supplies. In addition to the sampling lines, there were environmental instruments to measure the airflow and weather conditions for two pens in each barn. The analyzers and sensors used are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Analyzers and sensors used for air quality and environmental monitoring
Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane concentrations were sequentially sampled from two south wall locations and three north wall locations per pen. The maximum hourly mean concentrations measured at the north or south wall of either pen in the barn were used in this analysis. The seasonal average hourly means of maximum concentrations and corresponding environmental variables were calculated.
What Have We Learned?
Figure 2. Seasonal averages of maximum hourly mean ammonia (a), hydrogen sulfide (b) and methane (c) concentrations for the bedpack and scrape manure management systems monitored in four monoslope cattle facilities, as influenced by ambient temperature.
The seasonal average hourly maximum ammonia concentration ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 ppm with the Scrape barns and from 0.2 to 7.1 ppm with the Bedpack barns (Fig 2a). The range of maximum hydrogen sulfide concentrations was 0 to 61 ppb in the Scrape barns and 0 to 392 ppb in the Bedpack barns (Fig 2b). The maximum methane concentration ranges were 4.9 to 10.6 and 3.1 to 15.8 ppm in the Scrape and Bedpack barns, respectively (Fig 2c). There are indications of differences between gas release rates for bedpack and scrape manure management systems and increased release rates with temperature for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Methane concentrations were more consistent between systems and for different temperature conditions.
This project expands the knowledge base of gaseous concentrations from deep-bedded beef barns. This integrated project also provides management techniques that producers can implement to minimize emissions, and improve air quality.
Future Plans
Emission values will be calculated using these concentration data, in conjunction with airflow data, which also varies with site and temperature conditions.
Project funded by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2010-85112-20510 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Technical assistance provided by Alan Kruger, John Holman, Todd Boman, and Bryan Woodbury.
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.
The Maumee River watershed contributes 3% of the water but more than 40% of the nutrients entering Lake Erie. Data from the Ohio Tributary Loading Program has identified increasing levels of dissolved reactive phosphorus as the prime suspect in the recurrence of harmful algal blooms within Lake Erie. Livestock manure represents approximately 25% of the phosphorus applied in the watershed and can be a source of dissolved reactive phosphorus.
One project is a three year research project on applying liquid swine manure as a spring top-dress nitrogen source for soft red winter wheat. Field-scale randomized block design replicated plots were conducted on farms. Liquid swine manure was surface applied and incorporated on all plots using a Peecon toolbar and compared to urea (46-0-0) fertilizer surface applied with a fertilizer buggy for wheat yield. Manure applications were made using a standard 5,000 gallon manure tanker in early April after the wheat had broken dormancy and field conditions were deemed suitable. Manure was applied at rates to approximate the nitrogen amount in the urea treatments. There was no statistical yield difference between using livestock manure or purchased urea fertilizer as the top-dress nitrogen source.
Another research project started in 2011 compared fall and spring applied manure. The fall treatment included an application of manure just before planting of a wheat cover crop. The wheat was killed in the spring and followed with a corn crop. A direct injection manure application was made to the corn that had not received manure in the fall. The fall applied manure had an average yield of 109 bu/ac and the spring applied had an average yield of 205 bu/ac.
The potential to use liquid manure on growing crops opens a new window of opportunity to reduce phosphorus loading into Lake Erie.
Purpose
To compare manure nutrient field application timing throughout the year and with commercial fertilizer in order to maximize crop yield and minimize nutrient loss.
What Did We Do?
Topdressed wheat in the spring with manure and urea. Corn applications include topdressing and sidedressing corn fields in the fall and spring.
What Have We Learned?
Wheat topdressed with manure has yielded equal to or greater than urea. Preliminary results show sidedressing applications made to corn in the spring yield better than fall applications.
No statistically significant yield difference was found between spring applied urea and manure to soft red winter wheat.
There was a statsitcally significant yield difference between both fall manure applications (manure and manure plus a nitrogen inhibitor) and the spring sidedressed manure.
Future Plans
Continue the wheat study and are adding cover crops to the corn study.
Authors
Amanda Douridas, Extension Educator, The Ohio State University Extension Douridas.9@osu.edu
Glen Arnold, Manure Nutrient Management Field Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension
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.
A number of the manure related Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) have been successful. Several feed management related projects have been major successes under the CIG program. Other successful projects have dealt with such technologies as anaerobic digesters; community digesters; environmental credit trading; lagoon management; manure to energy generation; alternative litter sources, storage, and handling; and pathogen, odor, and emissions mitigation, to name just a few.
The presentation will provide specific numbers of projects and funding per year, and information about actual projects that NRCS considers to have been successful.
What Is the Purpose of the CIG Grant Program?
Glenn Carpenter came to Natural Resources Conservation Service as a Senior Economist in December of 2001 with the Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Division. In May, 2004 he became the agency’s National Leader for Animal Husbandry, with that Division. In 2010 his position was moved to the Ecological Sciences Division. Much of his work with NRCS has been related to the animal waste issue and the agency’s interaction with EPA over the CAFO Rule.
Glenn has three degrees in Poultry Science from Michigan State University. Prior to joining NRCS, Glenn served in Extension Poultry positions at two universities.
The 2002 Farm Bill created a mechanism under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for a program of Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG). These grants were “…intended to stimulate innovative approaches to leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with agricultural production…” The grants were to provide a mechanism for funding projects to aid in technology development and transfer. The granting program actually began in 2004, and has continued since that time.
What Did We Do?
By statute, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service cannot do research. Because of this, and because the interest of NRCS lies in directly assisting farmers and ranchers in the adoption of technologies that will benefit conservation, projects funded under this program must be in the field demonstration or tool application stages. Since the initial grant funding cycle in 2004, NRCS has provided funding through EQIP every year. To date nearly 500 grants have been awarded, with total funding in excess of $180 million.
A large share of these CIGs has been strongly animal, and/or manure related. Almost 25 percent of the total number of grants has been animal related, and these grants have received slightly over 26 percent of the total dollars. About 19 percent of the total grants have been manure related and these have received about 22 percent of the funding. Those animal related grants that are not manure related largely deal with range and pasture systems.
What Have We Learned?
Several feed management related projects have been major successes under the CIG program. Other successful projects have dealt with such technologies as anaerobic digesters; community digesters; environmental credit trading; lagoon management; manure-to-energy generation; alternative litter sources, litter storage, and handling; and pathogen, odor, and emissions mitigation from manure, to name just a few.
The number and variety of funded projects has covered a wide range of geographic areas and technical innovations. A multistate feed management project resulted in training programs, a tech note for NRCS, and many fact sheets and other materials that are available on Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center webpage. Another major grant demonstrated the effectiveness of filter strips and other vegetated treatment areas on mitigating manure runoff from cattle feedlots. Utilizing high pressure injection of manure, a Pennsylvania project demonstrated a decrease in odor and runoff while also preserving nitrogen. Several projects have successfully demonstrated the effects of precision feeding of dairy cattle to show the change in manure nutrients. Projects have demonstrated the effectiveness of different tillage systems and technologies on manure nutrient runoff. Other projects have dealt with innovative waste-to-energy technologies, or waste to value-added-product creation. These are just a few of the number and variety of projects funded through the Conservation Innovation Grants program.
Future Plans
The success of the CIG program since 2004, both in numbers of projects and in innovative technologies and tools applied, demonstrates that the program is important to agriculture in the U.S. NRCS has shown its support by continually funding the program, and by making additional moneys available for special targeted CIGinitiatives.
Authors
Glenn H. Carpenter, National Leader, Animal Husbandry, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service glenn.carpenter@wdc.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Innovation Grants Program
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.
* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.
Ammonia and odor emissions from land application of liquid dairy manure, and costs associated with manure land application methods are serious concerns for dairy owners, regulators, academic, and the general public. Odor and ammonia samples from agricultural fields receiving liquid dairy manure applied by surface broadcast and subsurface injection methods were collected and analyzed. Costs associated with both of the manure application methods were estimated. The test results showed that subsurface injection reduced both the odor and ammonia emissions compared with surface broadcast; therefore, applying liquid dairy manure by subsurface injection could be recommended as one of the best management practices to control ammonia and odor emissions. The estimated costs associated with subsurface injection were higher than surface broadcast. However the higher costs could be partially compensated by the higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the deep injection method.
Why Study Air Emissions from Dairy Farms?
A floating self-propelled mixing pump and a remote controller (yellow)
Agriculture is the single most important economic sector in Idaho. Dairy production currently stands as the single largest agricultural pursuit in Idaho. Currently, Idaho ranks as the third largest milk production state in the US. Idaho has roughly 550 dairy operations with 580,000 milk cows. Over 70% of milk cows are located in the Magic Valley in southern Idaho (Idaho Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Dairying, 1/22/2013). A number of dairies in the Magic Valley use flushing systems resulting in huge amount of lagoon water which is applied to crop lands near the lagoons via irrigation systems during the crop growing seasons. The volatilization of ammonia (NH3) from the irrigated lands and lagoons is not only a loss of valuable nitrogen (N), but also causes air pollution. Concentrated dairy production in a limited area such as the Magic Valley has caused air and water quality concerns. Controlling odor and capturing N in dairy manure are big challenges facing the southern Idaho dairy industry.
Direct injection incorporates manure directly beneath the soil surface and thus minimizes odor and NH3 emissions during application. Injecting manure decreases soluble phosphorus (P) and N in runoff relative to surface application. Some common types of direct injection applications are liquid tankers with injectors and drag-hose systems with injectors. Manure can be successfully injected in both conventional tillage and non-till systems with currently available equipment. The manure direct injection has been proven in other regions, such as the Midwest, to effectively manage odors and manure nutrients. The purpose of this research was to demonstrate, evaluate, and encourage the widespread adoption of the manure direct injection method in southern Idaho for mitigating odors and managing manure nutrients.
Subsurface injection with drag hose system
What Did We Do?
A manure application field day was held on October 31, 2012 on a dairy in Buhl, Idaho, to demonstrate and evaluate dairy manure land application via a drag-hose system and manure mixing equipment. The dairy had approximately 3,500 milking cows managed in a free-stall and open-lot mix set-up, with about 60% of the cows housed in free stalls. Waste is flushed from lanes running under the feeding alleys and from the milking parlor. The wastewater passes through solids removal equipment and basins and then into three lagoons in series. Manure used for this demonstration study was from the last lagoon, which had about 9 million gallons of manure at the beginning of the demonstration field day and its sludge had been not cleaned for 5 years.
Soil after manure subsurface injection
The on-farm manure application trials conducted at two sites were comprised of two manure application methods: surface broadcast and subsurface injection. At each of the sites, a square plot of approximately 3,600 m2 in the western portion of the site was used for surface broadcast and the rest of the land was used for subsurface injection. The western portion of the site was chosen because the prevailing winds were from the north during the test period. The previous crop at the two sites was corn; both sites had been disked after harvest.
The manure lagoon was agitated before and during application with a floating mixing pump. Manure was pumped from the lagoon directly to the application field via drag hoses. The two manure application methods were demonstrated with the same equipment. Subsurface injection placed manure behind the shank in a band approximately 20 cm (8 inches) deep. Surface broadcast was realized by lifting the shanks above ground so manure was applied on the soil surface. Manure was applied from east to west and back again until the site was finished. The equipment shanks were lifted only when the equipment was in the designated 3,600 m2 square plot for surface application. After manure application in the site, three towers, each 1.5 m high, were placed in a north-to-south orientation with approximately 15 m spacing. The middle tower was placed at the center of the manure surface applied plot. Three towers were placed in the manure subsurface injected field parallel to the ones in the manure surface broadcasted plot and approximately 200 m apart to avoid or minimize cross-contamination between the two manure application methods.
Passive NH3 samplers (Ogawa & Co. USA Inc., Pompano Beach, FL) were installed on each tower at a height of 0.5 and 1 m to determine the NH3 concentration at each location. Ammonia samplers were changed approximately every 24 hours over a two-day period after manure application. Right after collection of NH3 samplers in field, samplers were placed into airtight containers and then shipped back to the U-Idaho Twin Falls Waste Management Laboratory where the NH3 sampler filters were carefully removed from the samplers and transferred into 15-mL centrifuge tubes. Five mL of 1 M KCI was added to each of the centrifuge tubes to extract NH3 trapped in the filters. The extractant was transported to the USDA Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory (NWISRL) located in Kimberly, Idaho where it was analyzed for NH4-N using a flow-injection analysis system (Quickchem 8500, Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee, WI). Background concentrations of NH3 were determined by placing three towers 50 m upwind (north) of the site following the same procedure described previously. Concentrations from passive samplers are time-average concentrations for the amount of time the sampler was exposed to the air and were calculated with the following equation:
In this, [NH3-N]air is the concentration of NH3-N in the air, [NH4-N]extractant is the concentration of NH4-N in the extractant, and 31.1 cm3/min is a constant used to calculated diffusion to the trap (Roadman et al., 2003; Leytem et al., 2009). Details regarding the design and calculation of NH3 concentrations can be found in Roadman et al. (2003) and Leytem et al. (2009).
Air samples were collected from the first test site right after manure application using Tedlar bags. One air sample was collected at 1 m above ground from each of the three towers located in the surface broadcast plot, subsurface injection, and background, respectively. A total of nine air samples were collected and then sent via UPS over-night service to Iowa State University Olfactometry Laboratory for odor analysis. The nine air samples were analyzed within 24 hours based on ASTM E679-04 (ASTM, 2004).
For each test site, a grab sample (about 1 L) of liquid manure was collected and transported to a commercial lab (Stukenholtz Laboratory, Inc., located in Twin Falls, Idaho) for pH and total nitrogen analysis. The manure pH, total N, and calculated total N application rates are shown in Table 1. The liquid manure application rate was approximately 20,000 gallons per acre on both the test sites.
Table 1. Manure pH and total N concentrations and application rates of total N at the two test sites
Site and Application Method
Manure pH
Manure total N concentration (mg/L)
Manure total N Application Rate (kg/acre)
Site 1
7.4
3433
257
Site 2
7.3
3519
265
A soil temperature probe with data logger (HOBO U23 Pro v2 2x external temperature data logger-U23-003) was placed 3 cm below the soil surface to record soil temperature data in 15-min increments. Wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity data were obtained from local Buhl Airport, located six miles from the test sites, due to failure of the mobile weather station set on the test sites. The ambient weather conditions and soil temperature at the test sites over the test period are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Ambient weather conditions and soil temperature at the test sites
Site 1
Site 2
Item
Day 1
Day 2
Day 1
Day 2
Average wind speed, m/s
5.0
4.2
4.2
3.1
Air temperature, average(minimum, maximum),˚F
61 (42, 78)
49 (45, 63)
49 (45, 63)
47 (38, 61)
Average relative humidity, %
28
53
53
51
Soil temperature, average(minimum, maximum), ˚F
50.9 (51.1, 56.1)
47.3 (51.1, 51.2)
46.5 (51.5, 52.1)
66.7 (51.6, 69.1)
Cost analysis was carried out for four different manure land application systems as shown in the “What Have We Learned?” section below. Cost calculations are based on 500 hours annual use for the tractor and 200 hours annual use for the injection system. Tractor operator labor is figured at $11.70/hour, diesel is figured at $4.00/gallon. Equipment costs were determined using the MACHCOST program from the University of Idaho’s department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. The program is available on the AERS web page at https://www.uidaho.edu/cals/idaho-agbiz/resources/tools. Equipment data was provided by John Smith at Smith Equipment Co. Rupert, ID 83350. Some machinery data was taken from “Costs of Owning and Operating Farm Machinery in the Pacific Northwest” PNW 346 available on line at: https://www.extension.uidaho.edu/publishing/pdf/PNW/PNW0346/PNW0346.html.
What Have We Learned?
Odor results from test site 1
T-test for Odor showed there was no significant difference between the background and subsurface injection (P=0.41), there was significant difference between the background and surface broadcast (P=0.03), and P value was 0.08 for the t-test of mean difference between the subsurface injection and surface broadcast. The field day attendees felt there was significant difference in odor perception between the subsurface injection and surface broadcast methods.
Test site 1
First day ammonia sample results from test site 1.
Second day ammonia sample results from test site 1.
The NH3 concentration data from test site 1 showed significant difference between surface broadcast and subsurface injection based on P<0.05. The NH3 concentration data from test site 1 showed 82% and 64% reduction in NH3 concentration for first and second sampling day, respectively when liquid dairy manure was applied by subsurface injection vs. surface broadcast.
Test site 2
First day ammonia sample results from test site 2.
Second day ammonia sample results from test site 2.
The NH3 concentration data from test site 2 showed significant difference between surface broadcast and subsurface injection based on P<0.05. There were 64% and 41% decrease in NH3 concentration for first and second sampling day, respectively when manure was applied by subsurface injection compared with surface broadcast.
The NH3 concentration data from both the test sites showed lower NH3 concentration in the air from the subsurface injected soil vs. surface applied land which means higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the subsurface injection method.
Cost analysis results:
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 15 foot wide broadcast unit. A 180 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 8 mph. Up to 10 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 12 foot wide broadcast unit. A 215 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 7 mph. Up to 7 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a 7,400 gallon tank with a 2,000 gpm discharge rate and a 12 foot wide broadcast unit. A 225 PTO HP tractor is needed to pull this unit at an average ground speed of 7 mph. Up to 7 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. The tank is discharged in approximately 4 minutes. Time and equipment to refill the tank is not included in these calculations.
*Fuel and Lubricant Costs are assigned to the Power Unit.
The above fact sheet summarizes probable costs of operation for a system utilizing 5,280 FT of 8 inch hose and 1,320 FT of 5 inch hose. The pump unit capacity is 1,500 gpm to a 16 foot knife injection unit. A 250 PTO HP tractor is needed for the injection unit operating at 75% field efficiency and at an average ground speed of 3.5 mph. The lagoon pump is a 270 HP unit and operating efficiency assumed at 70%. Beyond 2 miles a booster pump would be necessary. Up to 4.75 acres per hour can be covered with the unit. Operation is continuous as no tank refill is needed.
Based on the estimated costs above, the subsurface injection method has higher costs mainly due to the need of larger tractor and lower operating speed. However, we did not include the time and equipment costs associated with refilling the tank for the tank application system. Due to the short time to discharge the tank on the tank broadcast and tank injection systems additional equipment to refill the tank in a timely fashion would be desirable. This would increase the investment in equipment and also would reduce the number of acres that could be covered per hour due to down time while the tank is refilled.
In summary, subsurface injection can reduce both the odor and NH3 emissions compared with surface broadcast; therefore, applying liquid dairy manure by subsurface injection could be recommended as one of the best management practices to control NH3 and odor emissions. The estimated costs associated with subsurface injection were higher than surface broadcast. However, the higher costs could be partially compensated by the higher nitrogen fertilizer value captured in the soil by the subsurface injection method.
Future Plans
We will finish development of educational videos to demonstrate the manure subsurface injection technique and disseminate results from this study to our stakeholders.
Authors
Lide Chen, Waste Management Engineer and Assistant Professor, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Idaho lchen@uidaho.edu
Mario de Haro Marti, Extension Educator
Wilson Gray, District Extension Economist and Extension Professor
Howard Neibling, Extension Irrigation and Water Management Specialist and Associate Professor
Mireille Chahine, Extension Dairy Specialist and Associate Professor
Sai Krishna Reddy Yadanaparthi, Graduate student, University of Idaho
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service through a Conservation Innovation Grant. We would also like to thank Dr. April Leytem and Mr. Myles Miller (USDA Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory (NWISRL) located in Kimberly, Idaho) for their help with analysis of ammonia samples.
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.
This presentation will compare using litter as a replacement for LP gas for on-farm space heating with using litter to generate electricity. The comparison includes heating system efficiency, amount of LP off-set possible, value of plant nutrients in the litter, quantity and value of plant nutrients in the litter ash, impact of brokerage, and costs of producing the energy. It was concluded that using litter on-farm as a source of space heat and using the litter ash as fertilizer could provide a potential value of $48 per ton of litter. However, on-farm combustion of litter to produce electricity resulted in a loss of about – $3/ton of litter. Therefore, if a heating and ash management system can be implemented in a cost-effective manner use of litter to off-set 90% or more of the heating energy requirements would be the better of these two alternatives.
Why Is Energy Use Important in Poultry Production?
Modern poultry production requires substantial amounts of energy for space heating (propane/LP gas), ventilation, feed handling, and lighting. It was determined that annual LP gas consumption in broiler houses can range from 150 to 300 gallons of LP per 1000 square feet of floor space with an average of about 240 gal LP/1000 ft2 observed in South Carolina. Similarly, broiler production in South Carolina requires about 2326 kWh/1000 ft2 of house area. As a result, a 6-house broiler farm in SC uses about 30,240 gallons of LP and 293.076 kWh of electricity annually. The cost for energy for a 6-house farm is on the order of $57,456 per year for LP ($1.90/gal LP) and $35,169 per year for electricity ($0.12/kWh). Energy costs have more than doubled over the last decade and as a result producers are very interested in ways to reduce on-farm energy costs by using the energy contained in the litter. The objective of this study was to compare using litter as a replacement for LP gas for on-farm space heating with using litter to generate electricity.
What Did We Do?
Our analysis included heating system efficiency, amount of LP off-set possible, value of plant nutrients in the litter, quantity and value of plant nutrients in the litter ash, impact of brokerage, and costs of producing the energy.
What Have We Learned?
It was concluded that using litter on-farm as a source of space heat and using the litter ash as fertilizer could provide a potential value of $46 to $55 per ton of litter. However, on-farm combustion of litter to produce electricity resulted in a loss of about $3/ton of litter. Therefore, if a heating and ash management system can be implemented in a cost-effective manner use of litter to off-set 90% or more of the heating energy requirements would be the better of these two alternatives.
Future Plans
This information is being used in extension programs that target poultry producers.
Authors
Dr. John P. Chastain, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, School of Agricultural, Forestry, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, jchstn@clemson.edu
Additional Information
Chastain, J.P., A. Coloma-del Valle, and K.P. Moore. 2012. Using Broiler Litter as an Energy Source: Energy Content and Ash Composition. Applied Engineering in Agriculture Vol 28(4):513-522.
Acknowledgements
Support was provided by the Confined Animal Manure Managers Program, Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
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.
Treatment lagoons are one of the most common biological treatment methods used on swine and dairy farms that use recycled supernatant as a means to remove manure from animal housing facilities by flushing. A properly functioning treatment lagoon will provide adequate treatment to allow reuse of the effluent without compromising animal health or generating strong odor.
A typical treatment lagoon system used on swine and dairy farms.
A lagoon should have a minimum biological treatment volume and provide sufficient volume for settling and storage of sludge to provide the needed levels of treatment prior to recycling. This presentation will provide a summary of the benefits of using liquid-solid separation to maintain and potentially reduce the required treatment volume, reduce sludge build-up, increase useful life of an existing lagoon, and to reduce the size of new lagoons based on the ASABE Standard. Information will also be provided concerning desired loading rates and supernatant concentrations for recycling, and impacts of odor production potential.
Components of a treatment lagoon for animal manure.
What Did We Do?
The ASABE Lagoon Standard (ANSI/ASAE EP403.4, ASABE 2011) was used to calculate lagoon treatment volumes for swine and dairy manure using volatile solid loading rates for a variety of climates ranging from a cold climate, such as Southern Minnesota (3 lb VS/1000 ft3-day), to a hot climate, such as Central Florida (6.0 lb VS/1000 ft3-day). Liquid-solid separation methods can provide a reduction in the mass of VS in the liquid fraction by 10% to 80%. The corresponding reduction in treatment volume were also determined for swine and dairy manure over a wide range of climates.
The ASABE Standard also provides a method to estimate sludge storage volume requirments per year for swine and dairy lagoons that is based on the total solids loaded into a lagoon. The impact of implementing solid-liquid separation on the sludge accumulation rate was also destermined for TS removals in the range of 20% to 80%.
What Have We Learned?
The percent reduction in treatment volume of a lagoon was the same as the mass fraction of VS removed by liquid-solid separation. That is, a 30% reduction in VS provided a 30% reduction in treatment volume. The practical result is that implementation of liquid-solid separation system that can remove 30% of the VS would allow pork producers in the Midwest to use similar treatment volumes as pork producers located in South Carolina or Central Georgia.
Liquid-solid separation also reduced sludge build up in lagoons by the same percentage as the TS removal efficiency. Therefore, a 30% reduction in TS will reduce sludge accumulation by30%.
Reduction in TS and VS loading can help to reduce odors from lagoons, reduce the size of the lagoon needed to provide treatment, and can yield better treated surface water for flushing manure from the buildings.
Removal of large portions of the VS (60% to 80% reduction) using high-rate liquid-solid separation methods has the added benefit of greatly reducing the amount of the organic-N loaded. As a result, less organic-N will be converted to ammonium-N in a lagoon where a portion will be lost to the air as ammonia.
Future Plans
This information will be published as part of a new USDA-NRCS technical note or as part of the National Engineering Handbook, Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
Authors
Dr. John P. Chastain, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, School of Agricultural, Forestry, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University jchstn@clemson.edu
Jeffrey P. Porter, P.E. Environmental Engineer Manure Management Team USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
Additional Information
Solid-Liquid Separation Alterntives for Manure Handling Treatment, a new USDA-NRCS technical note or as part of the National Engineering Handbook, Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
Acknowledgements
Piedmont-South Atlantic Coast Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU). This Cooperative and Joint Venture Agreement allowed for this work to take place.
Manure Management Team USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Greensboro, NC
Additional support was provided by the Confined Animal Manure Managers Program, Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
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.
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.
Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….
