manure proceedings – Page 41 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Effects of Corn Processing Method and Dietary Inclusion of Wet Distillers Grains with Solubles (WDGS) On Enteric Methane Emissions of Finishing Cattle

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The use of wet distiller’s grains with solubles (WDGS) in feedlot diets has increased as a result of the growing U.S. ethanol industry. However, few studies have evaluated the use of WDGS in finishing diets based on steam-flaked corn (SFC), the processing method used extensively in the Southern Great Plains. The effects of corn processing method and WDGS on enteric methane (CH4) production, carbon dioxide (CO2) production and energy metabolism were evaluated in two respiration calorimetry studies. In Exp. 1, the effects of corn processing method (SFC or dry rolled corn – DRC) and WDGS inclusion (0 or 30% of diet dry matter- DM) were studied using a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments and four Jersey steers in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. In Exp. 2, the effects of WDGS inclusion rate (0, 15, 30, or 45% of diet DM) on CH4 and CO2 production were measured in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Results indicate that cattle consuming SFC-based diets produce less enteric CH4 and retain more energy than cattle fed DRC-based diets. When dietary fat levels were held constant, dietary inclusion of WDGS at 15% of diet DM did not affect enteric CH4 production, WDGS inclusion at 45% of diet DM significantly increased enteric CH4 production and WDGS inclusion at 30% of diet DM had variable effects on enteric CH4 production.

Purpose

Our objectives were to determine the effects of corn processing method and WDGS inclusion rate on enteric methane losses from finishing cattle using respiration calorimetry.

What Did We Do?

Steer in open circuit respiration calorimetry chamber.

Eight steers were used in two studies. In each study steers were fed one of four diets at 2 x maintenance energy requirements in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Each period of the Latin squares included a 16 d adaptation period followed by 5 days of total fecal and urine collection and measurement of gas exchange in respiration chambers. In Experiment 1 dietary treatments consisted of corn processing method (steam flaked -SFC or dry rolled -DRC) and WDGS inclusion rate (0 or 30% of DM). All diets were balanced for ether extract. In Exp. 2, cattle were fed SFC-based diets containing 0, 15, 30 or 45% WDGS (DM basis). The calorimetry system consisted of 4 chambers with an internal volume of 6500 L. Outside air was pulled through chambers using a mass flow system. Gas concentrations were determined using a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer and infrared methane and carbon dioxide analyzers (Sable Systems, Las Vegas, NV) Data were statistically analyzed using the Mixed procedure of SAS.

What Have We Learned?

In Exp. 1. no iteractions between grain processing method and WDGS inclusion were detected (P > 0.47). Cattle fed DRC-based diets had greater (P < 0.05) CH₄ production (L/steer, L/kg of DMI, % of gross energy intake, and % of digestible energy intake) than cattle fed SFC-based diets probably the result of differences in ruminal fermentation and ruminal pH. Methane losses as a proportion of GE intake (2.47 and 3.04 for SFC and DRC-based diets, respectively) were similar to previous reports and to IPCC (2006) values but were somewhat lower than EPA (2012) values. Grain processing method did not affect CO₂ production (13 to 14 Kg/d). WDGS inclusion rate did not affect CH₄ or CO₂ production. In Exp. 2, CH4 production (L/d) increased quadratically (P = 0.03) and CH4 production as L/kg of DMI and as a proportion of energy intake increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing concentrations of WDGS in the diet. Feeding WDGS did not affect (P > 0.23) total CO2 production. Conclucions: Our results indicate that cattle consuming DRC-based finishing diets produce approximately 20% more enteric CH4 than cattle fed SFC-based diets. When WDGS comprised 30% or less of the diet and diets were similar in total fat content, feeding WDGS had little effect on enteric CH4 but when fed at higher inclusion rates enteric CH4 production was increased by approximately 40%.

Future Plans

Over 80% of the enteric methane emissions of the U.S. beef cattle herd are produced by cows, calves, and yearling on pasture. Therefore, additional research will study the effects of supplementation strategies and forage quality on enteric methane production by cattle.

Authors

N. Andy Cole; Research Animal Scientist/Research Leader; USDA-ARS-CPRL, Bushland, TX andy.cole@ars.usda.gov

Kristin E. Hales, Research Animal Scientist, USDA-ARS-MARC, Clay Center, NE

Richard W. Todd, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS-CPRL, Bushland, TX

Ken Casey, Associate Professor, Texas AgriLife Research, Amarillo, TX

Jim C. MacDonald, Associate Professor, Dept. of Animal Science, Univ. of NE, Lincoln

Additional Information

Hales, K. E. , N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2013. Effects of increasing concentrations of wet distillers grains with solubles in steam-flaked corn-based diets on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. (in press)

Hales, K. E. , N. A. Cole, and J. C. MacDonald. 2012. Effects of corn processing method and dietary inclusion of wet distillers grains with solubles on energy metabolism, carbon-nitrogen balance, and methane emissions of cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 90:3174-3185.

Acknowledgements

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

We wish to thank USDA-NIFA for partial funding through Project # TS-2006-06009 entitled “Air Quality: Odor, Dust and Gaseous Emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the Southern Great Plains”

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.

Effects of Corn Processing Method and Dietary Inclusion of Wet Distillers Grains with Solubles (WDGS) On Enteric Methane Emissions of Finishing Cattle from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Using Manure to Reduce the Cost of Growing Canola as a Biodiesel Feedstock

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Purpose

A review of the literature indicated that good quality biodiesel can be used in farm equipment at concentrations from 20% (B20) to 100% (B100) depending on air temperature and the design of the engine. Using biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur containing pollutants that contribute to acid rain, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates. Using B100 in a diesel engine can reduce fuel efficiency by about 8%, but had no other negative impacts when operated during warm weather. Using B20 to B50 has been shown to be sufficient to make loss of fuel efficiency inconsequential and allows operation of tractors in cold weather. The objectives of this study were to compare the use of soybeans and canola as a fuel crop for on-farm biodiesel production, and to determine the benefits of using animal manure as a source of fertilizer for on-farm fuel crop production. Related: Manure value & economics

What Did We Do?

Canola can be used to produce high-quality oil for biodiesel production and high protein meal for animal feed.

Soybeans and canola are both oil seeds that can be used to make high-quality biodiesel. Soybeans are 19% oil and a single bushel will yield about 1.5 gallons of biodiesel. At a market price of $10 to $14 per bushel the soybean cost to produce a gallon of biodiesel can range from $6.67 to $9.33 per gallon. Or to state it another way, if the price of diesel is $4.20/gal making biodiesl on-farm would be like selling soybeans for only $6.30/bu. It was concluded that it would best to sell soybeans rather than use then for on-farm biodiesel production. Canola, or rape seed, contains 40% oil and will yield about 2.8 gal of biodiesel/bu. In the last few years, canola prices have increase from $5/bu to $10/bu. At a diesel price of $4.20/gal the value of the canola would be $11.76/bu which exceeds traditional prices of canola and is slightly higher than recent US prices. Therefore, canola was selected as the preferred crop for on-farm production of biodiesel in this study.

Few canaola buying stations are located in the Southeastern US and as a result canola is typically not grown in swine and poultry producing states such as South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Canola can be grown in the fall and winter months in a manner similar to wheat which adds to the appeal of using canola for on-farm biodiesel production in southern states.

A crop budget for canola production in the Southeastern US was used with current fertilizer prices to compare the cost to produce canola using purchased fertilizer versus using animal manure to provide all of the N, P2O5, and K2O needs. It was determined that the cost to produce a bushel of canola was about $6.24/bu if commercial fertilizer was used. However, using manure as the sole nutrient source lowered production costs to $3.47/bushel. The input cost to produce biodiesel from canola was determined to be $2.23 per gallon if fertilizer was purchased versus $1.24 per gallon if manure was used to produce canola

Canola meal is a valuable by-product with a protein content of about 33% (extracted by pressing without solvents) and can be used as a protein source in animal feeds. The value of the canola meal was assumed to be $234/ton and the meal production per acre was 0.75 tons. The value of canola meal was determined to be $1.25 per gallon biodiesel. The value of the meal was used as a production credit towards the cost of making biodiesel on-farm. This meal credit can only be realized if the meal is sold at market value or by using canola meal on-farm as a feed ingredient for livestock (e.g. beef or dairy cattle).

Using a moderate biodiesel production cost ($1.50/gal) the cost to make canola biodiesel on farm was $2.36/gal if fertilizer was purchased and $1.49/gal if manure was used as a fertilizer replacement. If the canola meal credit cannot be realized, on-farm biodiesel production cost was $3.61/gal if fertilizer was purchased, and $2.74/gal if manure was used.

What Have We Learned?

The results indicated that:

soybeans are too valuable to be used as a fuel crop,
canola can yield more fuel per acre than soybeans,
fertilizer costs can account for 44% of the cost of producing canola,
animal producers have a substantial advantage since manure can be used as a source of plant nutrients for canola,
obtaining fair market value for canola meal is an essential part of lowering the cost to produce biodiesel, and
making biodiesel for on-farm use or in a cooperative arrangement in a farming community appears to hold an opportunity for animal producers.

Future Plans

This information is being used in extension programs that target animal and row-crop producers.

Authors

Dr. John P. Chastain, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, School of Agricultural, Forestry, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, jchstn@clemson.edu

Wilder Ferreira, Extension Economist, School of Agricultural, Forestry, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University,email: wferrei@clemson.edu

Acknowledgements

Support was provided by the Confined Animal Manure Managers Program, Clemson Extension, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Using manure to reduce the cost of growing canola as a biodiesel feedstock from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Land Applied Swine Manure: Development of Method Based on Static Flux Chambers

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

A new method was used at the Ag 450 Farm Iowa State University (41.98N, 93.65W) from October 24, 2012 through December 14, 2012 to assess GHG emission from land-applied swine manure on crop land. Gas samples were collected daily from four static flux chambers. Gas method detection limits were 1.99 ppm, 170 ppb, and 20.7 ppb for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Measured gas concentrations were used to estimate flux using four different models, i.e., (1) linear regression, (2) non-linear regression, (3) non-equilibrium, and (4) revised Hutchinson & Mosier (HMR). Sixteen days of baseline measurements (before manure application) were followed by manure application with deep injection (at 41.2 m3/ha), and thirty seven days of measurements after manure application.

Static flux chamber (pictured) method was developed to measure greenhouse gas emissions from land-applied swine manure from a corn-on-corn system in central Iowa in the Fall of 2012. Gas samples were collected in vials and transported to the Air Quality Laboratory at Iowa State University campus.

Why Study Greenhouse Gases and Land Application of Swine Manure?

Assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land-applied swine manure is needed for improved process-based modeling of nitrogen and carbon cycles in animal-crop production systems.

What Did We Do?

We developed novel method for measurement and estimation of greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, N2O) flux (mass/area/time) from land-applied swine manure. New method is based on gas emissions collection with static flux chambers (surface coverage area of 0.134 m^2 and a head space volume of 7 L) and gas analysis with a GC-FID-ECD.

Baseline (post tilling) greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions monitoring was followed with swine manure application in the Fall of 2012 (pictured) and about 10 weeks of post-application monitoring of GHGs.

New method is also applicable to measure fluxes of GHGs from area sources involving crops and soils, agricultural waste management, municipal, and industrial waste. New method was used at the Ag 450 Farm Iowa State Univeristy (41.98 N, 93.65 W) from October 24, 2012 through December 14, 2012 to assess GHG emission from land-applied swine manure on crop (corn on corn) land. Gas samples were collected daily from four static flux chambers. Gas method detection limits were 1.99 ppm, 170 ppb, and 20.7 ppb for CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively.

What Have We Learned?

Measured gas concentrations were used to estimate flux using four different mathematical models, i.e., (1) linear regression, (2) non-linear regression, (3) non-equilibrium, and (4) revised Hutchinson & Mosier (HMR). Sixteen days of baseline measurements (before manure application) were followed by manure application with deep injection (at 41.2 m³/ha), and thirty seven days of measurements after manure application. Preliminary net cumulative flux estimates ranged from 115,000 to 462,000 g/ha of CO_2,-4.65 to 204 g/ha of CH₄, and 860 to 2,720 g/ha N₂O. These ranges are consistent with those reported in literature for similar climatic conditions and manure application method.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) were analyzed in the Air Quality Laboratory (ISU) using dedicated GHGs gas chromatograph. The picture above shows an example of gas sample analysis for CO2, GH4 and N2O. Each ‘peak’ represents one of the tagget GHGs. Gas concentrations were used in a mathematical model to estimate GHG flux (mass emitted/area/time).

Future Plans

Spring 2013 measurements of GHG flux from land-applied swine manure are planned. The spring study will follow the protocols developed for the Fall 2012 season. Estimates of the Spring and Fall GHG flux will be used to develop GHG emission factors for emissions from swine manure in Midwestern corn-on-corn systems. Emission factors will be compared with literature data.

Authors

Dr. Jacek Koziel, Associate Professor, Iowa State University Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering koziel@iastate.edu

Devin Maurer, Research Associate, Iowa State University Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering

Kelsey Bruning, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering

Tanner Lewis, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering

Danica Tamaye, Undergraduate Research Assistant, University of Hawaii College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resource Management

William Salas, Applied Geosolutions

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the National Pork Board for supporting this research.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Improving Methane Yields from Manure Solids through Pretreatment

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

This paper presents a description of the ABFX (Ammonium Bicarbonate Fiber Explosion) pretreatment process. The ABFX process is an extremely simple and inexpensive process that possesses the attributes of the Ammonia Fiber Explosion Process (AFEX) and CO2 explosion process while eliminating the cost associated with high temperature, high pressure and ammonia recovery. The process uses ammonia bicarbonate (ABC) recovered from anaerobic digestate to pretreat the substrate. The ABC is simply added to the substrate, pumped to a reactor, heated to temperatures less than 100°C, for a short duration. The pressure created by ABC volatilization is then released and the gases (CO2, NH3, H2O) condensed at ambient temperature to produce ABC that is then reused in the process. The process can operate with low temperature waste heat.

This paper presents a description of the process and the results of a National Science Foundation Small Business Innovative Research investigation that compared the methane gas yields from both pretreated and untreated grass silage and pretreated and untreated screened (screw press) dairy manure solids. The ABFX pretreated manure solids produced 38% more methane gas than the untreated while the ABFX pretreated grass silage produced 14% more methane gas than the untreated. The economic benefits of the process will be discussed.

Is There Potential to Improve Methane Yields from Manure?

A large fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW), crop residues, animal manures, forest residues, or dedicated energy crops are composed of lignocellulouse. Lignocellulosic substrates consist of a tightly woven matrix of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin polymers. Biological degradation of these polymers are carried out by a variety of enzymes. Pretreatment can enhance the bioconversion of the wastes or cop residues for ethanol or biogas production by increasing the accessibility of the enzymes to the substrate. Thus, pretreatment can increase the energy yield (biogas or ethanol) while decreasing the residual waste to be disposed.

Anaerobic bacteria easily convert the hemicellulose and amorphous cellulose to gas. However, conversion of the crystalline cellulose and lignin is far more difficult. Lignin is not converted to gas by anaerobic organisms. Only a fraction of the crystalline cellulose is converted to gas within the detention times commonly used (20 days) in anaerobic digestion. Pretreatment is required to rupture the crystalline cellulose for enzymatic hydrolysis. A wide variety of pretreatment technologies have been developed. Dilute acid pretreatment solubilizes the hemicellulose. Alkali, lime or sodium hydroxide pretreatment solubilize the lignin thus exposing the hemicellulose and cellulose for enzymatic attack. A variety of explosion processes such as steam, carbon dioxide, and liquid ammonia (AFEX) have also been developed that disrupt the crystalline cellulose and hemicellulose. Ammonia soaking, over prolonged periods of time, has also been used to pretreat straw for animal feed and thereby improve rumen digestibility and animal weight gain. All of the processes use high pressure and temperature, or toxic chemicals. The commonly used, conventional processes are not suitable for on-farm use.

What Did We Do?

Figure 1: ABFX Process

We substantiated the feasibility of a breakthrough pretreatment technology under a National Science Foundation Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant that used the non-toxic Ammonium Bicarbonate (ABC) recovered from the anaerobic digestate. The pretreatment was accomplished with a simple device, shown in Figure 4, composed of a pump, that pumps the solid biomass substrate, mixed with a small amount of ABC, into a reactor. The reactor is closed and heated to temperatures below the boiling point of water. Once heated the ABC breaks down to its water, ammonia, and carbon dioxide components putting the contents under significant pressure. The pressure is then rapidly released causing the explosion or disruption of the lignocellulosic substrate and the breakdown of the crystalline cellulose. The gases (H2O, NH3, and CO2), are then condensed in a separate chamber to produce ABC that is reused in the next cycle. Nothing is wasted. The ABC is recovered and reused. The applied heat and detention time provided is sufficient to pasteurize the biomass and meet the temperature requirements of the downstream anaerobic reactor. It is a simple process composed of a solids pump, heat pump, and two low detention time (10± minutes) reactors.

The SBIR research consisted of pretreating both grass silage and concentrated, screw press, manure solids and digesting both pretreated and untreated silage and manure solids. The pretreated and untreated solids were digested in 10 reactors at a 12.5 day HRT and 35°C.

What Have We Learned?

Pretreatment of the grass silage increased the methane yield 16% over several months of operation. Pretreatment increased the methane yield from the pretreated manure solids by 35% over the same period. The increased gas yield was approximately equal to the methane yield from the crystalline cellulose present in the substrate that is normally not converted to gas. The research demonstrated the feasibility of pretreating lignocellulosic substrates in a simple, short detention time, low temperature process that does not dilute the substrate stream or use toxic chemicals such as liquid or gaseous ammonia, acids, or caustic.

Future Plans

The current plan is to build a prototype facility to pretreat a variety of crop residuals (corn stover, rice straw, wheat straw), dry feedlot manure and poultry litter.

Author

Dennis A. Burke, CEO, Environmental Energy & Engineering Company engineer@makingenergy.com

Additional Information

www.makingenergy.com

Improving methane yields from manure solids through pretreatment from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 15, 2019

Economical Recovery of Ammonia from Anaerobic Digestate

<span style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" data-mce-type="bookmark" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

An economical process to capture residual ammonia nitrogen and reduce the production of new ammonia via the Haber process is needed. The CO2, N2O and NOx emissions from nitrification and denitrification of industrially created ammonia will be reduced as a result. The ammonia product should be sold at a profit, but less than $1,700 / ton N.

This paper describes the ABC process and presents the ammonia recovery and biomethane production results of a pilot investigation of the ABC process for the recovery of ammonia nitrogen. The work was supported by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) under a Small Business Innovative Research project. The ABC process uses no chemicals and very little energy. The process recovers the ammonia as crystalline ammonium bicarbonate (ABC). In the process of producing the ABC, carbon dioxide is removed from the biogas to produce “biomethane”, a transportation quality fuel at little or no cost.

Figure 1 Pilot RPB without Cover.

Is It Possible to Recover Ammonia Economically?

The discharge of ammonia nitrogen is a well recognized adverse consequence of anaerobic waste treatment. As a result, further treatment to remove ammonia is required. A wide variety of processes have been developed to address the “ammonia issue”. The commonly used processes are the many variations of nitrification / denitrification and Anammox processes. The Anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidation) process is the least expensive and produces significantly less GHG (N₂O). The nitrification / denitrification and Anammox processes directly convert ammonia to nitrogen gas (N₂) resulting in the loss of the ammonia resource at a treatment cost of approximately $1,600 / ton N for a large facility. The ammonia that is destroyed must be replenished through the Haber-Bosch process that requires 32 GJ of energy per ton of ammonia to produce and similar energy consumption to transport. The production and transport have a cost of $1,200 / ton N while producing substantial GHG emissions. The minimum total cost of destroying and replacing ammonia is greater than $2,800 / ton N. An economical process to capture residual ammonia nitrogen for reuse, while reducing the production of new ammonia via the Haber process, is needed. The CO₂, N2O, and NOx emissions from nitrification and denitrification of industrially created ammonia will be reduced as a result.

A number of processes have been developed over the past 50 years to remove and recover ammonia as an ammonium sulfate or nitrate fertilizer. Several facilities were constructed in the EU in the 1970’s. Those facilities were however uneconomical because of the high cost of chemicals (acid, lime, sodium hydroxide) and sludge disposal. Modification of those processes that use ion exchange, as opposed to ammonia stripping, remain uneconomical since they also require caustic, salt, and sulphuric acid to remove ammonia and recover ammonium sulphate. An economical process that can recover ammonia as a solid product without the use of hazardous chemicals is required.

Figure 2 Ammonium Bicarbonate (ABC)

What Did We Do?

E3 developed the Ammonium Bicarbonate Recovery (ABCR) process that recovers the ammonia as a crystalline solid pathogen free, inorganic fertilizer without the use of any chemicals. In the process of producing the Ammonium Bicarbonate (ABC), carbon dioxide is removed from the biogas to produce “biomethane”, a transportation quality fuel at little or no cost. The products of the process are biomethane quality transportation fuel and solid ammonium bicarbonate fertilizer that can be used for the pretreatment of lignocellulosic substrates.

To overcome the ammonia reclamation process deficiencies, E3 developed the Rotating Photo Bioreactor (RPB) shown in Figure 1. The RPB is a horizontal ammonia stripping reactor that removes the ammonia without the use of any chemicals. An operating demonstration can be seen here

The stripped ammonia and water vapor are condensed to form a concentrated aqua ammonia solution. Turbid, ammonia laden, anaerobic digestate flows through a fixed film photo bioreactor, that uses natural and/or artificial light, to culture cyanobacteria that consume the bicarbonate in the digestate thus raising the pH to values exceeding 10. At the higher pH, the ionized ammonia (NH4+) is shifted to the gas form, NH3 that can be stripped by the low pressure gas flowing from the condensation unit over the upper portion of the rotating disks. Very little blower pressure is required. The impact of digestate turbidity is minimized by the thin liquid film flowing over the partially submerged rotating disks supporting the bicarbonate consuming cyanobacteria that require light. The ammonia laden gas is then returned to the condenser where the ammonia gas and water are condensed to recover concentrated aqua ammonia. The system operates at low liquid and gas pressures through the use of a heat pump and low pressure gas blower.

The aqua ammonia condensate is recovered when the effluent is being discharged from the digester. The condensate is stored in a tank for use throughout the day to clean the biogas by removing the carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in the digester’s gas. The ammonia condensate is sprayed into the biogas stream where the ammonia and water react with the carbon dioxide to produce a solid ammonium bicarbonate precipitate that is removed, bagged, and stored as a renewable, low carbon footprint fertilizer to be applied to the fields when needed for crop growth or blended with the solid residuals to produce a balanced fertilizer.

What Have We Learned?

The pilot investigation substantiated that high BTU (990±) biomethane could be produced from biogas while recovering 85%± of the ammonia present in the digestate at less capital and O&M cost of producing electricity.

Future Plans

The current plan is to build a full scale operating facility treating high nitrogen content manure such as poultry manure.

Author

Dennis A. Burke, CEO, Environmental Energy & Engineering Company engineer@makingenergy.com

Economical Recovery of Ammonia from Anaerobic Digestate from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Litter Generated Ammonia Captured by Activated Carbon Derived ffrom Broiler Litter

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

In 2011, the production rate of broilers was 8.6 billion with a value of $23.2 billion (USDA 2012). Both CERCLA and EPCRA have reporting requirements for ammonia (NH3) of 100 lb of NH3/d or 18.3 tons/yr, a level that may affect large animal production facilities (NRC 2003). Although USEPA (2009) has provided an exemption for animal waste producing farms under CERCLA for reporting hazardous air emissions, it is expected that this exemption will be revoked once valid methodologies are established for monitoring. Two of the 24 sites in the NAEMS monitoring study reported similar NH3 emissions of 3.6 – 5.3 tons of NH3 per house per year (Burns et al. 2009, Heber 2010). Emissions of this level indicate a need for developing technologies that can reduce the NH3 levels produced by broiler operations. This research is focused on the use of broiler litter as activated carbon (BAC) to reduce aerial NH3 generated by litter, an opportunity to not only reuse the manure, but also treat the emissions from or within broiler houses. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of BAC to remove NH3 volatilized from litter samples in a laboratory acid-trap system. Preliminary studies using NH3/air mixture indicated that the BAC capacity to adsorb NH3 was approximately double that of Vapure 612, a commercial carbon. In the litter emission study, the BAC and Vapure performance was comparable. Breakthrough for both carbons occurred within 14 hours of the test start. At the end of the 3 day test, the NH3 emission for BAC was 75% of the litter only control, whereas, the Vapure emission was 64% of the control. The results of the study demonstrate the potential for a cyclical waste utilization strategy in using broiler litter activated carbon to capture NH3 volatilized from litter.

Why Study Ammonia and Poultry Litter?

Overall purpose of this study is to develop innovative solutions for animal waste reuse and minimize emissions from poultry operations. The specific objective of this phase of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of activated carbon from broiler litter (BAC) to remove NH₃ volatilized from litter samples in a laboratory acid-trap system.

What Did We Do?

The broiler litter for producing the BAC was obtained from a commercial farm in Mississippi, where the original bedding was pine shavings. The broiler litter as collected had a moisture content of 25 to 30%. The commercial carbon, Vapure 612 carbon (Norit Americas, Marshall, Texas), is a steam activated coal-based carbon manufactured for use in the removal of odors, toxic vapors, irritants, and corrosive gases. After completing initial adsorption tests with the two carbons using the NH3 and air mixture, litter samples were collected from a commercial Mississippi farm where the bedding origin was also pine shavings to perform the litter emission test. Eleven flocks had previously been grown on the litter. The pH and moisture content were 8.32 and 17.9% respectively. The litter samples were placed in the acid trap system described below to determine the capture capacity of the carbons for NH3 volatilized from the litter.

Litter emissions and carbon efficacy were evaluated using 50 g fresh litter samples in the laboratory using a chamber acid trap (CAT) system. The CAT system provides a straightforward method for determining differences in NH3 evolution by capturing off-gases in H3BO3. Twelve air-tight chambers, 1000 ml each, receive humidified air from a single manifold. Weighed litter samples were placed in each air tight chamber. To assess litter NH3 generation, exhaust air from each chamber flowed through a series of two H3BO3 flasks at approximately 115 ml/min. The solution from the two flasks was combined into a single sample and titrated with HCl as above. The NH3 trapped in solution was reported as mg N recovered. For estimating carbon column efficiency, the columns described above were loaded with BAC and Vapure carbons and placed in the exhaust flow between the chambers and acid traps. The litter only, BAC and Vapure columns were randomly assigned to the chambers in the CAT system and each replicated three times. All treatments were titrated each morning and afternoon at consistent times for the three day test period.

Chamber acid-trap system for capturing NH₃ in the laboratory: a) litter in chamber, b) activated carbon column, and c) boric acid traps.

What Have We Learned?

Preliminary studies using NH₃/air mixture indicated that the BAC capacity to adsorb NH₃was approximately double that of Vapure 612, a commercial carbon. In the litter emission study, the BAC and Vapure performance was comparable. Breakthrough for both carbons occurred within 14 hours of the test start. At the end of the 3 day test, the NH₃ emission for BAC was 75% of the litter only control, whereas, the Vapure emission was 64% of the control. The results of the study demonstrate the potential for a cyclical waste utilization strategy in using broiler litter activated carbon to capture NH₃volatilized from litter.

Future Plans

The development of these activated carbons and char from broiler litter will provide an effective means of reuse that will not only reduce waste volume, but in turn comprehensively treat the emissions from the waste during bird production, storage, and land application of litter. We will conduct greenhouse gas adsorption studies to determine the efficacy of activated carbon and char to adsorb CO2, CH4, and N2O.

Additionally, our plan is to develop an outreach program to be presented to poultry farmers in the Southeast U.S. along with other stakeholders addressing poultry farm emission regulations and technologies for remediation through workshops, a webinar and professional conferences.

Authors

Kari Fitzmorris Brisolara, ScD, Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, Louisiana State University, Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, 2020 Gravier Street, New Orleans, Louisiana kbriso@lsuhsc.edu

Dana M. Miles, PhD, USDA-ARS-Mississippi State, Genetics & Precision Agriculture Research Unit, P. O. Box 5367, Mississippi State, Mississippi, 39762 dana.miles@ars.usda.gov

Isabel M. Lima, PhD, USDA-ARS-SRRC, P.O. Box 19687, New Orleans, Louisiana 70179 isabel.lima@ars.usda.gov

Litter Generated Ammonia Captured by Activated Carbon Derived ffrom Broiler Litter from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Overview: Manure Management Equipment for Small Farms

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Be Concerned With Manure Management for Small Farms?

Increased local or regional food marketing opportunities have allowed commercial success in livestock and poultry operations with relatively small herds and flocks. The Census of Agriculture recently reports an increase in the number of small farms, as a proportion of all farms, across much of the U.S. Small animal feeding operations, less than 300 animal units, are a productive component of the animal ag sector. Finally, there continues to an interest in the development of hobby farm and equine related properties. All of these scenarios result in the necessity to manage manure resources, often on small acres, and often in close proximity to a neighbor. Knowledge about, access to, and acquisition of, appropriate manure handling equipment is a requirement to proper manure and nutrient management on all of these types of commercial or hobby farms and ranches.

What Did We Do?

This overview seeks to provide examples of power equipment and manure handling tools appropriate to smaller operations. An emphasis is placed on solid manure handling, small acreage land application, and light duty compost production equipment. Examples of equipment choices and options are based on Internet and literature reviews, as well as personal field experiences.

What Have We Learned?

A balance between size/power, cost, and versatility must be considered when purchasing or leasing equipment for small livestock and poultry operations. Smaller operations often deal only in solid manure. This can simplify equipment choices to small tractors and skidsteer loaders, which can perform a variety of manure management and compost related tasks. Tractor size will limit traditional manure spreader options. However, several manufacturers are now offering light weight, ground drive spreaders, towable by small tractors or even ATVs.

Authors

Thomas M. Bass, Livestock Environment Associate Specialist, Montana State University tmbass@montana.edu

Acknowledgements

Mike Westendorf, Rutgers University and Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University

Overview of Manure Management Equipment for Small Farms from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Anaerobic Digester Operator Discussion Group

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Is Peer-to-Peer Discussion Important?

The Anaerobic Digester Workforce Development Project is a project funded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, aimed at developing and delivering high quality educational programs targeted to a range of workforces within the dairy farm-based anaerobic digestion (AD) sector of the clean energy field.

A goal of the project was to form a farmer driven discussion group among existing AD owners and operators. Farmers value and learn from the insights of fellow producers because they trust the experience and knowledge of others who are in situations similar to their own. This is especially true when adopting new technology. The purpose of this discussion group was to allow farmers an opportunity to learn from each other by sharing their real world experiences integrating and operating an anaerobic digester system into their farm business. Realizing that frequent, long-distance travel of all involved was a barrier to continued, dedicated involvement, the group opted to pursue a virtually-based discussion group platform. Farmers from across the state were linked via an online meeting site. This is an efficient method to allow farmers to interact with each other in a meaningful way without leaving their farm. The use of high definition video conferencing enhanced the interaction considerably. There have been many lessons learned from this challenging venture, as well as many successful communication strategies to share.

What Did We Do?

Realizing that frequent, long-distance travel of all involved was a barrier to continued, dedicated involvement, the group opted to pursue a virtually-based discussion group platform. Farmers from across the state were linked via an online meeting site. This is an efficient method to allow farmers to interact with each other in a meaningful way without leaving their farm.

What Have We Learned?

The focus of this presentation is to introduce the topic of forming and facilitating farmer based discussion groups with an emphasis on distance learning. By using online meeting and video conferencing farmers from across geographic areas can meet and engage in meaningful dialogue. This is especially useful when producers are implementing new technology in which they have no or limited experience. The opportunity to have an open dialogue with other farmers that have real world experience with the technology is invaluable. The experience and exchange of knowledge between farmers assists in the implementation and operation of the technology.

Future Plans

The virtual discussion group will continue to meet and develop. As we gain more experience and farmers become more comfortable with this method of interact we expect for the discussions to increase in value and effectiveness.

Authors

Kathryn Barrett, Sr. Extension Associate, Cornell University, ProDairy Program, Director of Dairy Profit Discussion Group Program. kfb3@cornell.edu

Acknowledgements

Anaerobic Digester Operator Discussion Group from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Fate of Barbiturates and Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs During Carcass Composting

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Are We Concerned About Drug Residues in Animal Mortality Compost?

With disease issues, the decline of the rendering industry, a ban on use of downer cows for food, and rules to halt horse slaughter, environmentally safe and sound practices for disposal of horses and other livestock mortalities are limited. Improper disposal of carcasses containing veterinary drugs has resulted in the death of domestic animals and wildlife. Composting of carcasses has been performed successfully to reduce pathogens, nutrient release, and biosecurity risks. However, there is concern that drugs used in the livestock industry, as feed additives and veterinary therapies do not degrade readily and will persist in compost or leachate, threatening environmental exposure to wildlife, domestic animals and humans.

Two classes of drugs commonly used in the livestock and horse industries include barbiturates for euthanasia and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for relief of pain and inflammation. Sodium pentobarbital (a barbiturate) and phenylbutazone (an NSAID) concentrations in liver, compost, effluent and leachate were analyzed in two separate horse carcass compost piles in two separate years. Horse liver samples were also buried in 3 feet of loose soil in the first year and drug concentrations were assessed over time.

What did we do?

Year 1- On 9/22/09 a 6 x 6 m piece of 10 mil plastic sheeting was laid on bare soil with a 2% slope, at the edge of Cornell University’s compost site in Ithaca, NY. Water was poured on the plastic to check the direction of flow. A hole was dug at the low end of the pad, under the plastic, large enough to fit a 76 l galvanized garbage can. A stainless steel canner was placed in the garbage can to collect effluent. A hole was cut in the plastic over the canner for collection. A 0.6 m high base (3.7 x 3.7 m) of coarse carbon material (woodchips) was laid on the plastic. A 27 year old Appaloosa mare, weighing approximately 455 kg that had been dosed with 1 gram phenylbutazone at midnight on 9/22/09 and again at 8:00 am was led onto the base and euthanized for severe lameness by a qualified veterinarian with 120 ml Fatal Plus® solution (active ingredient 390 mg/ml Pentobarbital Sodium). After the horse had been euthanized and the veterinarian ensured there were no signs of life, the carcass was maneuvered onto the wood chips with the head on the upward slope of the pad. The liver was removed from the horse and cut into 48 pieces, each weighing approximately 100 grams, and nylon mesh bags were then placed in whiffle balls. A 2 m length of nylon twine was attached to each ball. Twenty-three balls were inserted in the horse’s gut cavity and 22 balls were placed in a 1 m hole in the ground (burial hole) which was dug approximately 1.5 m from the pad. Pieces of the intestine and some blood were also placed in the hole to help mimic the presence of a carcass. The remaining 3 nylon mesh bags with liver were packaged for delivery to Cornell University’s Animal Health Diagnostic Center (AHDC) to determine initial NSAID and barbiturates concentrations. Two Hobo U12 data loggers with 4 temperature probes each were set up to record hourly temperatures. Five of the probes were placed in the compost pile: under the horse’s chest, in the horse’s hind gut, in the horse’s chest cavity, under the horse’s spine and under the horse’s right hind quarter. Two of the probes were placed in the burial hole and one probe was left out to record ambient temperature. The hole was covered with loose soil. The horse was covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. The plastic liner was tightened by rolling it over and under wooden fence posts.

Year 2- In year 1, the collection of “leachate” included precipitation that diluted the leachate. In year 2, to target only the liquids that leached out of the horse and through the pile, two 3 m long troughs with a 1% slope were built out of 15 and 10 cm diameter PVC pipe attached to 5 x 15 cm untreated lumber. The troughs were placed on the pad from the centerline to the edge of the pile end-to-end with slopes going toward the outside of the pile. Leachate drained via gravity into 2-liter polyethylene bottles attached to the troughs. The exposed ends of the troughs were covered with 1 m length of aluminum flashing to keep rainwater out of the collection bottles.

On 8/10/10 the leachate collection troughs were laid on bare soil with a 2% slope at the edge of Cornell University’s compost site in Ithaca, NY. A 0.6 m high base (3.7 x 3.7 m) of coarse carbon material (woodchips) was laid on top of the troughs. A 22 year old horse weighing approximately 590 kg, that had been dosed with 1 gram phenylbutazone at midnight on 08/10/10 and again at 7:30 am, was led onto the base and euthanized by a qualified veterinarian with 300 mg xylazine as a sedative, then with 120 ml Fatal Plus® solution (active ingredient 390 mg/ml Pentobarbital Sodium). After the horse had been euthanized and the veterinarian ensured there were no signs of life, the carcass was maneuvered on the wood chips with the head on the upward slope of the pad. The veterinarian took 4 tubes of blood from a vein in the nose and a vein in the front leg of the horse in heparinized Vacutainer® tubes for initial concentrations of pentobarbital and phenylbutazone. Twenty-six whiffle balls that had been pre-filled with wood chips (the base material of the compost pile) were placed such that they would be under the horse and liquids coming from the horse would be absorbed by the chips inside the balls, as well as in the surrounding base material, while the excess would drain down the leachate collection troughs and be captured in the 2 liter bottles at the end of the troughs (Figure 1). One Hobo U12 data logger with 4 temperature probes was set up to record hourly temperatures. The probes were placed under the horse’s neck and rump, on top of the horse’s abdomen, and one was left out to record ambient temperature. The horse was covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. Additional woodchips were added to the pile on August 13 and the pile was covered with a breathable polyester compost cover to collect only what was leaching from the animal.

Figure 1 Cross-section of horse compost pile showing placement of leachate collection troughs and woodchip-filled whiffle balls.

On 8/10/10 a 0.6 m high base (3.5 x 3.5 m) of coarse carbon material was laid near the horse compost pile. A 455 kg 3 year, 7 month old, 2^nd lactation Holstein cow was euthanized, due to a lung abscess, in the same manner as the horse (300 mg xylazine, followed by 120 ml Fatal Plus®). Four tubes of blood were withdrawn from her milk vein as described for the horse. One Hobo U12 data logger with 4 temperature probes was set up to record hourly temperatures. The probes were placed under the cow’s udder and rear leg, on top of the cow’s back, and one was left out to record ambient temperature. The cow was then covered with woodchips so that the pile was approximately 1.8 m high. Additional woodchips were added to the pile the following day before the pile was covered with a compost cover.

What did we learn?

In year one, phenylbutazone concentrations in the liver of the horse were undetectable (< 10 ppb) by 20 days of composting or burial in loose soil and were undetectable in effluent from the pile at the time of first sampling on day 6. Pentobarbital concentrations were undetectable (< 10 ppb) in liver samples retrieved from both the compost pile and loose soil by day 83. Rate of decay was faster in the soil, exponentially decreasing by 18% per day, with a half-life of 3 days, than in the compost pile where there was a 2% decrease per day and a half-life of 31 days, but occurred at the same rate of 1% and a half-life between 55 and 67 mesophilic degree days when calculated on the number of mesophilic degree days to which it was exposed. This suggests that breakdown of pentobarbital is not initiated by the heat of composting, but by the biological degradation that occurs in both soil and compost at mesophilic temperatures. Pentobarbital in the effluent decreased by 20% per day with a half-life of 3.1 days but was still detectable (0.1 ppm) at 223 days of composting.

In year 2, phenylbutazone was not detected in any of the samples analyzed (compost and leachate) other than blood taken from the jugular vein of the horse immediately after euthanasia. Pentobarbital concentrations in the compost were still detectable after 224 days of composting, but had decreased from 79.2 (initial) to 5.8 ppm. Pentobarbital in leachate was 2.2 ppm at day 56 of composting, after which no additional fluids leached into the leachate collection containers. Rate of decay in the leachate was 35.2% per day with a half-life of 1.6 days. When managed properly, composting will deter domestic and wild animals from scavenging on treated carcasses while they contain the highest drug concentrations providing an effective means of disposal of euthanized and/or NSAID treated livestock. The resulting compost contains either no or very low concentrations of both NSAIDs and barbiturates rendering it safe for use in agriculture.

Barbiturate poisoning in domestic and wild animals has occurred from ingestion of tissue from animals euthanized with pentobarbital. Many of the reported cases have occurred from direct feeding on improperly disposed livestock in which little or no degradation or biotransformation of pentobarbital has occurred. During the time period in which carcasses would be desirable to domestic and wild animals as a food source, composting creates sufficient heat to deter them from digging in to the pile. In addition, when covered properly, the smell of decomposition is minimized, also reducing attraction. The diverse community of microorganisms in the compost pile aids in the degradation and biotransformation of pentobarbital, especially after the thermophilic phase of composting is over. Properly implemented composting, as a means of disposal of euthanized or NSAID treated livestock, will deter domestic and wild animals from scavenging for carcasses when they contain the highest drug concentrations. The resulting compost contains either no or very low concentrations of either NSAIDs or barbiturates, rendering the compost safe for use in agriculture.

Future Plans

Education and implementation work continues in this area nationally and internationally. A 5^th International Symposium on Depopulation and Disposal of Livestock is in the planning stages. A study on the Fate of anthelmintics (drugs that expel parasitic worms from the body) in livestock manure has just been completed.

Authors

Jean Bonhotal, Mary Schwarz, Cornell University, Cornell Waste Management Institute, Ithaca, NY

Karyn Bischoff, Joseph G Ebel, Jr. Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, NY

Additional Information

Visit Cornell Waste Management Institute Web site: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/mortality.htm

Trends in Animal & Veterinary Sciences Journal article http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/fate.pdf

Mortality Disposal and Its Implications on Human, Animal and Environmental Health from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

What Practices Increase Infiltration and Reduce Runoff on Slopes Greater Than 30%?

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Are We Concerned About Runoff on Farms?

Farming in the driftless region of Wisconsin where the steep fields and waterways are all connected to rivers and streams can have signficant risks to water quality. Sediment and nutrient movement into streams, rivers, and lakes in this part of the state has always been an issue, and agriculture has been identified as the largest contributor. This talk is given by a farmer living and farming in one of the most challenging areas of the country.

What Did We Do?

Home dairy farm

For seven years, the UW – Discovery Farm Program (DFP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a paired research project on a livestock operation in the driftless region of Wisconsin. This farm consisted of about 800 acres of tillable acres where fields are steep (some >30% slope), and every one drains into a waterway or stream which eventually flows into the Mississippi River.

What Have We Learned?

The USGS installed two in-stream monitoring stations in two small headwater streams that divide the farm. The north basin consists of 430 acres with 150 acres cropland, 250 acres woodland, and 30 acres pasture. The south basin consists of 215 acres with 39 acres cropland and pasture, 107 acres woodland, and 69 acres in CRP/CREP. The farming system uses a combination of conservation tools and techniques that have been adapted to fit the physical setting of the area, and the goals and vision of the producer who has a rich history of conservation. Harvesting precipitation is constantly at the forefront of operations through careful soil management, a network of small check dams and larger at-grade stabilization structures, and a focus on minimizing soil disturbance activities. Seven years of data indicated that almost all sediment losses occurred during a few large summer storms that exceed the design criteria.