Tag: manure storage

Posted on

What Are Common Animal Mortality Disposal Options

Managing dead animals is not pleasant, but is a necessary task for most livestock and poultry farms. This video discusses several options for disposing of carcasses in an environmentally responsible manner.

In most states, commonly approved disposal options include: burial, landfills, incineration, rendering and composting.

Burial

Perhaps the most common method of disposal is burial. Most states have regulatory burial guidelines outlining site location, distance from waterways, depth to groundwater, etc. When proper guidelines are followed, burial is a safe option. However, poor site selection, such as sandy soils or areas with high water tables, may pose a threat to groundwater. Furthermore, burial does not convert the carcass into a valuable by-product. Variable equipment and labor costs will influence the economic viability of this disposal option.

Landfills

Disposing of carcasses at a licensed landfill that accepts animal mortalities is another form of burial. Landfills may require notification before delivery and/or documentation from a licensed veterinarian stating the cause of death. Landfill tipping fees should be assessed and may range from $20 to $30/ton. Other considerations are transportation costs and breeches of biosecurity by moving carcasses off- farm. Similar to burial, a valuable by-product is not produced.

Incineration

Incineration is a safe and effective means of carcass disposal, especially from the standpoint of biosecurity. The carcass is completely consumed by fire and heat within a self-contained incinerator utilizing air quality and emissions controls. Some states may require air quality permits. Incineration is mainly designed for smaller carcasses and fuel costs should be considered. Due to odor and emission concerns, open air incineration (burning) is not recommended and banned in some states. Furthermore, obtaining complete consumption of the carcass in a timely manner is often difficult to achieve. Burning should only be used in emergencies for controlling infectious or contagious diseases with permission from a regulatory body.

Rendering

Another recommended carcass disposal method is rendering. This is a heat driven process that cooks the product while killing pathogens and converting it into a value-added product such as an animal feedstuff. These feedstuffs, such as meat and bone meal, are generally used as pet food ingredients. Although rendering is a very effective method, currently, there are few render­ing services available. The transportation expense of collecting small volumes creates a financial obstacle for most rendering companies. Some rendering facilities require the producer to transport carcasses to the plant and pay a fee. Biosecurity and disease transmission risks should be considered when allowing vehicles on the farm and when transporting carcasses off-farm.

Composting

Composting dead animal mortalities is an inexpen­sive, biosecure and environmentally sound approach to addressing the issue of carcass disposal. By definition, composting is a controlled biological decomposition pro­cess that converts organic matter into a stable, humus-like product. The carcass (nitrogen source) is buried in a bulking agent (carbon source), such as wood shavings, allowing for the proper carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) required by microorganisms to successfully decompose the carcass while absorbing excess moisture and filtering odor. The high temperatures achieved through proper composting will destroy most pathogens. Microorganisms will degrade the carcass leaving only a few small bone fragments, which are brittle and break easily. This valuable by-product can then be land-applied as a fertilizer source, adding nutrients and organic matter to the soil or recycled for new compost piles. As with burial, site selection is important. The site should be located in an area that does not pose a risk to surface or groundwater contamination.

Alternative methods:

Alternative methods are not specifically defined. They may include homogenization, digestion or chemical processes and technologies to recover products from mortalities.

 

Check out the other video FAQs on carcass management

Author: Joshua Payne, Oklahoma State University

Reviewers: Shafiqur Rahman, North Dakota State University and Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University

Posted on

How Can I Manage Multiple Animal Mortalities?

Sometimes, a disease outbreak or natural disaster results in many livestock or poultry carcasses that must be managed. Disposal of these requires additional planning to ensure this is done in an environmentally responsible manner.

During catastrophic events when multiple livestock losses occur, a producer’s routine mortality disposal plan may be inadequate. In these instances, multiple disposal options may need to be considered. Burial, rendering, landfills, composting and incineration or a combination thereof are recommended options. All catastrophic events should be reported to the appropriate state agency. If a catastrophic mortality event is the result of disease outbreak, bio-security considerations may dictate the method of transportation and disposal.

Check out the other video FAQs on carcass management

Author: Joshua Payne, Oklahoma State University

Reviewers: Shafiqur Rahman, North Dakota State University and Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University

Posted on

Managing Manure Nutrients Curriculum Materials

Managing manure and manure nutrients is one of the most visible aspects of environmental stewardship for many farms. The materials on this page developed for use in classrooms and extension programs, and for self-study by farmer, and ag professionals.

Agriculture Professionals and Farmers

These materials were used to create a self study module which includes the option to receive a certificate upon successful completion of the quiz.

    • Manure Nutrients: Water, Regulations, and Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) (50 minutes)

Teachers and Educators

Teachers and extension staff are welcome to download these materials and utilize them in your classroom or programs. To preview the materials before downloading, scroll below the table. View Lesson Plan.

If you utilize these materials please take 3 minutes and tell us if they are helpful. Thank you!! Go to survey…

Check out more educational modules available on livestock and poultry environmental stewardship.  These modules have been cross-referenced to the National AFNR career content cluster standards.

Lesson Plan

Clicking a link in this column will download all files in that section/row as a .zip file, except where noted.

 Download individual items using links in these columns
Fact
Sheet*		 Video(s)
.mp4		 Jeopardy
game
.ppt		 Review
Q&A
.docx
1. Nutrient Management Planning
(6 files; 22MB)		 PDF DOCx

Nutrient plan (2MB) Manure plan (18MB)

 Nutrient
planning		 17 questions
2. Nutrient Regulations
(5 files; 12MB)		 PDF DOCx Regulations (10MB) Regs &
Water
Quality		 8 questions
3. Water Quality & Nutrients
(5 files; 26MB)		 PDF DOCx  Water (24MB) 11 questions
4. Manure Storage, Agitation & Handling
(5 files; 26MB)		 PDF DOCx Storage (24MB) Storage &
Safety		 10 questions
5. Safety (Manure Gases)
(5 files; 65MB)		 PDF DOCx Gases (MB) 17 questions
6. Liquid and Solid Manure Application
(7 files; 65 MB)
Note: due to size, the “Surface Application” video is not in the ZIP file and needs to be downloaded separately.		 PDF DOCx Surface Application (47MB) Liquid Manure (23MB) GPS (20MB) N Stabilizers (19MB) Application 10 questions
7. Spreader Calibration
(3 files; 27MB)		 PDF Calibration (27MB) n/a 2 questions
8. Spill Response
(5 file; 26MB)		 PDF DOCx Spills (23MB) Spills & Public Relations 10 questions
9. Public Relations
(4 file; 20MB)		 PDF DOCx Public Image (16MB) n/a

*Use the .pdf format if you wish to print the fact sheets and use as-is. Use the .docx format if you want to edit the fact sheet.

Preview 1-3: Nutrient Management Planning, Regulations, Water Quality

Note: the activity preview only shows four (of 52) slides. The links (blue text) do not function in this preview, but they will work when you download the .ppt version.

For Additional Information

Preview 4-6: Manure Storage, Safety, Manure Application

For Additional Information

Preview Sections 7-9

For Additional Information

Acknowledgements

Authors:

    • Jerry Clark, Jerome.Clark@wisc.edu, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension, Chippewa and Eau Claire Counties
    • Carl Duley, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension, Buffalo County, Carl.Duley@wisc.edu
    • Ted Bay, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension, Grant County
    • Dave Lucinani, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension, dluciani@wisc.edu

Reviewers: USDA NRCS staff

Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA) is a collaborative effort of the National Young Farmers Educational Association, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Montana State University. It was funded by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under award #2009-49400-05871. This project would not be possible without the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center the National eXtension Initiative, National Association of County Ag Agents (NACAA), National Association of Agriculture Education (NAAE), Farm Credit Services of America, American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists (ARPAS), and Montana FFA Association.

Posted on

Manure and Litter Additives for Odor Control on Farms

Air emissions from animal agriculture operations and their associated manure storage are being examined more closely as a way to mitigate potentially harmful gases and odors. Manure additives and litter amendments go right to the source and are used to change one or more characteristics of manure to try and reduce emissions emissions of odorous gases. The materials on this page were developed to assist educators and professors who include manure additives or litter amendments as a topic in their classrooms or educational programs.

Fact Sheets

Sanjay Shah, Garry Grabow, Philip Westerman, North Carolina State University

Sanjay Shah, Philip Westerman, James Parsons, North Carolina State University

Technology Summaries

These are from a 2008 conference hosted by Iowa State University

Acknowledgements

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

For questions about the materials on this page contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota (kjanni@umn.edu). For questions about the AQEAA project, contact Dr. Rick Stowell, Unviersity of Nebraska (rstowell2@unl.edu).

If you have presentations, photos, video, publications, or other instructional materials that could be added to the curricula on this page, please contact Dr. Janni or Jill Heemstra (jheemstra@unl.edu).

Posted on

Manure Storage Covers Curriculum Materials

Air emissions from animal agriculture operations and their associated manure storage are being examined more closely as a way to mitigate potentially harmful gases. Covers are becoming popular as a way to collect methane (a potent greenhouse gas) for beneficial reuse as a renewable energy source.  The materials on this page were developed to assist educators and professors who include manure storage covers as a topic in their classrooms or educational programs.

Fact Sheets

Rose Stenglein, Charles J. Clanton, David R. Schmidt, Larry D. Jacobson, and Kevin A. Janni, University of Minnesota

Video: Manure Storage Covers for Reducing Odor Emissions

Photo Galleries

Positive Air Pressure Covers

Negative Air Pressure Covers

Technology Summaries

These are from a 2008 conference hosted by Iowa State University

Acknowledgements

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. For questions about the materials on this page contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota (kjanni@umn.edu). For questions about the AQEAA project, contact Dr. Rick Stowell, Unviersity of Nebraska (rstowell2@unl.edu). If you have presentations, photos, video, publications, or other instructional materials that could be added to the curricula on this page, please contact Dr. Janni or Jill Heemstra (jheemstra@unl.edu).

Posted on

What is the difference between a storage pond and a lagoon for handling animal wastewater/manure?

The key difference is that facilities that are designed and managed as lagoons provide treatment in addition to storage. In some areas, people have come to refer to any earthen facility that contains wastewater as a lagoon, so referring to the specially designed systems as “treatment lagoons” may help to appropriately distinguish them.

The most noticeable difference between a storage pond and a treatment lagoon is size. For a given scenario, a treatment lagoon is much larger than a storage pond.

A storage pond is an earthen structure designed to store manure and other biodegradable byproducts of animal production (soiled bedding, wash water, unclean runoff, etc.) over the critical time period when it cannot be applied to farm land. This period could be three to six months or more, depending on geographical location and/or regulatory requirements. Before the next critical storage period begins, all of the storage pond contents that equipment can practically reach must be removed to make room for the manure and wastewater generated during the upcoming storage period. Some states require that additional storage volume be provided so 1 to 2 feet of liquid are left in the bottom to prevent the earthen floor from drying out.

A treatment lagoon provides volume for storage (like a storage pond) but also provides significant additional volume to accommodate the dilution that is necessary for desired biological treatment of collected material. A certain volume of liquid?called a “permanent pool”?must be maintained in a treatment lagoon at all times to ensure that the needed dilution and desired treatment occur. As the contents of a treatment lagoon are biologically broken down, a small fraction settles to the bottom and forms a sludge layer. A lagoon must also provide volume for sludge accumulation, and this sludge must be removed periodically to maintain the design treatment volume. For these reasons, treatment lagoons are much larger than their storage-only cousins and are not normally emptied while in operation.

Biological treatment is highly dependent on temperature. For this reason, lagoons do not work as well in colder midwestern U.S. climates as in more southern and western U.S. locations.

While treatment lagoons are generally more expensive to build, a lagoon stabilizes added organic matter, reducing odor and influencing nutrient content. The resulting liquid contents of a treatment lagoon are much lower in nutrient content. Less land is required annually for application of “lagoon effluent” than for slurry from a storage pond. However, in years when sludge is removed, land requirements may be dramatically higher since phosphorus and other minerals are retained in the sludge. The storage pond, on the other hand, conserves more nutrients. Material taken from a storage pond is generally more nutrient-dense than is lagoon effluent and has more value overall for use in growing crops. Material from a storage pond is also more odorous, so there is greater need for it to be promptly incorporated into the soil than for lagoon effluent.

Posted on

What are the necessary components for composting animal mortalities?

For active decomposition of animal carcasses, compost microorganisms require a source of nitrogen (N) (dead livestock or birds), carbon (C) (straw, corn stalks, shavings, litter, etc.), oxygen, water and elevated temperatures. An ideal C:N ratio should fall between 15:1 to 35:1. Oxygen (air) can be introduced when turning the compost. If proper moisture is not supplied, the organisms cannot survive. Ideally, moisture content should range from 45-55%, or wet enough when the compost is squeezed to leave your hand feeling moist, without actually forming drops of water. When all components are present in the correct ratio, the compost pile heats naturally, destroying most pathogens while microbial activity degrades the carcasses.

Resources:

Check out the other video FAQs on carcass management

Author: Joshua Payne, Oklahoma State University

Reviewers: Shafiqur Rahman, North Dakota State University and Jean Bonhotal, Cornell University

Posted on

Gas Impermeable Film and Sheet for Control of Methane and Odors in Agricultural Applications

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Dairy, Beef, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage, Manure Treatment
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Methane, Ammonia

System Summary

For many years, food packaging has incorporated barrier layers to contain odors, flavors, oils and moisture along with the food contents while excluding contamination and oxygen. Until recently, agricultural films and geomembranes were monolithic structures employing only a single polymer or blend. Recent advances in extrusion and lamination equipment allow the incorporation of these barrier layers in large scale agricultural structures and operations such as floating covers over animal waste storage, containment geomembranes for biogas generation, silage storage and fumigation films.

To view the video in full screen, click the icon second from right on the bottom of the viewer.
Download a copy of this video

Co-extruding a thin layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) in a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane dramatically reduces the permeability to a wide range of gases and volatile organic carbon molecules including: methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, oxygen, aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, methyl bromide and most odorous compounds. Methane permeabilites for four geomembranes are given below.

Methane Permeability (cc/(m2*day))
PVC LLDPE HDPE Barrier LLDPE
0.76 mm (30 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 0.5 mm (20 mils)
900 690 300 <1

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Barrier to noxious gases and odors
  • Useful in cover and containment systems

Limitations

  • EVOH is a crystalline polymer and is not elastic. It is flexible but should not be used as part of an elastomeric structure.

Cost

Engineered floating covers with ballasted weight systems, gas extraction systems and rainwater removal systems costs vary greatly. For waste lagoon of about 1/2 acre in size, the cover system can cost from $150,000 to $200,000. Addition of the barrier layer to the geomembrane adds less than $5,000.

Authors

Gary Kolbasuk, Raven Industries, Engineered Films Division
Point of Contact:
Gary.Kolbasuk@Ravenind.com

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Reduction of Ammonia Emission from Stored Laying-hen Manure Using Topically Applied Additives: Zeolite, Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Manure storage can be a significant source of ammonia (NH3) emission that could negatively impact the environment. Ammonia emission from manure storage may be controlled through physical, chemical and/or biological means. In this study, five treatment agents, including zeolite, 48.5% liquid Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Ferix-3 (ferric sulfate), and PLT (sodium bisulfate) were topically applied to stored nearly fresh laying-hen manure. Each agent was tested at three application rates, i.e., low, medium and high. Hen manure was stored in 19-litter Teflon-lined vessels under a constant ambient temperature of 23oC (73oF) and a ventilation rate of 11 air changes per hour (3 L/min). The NH3 concentrations and emissions from the vessels were measured and NH3 emission reductions by the treatment regimens were evaluated with reference to the control. The results show that there were no significant difference between the high and medium dosages for Al+Clear, Ferix 3, and PLT after the 7-d storage period. Reduction of NH3 emission by the topical application of the agents over a 7-day manure storage/testing period was as following: A) 36%, 62% or 92%, respectively, for zeolite applied at0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 63% or 89%, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 56% or 81% respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 42% or 90%, respectively, for Ferix 3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 74% or 90%, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Application of acidulant additives reduces litter pH and suppresses NH3 emission
  • Additives is topically applied to the fresh hen manure in storage

 

Limitations

  • An effective, automated delivery system(s) is (are) needed for the applications and should be fully investigated.
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Ability of the acidulants to reduce pH, and thus reduce emissions, decreases over time

Cost

The costs of the additives with dry form are based on the 50 lb/pack prices of 2008. Ability of the additives to reduce emissions decreases over time. The costs of the topical application of the agents at end of the 7th day was as following: A) 1.56, 1.81 or 1.83 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for zeolite applied at 0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 0.25 or 0.36 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 0.36 or 0.49 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 0.46 or 0.42 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for Ferix-3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 0.45 or 0.60 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

Authors

H. Li1, H. Xin1, R.S. Burns1, Y.Liang21Iowa State University, 2 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Point of Contact:
Hong Li, lwblue@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Characterizing Ammonia Emissions from Swine Farms in Eastern North Carolina – Part I. Conventional Lagoon and Spray Technology for Waste Treatment

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Anaerobic Lagoon, Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

The conventional lagoon and spray technology (LST), is the current system predominantly used in North Carolina to manage pig waste. It consists of anaerobic lagoons to store and biologically treat pig waste (~99.5% liquid). Effluent from the lagoons is sprayed on surrounding crop fields as a nutrient source. Four distinct components and associated processes of LSTs release NH3 to the atmosphere: (1) production houses, (2) waste storage and treatment systems such as lagoons, (3) land application through injection or spraying, and (4) biogenic emissions from soils and crops

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Anaerobic lagoons used to store and biologically treat hog manure
  • Manure sprayed on crops as source of nutrients

 

Limitations

  • Significant emissions of ammonia, odor and potential pathogens
  • Flooding during extreme weather events

 

Cost

Ten year annualized costs for a “Baseline” LST for a 4,320-head finishing farm using a pit recharge system of manure removal is predicted to be approximately $90 per 1,000 lbs. steady state live weight per year (Williams, 2006. see Table 8a, page 58 – Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. 2006. Phase 3 Technology Determination Report, published by NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 716 pgs, on file with NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center (March 8,2006). Also available at www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/

Authors

V.P. Aneja1, S.P. Arya1, I.C. Rumsey1, C.M. (Mike) Williams21Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State Univesity, 2 Department of Poultry Science, & Director, Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, North Carolina State University
Point of Contact:
Viney P. Aneja, viney_aneja@ncsu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Proudly powered by WordPress