manure storage – Page 3 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

Purpose

Why Tackle Mortality Management? It’s Ripe for Revolution.

The poultry industry has enjoyed a long run of technological and scientific advancements that have led to improvements in quality and efficiency. To ensure its hard-won prosperity continues into the future, the industry has rightly shifted its focus to sustainability. For example, much money and effort has been expended on developing better management methods and alternative uses/destinations for poultry litter.

In contrast, little effort or money has been expended to improve routine mortality management – arguably one of the most critical aspects of every poultry operation. In many poultry producing areas of the country, mortality management methods have not changed in decades – not since the industry was forced to shift from the longstanding practice of pit burial. Often that shift was to composting (with mixed results at best). For several reasons – improved biosecurity being the most important/immediate – it’s time that the industry shift again.

The shift, however, doesn’t require reinventing the wheel, i.e., mortality management can be revolutionized without developing anything revolutionary. In fact, the mortality management practice of the future owes its existence in part to a technology that was patented exactly 20 years ago by Tyson Foods – large freezer containers designed for storing routine/daily mortality on each individual farm until the containers are later emptied and the material is hauled off the farm for disposal.

Despite having been around for two decades, the practice of using on-farm freezer units has received almost no attention. Little has been done to promote the practice or to study or improve on the original concept, which is a shame given the increasing focus on two of its biggest advantages – biosecurity and nutrient management.

Dusting off this old BMP for a closer look has been the focus of our work – and with promising results. The benefits of hitting the reset button on this practice couldn’t be more clear:

Greatly improved biosecurity for the individual grower when compared to traditional composting;
Improved biosecurity for the entire industry as more individual farms switch from composting to freezing, reducing the likelihood of wider outbreaks;
Reduced operational costs for the individual poultry farm as compared to more labor-intensive practices, such as composting;
Greatly reduced environmental impact as compared to other BMPs that require land application as a second step, including composting, bio-digestion and incineration; and
Improved quality of life for the grower, the grower’s family and the grower’s neighbors when compared to other BMPs, such as composting and incineration.

What Did We Do?

We basically took a fresh look at all aspects of this “old” BMP, and shared our findings with various audiences.

That work included:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
2. Freezer unit capacity,
3. Power consumption, and
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors,
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects;
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
3. Biosecurity measures
4. Nutrient management comparisons
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
Ensuring the results of the above topics/tests were communicated to
1. Growers
2. Integrators
3. Legislators
4. Environmental groups
5. Funding agencies (state and federal)
6. Veterinary agencies (state and federal)

What Have We Learned?

The breadth of the work at times limited the depth of any one topic’s exploration, but here is an overview of our findings:

Direct testing with our own equipment on our own poultry farm regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Farm visitation by scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, that previously dined in the composting shed daily slowly decreased and then stopped entirely about three weeks after the farm converted to freezer units.
  2. The fly population was dramatically reduced after the farm converted from composting to freezer units. [Reduction was estimated at 80%-90%.]
2. Freezer unit capacity
  1. The test units were carefully filled on a daily basis to replicate the size and amount of deadstock generated over the course of a full farm’s grow-out cycle.
  2. The capacity tests were repeated over several flocks to ensure we had accurate numbers for creating a capacity calculator/matrix, which has since been adopted by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service to determine the correct number of units per farm based on flock size and finish bird weight (or number of grow-out days) in connection with the agency’s cost-share program.
3. Power consumption
  1. Power consumption was recorded daily over several flocks and under several conditions, e.g., during all four seasons and under cover versus outside and unprotected from the elements.
  2. Energy costs were higher for uncovered units and obviously varied depending on the season, but the average cost to power one unit is only 90 cents a day. The total cost of power for the average farm (all four units) is only $92 per flock. (See additional information for supporting documentation and charts.)
4. Operational/maintenance aspects;
  1. It was determined that the benefits of installing the units under cover (e.g., inside a small shed or retrofitted bin composter) with a winch system to assist with emptying the units greatly outweighed the additional infrastructure costs.
  2. This greatly reduced wear and tear on the freezer component of the system during emptying, eliminated clogging of the removable filter component, as well as provided enhanced access to the unit for periodic cleaning/maintenance by a refrigeration professional.
Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
1. Freezer unit capacity
  1. After tracking two years of full farm collection/hauling data, we were able to increase the per unit capacity number in the calculator/matrix from 1,500 lbs. to 1,800 lbs., thereby reducing the number of units required per farm to satisfy that farm’s capacity needs.
2. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Both farms reported improved quality of life, largely thanks to the elimination or reduction of animals, insects and smells associated with composting.
3. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. Both farms reported elimination or reduction of the scavenging animals and disease-carrying insects commonly associated with composting.
4. Operational and collection/hauling aspects
  1. With the benefit of two years of actual use in the field, we entirely re-designed the sheds used for housing the freezer units.
  2. The biggest improvements were created by turning the units so they faced each other rather than all lined up side-by-side facing outward. (See additional information for supporting documentation and diagrams.) This change then meant that the grower went inside the shed (and out of the elements) to load the units. This change also provided direct access to the fork pockets, allowing for quicker emptying and replacement with a forklift.
Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
1. Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
  1. More research confirming the connection between farm visitation by scavenger animals and the use of composting was recently published by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center:
    1. “Certain wildlife species may become habituated to anthropogenically modified habitats, especially those associated with abundant food resources. Such behavior, at least in the context of multiple farms, could facilitate the movement of IAV from farm to farm if a mammal were to become infected at one farm and then travel to a second location. … As such, the potential intrusion of select peridomestic mammals into poultry facilities should be accounted for in biosecurity plans.”
    2. Root, J. J. et al. When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources. Sci. Rep. 5, 14354; doi:10.1038/ srep14354 (2015) at page 6 (internal citations omitted; emphasis added).
2. Pathogen/disease transmission,
  1. Animals and insects have long been known to be carriers of dozens of pathogens harmful to poultry – and to people. Recently, however, the USDA National Wildlife Research Center demonstrated conclusively that mammals are not only carriers – they also can transmit avian influenza virus to birds.
    1. The study’s conclusion is particularly troubling given the number and variety of mammals and other animals that routinely visit composting sheds as demonstrated by our research using a game camera. These same animals also routinely visit nearby waterways and other poultry farms increasing the likelihood of cross-contamination, as explained in this the video titled Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits.
    2. “When wildlife and poultry interact and both can carry and spread a potentially damaging agricultural pathogen, it’s cause for concern,” said research wildlife biologist Dr. Jeff Root, one of several researchers from the National Wildlife Research Center, part of the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services program, studying the role wild mammals may play in the spread of avian influenza viruses.
3. Biosecurity measures
  1. Every day the grower collects routine mortality and stores it inside large freezer units. After the broiler flock is caught and processed, but before the next flock is started – i.e. when no live birds are present, a customized truck and forklift empty the freezer units and hauls away the deadstock. During this 10- to 20- day window between flocks biosecurity is relaxed and dozens of visitors (feed trucks, litter brokers, mortality collection) are on site in preparation for the next flock.
    1. “Access will change after a production cycle,” according to a biosecurity best practices document (enclosed) from Iowa State University. “Empty buildings are temporarily considered outside of the [protected area and even] the Line of Separation is temporarily removed because there are no birds in the barn.”
4. Nutrient management comparisons
  1. Research provided by retired extension agent Bud Malone (enclosed) provided us with the opportunity to calculate nitrogen and phosphorous numbers for on-farm mortality, and therefore, the amount of those nutrients that can be diverted from land application through the use of freezer units instead of composting.
  2. The research (contained in an enclosed presentation) also provided a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various nutrient management BMPs – and a finding that freezing and recycling is about 90% more efficient than the average of all other ag BMPs in reducing phosphorous.
5. Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
  1. Local and county governments in several states have been compiling a lot of research on the various approaches for ensuring farmers and their residential neighbors can coexist peacefully.
  2. Many of the complaints have focused on the unwanted scavenger animals, including buzzards/vultures, raccoons, foxes and feral cats, as well as the smells associated with composting.
  3. The concept of utilizing sealed freezer collection units to eliminate the smells and animals associated with composting is being considered by some government agencies as an alternative to instituting deeper and deeper setbacks from property lines, which make farming operations more difficult and costly.

Future Plans

We see more work on three fronts:

First, we’ll continue to do monitoring and testing locally so that we may add another year or two of data to the time frames utilized initially.
Second, we are actively working to develop new more profitable uses for the deadstock (alternatives to rendering) that could one day further reduce the cost of mortality management for the grower.
Lastly, as two of the biggest advantages of this practice – biosecurity and nutrient management – garner more attention nationwide, our hope would be to see more thorough university-level research into each of the otherwise disparate topics that we were forced to cobble together to develop a broad, initial understanding of this BMP.

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Victor Clark, Co-Founder & Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Corresponding author email address

victor@farmfreezers.com

Other Authors

Terry Baker, Co-Founder & President, Farm Freezers LLC and Greener Solutions LLC

Additional Information

https://rendermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Render_Oct16.pdf

Farm Freezer Biosecurity Benefits

One Night in a Composting Shed

www.farmfreezers.com

—

Transmission Pathways

Avian flu conditions still evolving (editorial)

USDA NRCS Conservation fact sheet Poultry Freezers

Nature.com When fur and feather occur together: interclass transmission of avian influenza A virus from mammals to birds through common resources

How Does It Work? (on-farm freezing)

Influenza infections in wild raccoons (CDC)

Collection Shed Unit specifications

Collection Unit specifications

Freezing vs Composting for Biosecurity (Render magazine)

Manure and spent litter management: HPAI biosecurity (Iowa State University)

Acknowledgements

Bud Malone, retired University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist and owner of Malone Poultry Consulting

Bill Brown, University of Delaware Extension poultry specialist, poultry grower and Delmarva Poultry Industry board member

Delaware Department of Agriculture

Delaware Nutrient Management Commission

Delaware Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Maryland Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2017. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Cary, NC. April 18-21, 2017. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Spotlight on Manure Management in North Carolina and the Atlantic Coastal Plains

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

To provide information about commonly-found manure management systems and approaches in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains, and discuss opportunities for technological innovation in the areas of manure management and nutrient recovery/utilization. Hear from a diverse panel of researchers, animal agriculture producers, and agency representatives who will provide background on the environmental conditions of the region and discuss specific technical considerations for innovative research and development. Learn about what has and hasn’t worked in past attempts to recover nutrients at animal agriculture farms in the area, and about the exciting possibilities for innovation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Nutrient Recycling Challenge (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What did we do?

N/A

What have we learned?

N/A

Future Plans

N/A

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Other authors

Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

Dr. Kelly Zering, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Additional information

Session Agenda

Background, history, and technical information about manure management in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains

Presenter: Dr. John Classen, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs, College of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at North Carolina State University

Lessons Learned from the Smithfield Agreement

Presenter: Dr. Kelly Zering, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

Panel: Challenges and Opportunities around Manure Management Systems

Moderator: Hema Subramanian

Panel to include the above speakers plus representatives from the local animal agriculture industry, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

EPA’s Nutrient Recycling Challenge

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Come to this session to learn about the Nutrient Recycling Challenge and meet some of the involved partners and experts, as well as some innovators who are competing to develop nutrient recovery technologies that meet the needs of pork and dairy farmers. This session will begin with an overview of the challenge. Next, innovators will provide snapshot presentations about the technology ideas they are working on, followed by live feedback/Q&A sessions on each technology where we can harness the buzzing brainpower at Waste to Worth. Finally, we will move into a “workshop” designed to support innovators participating in the Nutrient Recycling Challenge as they refine their designs before they build prototypes.

What did we do?

Background on the Nutrient Recycling Challenge

At Waste to Worth 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a brainstorm session about developing technologies that livestock farmers want to help manage manure nutrients. That session sowed the seeds for the Nutrient Recycling Challenge—a global competition to find affordable and effective nutrient recovery technologies that create valuable products farmers can use, transport, or sell to where nutrients are in demand. Pork and dairy producers, USDA, and environmental and scientific experts saw the tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits, and partnered with EPA to launch the challenge in November 2015 (www.nutrientrecyclingchallenge.org).

What have we learned?

There is a tremendous opportunity to generate environmental and economic benefits from manure by-products, but further innovation is needed to develop more effective and affordable technologies that can extract nutrients and create products that farmers can use, transport, or sell more easily to where nutrients are in demand.

In the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, innovators have proposed a range of technology systems to recover nitrogen and phosphorus from dairy and swine manure, including physical, chemical, biological, and thermal treatment systems. Some such systems may also be compatible with manure-to-energy technologies, such as anaerobic digesters. Farms of all sizes are interested in nutrient recovery, and there is demand for diverse types of technologies due to a diversity in end users. To improve the adoptability of nutrient recovery systems, it is critical that innovators are mindful of the affordability of technologies, and work to lower capital and operations and maintenance costs, and improve the potential for returns on investment. A key factor for offsetting the costs of a technology and improving its marketability will be in its ability to generate valuable nutrient-containing products that are competitive in the market.

Future Plans

The challenge has four phases, in which innovators are turning concepts into designs, and eventually to pilot these working technologies on livestock farms. Thirty-four innovator teams whose concepts were selected from Phase I are refining technology designs in Phase II. Design prototypes will be built in Phase III. This workshop is designed to help innovators maximize their potential for developing nutrient recovery technologies that meet farmer needs.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Joseph Ziobro, Physical Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Hema Subramanian, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Corresponding author email

ziobro.joseph@epa.gov; subramanian.hema@epa.gov

Session Agenda

Overview of the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, Hema Subramanian and Joseph Ziobro of EPA
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partner Introductions, Nutrient Recycling Challenge Partners (including National Milk Producers Federation, Newtrient, Smithfield Foods, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Energy, and Water Environment & Reuse Foundation)
Showcase of Innovators’ Technology Ideas
- Decanter Centrifuge and Struvite Recovery for Manure Nutrient Management, Hiroko Yoshida
- Manure Solids Separation BioFertilizer Produccion Drinking Water Efluente, Aicardo Roa Espinosa
- Nutrient Recovery from Anaerobic Digestates, Rakesh Govind
- Organic Waste Digestion and Nutrient Recycling, Steven Dvorak
- Manure Treatment with the Black Solder Fly, Simon Gregg
Nutrient Recycling Challenge Workshop for Innovators
- Developing technologies: From concept to pilot (to full-scale), Matias Vanotti
- Waste Systems Overview for Dairy and Swine and Innovative Technologies: What Steps Should be Taken (Lessons Learned), Jeff Porter

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

Elimination of Equine Streptococci from Soiled Equine Bedding

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Streptococcus equi subspecies equi (S. equi), causes the potentially fatal respiratory disease in horses known as “strangles”, while the closely related Streptococcus equi subspecies zooepidemicus (S. zooepidemicus) causes potentially fatal infections in humans. A study was undertaken to determine the survival of these 2 organisms in compost and soiled bedding.

What did we do?

Dacron bags were filled with a feedstock mixture of soiled equine bedding and feed waste at ratios of 3:1 (C:N ratio 40.6), 1:1 (C:N ratio 31.9), and 1:4 (C:N ratio 25.4). The Dacron bags were inoculated with S. zooepidemicus, and placed in 3 compost windrows of the same 3 feedstock ratios 24 h later. Streptococci were quantified at different time points. Next, S. equi was inoculated into Dacron bags then placed into a compost windrow of the same feedstock ratio. Streptococci were quantified. To rule out killing of both Streptococcal species by microflora during the 24 h storage period, samples of soiled equine bedding, both autoclaved and non-autoclaved, were inoculated with S. zooepidemicus and periodically sampled. A repeated study was conducted with S. equi. To determine the role of moisture on the killing of S. equi in equine waste, soiled equine bedding was dried at 37 °C for 48 h and sterile water then added to dried bedding.

What have we learned?

Microbes in soiled equine bedding may eliminate Streptococci, indicating that normal compost microflora may provide sustainable methods for the control of human and animal pathogens.

Future Plans

Future studies could assess the role of individual bacterial species in the abatement of Streptococci, and possible additives to a compost pile which might increase numbers of streptocidal organisms. In addition, compost could be examined to discover novel antibiotics or bacteriophages which may be used for disease control.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Alexandria Garcia, Graduate Student, University of Maine

Corresponding author email

Alexandria.poulin@gmail.com

Other authors

Dr. Robert Causey, Associate Professor at University of Maine, Scott Mitchell, Student, Kathleen Harvey, Student, Ashley Myer, Student, Mark Hutchison, Extension Professor, and Martin Stokes, Professor

Additional information

Garcia, Alexandria, “Abatement of Streptococcus equi in Equine Compost” (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2435.

http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/2435

Acknowledgements

Maine Agricultural Center, Dr. M. Susan Erich, Mark Hutchinson

March 5, 2019March 4, 2021

Closing Abandoned Livestock Lagoons Effectively to Utilize Nutrients and Avoid Environmental Problems

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

In Nebraska alone, nearly 400 earthen manure storage structures are in operation; approximately four dozen requests to cease operation of permitted lagoons were received by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in the prior decade with many more non-permitted storage structures being in need of proper closure. Abandoned livestock lagoons, earthen manure storage basins, and other manure storages (e.g. concrete pits) need to be decommissioned in a manner that controls potential environmental risk and makes economical use of accumulated nutrients. Currently, limited guidance is available to support lagoon closure planning and implementation and few professionals who support livestock producers have experience planning or participating in the manure storage closure process. The main focus of this project was to produce two videos that document the processes for planning and executing a lagoon closure.

What did we do?

The University of Nebraska Haskell Ag Laboratory, located near Concord, NE, had an anaerobic lagoon that was operated for over 20 years, but has not received swine manure additions since 2009 when the swine unit was depopulated. The decommissioning of this storage structure was proposed in 2014 and provided our team an opportunity to plan, implement and document the procedures necessary to properly close this structure. When we went to find material on how to accomplish this properly, we did not find suitable material. Two grants were secured in 2016 from the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence (USPCE) to fund our team efforts to document the closure process – from planning to completion – with two separate videos. The first video is focused on the planning activities necessary to prepare for removal and utilization of stored liquid and sludge. The second is focused on the liquid and sludge removal and utilization activities, decommissioning of conveyance structures, and deconstruction of the lagoon berm to return the site to a natural grade.

Activities conducted to execute the lagoon closure have included:

1) Mapping of sludge levels with sonar and analyzing sludge samples to estimate volume and nutrient content of sludge, which enabled development of a land application plan for utilizing the products

Figure 1. Sonar sludge mapping

Figure 1. Sonar sludge mapping.

2) De-watering the lagoon (effluent used for sprinkler irrigation and flood irrigation)

3) Hosting a demonstration event during which participants:

a. observed sludge removal and land application processes,

b. participated in a manure spreader calibration,

c. inspected the soil beneath the lagoon liner,

d. viewed the abandoned production buildings and heard about options for eliminating conveyance of liquid from the building to the lagoon,

e. explored alternative sludge removal methods, and

f. participated in a classroom session where presenters shared details of the closure planning process, cost-share opportunities for closure of manure storage structures, and expectations for re-grading and re-seeding the site following removal of sludge.

Figure 2. Participants learned about planning land application of the sludge

Figure 2. Participants learned about planning land application of the sludge.

Figure 3. Land application of the sludge and calibration of the manure spreader

Figure 3. Land application of the sludge and calibration of the manure spreader.

4) Removing the sludge and applying it to cropland following the demonstration event.

Documentation of all planning, demonstration, and closure execution activities have been captured via extensive video footage, still photos, and participant interviews. Production of the videos is in process with completion and release of videos anticipated in summer 2017.

What have we learned?

Although every manure storage closure process is expected to present its own unique challenges and opportunities for learning, the process documented during this project has provided a number of insights:

1) While this process involved pumping liquid from the lagoon prior to attempting sludge removal in order to observe the sludge layer and document the volume present, a more appropriate, and likely more effective, process is to agitate the storage prior to and during pumping activities to enable handling all of the material as a slurry;

2) Dewatered sludge volume (nearly 200,000 gallons) and nutrient content (44.2 lbs. TKN, 37.5 lbs. organic N, 89.3 lbs. P2O5 and 7.6 lbs. K2O per 1,000 gallons) for this system yielded enough nutrients to apply to 80-100 acres, based on a phosphorus removal rate. It is unknown what the release of the organic N component of the sludge will be, but using just the phosphorus content, application of 1000 gallons per acre would provide enough phosphorus for what would be removed from 220 bushels of corn, which is worth approximately $35 with winter 2017 prices.;

3) Given the high phosphorus content in the sludge and that the nearby fields at the Haskell Ag Lab were not in need of phosphorus, an appropriate application rate for the sludge was determined as 8-10 tons/acre;

4) Soil beneath the lagoon liner yielded a phosphorus concentration of 556 ppm, likely a result of an inadequate liner in the lagoon as originally constructed in the 1960s; and

5) Installation of a bentonite clay liner during renovation of the structure in 1992 appeared to be effective as the liner was fully intact when observed during closure activities.

Pre-post surveys completed by 33 attendees of the demonstration event revealed that attendees improved their confidence in performing six key tasks identified by the team as being impactful. Results are summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Impacts of the lagoon closure demonstration event

Figure 4. Impacts of the lagoon closure demonstration event.

Future Plans

We plan to continue the decommissioning process by:

1) Completing sludge removal and application to cropland;

2) Deconstructing the berms, leaving the liner intact, and returning the area to natural grade;

3) Seeding the area to establish ground cover and mitigate runoff and erosion; and

4) Plugging the inlet pipes in manure pits within the animal housing in lieu of removing buried conveyance pipes.

The two videos are in production and will be made available through the Pork Information Gateway (www.porkgateway.org) during summer 2017.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Leslie Johnson, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Corresponding author email

ljohnson13@unl.edu

Other authors

Charles Shapiro and Amy Schmidt, University of Nebraska – Lincoln

Additional information

https://water.unl.edu/article/animal-manure-management/lagoon-closure-and-your-environmental-responsibility

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognize the U.S. Pork Center of Excellence (USPCE) for funding the development of the videos documenting this process and enabling us to complete this project. We would also like to acknowledge that without the support of the industry, who provided equipment and advice, we would not have been able to get this project off the ground. Also a special thanks to the Agricultural Research Division for their support.

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

Phosphorus Recovery from Anaerobic Swine Lagoon Sludge Using the Quick Wash Process

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Long term and significant accumulation of sludge in anaerobic swine lagoons reduces its storage volume and ability to treat waste. Usually, excess accumulation of lagoon sludge is removed using pump or dredge. The dredged sludge is then land applied at agronomic rates according to its nutrient content.

The accumulation of phosphorus (P) in the sludge requires the largest area of land application based on crop agronomic requirements. Therefore, nutrient management plans may limit application to crop or pastureland near the animal facility to avoid P build up in excess of soil and crop assimilative capacities. Although dewatered sludge can be moved off the farm, transportation becomes less economical with increasing distances. An option is to extract and recover P in a concentrated form for its economical transfer to P-deficient croplands, for use as fertilizer.

What did we do?

A patented treatment process, called Quick Wash (QW), developed by USDA-ARS for extraction and recovery of P from animal manure solids was tested for recovery of P from anaerobic swine lagoon sludge. With the QW process, Chart of Quick Wash Process P was extracted in solution from dredged sludge by mixing with sulfuric acid prior to dewatering using polymer enhanced mechanical solid-liquid separation. After that, P was recovered by addition of liquid lime and an anionic flocculent to the separated liquid extract to form a calcium-containing P precipitate. The QW process generated two solid products: 1) sludge solids low in P; and 2) a concentrated P material.

What have we learned?

Picture of recovered phophorus material from lagoon sludge

While most of the nitrogen and carbon was left in the washed sludge solids, the QW process extracted and recovered as much as 90 % of the P from sludge. From results of a pilot field test, the P grade of the recovered phosphate was in the range of 24.0% – 30.5 % P2O5. The inclusion of this process in a lagoon sludge management plan offers producers an opportunity to locally land-apply the low-P sludge as a carbon-rich soil amendment and recover P as a valuable product for export from the farm.

Future Plans

USDA granted an exclusive license of the invention to Renewable Nutrients, LLC (Pinehurst, NC) to commercialize in the U.S the process for P recovery from animal and municipal waste streams. Renewable Nutrients is developping commercialization plans for the Quick Wash process that will include the operating and equipment costs of phosphorus recovery from dredged lagoon sludge.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Ariel A. Szogi, Research Leader, USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center, Florence, SC.

Corresponding author email

ariel.szogi@ars.usda.gov

Other authors

Matias B. Vanotti; and Paul D. Shumaker – USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center, Florence, SC.

Additional information

https://www.renewablenutrients.com/

Acknowledgements

This work is part of USDA-ARS National Program 212; ARS Project 6082-12630-001-00D “Improvement of Soil Management Practices and Manure Treatment/Handling Systems of the Southern Coastal Plain.”

March 5, 2019March 20, 2019

A Quantitative Assessment of Beneficial Management Practices to Reduce Carbon and Reactive Nitrogen Footprints of Dairy Farms in the Great Lakes Region

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Assessing and improving the sustainability of dairy production is essential to secure future food production. Implementation of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) can reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints of dairy farms. BMPs can and have been developed for different farm components, including feed, manure management and field cultivation practices. It is practically and economically infeasible to empirically test all combinations of BMPs at a whole farm scale. We therefore use whole-farm process-based models to assess the impact of several Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) on carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region. Specifically the aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) on carbon, reactive nitrogen and phosphorus footprints of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region.

What did we do?

1. Baseline farms

We developed two baseline model farms, a small 150 cow herd farm and a large 1500 cow herd farm, that are thought to be representative for current dairy farming practices in the Great Lakes region, particularly Wisconsin and New York State (Table 1). The two baseline dairy farms were developed based on individual team members’ expertise and a consultation with external experts (Dane County Conservationists, Madison, Wisconsin). For the 1500 cow farm, the baseline scenario was partly based on a previously-studied commercial dairy farm in NY state. Since this commercial dairy farm already employs some BMPs (e.g. anaerobic digestion as BMP in manure management), the farm was ‘downgraded’ to derive the baseline.

2. Beneficial Management Practices

Farm-specific BMPs were developed for three farm components, i.e. “Feed”, “Manure Management & Storage” and “Field management”. These BMPS were developed based on expert judgement and are expected or known to reduce whole-farm GWPs.

To ensure a meaningful integration of BMPs and a consistent comparison of whole-farm BMPs to the baseline and to each other, we used the following set of rules (per farm type): i) Total cultivated area was fixed (areas of individual crops can vary per scenario); ii) Herd size was fixed; iii) Milk production was allowed to float, however, only if the production increased (no decreases in milk production); iv) Purchases of crops and protein mixes were minimized as far as possible.

3. Process model simulation

The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM4.3) was used to simulate the two baseline farms (i.e. 1500 cow farm in NY and 150 cow farm in WI) and all the individual BMPs. IFSM was used as a baseline model. The other process-based models, that is DNDC, APEX and CNCPS, were used to check IFSM predictions.

4.Whole-farm mitigation strategy

The individual BMPs were analyzed in terms of potential reduction in carbon and reactive nitrogen footprint. The best performing individual BMPs were combined into a whole-farm mitigation strategy and this whole-farm mitigation strategy was subsequently modeled in IFSM.

What have we learned?

A comparison of model simulations of feed BMPs to the baseline shows that an integrated feed BMP (low forage, corn silage:alfalfa 3:1, ~2% NDF digestibility, reduced protein 14%, added fat, increased feed efficiency) can potentially reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints with ~20% and ~24%, respectively, while remaining cost effective (18% increase in net return in $/cow), for both farm sizes.

For the small farm, replacing the bedded-pack barn with a free stall barn for the heifers, substantially reduces the carbon and the reactive nitrogen footprint with 12% and 11%, respectively. The manure management BMP ‘sealed with flare’ provides the largest potential reduction in carbon footprint for both farms (11% – 20%), primarily through a mitigation of CH4 emissions from manure storage.

Field management BMPs only provide a minimal reduction in carbon footprint (~3%), however, the field BMP ‘no-till with injection’ substantially reduces the reactive N footprint (~16%) for both farm sizes. This reduction is primarily achieved by a reduction in ammonia volatilization.

Based on the results for the individual BMPs, two combined whole-farm mitigation strategies were developed per farm and simulated in IFSM (Figure 1). For both the large farm and the small farm, the integrated whole-farm BMPs show an overall potential to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints with 33% to 37% and 15% to 42% respectively, simultaneously increasing milk production and the net return per cow with 10% to 12% and 20% to 42%, respectively.

This analysis suggests that BMPs can be applied to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reactive nitrogen losses without sacrificing productivity or profit to the farmer.

Future Plans

Future research plans include a further comparison and analysis of IFSM predictions with predictions from other process models, including CNCPS, APEX, and ManureDNDC. In addition, we will assess the impact of climate change on the reactive nitrogen and carbon footprint of the baseline farms and the developed whole-farm mitigation strategies.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Karin Veltman, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Corresponding author email

veltmank@umich.edu

Other authors

Alan Rotz, Joyce Cooper, Larry Chase, Richard Gaillard, Pete Ingraham, R. César Izaurralde, Curtis D. Jones, William Salas, Nick Stoddart, Greg Thoma, Peter Vadas, Olivier Jolliet

Additional information

Veltman et al. (2017) Comparison of process-based models to quantify nutrient flows and greenhouse gas emissions associated with milk production. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment, 237, 31–44

DairyCAP project, www.sustainabledairy.org, aims to reduce the life cycle environmental impact of dairy production systems in the US.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Reducing Greenhouse and Ammonia Emissions from Manure Systems

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Dairy manure systems produce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions that contribute to climate change. There are many potential practices and management strategies that can reduce these emissions which can conserve nutrients and reduce environmental impacts. This work assesses different processing strategies, additives, and manure storage covers to reduce emissions from dairy manure systems.

What did we do?

We completed three laboratory/field trials to assess emissions from manure systems. The first trial was to assess the greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during storage and land application of manure that was processed with solid separation and digestion in combination with solid separation. A second trial assessed emissions and manure characteristics from storage with various commercial additives. The third study assessed ammonia emissions from digested manure storages with various biomass covers including raw wood, steam treated wood, and biochar produced from wood and corn cobs.

What have we learned?

The results from the study indicate that separation and digestion result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, as expected, ammonia emissions following digestion are increased due to increased nitrogen mineralization. Results also indicate that separation alone had a similar impact to greenhouse gas emissions, but did not further reduce emissions following digestion. Commercially available products that are designed to be added to manure storages had little to no impact on emissions or manure characteristics for the conditions present in this study. Lastly, biochar was capable of reducing ammonia emissions significantly when applied as a cover. Although the biochar was capable of sorbing ammonical nitrogen, the results indicate that the physical barrier on the manure surface was the primary driver for the reduction in ammonia emissions.

Future Plans

Following the outcomes of this work, information is being added to a dairy manure life cycle assessment to determine larger system wide impacts from changes in management practices or the inclusion of a processing system. In addition, work is being conducted to look at potential benefits that may be gained over a number of impact factors when manure management systems are optimized with other waste management systems from the municipal sector.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email

rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Other authors

M.A. Holly, Agricutural Engineer at USDA ARS, J.M. Powell, Soil Scientist at USDA ARS, H. Aguirre-Villegas, Assistant Scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional information

Holly, M.A., R.A. Larson, M. Powell, M. Ruark, and H. Aguirre-Villegas. 2017. Evaluating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated manure through storage and land application. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 239:410-419. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321953

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Effects of Manure Storage Additives on Manure Composition and Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions. Transactions of the ASABE, Accepted in Print.

Holly, M.A. and R.A. Larson. 2017. Evaluation of Biochar, Activated Biochar, and Steam Treated Wood as Dairy Manure Storage Covers for Ammonia Mitigation. In Review.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

March 5, 2019July 14, 2020

Results of Nutrient Recovery System Installed on Large Scale Dairy Operation After 2-years of Operation

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

*Do not make slides downloadable

Purpose

For centuries, farmers have disposed of manure by simply spreading it on the land. It is a natural fertilizer. Today, that practice is no longer considered the best solution. Field spreading is now understood to contribute to a growing global problem of the pollution of water, soil, and air. Consequently, U.S. dairy farmers face increased fiscal and operational pressure from the progression of ever tightening environmental regulations. Conventional handling of manure also imposes a number of operational challenges (limitations for storage, land application and irrigation, settlement in lagoons, high manure hauling costs, etc.) and typically requires a relatively large land base to allow adequate nutrient management.

In Indiana, a dairy that was daily producing thousands of tons of livestock waste was investigating how technology could capture the valuable nutrients remaining in their cow manure after it had gone through the farm’s anaerobic digestion process. Their goal was to convert the manure/digestate into a nutrient rich cake that could be easier managed and made into fertilizer, and the liquid clean enough to be used unrestricted for land application.

The farm’s key operational deliverables were 1) to reduce the manure’s handling and transportation costs, 2) allow for precision applications of the processed manure as carbon-based fertilizer and 3) allow for re-use of nutrient reduced liquid for field irrigation.

What did we do?

The dairy farm chose to implement a nutrient recovery technology from Trident Processes LLC. The technology separates the manure/digestate into three fractions: 1) cellulosic fiber, 2) a concentrated cake of nutrient enriched solids, and 3) water with about 1% remaining solids.

Trident’s turn-key system, consisting of different mechanical and chemical components, processes the manure and diverts each separated fraction into their separate spaces. Sensors and programmable controls (PLC) allow for smooth operation, requiring minimal operator attendance. The entire system can be monitored, controlled and diagnosed remotely.

The manure is fed into the system following the digestion process. The initial step is the extraction of the large fiber, which is done via a rotary screen conditioner. The wetted material separates, with the effluent water and fine solids sifting down through the screen while the larger fiber is retained. This step is critical as it ensures the fine particles, which contain the nutrients, are sent down stream for further treatment.

FIBER: The extracted fiber is sent to a screw press for further dewatering. This renders it as a 30% dry cellulosic fiber biomass that is ideal for recycling as cow bedding or other biomass use. Any liquid squeezed from the fiber is diverted to join the fine solids stream.

SOLIDS: The effluent water and solids are sent to a dissolved air flotation (DAF) tank. Polymerization ensures effective flocculation of the feedstock, resulting in a concentration of the nutrient rich particles that float to the surface. The sludge formed on the surface is skimmed off the top and gravity fed into a multi-disc press for second-stage dewatering. The press gently dewaters and thickens the recovered solid/nutrient sludge into a 25% solids, nutrient rich cake.

WATER: The final effluent water, now nutrient reduced, contains less than 1.2% solids and is sent to the lagoon for storage. The water is then reused for irrigation through efficient pivot systems or as operational water on the farm.

What have we learned?

By implementing Trident’s Nutrient Recovery System, the farms’ objectives have been met and/or exceeded. After running for nearly two years the system is producing the following statistics:

• Fully automated operation requiring about 1 hr/shift for operator attendance (visual checks)

• 98% system uptime

• Polymer costs: $0.06 – $0.08/day/cow

• Reduction of handling and irrigation costs: $ 0.01/gal (conventional) vs $0.003/gal (center pivot)

• $250,000/yr electrical power savings with MD Press vs. centrifuge

• 73,000+ ton/yr nutrient cake produced

• 81% P, 70% organic N (54% TKN), and 20% K is the average nutrient capture rate

• 1% (max.) solids in the effluent water sent to lagoons

• 99% Suspended solids captured

Future Plans

Dairy farm: A fertilizer plant will go live in the near future, allowing the farm to sell their concentrated nutrients to the plant as feedstock for custom fertilizer production.

Technology provider: 2nd Phase effluent treatment to capture and retain the solid and nutrient fraction of the existing process, allowing to meet stream discharge standards and comply with BOD / COD levels. Bench scale testing is completed. Farm scale pilot testing is scheduled to run from March 2017-December 2017.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Richard Shatto (Senior Partner at Point Nexus Consulting), Frank Engel (Director Marketing at KPD Consulting Ltd.)

Corresponding author email

frank.engel@kpdconsulting.ca

Additional information

https://youtu.be/PvaTGmyws-w (Carl Ramsey’s presentation at Indiana Dairy Forum)

http://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/manure/prairie-s-edge-dairy-on-pa… (Progressive Dairyman article)

http://tridentprocesses.com/documents/case-study-trident-nutrient-recove… (Newtrient case study)

https://are.wisc.edu/manure-processing/ (manure management project with University of Wisconsin)

http://www.foodqualityandsafety.com/article/nutrient-recovery-improves-s… (Nutrient Recovery Improves Sustainability article in Food Quality & Safety Magazine)

Acknowledgements

Carl Ramsey, Environmental Manager at Prairie’s Edge Dairy Farm

Soil Net LLC, Dr. Aicardo Roa (strategic partner for chemical separation process)

Leap Tech, R.C. Ludke (strategic partner for automation)

March 5, 2019March 19, 2019

Effectiveness of Different Dairy Manure Management Practices in Controlling the Spread of Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance

Proceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Even when antibiotics are used judiciously, antibiotic residues, antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) can accumulate in human waste and manure and contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Modern U.S. dairy farms use antibiotics for disease treatment and prevention according to the guidance of veterinary physicians. While dairy manure handling and treatment systems may effectively mitigate antibiotic resistance, the fate of antibiotic residues, ARB and ARG through these systems has not been adequately investigated.

What did we do?

Working cooperatively with 11 dairies in 3 states (NY, PA, MD) our multi-institutional (U. Buffalo, Cornell, U. Maryland, U. Michigan), interdisciplinary team is investigating the effect different manure management practices (e.g. long-term storage, composting, anaerobic digestion, etc.) have on antibiotic residue levels, ARB and ARG. Every 6 weeks for 2 years manure is being collected pre- and post- each treatment step of the various manure handling systems used by each farm. All samples are being characterized and tested for select antibiotic residues (tetracyclines, macrolides, sulfonamides, penicillins and ceftiofurs), with select samples also analyzed for ARB and ARG. To guide these efforts, antibiotic usage and manure treatment system operational data are also being collected for each farm.

What have we learned?

A year of samples has been collected with analysis of antibiotic residues, ARB and ARG on-going. Based on the preliminary data, antibiotic residues are detectable at low-concentrations (< 200 mg/L) in each farm’s manure. Antibiotic residue levels are generally lower in treated manure compared to levels in raw manure, though mitigation efficacy is variable. Early findings show some composting systems have the capacity to lower antibiotic residue levels. Antibiotic residue levels are also lower in separated manure solids, with evidence for partitioning of soluble antibiotic residues into separated manure liquids. At this time, the effects of anaerobic digestion and long-term anaerobic manure storage on antibiotic residue levels remain unclear. Select samples are currently being analyzed for ARB and ARG.

Future Plans

We are entering our second year of field monitoring and ARB and ARG analysis is on-going. Laboratory efforts are also beginning to test the effectiveness of specific anaerobic digester operational parameters at mitigating antimicrobial resistance. Extension/outreach meetings with stakeholder groups are also being planned. The ultimately project goals are to discern the fate of antibiotic residues, ARB and ARG as they move through dairy manure handling systems, identify the efficacy of different manure treatment systems at mitigating antibiotic resistance and extending this knowledge to dairy operators.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Jason Oliver, Postdoctoral Associate at Dept. of Animal Science, Cornell University

Corresponding author email

jpo53@cornell.edu

Other authors

Curt Gooch, Senior Extension Associate at Cornell University, Dept. of Animal Science, PRO-DAIRY

Additional information

Additional project information can be found on the dairy environmental system webpage: www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2016-68003-24601. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Project collaborators include: (PD) Diana Aga, University of Buffalo, Dept. of Chemistry (Co-PI); her students Mitch Mayville and Jarod Hurst; (Co-PD) Lauren Sassoubre , University of Buffalo, Dept. of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering; (Co-PDs) Stephanie Lansing and Gary Felton, Associate Professors at University of Maryland, Dept. of Environmental Science & Technology; their student Jenna Schueler; (Co-PD) Krista Wigginton, Assistant Professor at University of Michigan, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering; Lutgarde Raskin, Professor at University of Michigan, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering; and their student Emily Crossette.