The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is a holistic approach to environmental protection. It helps farmers evaluate their entire operation, regardless of size or commodity, and make sustainable management decisions balancing society’s needs, the environment, and economics. MAEAP is a partnership effort that aims to protect natural resources and build positive communities by working with farmers on environmentally responsible agricultural production practices.
To become MAEAP verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, an on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). MAEAP benefits Michigan by helping to protect the Great Lakes by using proven scientific standards to improve air, water, and soil quality. Annual phosphorus reduction through MAEAP is over 340,451 pounds per year which is enough to grow almost 85,104 tons of algae in lakes and streams. Farming is an environmentally intense practice and the MAEAP-verification process ensures farmers are making choices that balance production and environmental demands. The measures aimed at protecting air, soil, water, and other environmental factors mean that MAEAP-verified farmers are committed to utilizing farming practices that protect Michigan’s natural resources.
Purpose
The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an innovative, proactive program that assists farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. MAEAP is a collaborative effort of farmers, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, universities, conservation districts, conservation groups and state and federal agencies. MAEAP teaches farmers how to identify and prevent environmental risks and work to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Farmers who successfully complete the three phases of a MAEAP system (Farmstead, Cropping or Livestock) are rewarded by becoming verified in that system.
What Did We Do?
To become MAEAP-verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, a thorough on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices. To retain MAEAP verification, a farm must repeat all three steps including MDARD inspection every three years.
Local MAEAP farm verified in the Cropping System
What Have We Learned?
The MAEAP program is positively influencing Michigan producers and the agriculture industry. Annually, an average of 5,000 Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and MAEAP verification. To date, over 10,000 farms are participating with over 1,500 MAEAP verifications. On a yearly basis, over $1.2 million is spent for practice implementation by producers working towards MAEAP verification. In 2012; the sediment reduced on MAEAP-verified farms could have filled 28,642 dump trucks (10 yards each), the phosphorus reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 138,056 tons of algae in surface waters, and the nitrogen reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 45,515 tons of algae in surface waters.
An example of the partnership between MAEAP and Michigan Farm Bureau
Future Plans
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a vested interest in the value of the MAEAP program. In March of 2011, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 1 and 2 which codify MAEAP into law. This provides incentives and structure for the MAEAP program. It is a goal of Governor Snyder’s to have 5,000 farms MAEAP-verified by 2015. Most importantly, through forward thinking MAEAP strives to connect farms and communities, ensure emergency preparedness and protect natural resources.
Authors
Jan Wilford, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development – Environmental Stewardship Division, wilfordj9@michigan.gov
Shelby Bollwahn, MAEAP Technician – Hillsdale Conservation District
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.
Management practices from large-scale swine production facilities have resulted in the increased collection and storage of manure for off-season fertilization use. Odor produced during storage has increased the tension among rural neighbors and among urban and rural residents, and greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to climate change. Production of these compounds from stored manure is the result of microbial activity of the anaerobic bacterial populations present during storage. We have been studying the bacterial populations of stored manure to develop methods to reduce bacterial metabolic activity and production of gaseous emissions, including the toxic odorant hydrogen sulfide produced by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Quebracho and other condensed tannins were tested for effects on total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane production and levels of sulfate-reducing bacteria in in vitro swine manure slurries. Quebracho condensed tannins were found to be most effective of tannins tested, and total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane production were all inhibited by greater than 90% from in vitro manure slurries. The inhibition was maintained for at least 28 days. Total bacterial numbers in the manure were reduced significantly following addition of quebracho tannins, as were sulfate-reducing bacteria. These results indicate that the condensed tannins are eliciting a collective effect on the bacterial population, and the addition of quebracho tannins to stored swine manure may reduce odorous and greenhouse gas emissions.
Why Would We Want to Inhibit Gas Production of Stored Manure?
Develop methods for reducing odor and emissions from stored swine manure.
What Did We Do?
Tested the effects of addition of condensed tannins to in vitro swine manure slurries on production of total gas, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and on the levels of hydrogen sulfide-producing sulfate reducing bacteria.
What Have We Learned?
Addition of condensed tannins to in vitro swine manure slurries reduces production of total gas, with quebracho condensed tannins being the most effective. 0.5% w/v Quebracho condensed tannins reduced total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane by at least 90% over a minimum of 28 days. Levels of sulfate reducing bacterial were also significantly reduced by addition of the tannns. This technique should assist swine producers in lowering emission and odors from stored manure.
Future Plans
We are interested in scaling up the testing to on-farm sites and also testing the tannins for reducing foaming from manure storage pits.
Authors
Terence R. Whitehead, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604, terry.whitehead@ars.usda.gov
Cheryl Spence, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604
Michael A. Cotta, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604
Additional Information
Whitehead, T.R., Spence, C., and Cotta, M.A. Inhibition of Hydrogen Sulfide, Methane and Total Gas Production and Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in In Vitro Swine Manure Slurries by Tannins, with Focus on Condensed Quebracho Tannins. (2012) Appl. Microbiol. Biotech. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-012-4562-6/fulltext.html
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.
Livestock producers are acutely aware for the need to reduce gaseous emissions from stored livestock waste and have been trying to identify new technologies to address the chronic problem. Besides the malodor issue, toxic gases emitted from stored livestock manure, especially hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) are environmental and health hazards for humans and animals and under scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory control of concentrated animal farm operations (CAFOs).
These odorous and toxic gases are produced by bacteria during the fermentation of the stored manure. Sulfate reducing bacteria convert sulfate (SO4) to sulfide (H2S) during the fermentation. During storage of swine manure, about 60% of NH3 nitrogen is also loss. If NH3 loss can be prevented, the fertilizer value of swine manure would improve and reduce the need for additional commercial nitrogen fertilizer.
There are very few technologies available to reduce H2S, NH3 and greenhouse gas emissions from stored livestock manure, which meet the criteria of being: inexpensive, safe for farmers and animals, and environmentally sustainable. Previous research has shown that borax and quebracho condensed tannin are effective in inhibiting H2S production in stored swine manure. The present research demonstrates that a combination of borax and quebracho condensed tannin is highly effective in reducing all gaseous emissions (H2S, NH3, CO2, CO, N2O and CH4) and in retaining more nitrogen in swine manure. Lesser amounts of borax and quebracho condensed tannin are needed when combined to achieve a similar reduction in H2S production to using much larger amounts of either product alone.
Phytotoxicity studies show that the level of tolerance of crops to borax-tannin combination treated swine manure is: alfalfa > corn > wheat > soybean >> dry beans. Quebracho condensed tannin does not appear to be toxic to crops.
Why Study Tannins?
Develop methods for reducing emissions from stored swine manure.
What Did We Do?
Tested the effects of addition of combinantions of borax and quebracho condensed tannins to swine manure slurries on production of gaseous emissions and more retaining nitrogen in the manure.
What Have We Learned?
Addition of various combinations of borax and quebracho condensed tannins to swine manure slurries was highly effective in reducing all gaseous emissions (H2S, NH3, CO2, CO, N2O, and CH4) and in retaining more nitrogen in swine manure. Lesser amounts of borax and tannin are needed when combined to achieve a similar reduction in H2S production to using much larger amounts of either product alone. Phytotoxicity studies show that the level of tolerance of crops to borax-tannin combination treated swine manure is: alfalfa > corn > wheat > soybean >> dry beans.
Future Plans
We are interested in transferring this research to on-farm sites.
Authors
Melvin Yokoyama, Professor, Dept. of Animal Science, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824, yokoyama@msu.edu
Terence R. Whitehead, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604
Cheryl Spence, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604
Michael A. Cotta, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604
Donald Penner, Dept. of Crops and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824
Susan Hengemuehle, Dept. of Animal Science, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824
Janis Michael, Dept. of Crops and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824
Additional Information
Whitehead, T.R., Spence, C., and Cotta, M.A. Inhibition of Hydrogen Sulfide, Methane and Total Gas Production and Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in In Vitro Swine Manure Slurries by Tannins, with Focus on Condensed Quebracho Tannins. (2012) Appl. Microbiol. Biotech. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-012-4562-6/fulltext.html
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Why Consider the Costs of Manure Transport in Nutrient Planning?
* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.
The Beef Feed Nutrient Management Planning Economics (BFNMP$) computer program can assist producers in understanding the impacts manure handling changes could have on their operation. It calculates manure management economics based on animal nutrient intake, manure nutrient availability, land requirements for spreading, operating costs, and fertilizer value. These values can be altered to fit individual operations. The objective of this analysis was to use the BFNMP$ software tool to evaluate the effect of distillers grains inclusion, nitrogen (N) volatilization, and manure application rate on feedlot nutrient management plans.
The BFNMP$ software tool is organized into 4 modules with producers entering information about their operation and then viewing the results. Outputs include nutrients produced, land needed for manure application, time the plan will take to implement, and economic implications.
What Did We Do?
This program was used to determine 1) impact of dietary N and P from traditional grain based diets compared to diets including 40% distillers grains (DG); 2) effect of different N volatilization (VOL) rates; 3) impact of changing manure application rates from N to P based and from 1 to 4 yr rates. While comparing scenarios, all other factors in the model were constant. These scenarios fed out 5,000 cattle per year in 100 hd pens from 341 to 591 kg with 144 d on feed.
What Have We Learned?
Increasing dietary N and P, with a 40% DG diet, increases excretion of these nutrients. Capturing these nutrients in manure increases costs, but increases value at a greater rate. Manure from cattle fed a traditional feedlot diet with 50% N VOL has a value of $21.53/animal ($14.45/Mg) based on inorganic fertilizer values. Feeding a 40% DG ration results in manure worth $29.70/animal ($19.94/Mg). Decreasing N VOL to 20% increases value of the manure to $26.55/animal ($17.83/Mg) and $37.11/animal ($24.93/Mg) for the grain based and DG diet, respectively. Phosphorus based applications require about 3 times the acres of N based applications, but spreading on a N basis results in excess P buildup. Spreading enough manure in 1 yr to meet crop P requirements for 4 yrs costs approximately the same as spreading manure every yr to meet N requirements.
Future Plans
The BFNMP$ program has been designed to aid feedlots in implementing a nutrient management plan. This tool allows them to see the potential effects of changes before implementing them and promotes better utilization of valuable manure nutrients.
Authors
Andrea Watson, graduate student, University of Nebraska awatson3@unl.edu
Galen Erickson, professor, University of Nebraska
Terry Klopfenstein, professor, University of Nebraska
Rick Koelsch, assistant dean, extension and former professor, University of Nebraska
Ray Massey, professor, University of Missouri
Joseph Harrison, professor, Washington State University
Matt Luebbe, assistant professor, University of Nebraska
Funding provided by USDA NRCS CIG Program – Decision Aid Tool to Enhance Adoption of Feed Management 592 (FMPS 592) – Contract No. 69-3A75-10-121.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The concept of utilizing feedlot manure in an anaerobic digester to power an ethanol plant, which then produces feed for cattle, has been called a closed loop system. In this system inputs are minimized and outputs are used by another component. This research looked at differences in manure quality within this system. Trial 1 considered incorporating distillers grains into the cattle diet and the effects on methane potential of the manure. For this system to be utilized by the feedlot industry in Nebraska, the manure collected for anaerobic digestion must be collected from soil-based open feedlot pens which account for over 95% of the feedlot cattle raised in Nebraska. Trial 2 addressed the methane potential of open-lot feedlot manure and its feasibility for anaerobic digestion.
An integrated biorefinery utilizes distillers grains for cattle feed and cattle manure for biogas generation to power an ethanol plant. This system has been referred to as a “closed loop” system due to energy recycling within the segments.
What Did We Do?
Seven continuously stirred anaerobic digesters were used to compare degradation of manure from 2 cattle diets (Trial 1) and 2 cattle housing methods (Trial 2). In Trial 1 manure was collected from confinement cattle on a control diet with 82.5% dry rolled corn or 40% of the corn was replaced with wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS), a byproduct of the ethanol industry. For Trial 2, manure was collected from cattle in complete confinement or soil-based open feedlot pens with all cattle on a similar byproduct diet. In both trials, organic matter (OM) degradation and methane production was measured for digesters on each treatment. In Trial 1, samples of effluent removed from the digesters were also used to identify differences in microbial community structure (Eubacterial and Archaeal) due to treatment.
What Have We Learned?
Trial 1. Organic matter degradation was slightly improved for manure from cattle fed WDGS (P = 0.10). Methane production was 0.137 L/g OM fed for WDGS manure and 0.116 L/g OM fed for the corn-based diet (P = 0.05). Microbial communities identified using 454-pyrosequencing revealed structuring of the microbial community based on diet (P < 0.001). This suggests that the microbial food chain that contributes to methane production is greatly influenced by the diet fed to cattle, and dietary manipulation may provide opportunities to increase or decrease methane production from cattle manure.
Trial 2. Manure collected from open-lot pens had an OM content of 26% compared to 88% for manure from complete confinement. This resulted in decreased methane production and OM degradation (P < 0.01) for digesters fed open-lot manure. However, methane was produced from open-lot manure suggesting that if ash buildup can be avoided open lot manure may be a viable feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Future Plans
We are currently exploring new technologies that may enhance the use of open lot manure in anaerobic digestion. We are also identifying key microbes involved in methane production in order to better understand how things such as cattle diet affect methane production.
Authors
Andrea Watson, graduate student, University of Nebraska awatson3@unl.edu
Samodha Fernando, assistant professor, University of Nebraska
Galen Erickson, professor, University of Nebraska
Terry Klopfenstein, professor, University of Nebraska
Additional Information
A summary of these trials is available at beef.unl.edu/reports; 2013 Beef Report pg. 98-99.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided by Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research
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.
We conducted a field study on corn to evaluate the effect of liquid dairy manure applied pre-plant (injection or surface broadcast with immediate or 3-day disk incorporation) or sidedressed at 6-leaf stage (injected or surface-applied) on emission of NH3 and N2O. Manure was applied at a rate of 6500 gal/acre, which supplied an average of 150 lb/acre of total N and 65 lb/acre of NH4-N. Ammonia emission was measured for 3 days after manure application using the dynamic chamber/equilibrium concentration technique, and N2O flux was quantified using the static chamber method at intervals of 3 to 14 days throughout the season. Ammonia-N losses were typically 30 to 50 lb/acre from pre-plant surface application, most of the loss occurring in the first 6 to 12 hours after application. Emission rates were reduced 60-80% by quick incorporation and over 90% by injection. Losses of N2O were relatively low (1 lb/acre or less annually), but pronounced peaks of N2O flux occurred from either pre-plant or sidedress injected manure in different years. Results show that NH3 emission from manure can be reduced substantially by injection or quick incorporation, but there may be some tradeoff with N2O flux from injection.
Why Study Land Application Emissions of Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide?
Figure 1. Injection equipment used for pre-plant application (top) and sidedress application (bottom) of liquid dairy manure.
Manure is a valuable source of nitrogen (N) for crop production, but gaseous losses of manure N as ammonia (NH3) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reduce the amount of N available to the crop and, therefore, its economic value as fertilizer. These N losses can also adversely affect air quality, contribute to eutrophication of surface waters via atmospheric deposition, and increase greenhouse gas emission. And the decreased available N in manure reduces the N:P ratio and can lead to a more rapid build-up of P in the soil for a given amount of available N. The most common approach to controlling NH3 volatilization from manure is to incorporate it into the soil with tillage or subsurface injection, which can reduce losses by 50 to over 90% compared to surface application (Jokela and Meisinger, 2008). Injecting into a growing corn crop at sidedress time offers another window of time for manure application (Ball-Coelho et al., 2006). While amounts of N lost as N2O are usually small compared to NH3, even low emissions can contribute to the greenhouse effect because N2O is about 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide in its effect on global warming (USEPA, 2010). We carried out a 4-year field experiment to evaluate the effect of dairy manure application method and timing and time of incorporation on a) corn yield, b) fertilizer N credits, c) ammonia losses, and) nitrous oxide emissions.
What Did We Do?
Figure 2. Average (2009-2011) NH3-N emission rates as affected by method and timing of manure application.
This field research was conducted at the Univ. of Wisconsin/USDA Agricultural Research Station in Marshfield, WI, on predominantly Withee silt loam (Aquic glossudalf), a somewhat poorly drained soil with 0 to 2% slope. Dairy manure was applied either at pre-plant (mid- to late May) or sidedress time (5-6-leaf stage). Pre-plant treatments were either injected with an S-tine injector (15-inch spacing; Fig. 1) or incorporated with a tandem disk immediately after manure application (< 1 hour), 1-day later, or 3 days later. All plots were chisel plowed 3 to 5 days after application. Sidedress manure applications were either injected with an S-tine injector (30-inch spacing) or surface applied (Fig. 1). Fertilizer N was applied to separate plots at pre-plant at rates of 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, and 200 lb/acre as urea and incorporated with a disk. Liquid dairy manure (average 14% solids) was applied at a target rate of 6,500 gal/acre. Manure supplied an average of 158 lb total N and 62 lb NH4-N per acre, but rates varied across years and application times.
Ammonia emission was measured following pre-plant and sidedress manure applications in 2009-2011 with the dynamic chamber/equilibrium concentration technique (Svensson, 1994). Measurement started immediately after manure application and continued through the third day. Ammonia measurement ended just before disking of the 3-day incorporation treatment, so the 3-day treatment represents surface-applied manure. Nitrous oxide was measured using the static, vented chamber technique following the GRACEnet protocol (Parkin and Venterea, 2010). Measurement began two days after pre-plant manure application and continued approximately weekly into October.
What Have We Learned?
Figure 3. Nitrous oxide (N2O) flux as affected by method and timing of dairy manure application from May to October of 2010 (A) and 2011 (B). Arrows show times of manure application. Note differences in scale for 2010 and 2011.
The 3-year average annual NH3 emission rate from surface applied (3-day incorporation) manure was relatively high immediately following application but declined rapidly after the first several hours to quite low levels (Fig. 2). Cumulative NH3-N loss over the full measurement period averaged over 40 lb/acre from surface application but was reduced by 75% with immediate disking and over 90% by injection. Ammonia losses varied somewhat by year, but patterns over time and reductions by incorporation were similar. The pattern of ammonia loss, 75% of the total loss in the first 6 to 12 hours, emphasizes the importance of prompt incorporation to reduce losses and conserve N for crop use.
Nitrous oxide flux was quite low for most manure treatments during most of the May to October period in both years (Fig. 3). However, there were some increases in N2O flux after manure application, and pronounced peaks of N2O emission from the injection treatment at either pre-plant (2010) or sidedress (2011) time. Greater emission from injection compared to other treatments may have occurred because injection of liquid manure places manure in a relatively concentrated band below the surface, creating anaerobic (lacking in oxygen) conditions. Nitrous oxide is produced by denitrification, a microbial process that is facilitated by anaerobic conditions. Reasons for the difference between 2010 and 2011 are not readily obvious, but are probably a result of different soil moisture and temperature conditions.
Figure 4. Annual (May-Oct.) loss of N2O as affected by method and timing of liquid dairy manure application. 2010 and 2011.
Based on these results, injection of liquid dairy manure resulted in opposite effects on NH3 and N2O emission, suggesting a trade-off between the two gaseous N loss pathways. However, the total annual N losses from N2O emissions (1 lb/acre or less; Fig. 4) were only a fraction of those from ammonia volatilization, so under the conditions of this study N2O emission is not an economically important loss. As noted earlier, however, N2O is a potent greenhouse gas, so even small amounts can contribute to the potential for global climate change. The dramatic reduction in NH3 loss from injection, though, may at least partially balance out the increased N2O because 1% of volatilized N is assumed to be converted to N2O (IPCC, 2010). Immediate disk incorporation was almost as effective as injection for controlling NH3 loss and, on average, resulted in less N2O emission than injection. But the separate field operation must be done promptly after manure application to be effective. A possible alternative is to use sweep injectors or other direct incorporation methods that place manure over a larger volume of soil and/or create more mixing with soil, thus creating conditions less conducive to denitrification and N2O loss.
Manure application timing and method/time to incorporation significantly affected grain yield in 2009, 2010, and 2012 and silage yield in 2012. Pre-plant injection produced greater yields than one or more of the broadcast treatments in 2009 (grain) and 2012 (grain and silage). Overall, yield effects of application and incorporation timing were variable from year to year, probably because of differences in weather and soil conditions and actual manure N rates applied. The fertilizer N equivalence of manure was calculated by comparing the yield achieved from each manure treatment to the yield response function from fertilizer N. Fertilizer N equivalence values were quite variable by year, but 4-year averages expressed as percent of total manure N applied were 52% for injection (pre-plant and sidedress), 37% for 1-hour or 1-day incorporation, and 34% for 3-day incorporation. So, when expressed as a percent of total manure N applied, N availability generally decreased as time to incorporation increased, which reflects the amounts of measured NH3 loss.
In summary, ammonia volatilization losses increased as the time to incorporation of manure increased. Injection of manure resulted in the lowest amount of NH3 volatilization, but higher N2O emissions. In this study, reducing the large NH3 losses by injecting manure provided more environmental benefit compared to the small increase in N2O emissions. In addition, injection or immediate incorporation resulted, on average, in higher fertilizer N value of manure for corn production. The decreased need for commercial fertilizer N could potentially result in greater profitability and a smaller carbon footprint.
Future Plans
We have started other research to evaluate yield response, N cycling, and emission of NH3 and N2O from various low-disturbance manure application methods in silage corn and perennial forage systems.
Authors
Bill Jokela, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Dairy Forage Reserch Center, Marshfield, WI, bill.jokela@ars.usda.gov
Carrie Laboski, Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of Wisconsin
Todd Andraski, Researcher, Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of Wisconsin
Additional Information
Ball Coelho, B.R., R.C. Roy, and A.J. Bruin. 2006. Nitrogen recovery and partitioning with different rates and methods of sidedressed manure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:464–473.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, edited by S. Eggleston et al., Inst. for Global Environ. Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Matt Volenec and Ashley Braun for excellent technical assistance in conducting this research. Funding was provided, in part, by the USDA-Agricultural Research Service and the Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board.
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.
In livestock producing areas, animal manure is often applied to cropland to enhance soil fertility. Guidelines have been developed for manure application on fields underlain by subsurface (tile) drainage systems. Some of these guidelines, such as avoiding manure application if rain is predicted and not applying manure over a flowing tile, though effective, involve some level of risk. We believe that the level of risk can be reduced by filtering contaminants from the water leaving the drains. The control structures recommended for use with drainage systems underlying fields to which manure is applied, provide ready-made receptacles for filters. In this report we discuss the development and testing of a filter to remove contaminants from lagoon effluent.
Why Study Filters for Drainage Water?
The purpose of this project is to develop an economically feasible solution to capturing sediment bound nutrient loss from agricultural land as well as prevent herbicides, pesticides, heavy metals, fertilizers and other contaminants from polluting the receiving waters of tile drained systems. In the event of a spill, these filters will presumably act as a barrier to capture pollutants in an attempt to prevent environmental degradation as well as fines to farmers.
What Did We Do?
We developed an activated carbon filter and tested it in our lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and in a controlled field setting in order to test the filters ability to meet physical parameters like allowing average tile flow rates through without backup and the effectiveness of the filter in improving water quality.
What Have We Learned?
We have learned that designing for agriculture is much more intensive than in a controlled setting and from that challenge, the project has helped us establish better research and development skills.
Check Out These Programs & Research About Tile Drainage
We plan to continue with alternative filter prototypes and continue testing so we have a product that is scientifically proven and farmers will want to use.
Authors
Stephanie Herbstritt, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Annie Kwedar, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
For more information on using filters in subsurface tile drained systems, go to the January-February 2013 edition of the Illinois Land Improvement Contractors Of America’s newsletters which can be found at: https://www.illica.net/newsletters
Acknowledgements
Dr. Richard Cooke, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Julie Honegger, Undergraduate, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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.
In an effort to assess the off-site transport of bioaerosols, airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin were collected at a 10,000 cow dairy operation. Compared to background locations, the general trend was that bioaerosol concentrations were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature and solar radiation. Bioaerosol concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. An analysis of clones generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequence matches were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to otherwise healthy humans. Results from ongoing research to better understand bioaerosol formation and drift losses during spray irrigation events of dairy wastewater will also be discussed.
Using glass impingers to capture airborne bacteria at a downwind location from a dairy.
Why Study Bioaerosols at Dairies?
Because confinement of cattle increases the microbioal load at dairy production facilities, there are concerns about on-site and off-site exposures to airborne microorganisms and microbial byproducts. The purpose of this study was to monitor concentrations of airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy and fields being irrigated with wastewater to assess their potential to be transported off site. This information is important, as inhalation or ingestion of some bioaerosols can be detrimental to health through infection, allergy, or toxicosis.
Open-face filters for capture of airborne endotoxin.
What Did We Do?
Over a one-year period at the dairy, bioaerosols were collected at upwind (background) and downwind sites using glass impingers, direct impaction on media, and a wetted-wall cyclone. Bacteria and fungi were quantified using culture-dependent techniques, while bacteria were also characterized to the genus and species levels by analyzing a region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Airborne endotoxin were captured on filters, then extracted and subsequenetly quantified using the Limulus amebocyte lysate assay.
Wetted-wall cyclone being used to capture bioaerosols for subsequent identification using PCR-based approach.
What Have We Learned?
Compared to background sites, the general trend was that concentrations of airborne bacteria and endotoxin were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation. Bacteria and endotoxin concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. Analysis of cloned 16S rRNA genes generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequences were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to healthy humans.
Future Plans
Conduct a quantitative microbial risk assessment for zoonotic bacterial pathogens in dairy wastewaters that are land applied using center pivot irrigation systems.
Authors
Robert Dungan, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory, Kimberly, Idaho, robert.dungan@ars.usda.gov
April Leytem, Soil Chemist, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho
David Bjorenberg, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho
Additional Information
Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2009. Airborne endotoxin concentrations at a large open-lot dairy in southern Idaho. J. Environ. Qual. 38:1919-1923.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Year-long assessment of airborne endotoxin at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:141-148.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, S.A. Verwey, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Assessment of bioaerosols at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:171-184.
Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2011. Ambient endotoxin concentrations and assessment of transport at an open-lot and open-freestall dairy. J. Environ. Qual. 40:462-467.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2011. Concentrations of airborne endotoxin and microorganisms at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy. J. Anim. Sci. 176:426-434.
Dungan, R.S. 2012. Use of a culture-independent approach to characterize aerosolized bacteria at an open-freestall dairy operation. Environ. Int. 41:8-14.
Acknowledgements
Independent Dairy Environmental Action League (IDEAL)
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.
Typically cattle producers can have improved animal performance through controlled systems such as an open lot feedlot. Open lots provide for improved control of diet, health, and monitoring of activity of the animals. Feeding areas such as these also can have disadvantages such as solid manure accumulation, surface water contamination when runoff water is uncontrolled, such systems are labor and machine intensive, and can contribute herd health issues because of high stocking densities, dust, or mud. Forage based grazing can negate many of these issues and is arguably more sustainable and environmentally friendly. However intensive grazing strategies must be employed to obtain comparable productivity. Development of technology that allows for these benefits is needed. Cross fencing and rotational grazing practices would benefit from more flexible and less labor intensive ways of controlling the grazing area.
Figure 1. Calves waiting for new windrows of oats.
A device has been developed by UNL Extension that adapts a center pivot irrigation system into a moveable fence by placing the fence on the center pivot structure. Livestock producers can move anywhere from several hundred to several thousand feet of fence by simply moving the center pivot (while not irrigating). Swath grazing, forage grazing, or crop residue grazing can be accomplished more efficiently by only allowing minimal access to the forage. Essentially moving the animals to the feed rather than bringing the feed to the animals. Advancing a cross fence periodically not improves the grazing efficiency, but it encourages a natural spread of manure and gives the producer more control of remaining crop residue, a necessary requirement to maintain pasture status and avoid the Animal Feeding Operation designation. The device was tested on working farms over a two year period and improved profitability and minimized environmental impact compared to the operator’s previous practices.
Can Intensive Forage Grazing Be Profitable?
The project started from a request for some alternatives to help reduce the cost of gain for feeder calves in 2010. Eliminating the forage activities of baling / stacking, transporting, grinding, feeding and also the spreading of manure can significantly reduce labor and equipment expenses. Keeping feeder calves in a grazing operation instead of concentrated feeding operation has the potential to minimize surface water contamination. The health and welfare of the calf can be improved by having a lower stock density, larger area for exercise, and with crop residue a reduced impact of dusty or muddy conditions. Forage based grazing is arguably more sustainable and environmentally friendly than concentrated feeding areas. However intensive grazing strategies must be employed to obtain comparable productivity. Development of technology that allows for these benefits is necessary. Cross fencing and rotational grazing practices would benefit from more flexible and less labor intensive ways of controlling the grazing area.
Figure 2. Calves grazing standing oats.
What Did We Do?
The project was focused for fall / winter grazing opportunities for newly weaned spring born calves of the semi-arid region of western Nebraska. A successful grazing operation of windrowed or standing forage will have to include a method of controlling daily forage intake through cross fencing( Figures 1 & 2). This would reduce waste and give the producer a feedlot like control of dry matter intake so a desired daily gain could be achieved. Current portable fencing has to be manually installed and moved which is labor intensive especially in frozen soils. A new development in portable fencing was developed by UNL Biological Systems Engineering that a device attaches to a center pivot and properly suspends an electrified wire under tension. This gives the producer a portable cross fence (1,300 ft) that can be moved by the center pivot’s control panel or wirelessly with a computer.
In the fall of 2011 and 2012, four grazing programs were developed to demonstrate this new cross fence. Two were fall planted oats and two were grazed corn stalk residues. The fall oats were grazed as a standing forage and also as a windrow. The corn stalk residue was grazed in a manner to minimize the overgrazing of downed corn ears and reduce the protein supplement.
What Have We Learned?
The projects demonstrated that calves can be successfully maintained in theses grazing systems. The management and the relocations of the cross fence was done easily done though the center pivot’s control panel (average time of 15 minutes). The
Figure 3. Natural manure distribution.
forage quality of the windrowed oats maintained its quality throughout the 105 (fall 2011) and the 120 (fall 2012) day grazing period. In 2011 the oat forage deteriorated only 17% in crude protein and 14% in total digestible nutrients. In 2012 the oat forage deteriorated only 2% in crude protein and 3% in total digestible nutrients. Cost savings in the fall oat grazing are reported at$7,268.85 total or $28.70 / ton grazed ($22.16 per head) for 105 days in the 2011 trial. In the 2012 trial the savings were a total of $4,625.60 or $29.50 / ton ($25.70 per head) for a 120 day trial. The cost savings for the corn stalk residue weren’t measured. The project only demonstrated the control of grain intake in the calves or cow, which it accomplished. The manure was naturally spread throughout the fields and the cattle health and welfare was maintained (Figure 3).
Future Plans
A future plan is being developed to continue to demonstrate the ability to control dietary intake of calves or cows on irrigated forages. With a portable and mechanically moveable cross fence the conveniences of a concentrated feeding operation can be placed into a grazing operation in large scale.
Authors
Jason Gross, Engineering Tech, UNL Extension, jgross3@unl.edu
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
This workshop will focus on how dairy farmers in Wisconsin evaluate the risk of nutrient and sediment loss on their operations and what best management practices are adopted to reduce these risks. Dennis will describe how farm families evaluate all the risk factors facing their operation (weather, production, marketing, labor, safety and environmental risks) and discuss how a farmer has to balance the risk and rewards for each of these challenges. It is helpful to gain an appreciation for the numerous challenges farmers face on a daily basis and the amount of time committed to the evaluation and implementation of soil and water best management practices on each farm. Conservation practices are often applied in a “one size fits all” approach and are not developed and implemented to fit the needs of each farming operation. The large diversity of both farming systems and physical settings require a collaborative evaluation and implementation process between producers and conservation technicians to develop economic, effective, and practical conservation practices to fit the specific circumstances of individual farming operations.
What Are Some of the Lessons Learned in Managing Environmental Risks?
The focus of this talk is to explain when and where we saw nutrient and sediment losses that could have been avoided with improvements in management. We will also discuss what we have learned about unavoidable losses and try and explain the difference between unacceptable risk and acceptable risk.
What Did We Do?
Over the past twelve years UW – Discovery Farms has worked on many farms evaluating a variety of farming systems and identifying the positive and negative impacts that production agriculture can have on the environment. Data collection through this program includes over 120 sites years of edge-of-field monitoring, in-stream monitoring and monitoring tile drainage systems. All the monitoring was done in partnership with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and this data set is one of the largest and best on-farm sets known to exist.
What Have We Learned?
Discovery Farms has studied a variety of farming systems including no-till, minimal tillage, tillage and rotational grazing. The settings for these farming systems ranged from very steep (the driftless region with slopes up to 32%) to gently rolling (<3%) with a variety of unique challenges including manure management, tile drainage systems and close distance to surface water. On each of the operations that were studied, the farm operators have selected a farming system (tillage, planting, pest control, manure management, harvest, crop rotation, etc) that works for them. For the first two years of the study we asked the producers not make changes to their farming systems so that we could evaluate nutrient and sediment loss from their current practices. It quickly became apparent that on real farms, nothing stays the same. All of our cooperators made adjustments in management based not only on the data we were collecting, but also based on economics, changes in demand and changes on the operation (equipment, land base, labor, increase in cattle numbers). It is also apparent that even with the best farming system, implemented almost perfectly; mother nature can throw some unanticipated events which have a tremendous impact on nutrient and sediment losses.
Future Plans
In 2010, the UW – Discovery Farms Program expanded their on-farm research program to include not only edge-of-field and in-stream work on individual farms; they are now working with multiple farms in small watersheds. The goal of these studies is to better understand the relationsihp betweeen edge-of-field losses and what actually happens in lakes and streams.
Authors
Dennis R. Frame, Director, UW – Discovery Farms Program; Professor UW – Extension, drframe@wisc.edu
Eric Cooley, Outreach Specialist, UW-Discovery Farms
Additional Information
UW Discovery Farms makes every effort to develop materials from all of the on-farm research projects. These materails are available on our website (uwdiscoveryfarms.org or by contacting our office at 1-715-983-5668).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the farmers who have participated in our program. Without their guidance and support this program would not be possible. We would also like to acknowledge the support and guidance of all the non-governmental agricultural organizations in Wisconsin who continue to provide support financially and politically.
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.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….
