This webinar will explore how mortality is part of livestock production, whether in the day-to-day on the farm or after a catastrophic disease or environmental disaster. Handling and disposal of mortality in a safe and efficient manner is critical for continuity of operations. In this webinar, the presenters will present on studies evaluating different techniques of mortality management and the lessons learned from each study This presentation was originally broadcast on October 10, 2025. Continue reading “Mortality Management – From Routine to Catastrophic”
From Waste to Worth; Creating an educational opportunity from a disaster
Purpose
North Dakota was impacted by the 2022 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreak. Responders to the HPAI outbreak included the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), North Dakota State University (NDSU) Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, NDSU Extension, county emergency managers and veterinarians. Many responders were new employees and were not involved in response efforts during the 2015 HPAI outbreak, including 62% of county Extension agents. The lack of experience and knowledge resulted in a significant amount of time and effort spent determining the appropriate agencies to contact, defining agency roles, developing educational resources, and creating an awareness of biosecurity and procedures used in active cases. Additionally, limited attention was given to stress management or mental health and well-being during this period of heightened stress for personnel involved in response.
What Did We Do?
NDSU Extension received a 2023 USDA APHIS National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program grant to train professionals on how to safely respond to an animal disease outbreak or mass livestock mortalities. Training topics included:
-
- An overview of animal diseases
- Continuity of business planning
- Personal protective equipment and decontamination
- Incident command systems, local response roles and impact assessment
- Humane endings
- Carcass disposal site selection and methods
- Stress management and responding to stressed people
- Effective communication in high stress situations
- A response simulation exercise.
The curriculum was developed over a 5-month period and was previewed by 25 attendees during the North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association’s Annual Winter Conference. A total of 11 attendees responded to a survey of which 100% agreed the training increased their confidence in responding to a foreign animal disease (FAD), while 91% indicated the materials presented were appropriate for those responding to an animal disease outbreak at the local level. All topic areas were rated as either moderately useful or very useful. Suggested improvements to the curriculum were made over the next 4 months until the first full training.
The one and a half day training events were held in person at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center (CREC) in June and September 2024. The training format included classroom, group work, demonstrations and hands-on activities. Each participant received a kit which contained personal protective equipment. A table-top exercise at the end of the training tied in all topics presented and provided time for groups to share experiences with response efforts.
Participants of the Emergency Response Preparedness for Foreign Animal Diseases and Mass Livestock Mortalities in North Dakota training viewed a non-disease mortality compost site. NDSU photo.
Emergency Response Preparedness for Foreign Animal Diseases and Mass Livestock Mortalities in North Dakota training participants practice donning PPE during hands-on portion of training. NDSU photo.
Participants of the Emergency Response Preparedness for Foreign Animal Diseases and Mass Livestock Mortalities in North Dakota training received Glo-Germ on their gloves as they exited the people movers to doff PPE. They rubbed it on their hands and then up and down their PPE. The Glo-Germ was used as a tool to aid in visual “contamination”. A black light was used after doffing was complete to spot any signs of “contamination”. NDSU photo. The NDSU Extension does not endorse commercial products or companies even though reference may be made to tradenames, trademarks or service names.
What Have We Learned?
In post-event evaluations of training participants, all respondents (57) indicated that the training increased their confidence and ability in responding to an animal disease or mass livestock mortality event. Additionally, 96% of respondents indicated they planned to make changes to be better prepared and better able to respond to animal diseases or mass livestock mortalities because of their participation in the training. Responses also indicated 93% improved their ability to provide support to individuals in high stress situations.
Post-training evaluation respondent comments included:
-
- “One of the best trainings I’ve ever attended. Please make sure new ANR [agriculture and natural resources] agents attend this in the future.
- “This was a great training and appreciate all the work put into it! It was good to understand the chain of command and know that many other offices would be working with a producer in a situation involving a FAD.”
- “I appreciated the number of different professions represented at this meeting and their unique perspectives for this type of emergency response.”
- “It was a great learning experience. The information was very useful and will be put to use if an event occurs. We EM’s [emergency managers] don’t normally deal directly with the emotional responses but we are resources for finding avenues for emotional support, which is great to know that there are people to reach out to in the animal industry. Overall, it was great to network with others and have more tools in the toolbox for when the situation occurs. GREAT JOB to everyone involved!!”
Six-month follow-up evaluation data from the first training session indicated that 91% of respondents (12) felt their community is better prepared for and able to respond to an animal disease or mass livestock mortality. Of these respondents, 45% took action to be more prepared for an animal disease or mass livestock mortality. Additionally, the training was successful in building relationships between responders in the state with 55% collaborating with individuals they connected with at the training to better prepare their communities to respond to an animal disease or mass livestock mortality. The six-month follow-up evaluation for the second training session will be administered in March 2025 and these proceedings will be updated with the information.
As part of the six-month evaluation, respondents were asked if they had taken actions to prepare for an animal disease or mass livestock mortality. Comments to date included:
-
- “Put together a list of resources, working on a response plan, informed stakeholders on the process and procedures involved.”
- “Monitoring of animal diseases in state and working with local producers and County Extension Agent.”
- “I have been more diligent about collecting names of producers or contacts needed if any outbreak would occur.”
Future Plans
Based on feedback from participants, an online discussion and a one-day table-top training are being planned. A follow-up one-hour online discussion session for all training participants will occur in February 2025. A day-long tabletop training is being planned for September 2025. This training will be for Extension agents and emergency managers. The goal of this training is to continue to increase preparedness and response capacity at the local level through the development of skills and relationships.
Authors
Presenting & corresponding author
Mary A. Keena, Extension Specialist, North Dakota State University, mary.keena@ndsu.edu
Additional authors
Miranda Meehan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Livestock Environmental Stewardship Specialist and Disaster Education Coordinator, North Dakota State University; Carolyn Hammer, DVM, Ph.D., Professor, Associate Dean of College of Agriculture, Food Systems and Natural Resources, North Dakota State University; Heidi Pecoraro, DVM, Ph.D., DACVP, Director, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, North Dakota State University; Sean Brotherson, Ph.D., Professor and Family Science Specialist, North Dakota State University; Ethan Andress, DVM, State Veterinarian, ND Department of Agriculture; Jodi Bruns, M. Ed., Leadership and Civic Engagement Specialist, North Dakota State University; Adriana Drusini, Extension Program Coordinator, Farm and Ranch Stress, North Dakota State University; Marty Haroldson, Program Manager, Division of Water Quality, ND Department of Environmental Quality; Angela Johnson, Farm and Ranch Safety Coordinator, North Dakota State University; Margo Kunz, DVM, Assistant State Veterinarian, ND Department of Agriculture; Julianne Racine, Extension Agent, Agriculture and Natural Resources, LaMoure County, North Dakota State University; Karl Rockeman, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, ND Department of Environmental Quality; Jan Stankiewicz, MS, MPH cert., Community Health and Nutrition Specialist & Tribal Liaison, North Dakota State University; Rachel Strommen, Environmental Scientist, ND Department of Environmental Quality; and Kent Theurer, Emergency Management Specialist, ND Department of Agriculture.
Additional Information
Twenty-one new Extension publications in either English or Spanish will be created from this project. Completed to-date include:
-
- 4 Pasos sencillos para compostar ganado muerto
- Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)
- African Swine Fever (ASF)
- Peste porcina africana (ASF)
- Ser agricultor o ganadero en tiempos difíciles
- Select Animal Disease Disinfectant Chart
- Cuadro de desinfectantes para enfermedades selectas de animales
- Select Animal Disease Personal Protective Equipment Chart
- Cuadro de equipo de protección personal para enfermedades selectas de animales
- Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Donning and Doffing Guidelines for On-Site Animal Disease Outbreaks
- Instrucciones para colocarse y retirarse el equipo de protección personal (EPP) en caso de brotes de enfermedades animales
Acknowledgements
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program funded this project. Project ID: ND01.22.
Special thank you to our support staff members, Myrna Friedt, Linda Schuster, Stephanie Sculthorp-Skrei and Lynne Voglewede as well as the NDSU Agriculture Communications department for all of the time and effort you put into these trainings and materials.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Awful Offal: Partnerships to Benefit Livestock Producers, Local Food Chains, Human Health, and the Environment
Purpose
Livestock producers and meat processors are facing ever evolving challenges when it comes to waste management. Increasing levels of regulation continue to challenge producers, including Washington State’s recently established Organics Management law which sets Methane reduction goals for landfills. This has led many landfills in the state to begin turning away organic material like offal and animal carcasses. Meanwhile climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of catastrophic animal mortality events, driving the urgent need for solutions to build resources and infrastructure to manage large animal losses.
The Awful Offal group serves as the primary inter-agency effort for addressing policy barriers and problem-solving acute and ongoing animal waste disposal scenarios. The group and its members also participate in state-wide catastrophic mortality preparedness planning. This presentation aims to engage participants with real-world examples of successes and challenges this group has faced through its inception.
What Did We Do?
The Awful Offal work group meets regularly to update members on specific cases or trends in their respective programs. Over years of collaboration, we have been able to identify gaps, provide training and create resources to address some of the largest challenges the state faces with animal carcass management. This has taken shape in the form of offal focused composting workshops, market studies, and countless hours providing resources and technical assistance to operators in need.
What Have We Learned?
We have learned much since this group’s inception, one thing that routinely comes up is that Washington’s diverse climate is going to require an equally diverse set of solutions for tackling this challenge. Composting is a viable and environmentally responsible option for many but also comes with its own unique needs and challenges. Many small meat processors have described the switch from sending material to landfill to composting onsite as “running a second business.” If you also consider many commercial composting operations do not accept this material, we must recognize that no single solution will solve this issue state-wide.
Future Plans
Through robust technical assistance and economic incentives, Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) plans to lead a State-wide effort to promote adoption of on and off-farm composting as a waste management strategy. WSDA also intends to conduct an in-depth economic and market analysis to identify the specific regional needs and barriers so to further determine how the State can best support additional infrastructure, fund pilot projects and develop resources.
Authors
Presenting author
AJ Mulder, Nutrient Management Specialist, Washington State Department of Agriculture, aj.mulder@agr.wa.gov
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge all the members of the Awful Offal work group, including my colleagues at Washington State Department of Agriculture, Department of Ecology, Washington State University, Department of Health, Department of Fish and Wildlife, USDA and all our industry partners whose input and cooperation this work would be impossible without.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Risk Mapping of Potential Groundwater Contamination from Swine Carcass Leachate Using HYDRUS-1D and GIS
Purpose
The on-farm disposal of swine carcasses poses a potential risk to groundwater quality due to the generation of leachate with nitrate compounds (Koh et al., 2019). This study aims to evaluate the vertical movement of nitrate nitrogen from leachate produced during decomposition of swine carcasses in Nebraska soil types by integrating HYDRUS-1D modeling with GIS-based spatial analysis.
What Did We Do?
Leachate from six on-farm mortality disposal units was gathered during a year-long field study. A soil column study was conducted using the leachate from the field study to evaluate contaminant fate and transport through two common Nebraska soil types – a sandy clay loam and a silty clay.
HYDRUS-1D Model Calibration and Simulation. The model was calibrated using laboratory soil column data; no field-scale observations were used for validation. The objective was to parameterize the model based on controlled experimental conditions and use these simulations to inform spatial risk assessments.
Soil Hydraulic and Solute Transport Parameters. The van Genuchten-Mualem model was chosen to define the soil hydraulic properties for the two soil types used in the columns study, sandy clay loam (SCL) and silty clay (SC). Ten simulations were conducted to develop the HYDRUS-1D model, each run for 365 days, using the mean monthly nitrogen (N lb/ac) generated in leachate during the field study, which was converted into NO₃-N units. The model simulated nitrate leaching in a 10-meter soil column profile using boundary conditions that replicated laboratory leachate transport where the upper boundary represents a constant flux boundary to simulate leachate application based on controlled experimental data and lower boundary represents a free drainage condition representing natural percolation.
Model Calibration. Calibration was performed using inverse modeling within HYDRUS-1D, adjusting key parameters to minimize the sum of squared errors (SSQ) between observed and simulated nitrate concentrations in soil columns at 5 cm, 15 cm, and 25 cm. The results may not fully represent field-scale variability since the model was calibrated only using laboratory data. However, the controlled conditions ensured that parameterization was optimized for subsequent spatial risk assessment using GIS. The sandy clay loam soil strongly correlated with observed and simulated values (R²=0.99). The silty clay soil had a slightly lower R² (0.86). Identical RMSEs of 3.15 for both soil types suggest similar levels of overall deviation from observed concentrations.
The model outputs were exported as time-series CSV data and georeferenced to the study area using ArcGIS Pro. Statewide soil texture data were obtained from the USDA-NRCS soil texture class map (Knoben, 2021) and depth were derived from interpolated data using the Kriging method, based on historical water levels from the UNL Groundwater and Geology Portal (CSD, 2025) respectively. Soil type, groundwater depths, and digital elevation models (DEM) were imported into ArcGIS Pro and processed under the NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N coordinate system to ensure spatial alignment.
Hydraulic parameters for the ten soil textural classes in Nebraska were defined by the ROSETTA model in HYDRUS-1D and used to model nitrate transport and concentration at 2m soil depth at 1,000 randomly defined locations statewide. Nitrate concentration data at 2 m of soil depth was interpolated using the Kriging tool to create a continuous nitrate concentration data layer. Soil type and groundwater depth data were converted into raster format to enhance the spatial analysis, and a vulnerability assessment was performed using a classification system based on soil permeability, groundwater depth, and nitrate concentrations to produce a spatial representation of groundwater contamination vulnerability (Figure 1).
Swine population inventories (Figure 2) were obtained from the 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture (IARN, 2025), allowing for comparison of county-level swine populations to groundwater contamination vulnerability.
What Have We Learned?
The HYDRUS-1D model successfully modeled nitrate movement in the soil profile, producing time-series data that matched expected trends based on soil properties and environmental conditions. Counties with the greatest groundwater contamination risk are predominantly located in the western and northern regions of the state due to well-drained soils and shallow depths of groundwater. Very few swine operations are located in these moderate- to high- risk zones, but those that are located in these zones should be aware of the potential for groundwater contamination and should utilize mortality disposal methods that minimize leachate production. Four counties in northeast Nebraska contain moderate swine populations and have moderate to high risks for groundwater contamination. Castro and Schmidt (2023) found that carcass disposal via shallow burial with carbon (SBC) yielded much less leachate – and, subsequently, much lower loads of contaminants to the soil environment – than composting of whole or ground swine carcasses, suggesting that SBC may be a more environmentally conscious disposal method in these counties. Counties having low vulnerability to groundwater contamination cover much of the state’s central and eastern portions where the majority of swine production is located. This study provides critical insights into the risks of groundwater contamination from on-farm swine carcass disposal in Nebraska. Guidance for on-farm disposal of mortalities by all livestock producers should focus on selecting disposal methods that minimize leachate production and contaminant transport potential.
Future Plans:
Outreach efforts will focus on promoting mortality disposal BMPs with a primary focus on selecting disposal methods that minimize leachate production. Field research will be expanded to include evaluation of multiple carbon sources used for on-farm carcass disposal to reduce leachate generation. Future research will focus on enhancing the predictive accuracy of the HYDRUS-1D model by incorporating field-scale validation using observed nitrate concentrations from groundwater monitoring wells in high-risk areas. This validation will improve the reliability of the model’s output and support more precise risk assessments.
Authors:
Presenting Author
Gustavo Castro Garcia, Graduate Extension & Research Assistant, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Corresponding Author
Amy Millmier Schmidt, Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering and Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, aschmidt@unl.edu
Additional Authors
Mara Zelt, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Aaron Daigh, Associate Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering and Department of Agronomy & Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Benny Mote, Associate Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Carolina Córdova, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy & Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the National Pork Board Award #22-073. The authors wish to recognize Jillian Bailey, Logan Hafer, Alexis Samson, Nafisa Lubna, Andrew Ortiz, and Maria Oviedo Ventura, for their technical assistance during the field and column studies that provided input data for this modeling effort.
Additional Information
Castro, G., and Schmidt, A. (2023). Evaluation of swine carcass disposal through composting and shallow burial with carbon (poster presentation). ASABE AIM. Omaha, NE. July 9 – 12, 2003.
CSD. (2025). UNL Ground Water and Geology Portal: CSD Ground Water and Geology Data Portal. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved from: CSD Ground Water and Geology Data Portal.
IANR. (2025). Hogs and pigs, operations with inventory, total operations by county. Nebraska Map Room. Data source: Census of Agriculture, 2022. Retrieved from: https://cares.page.link/Xu1J.
Knoben, W. J. M. (2021). Global USDA-NRCS soil texture class map, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.1361509511e44adfba814f6950c6e742.
Koh, EH., Kaown, D., Kim, HJ., Lee, KK., Kim, H., and Park, S. (2019). Nationwide groundwater monitoring around infectious-disease-caused livestock mortality burials in Korea: superimposed influence of animal leachate on pre-existing anthropogenic pollution. Environ Int 129:376–388.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Evolution of material mixtures for leachate absorption during on-farm disposal of animal mortalities
Purpose
The safe and biosecure disposal of livestock mortalities is a vital concern for livestock producers and the environment. Traditional on-farm livestock disposal methods include composting and land burial, with burial posing environmental risks if leachate generated during carcass decomposition moves through the soil profile to reach groundwater. A 1995 study on the groundwater quality around six poultry mortality piles found elevated concentrations of ammonia and nitrate in the surrounding wells, demonstrating the risk of water contamination from carcass disposal (1). Moreover, the risk of disease transmission to nearby animal facilities associated with an outbreak and large mortality event, particularly due to a foreign animal disease outbreak, dictates that on-farm mortality disposal be conducted in a way that contains and eliminates pathogenic organisms. In the case of a large mortality event, landfills or rendering facilities may not have capacity to receive mortalities or they might refuse to accept them.
On-farm methods accepted in most states include land burial, composting, and incineration. While burial of mortalities often requires less labor and capital cost than composting or incineration, it comes with unique challenges, namely having sufficient space to bury large quantities of animals, adequate soil structure to contain leachate produced during decomposition, and sufficient depth to groundwater to avoid groundwater contamination. Composting is a valuable method as it can destroy many pathogens because of the heat produced in the process, and the by-product is useful. Some of its downsides include the nuisance odor produced and insects such as flies that often accompany the piles. Incineration, while highly effective at reducing volume of carcasses and disease-causing organisms, relies on access to a portable incinerator and sufficient fuel to operate it (2).
Shallow burial with carbon (SBC) is an emerging method for carcass disposal that combines the more common methods of composting and burial. With this method, a shallow pit is excavated in soil and 24 in of carbon material is placed in the trench prior to placing carcasses. The carcasses are then covered using the excavated soil. A field study comparing performance characteristics of SBC and composting for swine carcass disposal (3) found that SBC maintained thermophilic temperatures that met EPA 503(b) time-temperature standards (4), produced less leachate per unit mass of carcasses, and yielded lower contaminant loads (e.g. E. coli) than compost units, suggesting it may also be a suitable mortality disposal method during a foreign animal disease (FAD) outbreak. Further, SBC is a desirable mortality disposal option because it requires less carbon material than composting and does not require management beyond the establishment of the disposal site.
While the previous field study demonstrated lower leachate production from SBC than composting units, the potential may exist to further limit leachate production by identifying carbon materials with greater capacity to absorb liquid produced during carcass decomposition. The primary purpose of establishing a base of carbon material in SBC or composting disposal units is to absorb leachate released during decomposition, reducing the transport of contaminants to water sources. Therefore, this study explored absorbency of several organic materials for inclusion in SBC or mortality compost piles to reduce leachate losses.
What Did We Do?
Our team identified several alternative organic materials for pile construction including wood chips, silty clay loam soil, corn stover, recycled paper pulp (SpillTech(R) Loose Absorbent), and cellulose fiber (Pro Guard Cellulose Fiber). These were tested alone and in combination with 1% by mass (of base material) of sodium and potassium polyacrylate crystals, and 2-mm water gel beads (ZTML MS brand). Hydrogels (HG), sodium polyacrylate (SP), and potassium polyacrylate (PP) were demonstrated in previous studies to retain water in experimental greenhouses (5).
Five replicates of each treatment were enclosed in 4×6 inch cotton mesh bags (TamBee Disposable Tea Filter Bags, Amazon.com) and weighed prior to being submerged in deionized (DI) water at pH 7 for two hours (Figure 1). Bags were removed from the water and allowed to drain for 5 minutes before being weighed again. The bags were resubmerged for an additional 22 hours after which they were removed, allowed to drain for 5 minutes, and weighed again.
Five replicates of each combination of base material and absorbent additive were also evaluated using DI water adjusted to pH 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and using 0.01M NaCl to evaluate the effect of pH on absorbency.
The swelling ratio (SR) of each treatment was calculated using the following formula:
SR = Ww – Wd
where Ww is the wet weight and Wd is the dry weight.
The expected water holding capacity (C) was calculated for each combination.
C = SR ⋅ D
Where C is measured in gallons of water per lb of treatment material and D is the density of base material.
The average of the SR value for the five replications of each combination was further used to determine economic feasibility for retaining leachate from a large-scale mortality compost or burial pile. This was done by first determining the average amount of leachate produced from the mortality piles during the preceding year-long field study in eastern Nebraska (6,030 gallons). This was considered the target volume of material held by an alternative material or combination of materials in the economic assessment.
The volume of leachate was converted to mass, and the swelling ratio average values were used to calculate the mass of base material needed to hold the target quantity of water. These values were then used to calculate the total cost (based on pricing from various sellers) to build a pile of each of these materials that would hold the target volume of leachate. Table 1 shows the price per pound of each material tested; the price of the wood chips, corn stover, and soil were estimated based on these sources, though true price will vary based on region and supplier.
Table 1. Costs of materials evaluated
| Material | $/lb | Source |
| Wood Chips | 0.05 | Evans Landscaping |
| Corn Stover | 0.02 | MSU Extension |
| Soil | 0.004 | Dirt Connections |
| Recycled Paper | 1.84 | Grainger |
| Cellulose Fiber | 7.00 | Pro Guard |
| Hydrogel | 15.09 | ZTML MS |
| Sodium Polyacrylate | 3.71 | Sandbaggy |
| Potassium Polyacrylate | 11.38 | A.M. Leonard |
What Have We Learned?
Results from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the SR data showed that SR was not significantly impacted by the soaking time or by pH of the soaking solution. The results also showed that only the addition of 1% SP had a significant effect among the three superabsorbent additives when compared to no additive in the same base material. This effect was relatively equal between all base materials. The other super absorbents (1% HG and 1% PP) did not have a significant effect due to the high variability in the results. The most meaningful differences in absorptive capacity were attributed to base material (Figure 2). On average, the swelling ratio of cellulose fiber (no additives, 24-hour soak, pH 7) is 0.577 gallons water/lb base material. For corn stover, this value is only slightly lower, at 0.447 gallons water/lb base material. Wood chips, the material used in compost piles in the preceding study, had much worse results at only 0.188 gallons water/lb base material.
The results of the economic analysis are included in Table 2. The corn stover (without super absorbents) emerged as the most cost-effective material, with an estimated $258 total cost of material required to absorb the average amount of leachate observed in a previous yearlong field study that evaluated leachate volume produced from six disposal piles, each containing 20 pigs with a mean weight of 5,826 lb (±90.8 lb). The next most economical option was soil alone ($392) and then corn stover with sodium polyacrylate added ($782).
Table 2. Material cost to retain a leachate volume of 6,030 gallons
| Material | Mass Required of Base Material (lb) | Cost |
| Woodchips | 36,425 | $ 1,655 |
| Woodchips + SP | 36,126 | $ 2,993 |
| Corn Stover | 14,202 | $ 258 |
| Corn Stover + SP | 14,060 | $ 782 |
| Cellulose Fiber | 10,442 | $73,085 |
| Cellulose Fiber + SP | 10,338 | $72,742 |
| Soil | 86,462 | $ 392 |
| Soil + SP | 85,597 | $ 3,596 |
| Recycled Paper | 27,289 | $50,256 |
| Recycled Paper + SP | 27,016 | $50,766 |
SP: sodium polyacrylate
Future Plans
To confirm the swelling ratios calculated in the lab are realistic, further testing of the effectiveness of the recommended base construction will be needed at field-scale. Additionally, analysis of evapotranspiration, rainfall, and temperature in the piles should be collected to build a working relationship of the leachate rates to important environmental conditions and provide insight into the variable water quantities that change with geographical location. Combining these measurements with climate information will form a better predictive model for broader applicability.
Authors
Presenting author
Alexis Samson, Undergraduate Researcher, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Corresponding author
Amy Schmidt, Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering and Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, aschmidt@unl.edu
Additional authors
Mara Zelt, Research Technologist, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Gustavo Castro Garcia, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Additional Information
-
- Ritter, W. F. & Chirnside A. E. M. (1995). Impact of Dead Bird Disposal Pits on Groundwater Quality on the Delmarva Peninsula, Bioresource Technology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256637308_Impact_of_dead_bird_disposal_pits_on_ground-water_quality_on_the_Delmarva_Peninsula.
- Costa, T. & Akdeniz, N. (2019). A review of the animal disease outbreaks and biosecure animal mortality composting systems, Waste Management. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X19302600?via%3Dihub.
- Castro, G., Schmidt, A. (2023). Evaluation of Swine Cadaver Disposal through Composting and Shallow Burial with Carbon (poster presentation). ASABE AIM. Omaha, NE.
- Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, Part 503. 1993. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Appendix B. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-O/part-503.
- Demitri, C., Scalera, F., Madaghiele, M., Sannino, A., & Maffezzoli, A. (2013). Potential of Cellulose-Based Superabsorbent Hydrogels as Water Reservoir in Agriculture, International Journal of Polymer Science. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2013/435073?msockid=06caea3aa704636306b4f95fa67a62b8.
Acknowledgements
This project was partially supported by the National Pork Board Award #22-073. The technical assistance of Maddie Kopplin and Josh Mansfield was critical to the completion of this study.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Impacts on Soil Properties, E. Coli Prevalence, and Soybean Yield from Surface-Applied Swine Mortality Compost During a Single Growing Season in Eastern Nebraska
Purpose
Livestock producers dealing with animal mortalities may opt for composting as a biosecure on-farm carcass disposal method. The composting process accelerates the decomposition of animal remains, stabilizes nutrients, and, when executed correctly, subjects the carcasses to elevated temperatures capable of eliminating pathogens. Nevertheless, the use of compost derived from animal mortalities may introduce potentially harmful nutrients, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, or pathogens to cropland when applied as a soil amendment (Sims and Kleinman, 2005).
At the same time, mortality compost represents a potential soil health amendment due to its high carbon content. With carbon being an important building block for organic matter in the soil, the soil will have improved structure and water-holding capacity if carbon content is elevated. There will also be increased microbial activity adding to the soil’s microbial diversity and nutrients present.
This study aimed to confirm these findings and to determine the balance of positive and negative impacts of mortality compost application in Eastern Nebraska by exploring key biological and chemical risk factors in soil receiving swine mortality compost over the course of one growing season.
What Did We Do?
This experiment was conducted at the University of Nebraska Rogers Memorial Farm, located 11 miles east of Lincoln, Nebraska. The study site was comprised of silty clay loam soil that had been cropped using a long-term no-till management system with controlled wheel traffic. Background soil and compost chemical results are portrayed in Table 1. Corn was grown during the previous season, and soybeans were grown during the period of this study. Eight plots (15’ x 15’) were established and randomly assigned to either a 20-ton/ac application of swine mortality compost or no application (control). The compost, made with swine mortalies and a bulking agent of wood chips, was applied to the surface one week after planting.
In-season sampling. Two weeks following treatment application, and every two weeks during the growing season thereafter, soil from each plot was collected from the top 0-4” of the soil profile by random core sampling using a 2 in diameter hand probe. A roughly 200 g composite sample of soil from each plot was used for subsequent analysis. Soil temperature was also recorded for each plot on sampling days at two random locations to depths of 2” and 4” at each location using a hand temperature probe.
Soil samples were assessed in the UNL Schmidt Laboratory in the Department of Biological Systems Engineering for moisture content by drying soil for 48 hours at 221°F, and for the mean weight diameter of wet-stable aggregates by wet-sieving for 10 min at a rate of 30 vertical oscillations per minute. Several biological properties of the soil were also examined, including E.coli prevalence, determined by the proportion of positive samples following enrichment of eight 1-g subsamples of soil in LB broth (Miller) for 8 h at 98.6°F followed by culturing on ChromAgar E.coli selective media for 24 h at 98.6°F. Microbial respiration was measured for two 20-g samples of air-dried soil per plot placed into a 33.8 fl oz glass jar containing a 0.5 fl oz vial of 0.5 M potassium hydroxide (KOH). The soil was re-wet with 0.24 fl oz of deionized water before jars were sealed and incubated at 77°F for 4 days, and the mass of CO2 released during the incubation was determined using the difference in electrical conductivity in the trap material. Finally, metabolic functional diversity was observed for the soil microbial populations by determining the oxidation rates of 31 different carbon substrates using Biolog® EcoPlates following a 48-hour incubation at 77°F of a 10-4 dilution of a 3 g soil sample. Soil microbes in the EcoPlate wells cause oxidation of the carbon species in the plates and results in a color change, which is measured by a microplate reader at 590 and 750 optical density (OD) units. The overall average color intensity, a measure of general population size and activity, as well as the proportional activity by metabolic type (amino acids, carbohydrates, carboxylic acids, polymers, and amines/amines), were considered as ecological soil health indicators in this study.
Harvest and post-harvest sampling. Grain yields were determined by hand harvesting a row length equal to 1/1000 ac from each plot. Soybeans were dried and weighed, and yield values were then converted to bu/ac using a standard 15% moisture content for the soybeans.
Following harvest, soil from each plot was retrieved according to the previously detailed methodology and sent to a commercial laboratory to determine end-of-season values for pH, sum of cations, soluble salts, calcium, organic matter (%), nitrate-N, phosphate (P2O5), potassium (K2O), sulfate, sodium, magnesium, zinc, iron, copper, manganese and heavy metals (arsenic, lead, and chromium) in the top 0-4” of the soil profile. Bulk density was also determined for two locations per plot at depths of 0-2″ and 2-4″.
Table 1. Initial chemical characteristics of compost and soil
| Chemical | Compost | Soil |
| pH | 7.1 | 6.6 |
| Soluble salts (mmho/cm) | 11.4 | 0.13 |
| Zinc, ppm | 57.6 | 1.12 |
| Iron, ppm | 1477 | 44.8 |
| Copper, ppm | 13.4 | 0.73 |
| Manganese, ppm | 100.6 | 9.2 |
| Arsenic, ppm | 1.807 | 5.971 |
| Lead, ppm | 2.09 | 14.46 |
| Chromium, ppm | 7.48 | 35.85 |
What Have We Learned?
The application of the compost treatment significantly increased the prevalence of E. coli in the soil samples, but only early (4 weeks) in the growing season (Figure 1). This is likely influenced by the compost’s organic matter and microbial diversity, which serve as a carbon source and support microbial population growth. However, as the season progressed, the difference in the prevalence of E.coli in soil that had or had not received compost application narrowed, potentially due to other factors impacting microbial survivability (such as temperature or moisture content) becoming dominant factors. Regression analysis comparing E.coli prevalence to soil moisture and temperature did not show a strong relationship (R-squared values of 0.48 and 0.18, respectively), which indicates that the microbial population is being impacted by other, more complex factors not included in this analysis.
No other soil biology, chemistry, or physical properties that we tested proved to be significantly impacted (a ≥ 0.05) by the application of mortality compost to the soil, nor was the soybean grain yield. This indicates that while the soil health impacts of this single-season compost application were negligible, there is also little risk to water quality associated with the application of 20 ton/ac swine mortality compost in crop production areas that are well-managed with soil conservation best practices.
Symbols next to values in week 4 denote a significant difference in the proportion of E.coli-positive samples. Error bars represent SEM (n=4).
Future Plans
The results suggest that there is little risk of prolonged elevated E. coli prevalence in soil when using swine mortality compost in row crop production areas. However, precipitation producing runoff may pose a risk to nearby surface water bodies if experienced within six weeks of compost application. Future research would be required to fully understand the risk of this occurring, but previous research conducted at the same farm determined that a 12.2 m (40 ft) setback of bare soil was sufficient to prevent most chemical and biological pollutants from leaving a field via runoff after receiving surface application of manure (Gilley et al., 2017). This is an encouraging and valuable guideline for producers who are generating compost as part of their operation and must find suitable sites for application.
The negligible soil health improvements from mortality compost application during this single-season study could dissuade crop producers from seeking out this material if it were available in their vicinity. However, where organic matter is needed to improve soil health over time, this product should not be discounted as a valuable soil carbon amendment. While we did not observe any positive soil health impacts from a single 20 ton/ac application of compost in this study, other studies have seen single season effects. Several other studies found significant impacts of applying a single season of organic amendment on soil microbial biomass (Lazcano, et al., 2012; Leytem, et al., 2024; Crecchio, et al., 2001) and on C:N ratio, which were not tested in this study. Thus, future research could explore alternative rates of application, frequency of sampling, or testing methodologies.
Another possible explanation for the lack of significant soil health impacts was that the field used in this study has been under long-term conservation (20+ years of no-till) practices. As a result, we suspect that the soil health improvement gap (e.g., the difference between soil health status and potential soil health status under ideal management) may be quite minimal. Soil sampled from our plots prior to treatment application revealed an average organic matter (OM) concentration of 3.8%, which exceeds the average 2 to 3% OM concentration for this soil type (Magdoff et al, 2021). However, other soil health factors such as bulk density, microbial population richness, and organic nutrient availability were in line with reports for similar soil types (Oregon State University Extension Service., 2019; Chau et al., 2011; University of Florida., 2015). This likely indicates that future applications of this sort should avoid fields with elevated soil organic matter, as they will not greatly benefit from the addition of organic amendments where soil carbon is already sufficient to the needs of the soil ecosystem.
Authors
Presenting author
Jillian Bailey; Undergraduate Researcher; Department of Biological Systems Engineering; University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Corresponding author
Amy Schmidt, Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, aschmidt@unl.edu
Additional author
Mara Zelt, Research Technologist, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Additional Information
Castro, G., Schmidt, A. (2023). Evaluation of Swine Cadaver Disposal through Composting and Shallow Burial with Carbon (poster presentation). ASABE AIM. Omaha, NE. https://publuu.com/flip-book/818714/1802503
Crecchio, C., Curci, M., Mininni, R., Ricciuti, P., & Ruggiero, P. (2001). Short-term effects of municipal solid waste compost amendments on soil carbon and nitrogen content, some enzyme activities and genetic diversity. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 34(5), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740100413
Gilley, J. E., Bartelt-Hunt, S. L., Eskridge, K. M., Li, X., Schmidt, A. M., & Snow, D. D. (2017). Setback distance requirements for removal of swine slurry constituents in runoff. Transactions of the ASABE, 60(6), 1885–1894. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12310
Lazcano, C., Gómez-Brandón, M., Revilla, P., & Domínguez, J. (2012). Short-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil microbial community structure and function. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 49(6), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0761-7
Leytem, A.B., Dungan, R.S., Spiehs, M.J., Miller, D.N. (2024). Safe and sustainable use of bio-based fertilizers in agricultural production systems. In: Amon, B., editor. Developing Circular Agriculture Production Systems. 1st edition. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. p. 179-214. https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2023.0120.16
Magdoff, F., Es, Harold van. (2021) (2024, July 18). CH 3. Amount of organic matter in soils – SARE. USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension. https://www.sare.org/publications/building-soils-for-better-crops/amount-of-organic-matter-in-soils/
Oregon State University Extension Service, Horneck, D. A., Sullivan, D. M., Owen, J., & Hart, J. M. (2019). Soil Test Interpretation Guide. In EC 1478. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/catalog/auto/EC1478.pdf
Sims, J. T., & Kleinman, P. J. A. (2005). Managing Agricultural Phosphorus for Environmental Protection. In J. T. Sims, & A. N. Sharpley (Eds.) Phosphorus: Agriculture and the Environment (Vol. 46, pp. 1021-1068). American Society of Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr46.c31
University of Florida. (2015). Urban Design – Landscape plants – Edward F. Gilman – UF/IFAS. (n.d.-b). https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/critical-value.shtml
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided by the Agricultural Research Division (ARD) of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln through an Undergraduate Student Research Program grant award. Much gratitude is extended to collaborating members of Rogers Memorial Farm, Stuart Hoff and Paul Jasa, and to the members of the Schmidt Lab – Alexis Samson, Logan Hafer, Maddie Kopplin, and Carol Calderon – for their assistance with sample collection and analysis.
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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Thermal Dehydration for the Disposition of Poultry Mortalities
Purpose
In the past 50 years, the poultry industry has made tremendous advancements in production performance, resource utilization and environmental sustainability. However, mortality disposal remains a major challenge as traditional methods of carcass disposal such as burial, incineration, composting, and rendering pose significant risk (biosecurity, environmental pollution, odor, cost, etc.) to the future of the poultry industry.
In North America, approximately 1,500,000,000 pounds of broiler and 187,500,000 pounds of layer hen mortalities must be disposed of in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner without jeopardizing the biosecurity of the production facility nor the financial success of the producer.
What Did We Do
In response to growing concerns and regulatory requirements, an advanced thermal dehydration system has been developed for the disposition of poultry mortalities. This process utilizes simultaneous mixing and heating of the carcass materials in an enclosed drum to 194 F, which results in a 60% reduction in volume over a 12-hour cycle time.
Thermal Dehydration Process
This program was designed to understand the effectiveness, impacts, and opportunities of utilizing Agritech Thermal Disposal Systems thermal dehydration technology for the disposition of poultry mortalities in commercial poultry production facilities in the western United States.
What Have We Learned
Thermal dehydration technology has proven an effective, efficient, and easy method to manage poultry mortalities in commercial poultry production systems. Agritech Thermal Disposal Systems currently offers two models, a smaller single phase unit with a maximum capacity of 1300 pounds and a larger 3 phase unit with a maximum capacity of 2000 pounds per cycle.
The units are simple to operate, as all that is required is to load the mortalities and initiate the thermal dehydration process. There is no requirement for additional materials (carbon), mixing the materials nor manual cleanout, etc.. On average the unit requires 1 kilowatt of electricity per 9 pounds of mortalities processed. An economic analysis comparing thermal dehydration technology with currently used poultry mortality methods is presented below.
| Mortality Disposal Comparison | |||||
| 20 Year Analysis | |||||
| Based on processing 1000 lbs mortality per day | |||||
| Rendering | Traditional Incinerator | High Efficiency Dual Burner Incinerator | Rotary Composter | TDS 1300 | |
| Fuel Source | LPG | LPG | Wood shavings | Electrical | |
| Amount | 2.5 gph | 2.5 gph | 3:1 ratio | 1kW/9 lbs | |
| Fuel per cycle | 30 gallons | 11.24 gallons | 3000lbs | 111kW | |
| Cost per cycle | $75 | $75 | $28 | $42.5 | $12.5 |
| Cost per week | $526 | $525 | $197 | $298 | $88 |
| Cost per year | $27,300 | $27,300 | $10,238 | $15,470 | $4,565 |
| Cost per 20 year | $546,000 | $546,000 | $204,750 | $309,400 | $91,291 |
| Annual service cost | $1,200 | $835 | $200 | $200 | |
| Lifetime Service | $20,400 | $15,675 | $3,800 | $3,800 | |
| Replacement time (yr) | 5 | 6.67 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Purchase cost | $1,000 | $12,000 | $32,972 | $65,000 | $55,000 |
| 20 year equipment cost | $5,000 | $36,000 | $2,972 | $65,000 | $55,000 |
| 500G propane tank | $2,000 | $2,000 | |||
| Building | $75,000 | $75,000 | |||
| Installation cost | $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 | $6,000 | $3,000 |
| Total investment | $553,500 | $606,900 | $257,897 | $459,200 | $148,591 |
| Per lb/cost | $0.076 | $0.083 | $0.035 | $0.063 | $0.020 |
| Assumptions | |||||
| Handling | Carcass handling cost equal | ||||
| Fuel Cost | 2.50$/gallon; 11.30 cents per KWh | ||||
| Rendering Cost | $0.75 per pound rendering pickup | ||||
| Woodshavings: | Average 37 lbs/cubic foot | ||||
| Utilize 3 cubic yards per day | |||||
| 1500$/100 yard load delivered ($15/yd) | |||||
| Recycle 50% from produced compost | |||||
| Plus 30 minutes additional handling per day-20$ | |||||
Based on industry performance statistics, a 100,000 head broiler facility would produce approximately 3 supersacks/totes of “meat powder” per flock. The resultant “meat powder” is a stable, odor free, sterile byproduct which can be field applied, integrated into commercial fertilizer or utilized in further processing. Compositional analysis has consistently demonstrated a moisture content of approximately 20%, a nitrogen level of 10%, phosphorus of 0.5% and potassium of 0.6%.
The range in particle size of the resultant “meat powder” was determined through sieve testing in accordance with ANSI/ASAES319, with an average particle size of 560 microns with a standard deviation of 5.06.
Environmental impact analysis of the thermal dehydration process of poultry mortalities has demonstrated that there are no visible emissions from the thermal dehydration unit, other than water vapor.
Further emissions testing has shown total particulate emission rate averaged 0.0066 lb./operating hour, semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) were all below the minimum detectable limit and the total combined speciated Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emission rate averaged 0.0067 lb./operating hour, with all individual compounds below regulatory thresholds.
Future Plans
The long-term evaluation program of thermal dehydration technology for the disposition of poultry mortalities continues, with special emphasis on understanding the opportunities to utilize the “meat powder”. These efforts include conducting amino acid profiling, understanding the impacts on quality from long-term storage and determining the optimal handling system.
Thermal dehydration technology has gained international approval for the disposition of animal mortalities, has recently been permitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and is currently undergoing regulatory review in numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States.
Authors
Jeff Hill, President, Livestock Welfare Strategies
Jeff@LivestockWelfareStrategies.com
Additional Authors
Danny Katz, Agritech Thermal Disposal Systems, Anissa Purswell, Eviro-Ag Engineering, Inc.
Additional Information
Acknowledgements
H and R Agricultural Solutions LLC 1592 Southview Circle Center, Texas 75935
Videos, Slideshows, and Other Media
AgriTech Thermal Disposal Systems – YouTube
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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Poultry Mortality Freezer Units: Better BMP, Better Biosecurity, Better Bottom Line.
Proceedings Home | W2W Home 
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
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
- Freezer unit capacity,
- Power consumption, and
- Operational/maintenance aspects;
- Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
- Freezer unit capacity
- Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors,
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors,
- Operational and collection/hauling aspects;
- Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
- Pathogen/disease transmission,
- Biosecurity measures
- Nutrient management comparisons
- Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
- Ensuring the results of the above topics/tests were communicated to
- Growers
- Integrators
- Legislators
- Environmental groups
- Funding agencies (state and federal)
- 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
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
- 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.
- The fly population was dramatically reduced after the farm converted from composting to freezer units. [Reduction was estimated at 80%-90%.]
- Freezer unit capacity
- 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.
- 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.
- Power consumption
- 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.
- 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.)
- Operational/maintenance aspects;
- 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.
- 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.
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
- Field trials on two pilot project farms over two years regarding
- Freezer unit capacity
- 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.
- Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
- Both farms reported improved quality of life, largely thanks to the elimination or reduction of animals, insects and smells associated with composting.
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
- Both farms reported elimination or reduction of the scavenging animals and disease-carrying insects commonly associated with composting.
- Operational and collection/hauling aspects
- With the benefit of two years of actual use in the field, we entirely re-designed the sheds used for housing the freezer units.
- 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.
- Freezer unit capacity
- Performing literature reviews and interviews regarding
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
- 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:
- “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.”
- 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).
- 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:
- Pathogen/disease transmission,
- 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.
- 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.
- “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.
- 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.
- Biosecurity measures
- 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.
- “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.”
- 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.
- Nutrient management comparisons
- 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.
- 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.
- Quality of life issues for growers and neighbors
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Farm visitation by animals and other disease vectors
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
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
—
Avian flu conditions still evolving (editorial)
USDA NRCS Conservation fact sheet Poultry Freezers
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.
PA Finishing Swine Barn Experience: Changing from Mortality Burial to a Michigan Style Composting Barn
Proceedings Home | W2W Home
Purpose
In the spring of 2014, the farmer with a 2020 finishing pig barn, wanted to change from burial of mortality to composting the mortality. We will document the change and the use of the composting barn from July 2014 to Dec 2016.
What did we do?
This 2020 finish pig barn space has about 3% mortality and expects about 250 deaths per year to compost. We discussed building a PA Michigan single wall compost barn design. The farmer built a 24×40 compost barn, with a 3 feet center dividing wall. The barn was completed in the summer of 2014 and we will track the pig barn turns and compost barn mortality loadings from July 2014 to December 2016. The barn has used about 56 cubic yards of woodchips/ bark mulch the first year and then replaced with about 40 cubic yards of sawdust for the second year.
The compost temperatures have reached 130 Degrees F and the farmer is very pleased with how the barn works and how he can mix and turn the compost. The presentation will cover barn costs, barn design and sawdust mortality loading and turning.
PA Michigan compost barn built at the end of the hog barn
Excellent example of free flowing air into the compost piles while
having a center push up wall to help turn the piles
What have we learned?
We have documented the farmers use of the barn, the mortality rates, compost sawdust and woodchip use, and mixing schedules. We have also documented the mortality cost rates for this farm.
Future Plans
We will highlight this PA Michigan compost barn type to other pig barns and document the use of them in Pennsylvania.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
J Craig Williams
Corresponding author email
Additional information
http://extension.psu.edu/animals/health/composting
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/program/info/managing_animal_mortalities
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.
Organizing demonstrations and tours for Government officials and Extension on Animal Mortality Management
Proceedings Home | W2W Home
Purpose
Provide some discussion on putting together Tour and Demonstration educational events. To Provide real life demonstrations and educational opportunities dealing with Mortality management.
What did we do?
The agent participated on a multi-state and multi country steering committee to organize and host an international symposium on Animal Mortality and Disposal Management. This was the 5th symposium and had 179 registered attendees from 11 different countries: Australia, Canada, China, Georgia, Korea, New Zealand, Nigeria, the UK, the US, Tunisia, and Vietnam.
The agent served as the host state coordinator (Penn), the 3 bus tour coordinator and the demonstration’s chairperson. Demonstrations included high density foaming, compost pile building and turning, environmental grinder processors, Clean Harbor Industries, truck wash stations, and proper euthanasia with cap and bolt guns. The agent will list the success and challenges of these types of demonstrations and educational events. Results are from the 5th International Symposium on Managing Animal Mortality, Products, and By-products, and Associated Health Risk: Connecting Research, Regulations and Response at the Southeast Agricultural Research and Extension Center on Wednesday, September 30, 2015.
Examples of demonstrations during the field day
What have we learned?
Excellent industry tours and Farm tours and Demonstrations are an excellent learning opportunity. All Parties including Extension, Farmers, Industry and government personnel can benefit from hands on education. Those in attendance gained skills and knowledge to be able to host their own training sessions and to be better prepared to handle animal mortality outbreaks and events in their own state. They gained a first hand experience on pile building and related technologies for this type of event.
Turning of a 60 day compost pile
Future Plans
The International Committee on Animal Mortality and Waste Products is a collection of University researchers and educators, State Department of Agriculture, Federal Homeland Security and Environmental Protection Agency personnel. The committee plans to meet for future International Symposiums as needed.
http://animalmortmgmt.org/symposium/contributors/
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
J Craig Williams, County Agent, Penn State Extension
Corresponding author email
Additional information
Conference website
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.