nutrient – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

Purpose

A Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) is a management plan to utilize nutrients and to manage the collection, handling, storage, application, & utilization of animal waste. The purpose of the plan is to address soil erosion, water quality, and air quality concerns. Even though a CNMP is not a regulatory document, portions can potentially be used in the permitting process. It is meant to be a dynamic plan to help the producer’s operation to be sustainable. Landowner of animal feeding operations (AFO’s) that receive technical and/or financial assistance from NRCS are required to have a CNMP. This includes dairies, beef feedlots, poultry, and swine operations. Land application of manure is not a requirement. There are no animal numbers thresholds for a CNMP.

What did we do?

In 1999 the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations directed USDA and EPA to work together to address environmental issues with AFO’s. The CNMP was developed as a voluntary way for a landowner to take action. The original document had a ten part format and was truly comprehensive. Any planner or engineer associated with the plan had to sign it. Developing a CNMP in this format was difficult and time consuming and in some cases the document became so large in size that no one updated them.

What have we learned?

In October 2015 the format changed back to a plan that is more consistent with a conservation plan, recording the decisions of the landowner/cooperator with regard to managing waste and utilizing the nutrients.

The plan now has a four part format. The first part is the signature page where the NRCS representative and the landowner sign confirming the decisions. Section one follows the signature page and documents decisions with regard to the Production Area (Farmstead). It includes maps, animal inventory, and records of decisions for the production area only. Section two documents the decisions with regard to the Land Treatment Area (Crop and Pasture). It contains maps, resource assessments, implementation requirements and records of decision for the land treatment areas. The third section documents decisions with regard to Nutrient Management. This includes risk analyses, setbacks, nutrient applications, and field balances.

For livestock operations with greater than 300 animal units a printout of the National Air Quality Site Assessment tool (NAQSAT) is now required as supporting documentation in the CNMP. It is to increase awareness of air quality issues that may be addressed on farm.

Several parts of the original format are not included in the current format. This includes the Operation and Maintenance plan and the Emergency Response plan. Both would now be found in the case file and not in the CNMP itself.

Picture of a field

Looking at crop residue.

Slurry containment

Evaluating solid separation on the farmstead.

Picture of people in field at demo

Discussing crop rotation and setbacks.

Future Plans

States are currently integrating the new national format. The CNMP format will be reviewed periodically to make sure that the document stays on track as a usable management tool for the landowner.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Sandy Means, Environmental Engineer, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, East National Technical Center, Greensboro, NC

Corresponding author email

Sandy.Means@gnb.usda.gov

Additional information

Resources:

NRCS General Manual, Title 190, Part 405 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans

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

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

Manure Separation: Bedding and Nutrient Recovery

Why Study Manure Solid-Liquid Separation?

We wished to evaluate a two staged manure separation system for bedding and solids removal. Manure separation can accomplish several purposes on a dairy farm. The two most common goals are to produce a fiber bedding for the animals and the second is to remove as many solids as economically feasible prior to long term storage.

What did we do?

We looked at existing and new systems that use manure fiber bedding. Manure fiber bedding or “green bedding” is separated solids from manure collected daily on the dairy that has not been through digestion or other heat process. Manure samples were collected and analyzed for total solids and nutrient content through commercial labs. Questions were asked to dairy personnel regarding stall management practices.

What have we learned?

Separating manure for fiber bedding production is very different than separation for clean liquid. A dry solids cake from the separator does not directly correlate to a good bedding product for the cows. Dairy bedding must provide cushioning for the animal while laying and stable footing during the process of lying down and getting up. A healthy, productive cow will spend 12-14 hours per day lying down. A good bedding must be able to absorb liquid and maintain a clean, dry and comfortable stall for the cow. Typical dry solids cakes contain many small particles that prohibits the solids ability to absorb liquid on the cows lying surface.

Separation equipment does have an effect on overall perceived bedding quality. Longer fibers are preferred to shorter fibers. Longer fibers appear to provide better cushioning and are less prone to sticking to the cow’s legs, flanks and teat ends.

comparison of fibers from two different manure separation systems

Figure 1. Roller press fibers on the left; screw press fibers on the right.

Fiber bedding can be used directly from the separator (often referred to as “green bedding), composted in windrows or aerobically digested in a vessel. Regardless of treatment method, the success of a manure fiber bedding system is dependent on many factors besides the equipment operation. Management of the free stalls including stall grooming, ventilation, re-bedding and frequency of manual manure removal are examples of other critical factors.

In looking at staged separation systems, the owner is willing to sacrifice capture rate efficiency on first stage separation to achieve high quality bedding. By allowing smaller solids to pass through the primary separation system, the quality of bedding often improves. Eventually, as the larger fibers are broken down while in the free stall or by pumping and processing equipment they become small enough to pass through first stage separation.

Having staged separation is extremely beneficial for advanced manure processing. Primary separation systems do more than produce a fiber bedding material, they also act as a foreign material screen for downstream equipment as well as slightly reduce the total volume to subsequent stages. Foreign material such as; plastic bottles, wooden hoof blocks, rocks, pieces of plastic etc. can cause significant damage to more sensitive (and often expensive) downstream equipment, such as a centrifuge, finer separation screen, belt filter press or other mechanical solid liquid separator. A primary separator is often better suited to handle foreign materials without disrupting operations. Furthermore, by removing the larger solids for bedding there is a slight reduction in volume going to secondary separation steps. This can lead to savings by reducing the required capacity of downstream equipment or reducing the total volume chemistry costs when using coagulants or polymers.

Primary separation for bedding has shown some nutrient removal. On farms using primary separated solids for animal bedding, the nutrient content is irrelevant since the nutrients are recycled back into to the housing system, until the fibers are broken down enough to pass. The specific capture rate of total solids and individual nutrients are show in the table below.

Primary Capture Rates	Dairy TR	Dairy GM	Dairy CVT
Total Solids	20	43	55
Total Nitrogen	4.2	15	20
Phosphorus	3.5	5	37
Potassium	2.6	10	15

Total solids capture rates are directly correlated to incoming total solids content. Higher incoming solids results in higher capture rates (Burns and Moody, 2001). The total solids in the incoming material was lowest for Dairy TR and highest for Dairy CVT. It is a general understanding that a majority of the nutrients are contained in relatively small particles which pass through primary separation stream.

Future Plans

Staged separation systems are one example of how to incrementally add equipment and separation capacity as farms expand or field application of nutrients becomes more precise. Farms may initially install a basic separator to re-use liquid for alley flushing or flush fluming. A secondary stage separator can then be added for excess liquid prior to going to the lagoon for additional solids and nutrient removal.

Future investigation steps will be to continue evaluating secondary separation equipment for ease of operation, operational costs and nutrient removal efficiencies. Additionally further uses for the primary solids as a separation aid may prove beneficial as more systems are installed and used.

Author

Andy Lenkaitis, P.E. Environmental Systems Engineer, GEA Farm Technologies andy.lenkaitis@gea.com

Additional information

Contact GEA Farm Technologies for additional information regarding specific information on equipment or systems for manure separation systems.

Flyer

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge for dairy producers for sharing their insight and information to further the adaption of manure equipment. Additionally, support from key field personnel and local equipment dealers for identifying customers and servicing equipment in a less than pleasant location.

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. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Alternative Manure Application Windows for Better Nutrient Utilization

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Maumee River watershed contributes 3% of the water but more than 40% of the nutrients entering Lake Erie. Data from the Ohio Tributary Loading Program has identified increasing levels of dissolved reactive phosphorus as the prime suspect in the recurrence of harmful algal blooms within Lake Erie. Livestock manure represents approximately 25% of the phosphorus applied in the watershed and can be a source of dissolved reactive phosphorus.

One project is a three year research project on applying liquid swine manure as a spring top-dress nitrogen source for soft red winter wheat. Field-scale randomized block design replicated plots were conducted on farms. Liquid swine manure was surface applied and incorporated on all plots using a Peecon toolbar and compared to urea (46-0-0) fertilizer surface applied with a fertilizer buggy for wheat yield. Manure applications were made using a standard 5,000 gallon manure tanker in early April after the wheat had broken dormancy and field conditions were deemed suitable. Manure was applied at rates to approximate the nitrogen amount in the urea treatments. There was no statistical yield difference between using livestock manure or purchased urea fertilizer as the top-dress nitrogen source.

Another research project started in 2011 compared fall and spring applied manure. The fall treatment included an application of manure just before planting of a wheat cover crop. The wheat was killed in the spring and followed with a corn crop. A direct injection manure application was made to the corn that had not received manure in the fall. The fall applied manure had an average yield of 109 bu/ac and the spring applied had an average yield of 205 bu/ac.

The potential to use liquid manure on growing crops opens a new window of opportunity to reduce phosphorus loading into Lake Erie.

Purpose

To compare manure nutrient field application timing throughout the year and with commercial fertilizer in order to maximize crop yield and minimize nutrient loss.

What Did We Do?

Topdressed wheat in the spring with manure and urea. Corn applications include topdressing and sidedressing corn fields in the fall and spring.

What Have We Learned?

Wheat topdressed with manure has yielded equal to or greater than urea. Preliminary results show sidedressing applications made to corn in the spring yield better than fall applications.

No statistically significant yield difference was found between spring applied urea and manure to soft red winter wheat.

There was a statsitcally significant yield difference between both fall manure applications (manure and manure plus a nitrogen inhibitor) and the spring sidedressed manure.

Future Plans

Continue the wheat study and are adding cover crops to the corn study.

Authors

Amanda Douridas, Extension Educator, The Ohio State University Extension Douridas.9@osu.edu

Glen Arnold, Manure Nutrient Management Field Specialist, The Ohio State University Extension

Additional Information

http://agcrops.osu.edu/on-farm-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.