Tag: small farm stewardship

Posted on

An NE-1441 Project: Proposed Methodologies for Administering a Multi-State Environmental Best Management Practices Survey of Equine Properties


*Purpose 

Several states have reported that equine are the fastest growing segment of the livestock industry. Nationwide, equine has increased by 77% since 1997; and it is reported there are approximately 9.5 million horses in the United States (AHC, 2005). Proper management of equine operations requires the adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to balance nutrient production and prevent erosion. Government agencies are concerned about non-point sources of water pollution and have focused on agriculture, including equine operations, as a major contributor to water quality issues. Many states’ laws have regulated equine farms, requiring farm managers to incorporate BMPs. The objectives of this proposed national (multi-state) survey are to quantify and assess the use of the equine industry’s BMPs in pasture management, erosion control and to examine potential environmental impacts. Few state studies have investigated horse BMPs in the U.S, and more research is needed to assess the effect of horse farm management on U.S. water quality. Knowledge of the current scope and nature of equine industry management practices are important when developing regulations, laws, and educational programs to enhance the stewardship and govern land management on equine operations.

What did we do? 

The methodology to assess horse property manager/owner practices consists of gathering a minimum of 150-2,000 names and email addresses of horse owners/farm managers from the 15 states involved in the NE-1441 project. Some of the N. E. states have fewer equine operations. An email containing survey information and a link to the 40 question online survey will be sent to horse farm managers in 2016. Three follow-up reminders will be sent to non-responding addresses. It is hoped to have a 40% response rate. Data will analyzed using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for descriptive statistics, determining response frequencies and percentages.

The Questionnaire Instrument will include the following areas:

Part I General: Involved in the horse industry? Are you the owner or manager of a horse operation? If No, then you are finished taking the survey. Business or Hobby?

Part II Demographics: Location, State, County, Survey participants gender, age, Size of farm total acreage, Confinement areas, Pasture areas, primary and 2nd use of operation, Highest average number of horses on property? On average, how many hours per day do your horses spend grazing pastures by seasons?

Part III Horse Pasture Management Rotational Grazing, unlimited access,Pasture Management Plan, Agricultural Erosion and Sedimentation Plan weed control and type, mowing, resting pastures,Sacrifice lots, pasture topography, surface water, Sheds and barns,divert runoff, roof gutters.

Part IV: Horse Pasture Applications and/or Evaluation: Line, Fertilizer, Herbicide use, Seeding practices, Lime, Soil testing.

Part V: Horse Manure Management: Nutrient Management Plan, primary manure management, collection, storage, uses, removal.

Part VI: Conclusion: What are your limitations in altering the management of your horse operation? What information resources do you use for your equine farm operations?

What have we learned? 

The questions for an equine related APHIS/USDA animal agriculture survey need to be more specific to the activities and needs of the horse industry. Whereas most animal agriculture operations do not deal directly with the general public as a necessary component of their business plan, the horse industry depends on active and engaged clientele. If we are able to gather national data through a single effort survey, the resulting information could be compared and sorted in a consistent and statistically reliable manner, allowing educational materials and opportunities to be tailored to area or regional needs.

Future Plans 

A survey will be conducted by the NE-1441 (a northeast regional Hatch research group focusing on environmental impacts of equine operations) participating states to determine the use of the following best management practices: managed storage area, composted manure storage, stream crossings, buffers and vegetative filter strips, heavy use pads and sacrifice areas, soil testing, and fertility management on fields receiving manure. Develop means of determining the impact of equine outreach programs, more specifically determination of BMP adoption rate.This will allow us to chart progress among producers who use extension services and/or implement BMPs with the assistance of extension or other service providers such as NRCS, state departments of agriculture, and etc. We will work with social scientists to determine adoption rates, what the reasons for resistance to adoption are, and how to develop programs to overcome this resistance.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation 

Betsy Greene, Professor/Equine Extension Specialist, University of Vermont

Corresponding author email 

betsy.greene@uvm.edu

Other authors

Ann Swinker, Extension, Pennsylvania State University Amy Burk, Extension, University of Maryland Rebecca Bott, Extension, South Dakota State University Carey Williams, Extension, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey

Additional information 

Westendorf, M. L., T. Joshua, S. J. Komar, C. Williams, and R. Govindasamy. 2010. Manure Management Practices on New Jersey Equine Farms. Prof. Anim. Sci. 26:123-129.

Swinker, A., S. Worobey, H. McKernan, R. Meinen, D. Kniffen, D. Foulk, M. Hall, J. Weld, F. Schneider, A. Burk, M. Brubaker, 2013, Profile of the Equine Industry’s Environmental, Best Management Practices and Variations in Pennsylvania, J. of NACAA. 6:1, 2158-9429.

Fiorellino, N.M., K.M. Wilson, and A.O. Burk. 2013. Characterizing the use of environmentally friendly pasture management practices by horse farm operators in Maryland. J. Soil Water Conserv. 68:34-40.

Acknowledgements

The State University Extension Equine Specialists that make up the NE-1441: Environmental Impacts of Equine Operations, Multi-State Program. USDA.

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.

Posted on

Case Study of Contaminated Compost: Collaborations Between Vermont Extension and the Agency of Agriculture to Mitigate Damage Due to Persistent Herbicide Residues

Why Study Herbicide Contamination of Compost?

Picloram, clopyralid, aminopyralid and aminocyclopyrochlor are broadleaf herbicides commonly used in pastures due to effectiveness in controlling undesirable plants and the very low toxicity for animals and fish. In fact, some of these herbicides do not require animal removal post application. The grazing animals can ingest treated leaves with no ill health effects, but may pass the herbicides through to the manure. Also see: Composting Livestock or Poultry Manure

When a complaint driven problem of damaged tomatoes and other garden crops in Vermont was traced back to a single compost provider in Chittenden County in Vermont, a series of actions and reactions commenced. Complaints were fielded and investigated by personnel from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VT-AG) and the University of Vermont Extension (UVM-EXT). The compost provider sent samples of various components of the compost to a single laboratory and received positive results for persistent herbicides in sources of equine bedding/manure components. Subsequent interviews by the facility manager in both print and television media seemed to cast blame on Vermont equine operations for ruining Vermont gardens. Coincidentally, the composter had recently changed compost-processing methods. Initial samples sent to a separate laboratory did not support the composter’s laboratory results. Samples of feed, manure, shavings, and many other components which were shipped to several laboratories by VT-AG, resulted in extremely inconsistent and/or contradictory data between laboratories running the exact same samples.

Related: Small Farm Environmental Stewardship or Managing Manure on Horse Farms

What did we do? 

Several processes were underway by several agencies in a coordinated and collaborative effort to resolve and mitigate the herbicide issues:

• Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets was receiving and investigating complaints.

• University of Vermont Extension plant biology personnel were identifying, documenting, and sampling affected plants, as well as counseling gardeners.

• University of Vermont equine extension worked with horse owners and media to mitigate unsubstantiated claims of “horses poisoning garden plants”.

• A more thorough investigation by VT-AG involved collection of raw samples (feed, hay, shavings, manure) from 15 horse farms who utilized the compost facility to dispose of manure and bedding.

• The VT Secretary of Agriculture and the VT-AG Agri-chemical Management Section Chief were brought together with equine and compost experts attending the NE-1041 Equine Environmental Extension Research group annual meeting hosted by UVM equine extension.

• VT-AG worked with herbicide manufacturers to use high quality testing equipment and procedures to gather consistent data from samples.

What have we learned? 

More extensive details of this particular case have been published in the Journal of NACAA (http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=201).

• The levels of persistent herbicides were low enough that they were below the acceptable limits for water, yet they still harmed sensitive garden plants.

• Nationally and locally manufactured grains tested positive for persistent herbicides; most likely due to the individual components being treated within legal limits during field production.

• Many of the laboratories were unable to provide accurate or consistent results when testing for the persistent herbicides.

• Discussions between the NE-1041 group and VT-AG resulted in a fruitful exchange of information, as well as development and delivery of pertinent information for the general public and County Agricultural Agents.

Future Plans 

Several proactive activities have already been initiated and/or completed. A peer reviewed case study on all aspects of the contaminated compost has been published in the Journal of NACAA; and two episodes of Vermont’s Agricultural television show (Across the Fence) were created to educate and update the general public on the situation. A Vermont compost working group has been assembled and set goals to create potential educational materials including a horse owner pamphlet (in final editing phase), a farmer/livestock pamphlet, and press releases for the public education on challenges with persistent herbicides. The VT-AG website has a Compost FAQs page addressing the most common questions associated with compost and herbicides.

Authors

Betsy Greene, Professor/Extension Equine Specialist, University of Vermont Betsy.Greene@uvm.edu

Carey Giguere, Agrichemical Management,Vermont Agency of Agriculture

Rebecca. Bott, Extension, South Dakota State University

Krishona. Martinson, Extension, University of Minnesota

Ann Swinker, Extension, Penn State University

Additional information

• Greene, E.A., R.C. Bott, C. Giguere, K.L. Martinson, and A.W. Swinker. 2013. “Vermont Horses vs. Twisted Tomatoes: A Compost Case Study. J of NACAA. 6:1 (http://www.nacaa.com/journal/index.php?jid=201)

• Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets Compost FAQ’s: http://agriculture.vermont.gov/node/696

• Davis, J. Dept. of Horticultural Science, NC State University. 2010. Herbicides in Manure: How Does It Get there and why Should I Care?, Proceedings 8th Annual Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference, Timonium, MD. pp 155-160.

• Across the Fence Television Show: An Update on Green Mountain Compost Contamination and Testing-Greene/ Gigliuere (9/14/12)

• Across the Fence Television Show: Information from NE 1041 Meetings and National Equine Specialists-Greene (9/17/12)

• Article from Minnesota Extension explaining the problem in hay and how to avoid it. The article is devoted to “ditch hay”, but the information is relevant to all hay. https://extension.umn.edu/horse-nutrition/managing-herbicides-ditch-forages

• Washington State University Web site on clopyralid carryover includes pictures of affected vegetables, research results, and the bioassay protocol http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/soilmgmt/Clopyralid.htm

• Dow Agrosciences United Kingdom website with information on aminopyralid: http://www.manurematters.co.uk/

• CDMS Agro-chemical database with access to all the herbicide labels: http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx?t

Acknowledgements

The State University Extension Equine Specialists that make up the NE-1441: Environmental Impacts of Equine Operations, Multi-State Program. USDA.

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.

Posted on

Economical Anaerobic Digestion of CAFO Animal Waste


Purpose

The application of manure on croplands is increasingly under regulatory scrutiny, especially from impaired watersheds. The challenge facing many small farms is to find cost-effective and innovative solutions for manure reuse whilst responding to environmental, regulatory and public concerns. One option is to install an anaerobic digester (AD) in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. However, not all farmers are financially able to install an AD but do need the AD’s benefits to keep their livestock operation sustainable. This paper discusses a novel, cost effective and patented manure treatment system which can reduce the volume of manure for field application (see Figure 1).Earthmentor N2RTS Schematic

What did we do?

The EarthMentor® Natural Nutrient Reclamation and Treatment System (EMS), uses a combination of innovative sand separation technology (if necessary) and anaerobic treatment to concentrate manure nutrients into solid phases and treat approximately 70% of manure liquids into a product which can be applied to active cropland as low-nutrient liquid using irrigation methods. The primary economic advantage of using an EMS to treat livestock manure prior to land application is lower total manure disposal costs. The total manure handling costs are reduced because up to 75 % of the original manure volume can be handled as low-nutrient value irrigation quality liquid in bulk instead of hauling it by tanker for land application. This fact alone reduces total manure handling costs by over 50 %. Other tangible benefits of using an EMS include low odor, minimized environmental risks, and greater flexibility in proper land application of the treated manure. It can be installed at farms with as few as 250 cows. Depending on farm size, operators can realize a return on investment in as little as three years. Compared to a traditional AD installed to generate biogas the EMS is simple to operate, requires less energy, requires no chemicals or substrates to treat the waste, and reduces manure disposal costs.

The EMS involves six major steps: 1) collection of raw manure and transport to the processing center, 2) sand bedding is separated from the manure stream, 3) coarse manure components are removed from the liquid manure stream, 4) additional settling of the fine manure solids and sand particles occurs in a settling basin to a concentration of 8 to 10 percent solids, 5) AD treatment of the liquid manure and dissolved solids occurs in anaerobic treatment lagoon (ATL), and 6) The ATL effluent is stored in a Storage Pond for eventual discharge to active growing crops; additional natural treatment of the liquid manure occurs while in the Storage Pond.

All settling basins and ATL lagoon must meet state guidelines, such as Natural Resource Conservation Service technical guidelines or state requirements for waste storage facilities.

The ALT of the EMS system has a smaller footprint compared to traditional ALTs (primarily use in the south and western United States) because the majority of the nutrient-rich semi-solids are removed from the manure before discharge to the ATL. Due to this major operational change the EMS is economical to install and operate even in the northern climates of the United States where many of the top producing dairy states are located. While many facilities separate solids before land application, the EMS is different because is adds the AD step which converts the manure into a low-nutrient liquid capable of irrigation-style land disposal.  The method of solid separation can be as simple as a sloped screen followed by additional gravity separation as described in Step 4 above. The EMS ATL must be sized to account for reduced biodegradation during the colder weather. The EMS has successfully operated at multiple swine facilities and several Midwestern dairy farms.

If there is sufficient land near the farmstead, the EMS can be installed at existing dairies with minimum difficulty since the treatment system works equally well with multiple bedding materials and varying manure collection methods. Another benefit of the EMS is that is allows application on fields that may be high in phosphorus since much of the phosphorus will be stored in the accumulating ATL sludge. For dairies bedding with sand, a patented sand removal system can be provided that relies on a decanting method of sand separation. Once the sand is removed, it can be reused in the barn. 

What have we learned?

Typical Cost Savings for Manure Application Using EMS
Component
Disposal Method
Conventional Manure Handling
EarthMentor® Treatment System Handling
Liquid Manure

 

 Land Application 100% $0.02/gallon 0% $0
Separated Solids Land Application 0% $0 10% $0.016/gallon
($4/ton equiv.)
Heavy Slurry Land Application 0% $0 20% $0.02/gallon
Treated Wastewater Center Pivot over Crop 0% $0 70% $0.002/gallon
Combined Cost   100% $0.02/gallon 100% $0.007/gallon
(weighted average of all components)

Using financial data from 2010 for a 2,000-cow Michigan dairy, it was estimated that the cost to handle manure using an EMS is reduced from $0.02/gallon to $0.007/gallon. The cost saving using the EMS is based on the assumption that the average dairy cow produces nearly 25 gallons/day of manure, including wastewater but excludes bedding since farms used different types and volumes of bedding for their dry and lactating cows. Based on the financial analysis, installation of an EMS benefits the farm’s economic sustainability while providing other benefits including reduced environment risk associated with manure land application.

Far beyond the obvious cost savings associated with the EMS installation, a livestock producer will realize many other benefits. A partial list is provided below:

  • This practical and manageable manure treatment system requires little or no additional farm labor commitments yet greatly reduces overhead expenditures to keep the farm sustainable and competitive,
  • All manure is treated prior to land application (environmentally sound),
  • The more consistent high solids slurry can be precisely applied to fields with the greatest need as opposed to the highly variable manure nutrient concentrations recovered from a traditional manure pond,
  • Minimizes the environmental risks (ecologically viable) and farm nuisance potential,
  • The window of opportunity for manure application is extended to over 200 days instead of being limited to spring and fall applications for typical liquid manure,
  • Can provide a safe unlimited recycled bedding source for cattle, if so desired, by the dairy owner,
  • Permits farmer to follow BMPs for soil conservation,
  • Permits farmer to follow timing, rate, source, and place for fertilizer/crop nutrient applications,
  • Benefits the non-farm neighbors and community through reduced nuisance odors, and
  • Continues using the farm’s manure as a soil amendment for crop production, the most efficient use known.

Future Plans

The immediate future plans for EMS is to target small livestock producers, especially those within impaired watersheds.  Since many ADs need a substrate material imported from outside the farm to be economically sustainable, the EMS is ideal for those farms that want to be good neighbors with reduced farm air emissions, need greater convenience in manure management, and desire to maximize the real cash value of their manure.

As the EMS adapts well to any bedding material, by investing time and dedicating property for the ATL any size operation can begin to treat their manure prior to land application and reduce their overall cost for manure management.

In addition to small farms we envision four possible adaptations of EMS; these examples are provided to show the transferability of this technology to farms desiring various outcomes from an EMS:

  1. Installation of an Energy-Generating AD – if a farm wishes to generate energy using a traditional AD, it would be installed prior to the EMS system whereby the AD digestate discharges into the settling ponds. Since the residence time of a traditional AD is measured in days, there is a great deal of additional treatment that can occur so that the cost savings for land application can still be realized.
  2. Use manure solids for other uses besides land application – if the livestock producer decides to bed their cattle on manure solids or to compost the manure solids for sale off-farm to landscapers or bag and sell direction from the farm then the solids from the SS can be further treated with a screw press or roller then composting by various means.
  3. Greenhouse gas capture and sale of carbon credits – a geosynthetic liner cover can be added to the ATL and all captured gases burned through a flare. However, it should be noted that by removing a significant amount of high organic solids during the initial fiber solids separation step, much less organic material is subject to organic degradation into methane gas.
  4. Greenhouse gas capture and burning of the gases – to generate electricity or heat water (typically for on-farm use or export to an adjoining business, such as a greenhouse).

One future issue to resolve includes educating state governments on the benefits of installing an EMS, especially for those farms that may be under a Consent Order or other regulatory actions or those farms that may need to implement a manure treatment system to mitigate odors from the livestock operation.  The duration to install an EMS and get it operational is much shorter than the lead time to design and install a traditional AD so the EMS can help when farms need to implement changes quickly.  A second issue to overcome is to properly educate producers on the benefits of EMS and differences between traditional ADs.  Swine, beef, and dairy producers who already have a farm irrigation system will have a lower capital investment to begin achieving the reduced manure management costs referenced above.

Author

Matthew J. Germane, P.E., President at Germane Environmental Consulting, LLC MGermane@GECEnvironmental.net

Additional information

https://www.gecenvironmental.com, Envirolytic Technologies, LLC

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements to Envirolytic Technologies, LLC, Greenville, OH manufacturer of the Earthmentor® N2RTS system and RAM Technologies, LLC, manufacturer of the sand separation equipment used in the EMS for their assistance in providing the laboratory data used in this paper.

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.

Posted on

Manure Technology Video Series


Can Video Be Used as a ‘Virtual’ Tour?

Producers are reluctant to adopt new technologies without firsthand experience with the technology. It is particularly difficult to get positive exposure for manure related issues in traditional media. Creative methods are needed to expose producers to useful technologies for handling and treating animal wastes. The OSU Waste Management Youtube channel was created to provide virtual tours of manure treatment and handling technologies.

What did we do?

Fourteen videos highlighting innovative manure handling and treatment technologies were filmed, edited, and produced by the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. We specifically sought out producers who successfully adopted technologies to the particular conditions of their farms.

What have we learned?

In its five years of existence, the OSU Waste Management Youtube channel has been viewed more than 53,000 times (120,000 minutes viewed) from 183 countries and all fifty states – plus Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

Future Plans

We will continue to add new videos to the channel.

Authors

Douglas W. Hamilton, Associate Professor Oklahoma State University dhamilt@okstate.edu

Craig A. Woods, Video Producer/Director Ag Communication Services, Oklahoma State University

Additional information

https://www.youtube.com/user/OSUWasteManagement

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.

Posted on

Evaporation Ponds – Waste Storage Facility Design Spreadsheet

Purpose

An assessment tool was developed to simplify the process of determining minimum waste storage pond (WSP) dimensions in conjunction with assuring adequate evaporation of stored runoff over time. In contrast to typical WSP designs that require intermittent pumping and handling of waste water, evaporation ponds (EPs), as waste storage facilities used to contain storm runoff from feedlots, offer long-term passive management and may be acceptable alternatives where annual evaporation exceeds rainfall and where landowners deem typical WSP designs as impractical.

What did we do?

EPs are passive management structures that allow landowners to avoid having to periodically evacuate accumulated water from typical WSPs via pumping or other means (active management). Both EP and WSP systems are designed to collect and store contaminated runoff and sediment from feedlots, but it is assumed that the use or disposal of the contaminated water is practical in the case of WSPs. It is not always practical. Some ranchers operating in arid areas who manage small feedlots during the winter have expressed interest in EPs over WSPs stating that the passive management method will keep their costs low while fitting better with their current operating systems.

At the onset of our first EP project, we found no NRCS tool specific to the design of EPs. The principles outlined in our Agricultural Waste Management Handbook (United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS, 1999) regarding waste storage facility design and our guidance for runoff produced during a 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event using the NRCS Curve Number Method (United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS, 2004) still apply. Next, we chose to build a spreadsheet that allows the designer to perform the multitude of computations needed to consider distinct EP geometric configurations, time periods, and hydrology in the design of EPs. In a nutshell, the model consists of estimating amounts of water and sediment that the EP retains while accounting for water losses due to evaporation and any periodic removal of sediment (Figure 1) over time. For any given EP geometry, the design is considered viable so long as the water level does not supersede the elevation of the embankment top minus freeboard.

The mathematical functions applied are deterministic and follow Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) guidelines (United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS, 1999). Mean monthly evaporation and precipitation data are available via the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website, and runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event is estimated using the NRCS Curve Number Method (United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS, 2004).

What have we learned?

1) The design of evaporation ponds, to be used as waste storage facilities, is complex, entails many variables, and typically requires multi-year tests.

2) Simulation of waste storage pond storage levels over time provides visual results that allow the designer to observe expected behavior of these systems and judge whether or not evaporation ponds are viable alternative systems to typical waste storage facilities in which frequent evacuation of storage materials is required.

3) Calculations using a spreadsheet are simplified to the extent that dozens of scenarios can be assembled and executed within a reasonable timeframe. This allows designers to study the results from such sensitivity analyses where one or more variables must be examined at numerous levels/values due to uncertain data at particular sites.

Future Plans

1) Train NRCS field staff regarding the potential pros and cons pertinent to these systems in comparison to others.

2) Encourage landowners to consider evaporation ponds as viable alternatives in areas with low precipitation/runoff.

3) Monitor site input variable values and the evaporation pond sediment and water levels over time to assess whether or not the models applied forecast overall evaporation pond behavior.

Author

Donald Hanson, Design Engineer, Natural Resources Conservation Service donald.hanson@wa.usda.gov

Additional information                

Author’s contact via telephone: (509) 323-2949.

References

United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS (1999). National Engineering Handbook, Part 651, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Washington D.C.: Author. Retrieved 3/14/2014 at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer.aspx?hid=17092.
United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS (2004). National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Estimation of Direct Runoff from Storm Rainfall. Washington D.C.: Author. Retrieved 1/6/2015 at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/RollupViewer.aspx?hid=17092.

Acknowledgements

I extend thanks to these NRCS cohorts for their cooperation and assistance during development of the tool and their comments and suggestions during reviews of this technical paper: Larry Johnson (State Conservation Engineer, Washington State), Joe Gasperi (State Geologist, Washington State), Sally Bredeweg (Environmental Engineer, West National Technical Service Center, Oregon State), Leigh Nelson (Water Management Engineer, National Water Management Center, Arkansas), and Noller Herbert (Director, Conservation Engineering Division, Washington, D.C.).

Waste storage pond sediment accumulation and water dynamics (10 years) chart

Waste storage pond sediment accumulation and water dynamics (10 years) chart

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.

Posted on

The Natural Farming Concept: A New Economical Waste Management for Small Family Swine Farms


Why Look at Inoculated Deep Litter Systems?

The most critical issue facing livestock and other small family operations nationwide is the development and implementation of cost effective pollution prevention technology. Our livestock producers, especially swine, continue to seek a best management practice (BMP) that is effective, economical, and practical, and in compliance with new US EPA laws. The Department of Health, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Hawaii Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Cooperative Extension Service have been working diligently to address both federal and state waste management compliance needs of the local pork producer. As a result, the industry currently implements effluent irrigation, composting, deep litter technology, lagoon storage and solid separation as possible solutions for on-farm nutrient management. Unfortunately, due to new and revised EPA regulations, which now include nuisance odor and vector components, many of these strategies no longer meet federal criteria for BMPs.

In 2006, a system of waste management, with the potential to be implemented as a BMP under federal regulations, was discovered in Korea during a visit to the Janong Natural Farming Institution. The concepts of naturally collected micro-organisms, green waste deep litter, and a piggery design with strategic solar and wind positioning was being practiced in several countries in Asia and the Pacific Basin. Over the past six years, these concepts have been tested in Hawaiʻi to provide small swine farms with another BMP that is in compliance with current EPA regulations.

What did we do? 

For the past six years, the Extension Service has been touring many hog farms and conducting numerous educational seminars on the Inoculated Deep Litter System (IDLS). The number of IDLS piggery operators has increased dramatically due to farmers coming out of retirement, producers retrofitting and replacing their wash-down swine operations as well as new farmers trying their hand at raising hogs. A major factor of the great interest toward the IDLS piggery is the minimal labor and time to operate the system compared to the traditional style of raising hogs with daily wash downs of the pig pens. Other important factors include the concept of collected micro-organisms, a layering of the deep litter green waste system, and designing piggery housing with strategic solar and wind positioning to keep the facility cool and dry. The success of the IDLS system is exemplified by the following: 1) Low maintenance since litter pens never have to be cleaned, 2)has no odor or ve ctor problems if managed correctly and 3) development of cost effective housing.

What have we learned? 

IDLS incorporates four components: 1) self-collected, site-specific (or indigenous) micro-organisms (IMOs), 2) green waste, 3) natural ventilation, and 4) facility positioning relative to sunlight. The livestock facility is kept dry with natural ventilation and sunlight, which promotes proper fermentation of the pen litter (combination of green waste and livestock waste) thus preventing nuisance fly breeding and odors generated by proliferation of undesirable organisms.

Solar positioning. The building’s foundation is positioned from north to south, with the south end serving as the entrance to the facility. This takes advantage of maximizing sunlight traveling east to west, which provides adequate ultraviolet light, heating, and drying. Sunlight and ventilation help to promote drying, thus preventing liquid accumulation (from livestock waste, watering nipples or troughs, rain) in the litter, which deters the fermentation process from turning anaerobic, and eliminates conditions ideal for odor and fly breeding. (Note: orientation applies to the Northern Hemisphere and positioning should be reversed for application in the Southern Hemisphere.)

Natural ventilation. The building is designed with a high (14 ft H), vented roof, and walls (10 ft H) which have openings to the outside. Cool trade winds are allowed to blow through the building, forcing warm air to rise and be eliminated through the vented roof. This helps to dissipate heat generated from microbial fermentation in the litter, keeps the litter dry through constant air movement, and cools the facility during the hot season. During the rainy season, simple roll-down siding can be installed to keep rain out.

Deep Litter. In order to fulfill EPA regulations that require an impervious bottom to all waste handling facilities, there must be either a concrete slab or a thick (30 mil) plastic liner as the base of the building. Green waste, with a minimum depth of 4 feet, is then strategically layered to start the IDLS. The first layer consists of roughly a half foot of cinders mixed with bio-char (not charcoal briquettes). The second layer consists of 2 feet of cut logs. Logs should be at least 3 to 4 feet long and can range in diameter from 2” or more (larger, longer logs deter pigs from rooting them to the surface). The third layer is comprised of either leaves or fronds covered with assorted green waste. The next step is too lightly spread about one pound of IMO-4 and soil to every 50 square feet of surface area in the IDLS pen. For example, a 100 sq ft pen will require 2 pounds of IMO-4 applied in the third layer. The final step is to add about a half foot of sawd ust. Two weeks before introducing animals into the pens, activate the microbes once with a mist spray of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and fermented plant Juice (FPJ). You can add animals to the pen once you smell a yeasty odor in the litter, a sign that the microbes have been activated and are at work in the pen.

Micro-organisms: The only micro-organisms used are self-collected by the producer from the specific site of the facility. The profile of indigenous micro-organisms may vary greatly from place to place, from windward to leeward coasts, and even between neighboring properties. The initial, one-time misting with lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and fermented plant juice (FPJ) activates the microbes to increase in numbers. To learn how to make these activators, please attend a Natural Farming Input-Making class, or contact the Hawaiʻi Cooperative Extension Service (mduponte@hawaii.edu).

LAB and FPJ: These are self-made inputs. Go to CTAHR website for free publication

Future Plans 

Adaptation of concept overcome a major hurdle when the IDLS piggery became cost sharable with the federal government on November 15, 2012 and deemed a best management practice. Hog farmers who practice the IDLS are eligible in entering into a cost-share agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) assistance and may file an application at any time and will further enhance the participation in the IDLSTo date nearly 50 retrofitted or new operations have been established in Hawaii. The IDLS has been introduced and being practiced in 11 states, Micronesia and various countries of the world. Future plans include implementing the technology to large scale operations, making of feed utilizing other natural farming techniques and evaluating the compost for organic plant propagation. The system is currently being tested with Poultry Production

Author   

Michael DuPonte, Extension Agent University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). mduponte@hawaii.edu

Additional information 

Publications

H. Park and M.W. DuPonte., 2010., How to Cultivate Indigenous Microorganisms, Biotechnology, CTAHR., June, BIO-9.

M. DuPonte and D. Fischer., Most Frequently Asked Questions on the IDLS Piggery, The Natural Farming Concept A New Economical Waste Management Stem for the Small Family Swine Farms in Hawaii., 2012., Livestock Management., Sept. , LM-23

D. M. Ikeda, Weinert Jr., E., Chang K.C.S., Mc Ginn, J.M., Miller S., Keliihoomalu, and DuPonte, M.W., 2013., Natural Farming: Fermented Plant Juice, Sustainable Agriculture, CTAHR., July, SA-7.

S. Miller, Ikeda, D.M., Weinert Jr., E., Chang K.C.S., Mc Ginn, J.M., Keliihoomalu, and DuPonte, M.W., Natural Farming: Lactic Acid Bacteria, Sustainable Agriculture, CTAHR., August, SA-8.

Acknowledgements      

Kang Farms of Kurtistown, Hawaii, David Fischer (NRCS), Justin Perry III (NRCS) and Lehua Wall (CTAHR)

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.

Posted on

Converting Manure, Food Wastes and Agricultural Production Wastes into Bio-Secure Fertilizer, feed, and/or beeding


Purpose

To find a way to completely eliminate bio-hazards in manure, food wastes, municipal sludge, and agricultural production wastes.

What did we do? 

We adapted existing dry extrusion technology to bio-hazard agricultural wastes. To test the hypothesis we developed [ Dry Extrusion Technology can be adapted to convert bio-degradable hazardous wastes into Bio-Secure class “A” fertilizer, feed, and/or bedding more economically, with less environmental impact, greater sustainability, and in less time with a smaller foot print]

Once we proved our Hypothesis we further developed the process to allow the technology to be utilized in a large stationary plant suitable for a large waste generator and in a portable plant that can be used to assist smaller waste generators, such as, most agricultural producers and smaller municipalities.

What have we learned? 

Our tests showed that we could validate our hypothesis by:

1) utilizing finely ground dry agricultural production wastes, mixed with the wet food and manure to reduce the moisture content of the wet wastes to a level compatible to the requirements of the dry extruder,
2) The Dry extruder effectively sterilized the wastes by high temperature, high pressure inside the extruder, and sudden drop in atmospheric pressure inside the cell walls of all the materials when exiting the Dry Extruder, thereby destroying the cell walls of not only the bio-mass materials but also of all micro organisms ova, and pathogens inside the final product.

Future Plans 

Develop new niche markets for agricultural waste generators by adding additional value to their wastes.

Authors

Joe E. Busby joebusby@wfeca.net 

Moses Braxton, Bill Ansley, William Andrews, Duncan Nesbit, and Dr. Carm Parkhurst

Acknowledgements

Insta Pro International, North Carolina State University

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.

Posted on

Natural Rendering: Composting Horse Mortality


poster of the mortality composting processPurpose          

Understanding Livestock Composting as there are few methods to safely dispose of livestock mortality

What did we do?         

CWMI has been working on mortality disposal since 1990. Research was completed methodically as new questions arose. We started with large livestock(deadstock) migrated to research on managing animals hit by cars, generally wild animals. Moved to managing disease outbreak and drugs residual that might end up in compost if it does not degrade.

What have we learned?           

See attached paper

Future Plans  

Responding to Routine Mortality and Disasters

Authors

Jean Bonhotal, Director CWMI, Cornell University jb29@cornell.edu

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute Craig Williams, Penn State University, Ann Swinker, Penn State University

Additional information      

http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/mortality.htm

Acknowledgements      

Mary Schwarz, Cornell Waste Management Institute

Craig Williams, Penn State University

Josh Payne, Oklahoma State University

Ann Swinker, Penn State University

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.

Posted on

Effect of Temperature on Methane Production from Field-Scale Anaerobic Digesters Treating Dairy Manure

Why Study Temperature and Anaerobic Digestions?

Anaerobic digestion is a process that results in the production of biogas that can be used a renewable source of electricity on-farm or sold to the distribution grid. Temperature is a critical parameter for anaerobic digestion since it influences both system heat requirements and methane production. Although anaerobic digestion can take place under psychrophilic (15-25°C), mesophilic (35-40°C), and thermophilic (50-60°C) conditions, temperatures of 35-37°C are typically recommended for methane production from animal manure. However, digesters require significant amount of heat energy to maintain temperatures at these levels. There is limited information about methane production from dairy digesters at temperatures less than 35°C and results in the literature are presented from laboratory-scale rather than field-scale systems.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of two relatively low digestion temperatures (22 and 28°C) on methane production using replicate continuously-fed, field-scale dairy manure digesters at two organic loading rates. The results were compared with those from identical digesters operated at 35°C.

field scale anaerobic digesters

Field scale (FS) anaerobic digesters

What did we do?

Anaerobic digestion experiments were carried out using six modified Taiwanese-model field-scale (FS) on-site digesters (Fig. 1) at the USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). Each FS digester has a total capacity of 3 m3 and was operated at a liquid capacity of 67% (2 m3 working volume) with 33% headspace for biogas collection. The FS digesters are plug-flow reactors and operated without mixing. First, duplicate field-scale (FS) anaerobic digesters were maintained at one of three set temperatures (22 ± 2, 28 ± 2 and 35 ± 2°C) and fed with solids-separated manure for 80 days (period 1). The digesters were subsequently operated under the same temperature regime (22 ± 2, 28 ± 2 and 35 ± 2°C) but were fed at a higher organic loading rate (OLR) using solids-separated manure amended with manure solids for 56 days (period 2). The hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 17 days for all digesters throughout the study. Digesters were fed once daily five days a week with 160 L d-1 of separated manure for period 1, and 148 L d-1 of separated manure amended with 16 kg d-1 (wet weight) manure solids (roughly 12 L in volume) for the period 2.

What have we learned?

Our results suggest that anaerobic digesters treating dairy manure at lower temperatures can be nearly as effective as digesters operated at 35°C, even with a relatively short 17-day retention time. Methane production from digesters operated at 28°C was about 90% of that from digesters operated at 35°C but the differences were not statistically significant. Digesters operated at 22°C produced about 70% as much methane as digesters operated at 35°C without affecting digester stability. Small farm digester systems that may not have access to waste heat from electrical generation, could efficiently operate at these lower temperatures to produce methane and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and odors. Larger digester systems could also choose to operate at these lower temperatures if reducing digester heating would allow for more valuable uses of their heat energy such as drying solids or treating liquids to remove nutrients.

Future Plans 

We are currently investigating the fate and effect of antibiotics and feed additives during the anaerobic digestion of manure.

Authors     

Osman Arikan, Assoc. Prof., Istanbul Technical Univ., Dept. of Environmental Eng., Istanbul, Turkey. Visiting Scientist, USDA-ARS, BARC, Beltsville, MD, Visiting Assoc. Prof., University of Maryland, Dept. of Environmental Science&Tech., College Park, MD. arikan@itu.edu.tr

Walter Mulbry, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD. Stephanie Lansing, Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, College Park, MD.

Additional information

Data is to be published.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Jose Colina and Lorianny Rivera for assistance in operating the digesters and Anna Kulow for analyzing biogas and effluent samples.

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.

Posted on

Manure Management Facilities and Structures for Small Farms

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Farms large and small deal with similar manure storage issues. Jean Bonhotal of the Cornell Waste Management Institute discusses some of these issues. Siting of livestock waste areas requires many considerations. Other things to be mindful of include various pad types for outdoor manure storages, structures for indoor and outdoor storage, and composting concerns.

Author

Jean Bonhotal, Cornell Waste Management Institute jb29@cornell.edu

Additional Information

Cornell Waste Management Institute http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress