small farms – Page 2 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

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

March 5, 2019March 10, 2022

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

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

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)

March 5, 2019March 6, 2019

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

March 5, 2019March 27, 2019

Watershed Management Resources DVD

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Develop a Watershed DVD?

The cover of the Watershed Management Resources DVD

The Watershed Management Resources DVD is an interactive e-learning tool created by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was created for a wide variety of audiences including watershed groups, government and non-government organizations, post-secondary students , agricultural producers and any others who wish to learn more about water quality, water sampling and integrated watershed management. This tool promotes a synergistic approach to watershed management and increases leadership capacity by encouraging all members of a watershed community to work together to reduce harmful impacts to watersheds and to monitor their watershed for improvements.

What Did We Do?

A screen shot of the Welcoming page in the Surface Water Sampling section of the DVD

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canda used past experiences and current information to create a trilingual (English, French and Spanish) set of educational modules. This self-paced DVD provides users with interactive flash animations, video clips and text screens which educates about issues of water quality, beneficial management practices (BMPs) and watershed management. The DVD is available free of charge to any interested parties.

What Have We Learned?

A screen shot of the Hydrologic Cycle Animation that is found on the DVD.

Integrated watershed management is a complex topic and involves all types of people with varying levels of knowledge. Any type of educational tool that can be used to help stakeholders better understand their watersheds and how to appropriately monitor and manage them are very useful.

Future Plans

To continue to find ways to extend our knowledge to the sector.

Authors

Serena McIver, Senior Water Quality Engineer, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, serena.mciver@agr.gc.ca

Additional Information

More information on the organization and agriculture in Canada can be found at www.agr.gc.ca

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.

March 5, 2019July 6, 2020

Supporting Small-Scale Poultry and Livestock Businesses

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Work With Small Poultry and Livestock Operations?

Understand the business planning and development issues confronting small-scale livestock and poultry producers.

What Did We Do?

Colorado State University has been building educational programming to benefit small-scale crop and livestock producers across the state since 2007. The Colorado Building Farmers and Ranchers program uses a classroom, experiential learning and community-building approach to help smaller-scale and new agricultural producers build their businesses in a profitable, safe and sustainable manner. To date, we have graduated more than 300 producers, 65% of whom have completed business plans to expand or develop their agricultural business. These producers are primarily characterized by their focus on direct marketing, and many are located relatively close to urban areas; locations that provide both marketing opportunities as well as production constraints. The classroom education takes place over 8 weeks and helps producers build sustainable business plans, and develop a network of producers and technical assistance providers (e.g. NRCS, FSA, county planning staff). Topics covered include developing a production plan, recordkeeping, pricing, risk management, and on-farm food safety. In addition, since small-scale livestock production is a more complex business model, we have built a curriculum that guides producers through all the business planning considerations necessary to start and operate a profitable livestock operation: from acquiring poultry, sheep or goats, to health and environmental issues, to processing and creating a unique market niche.

What Have We Learned?

Given that smaller or more diversified poultry and small ruminant operations may be trying to maintain a greater number of enterprises on one farm or operation, it may be more difficult for those producers to stay on top of good management practices, as well as any requirements necessary to remain in good standing with local government and marketing partners. For example, these small-scale operations may be maintained on a limited number of acres, thus requiring very careful land and animal management. Additionally, many smaller-scale operations are located in areas where agriculture is not the primary land use. Such operations may be in the urban-rural interface, the suburbs or even in towns or cities. The research for this curriculum provided a basic overview of production, management and marketing considerations and opportunities for smaller-scale poultry and small ruminant production, and a means to discuss the relationship between resource stewardship and long-term business viability. We examined, in particular, emerging niche market opportunities and some of the costs and benefits inherent to pursuing those newer markets, finding that the costs and management skills required make it extremely difficult to operate a commercially viable small-scale livestock business in an urban area.

Future Plans

Next steps involve developing enterprise budgets with different numbers of poultry and small ruminants to understand the point at which these businesses become financially viable. This is important for helping prospective new livestock enterprises to truth their business plans, based on realistic assumptions.

Raising Poultry for Profit Video

Raising Sheep and Goats for Profit Video

Authors

Martha Sullins, Extension Regional Specialist, Colorado State University Extension, Martha.sullins@colostate.edu

Additional Information

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/innovations-to-support-beginning-farmers-and-ranchers/approaching-beginning-farmers-as-a-new-stakeholder-for-extension

Acknowledgements

David Weiss and Dawn Thilmany (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CSU), Blake Angelo (Urban Ag Educator, Denver/Jefferson Counties, CSU Extension), Marisa Bunning (Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, CSU); Thomas Bass (Montana 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. 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.

Supporting Small-Scale Poultry and Livestock Businesses from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019July 15, 2020

Feasible Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion – Case Study of EUCOlino Digestion System.

* Presentation slides are available at the bottom of the page.

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

While large-scale farms have typically been the focus of anaerobic digestion systems in the U.S., an emerging need has been identified to serve smaller farms with between 50 and 500 head of cattle. Implementing such a small, standardized, all-in-one system for these small farm applications has been developed. Small-scale digesters open the playing field for on-farm sustainability and waste management.

Unloading the first biodigester unit.

This presentation on small-scale digestion would discuss the inputs, processing, function, and outputs of BIOFerm™ Energy Systems’ small agitated plug flow digester (EUCOlino). This plug-and-play digester system has the ability to operate on dairy manure, bedding material, food waste, or other organic feedstocks with a combined total solids content of 15-20%. A case study would be presented that describes the site components needed, the feedstock amount and energy production, as well as biogas end use. Additional details would include farm logistics, potential sources of funding, installation, operation, and overall impact of the project.

This type of presentation would fill an information gap BIOFerm™ has discovered among dairy farmers who believe anaerobic digestion isn’t feasible on a smaller scale. It would provide farmers who attend with an understanding of the technology, how it could work on their specific farm and hopefully reveal to them what their “waste is worth”.

Why Study Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion

To inform and educate attendees about small-scale anaerobic digestion surrounding the installation and feasibility of the containerized, paddle-mixed plug flow EUCOlino system on a small dairy farm <150 head.

Biodigester unit being installed at Allen Farms.

What Did We Do?

Steps taken to assist in financing the digestion system include receiving grants from the State Energy Office and Wisconsin Focus on Energy. Digester installation includes components such as feed hopper, two fermenter containers, motors, combined heat and power unit, electrical services, etc…

What Have We Learned?

Challenges associated with small project implementation regarding coordination, interconnection, and utility arrangements.

Future Plans

Finalize commissioning phases and optimize operation.

Authors

Amber Blythe, Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems blya@biofermenergy.com

Steven Sell, Biologist/Application Engineer, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems

Gabriella Huerta, Marketing Specialist, BIOFerm™ Energy Systems

Additional Information

Readers interested in this topic can visit www.biofermenergy.com and for more information on our plants, services and project updates please visit us on our website at www.biofermenergy.com. You will also see frequent updates from us in industry magazines (BioCycle, REW Magazine, Waste Age). BIOFerm will also be present at every major industry conference or tradeshow including the Waste Expo, Waste-to-Worth and BioCycle– stop by our booth and speak with one of our highly trained engineers for further information.

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.

Feasible Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion – Case Study of EUCOlino Digestion System from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019August 5, 2020

Software For Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Dairy and Beef Production Systems

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Model Environmental Impacts of Livestock?

Quantifying the long term environmental impacts of dairy and beef production is complex due to the many interactions among the physical and biological components of farms that affect the amount and type of emissions that occur. Emissions are influenced by climate and soil characteristics as well as internal management practices. Software models are needed to perform an integrated and comprehensive assessment of all important environmental and economic effects of farm management and mitigation strategies. Related: Manure value & economics

What Did We Do?

Figure 1. The Integrated Farm System Model simulates the performance, determines the economics, and predicts the air and water emissions of farm production systems.

Software tools were created that perform whole-farm analyses of the performance, economics and environmental impact of dairy and beef production systems. The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) is a comprehensive research tool that simulates production systems over many years of weather to quantify losses to the environment and the economics of production. From the simulated performance and losses, environmental footprints are determined for carbon, energy use, water use and reactive nitrogen loss. Crop, dairy and beef producing farms can be simulated under different management scenarios to evaluate and compare potential environmental and economic benefits. The Dairy Gas Emissions Model (DairyGEM) provides a simpler educational tool for studying management effects on greenhouse gas, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions and the carbon, energy and water footprints of dairy production systems.

What Have We Learned?

Analyses with either the IFSM or DairyGEM tools illustrate the complexity of farming systems and the resultant effect of management choices. Although IFSM was primarily developed and used as a research tool, it is also used in classroom teaching and other education applications. DairyGEM provides an easier and more graphical tool that is best suited to educational use.

Future Plans

Figure 2. DairyGEM is an educational tool for evaluating management effects on air emissions and environmental footprints of dairy production systems.

Development of these software tools continues. Work is currently underway to add the simulation of VOC emissions to both models. Routines are also being implemented to better represent the performance and emissions of beef feed yards.

Authors

C. Alan Rotz, Agricultural Engineer, USDA/ARS; al.rotz@ars.usda.gov

Additional Information

The IFSM and DairyGEM software tools are available through Internet download [https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/software/?modeCode=80-70-05-00] for use in individual, workshop and classroom education. Reference manuals and other detailed information on the models is also available at this website.

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to the development of these models and software tools. Although they can not all be listed here, they are acknowledged in each software program.

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.

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Impacts of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is a holistic approach to environmental protection. It helps farmers evaluate their entire operation, regardless of size or commodity, and make sustainable management decisions balancing society’s needs, the environment, and economics. MAEAP is a partnership effort that aims to protect natural resources and build positive communities by working with farmers on environmentally responsible agricultural production practices.

To become MAEAP verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, an on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). MAEAP benefits Michigan by helping to protect the Great Lakes by using proven scientific standards to improve air, water, and soil quality. Annual phosphorus reduction through MAEAP is over 340,451 pounds per year which is enough to grow almost 85,104 tons of algae in lakes and streams. Farming is an environmentally intense practice and the MAEAP-verification process ensures farmers are making choices that balance production and environmental demands. The measures aimed at protecting air, soil, water, and other environmental factors mean that MAEAP-verified farmers are committed to utilizing farming practices that protect Michigan’s natural resources.

Purpose

The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an innovative, proactive program that assists farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. MAEAP is a collaborative effort of farmers, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan Farm Bureau, commodity organizations, universities, conservation districts, conservation groups and state and federal agencies. MAEAP teaches farmers how to identify and prevent environmental risks and work to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Farmers who successfully complete the three phases of a MAEAP system (Farmstead, Cropping or Livestock) are rewarded by becoming verified in that system.

What Did We Do?

To become MAEAP-verified, farmers must complete three comprehensive steps: educational seminars, a thorough on-farm risk assessment, and development and implementation of an action plan addressing potential environmental risks. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) conducts an on-farm inspection to verify program requirements related to applicable state and federal environmental regulations, including the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices. To retain MAEAP verification, a farm must repeat all three steps including MDARD inspection every three years.

Local MAEAP farm verified in the Cropping System

What Have We Learned?

The MAEAP program is positively influencing Michigan producers and the agriculture industry. Annually, an average of 5,000 Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and MAEAP verification. To date, over 10,000 farms are participating with over 1,500 MAEAP verifications. On a yearly basis, over $1.2 million is spent for practice implementation by producers working towards MAEAP verification. In 2012; the sediment reduced on MAEAP-verified farms could have filled 28,642 dump trucks (10 yards each), the phosphorus reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 138,056 tons of algae in surface waters, and the nitrogen reduced on MAEAP farms could have grown 45,515 tons of algae in surface waters.

An example of the partnership between MAEAP and Michigan Farm Bureau

Future Plans

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has taken a vested interest in the value of the MAEAP program. In March of 2011, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 1 and 2 which codify MAEAP into law. This provides incentives and structure for the MAEAP program. It is a goal of Governor Snyder’s to have 5,000 farms MAEAP-verified by 2015. Most importantly, through forward thinking MAEAP strives to connect farms and communities, ensure emergency preparedness and protect natural resources.

Authors

Jan Wilford, Program Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development – Environmental Stewardship Division, wilfordj9@michigan.gov

Shelby Bollwahn, MAEAP Technician – Hillsdale Conservation District

shelby.bollwahn@mi.nacdnet.net

Additional Information

www.maeap.org – MAEAP Website

http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_25432—,00.html – MDARD MAEAP Website

http://www.facebook.com/mimaeap – MAEAP Facebook Page

Acknowledgements

MDARD MAEAP Program Office Communications Department

Michigan Farm Bureau

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts

Hillsdale County Farm Bureau

Hillsdale Conservation District

Handout version of the poster (8.5 x 11; pdf format)

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.