Replacing Commercial Sidedress Nitrogen with Liquid Livestock Manure on Emerged Corn

waste to worth 2017 logoProceedings Home | W2W Home

Purpose

Livestock producers can more fully utilize the nutrients in livestock manure to reduce purchased fertilizer costs if they can apply manure when crops need the nutrients. Better capturing manure nutrients can reduce phosphorus and nitrogen losses into surface water bodies. To help decrease the incidences of harmful algae blooms in the Western Basin of Lake Erie, Ohio State University (OSU) Extension research has sought to develop an in-season window to apply manure to emerged corn. By incorporating livestock manure as a sidedress nitrogen fertilizer for corn, nutrients are less exposed to movement by water and a greater percent of the nitrogen is utilized by the growing corn crop.

Surveys of livestock farmers, who attended OSU Extension field days in western Ohio reveal approximately 49% of livestock manure is applied in the months of October, November, and December following crop harvest. Typically, there is no growing crop at that time of year to capture the available nitrogen in the manure. The surveys also reveal only 19% of manure is applied in the months of April, May and June. Ohio has about 2.5 billion gallons of liquid dairy manure and almost one billion gallons of liquid swine manure needing applied to farm fields each year.

What did we do?

Ohio State University conducted replicated small-plot research from 2012 to 2016 using swine and dairy manure as sidedress nitrogen sources compared to incorporated 28% Urea Ammonium Nitrate (UAN) on pre-emergent and post-emergent corn. The nitrogen in manure is primarily in two forms; ammonium and organic. Ammonium nitrogen is readily available to a growing crop. Organic nitrogen has to undergo a mineralization process for a percentage of the nitrogen to eventually be released in the ammonium form each crop season.

More than 45 on-farm plots with livestock producers were also completed over five seasons using field sized replicated plots. Liquid swine, dairy, and beef manure were applied to corn in the V2 to V4 stage of growth using a 5,250 gallon Balzer tanker and six-row Dietrich manure injection toolbar. The flotation tires on the tanker were replaced with rims and narrow tires allowing the tanker to follow the tractor down the rows of corn. In replicated plots, the liquid manures produced similar yields to commercial fertilizer when applied at similar nitrogen fertilizer amounts.

OSU Extension also conducted swine finishing manure drag hose plots with a pork producer where manure was incorporated into emerged corn at the V2 to V3 stage of growth and compared to incorporated 28%UAN. The manure application rate was approximately 6,500 gallons per acre using a seven-shank rotary injector toolbar. The drag hose was six inches in diameter and the pumping rate was 1,300 gallons per minute. The farmer planted the fields on a 45 degree angle to accommodate the drag hose manure application.

What have we learned?

Below are five years of liquid manure side-dress research on corn plots at the Northwest Station of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. In these research plots liquid swine and liquid dairy manure were used in pre-emergent and post-emergent plots and compared with incorporated 28%UAN. Manure was applied to the pre-emergent plots each season within three days of planting. Manure was applied to the post-emergent plots at the V3 stage of corn growth. The manure was applied to a depth of approximately five inches using a 1,250 gallon manure tanker with Dietrich manure injection sweeps and covering wheels.

For these plots, the swine finishing manure application rate was 5,000 gallons per acre to provide 200 pounds of available nitrogen. The dairy pond manure application rate was 13,500 gallons per acre (140 pounds of available nitrogen) plus 20 gallons of 28% UAN nitrogen applied just ahead of the manure for a total of 200 pounds of nitrogen. The 28%UAN treatments also received 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre each year.

Chart 1. OARDC manure side-dress plot results

2012-2016 OARDC Manure Sidedress Yields; bushels per acre

The long-range goal of Ohio State University Extension’s manure application research is to utilize a drag hose to incorporate liquid manure of any species into corn from the date of planting up to the V4 stage of growth. Three years of drag hose manure side-dress plots in Darke County indicate this manure application method has great potential. Applying manure to a growing crop can capture more of the manure nutrients than applying manure without a crop in the field.

Chart 2. Drag hose research yields on corn in Darke County, Ohio

Year

Swine manure

(bu/acre)

28%UAN (bu/acre)

2016

222

216

2015

154

121

2014

204

204

In addition to the three crop seasons of drag hose sidedress of corn in Darke County, we also have three years of drag hose damage research from the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center’s Northwest Station near Hoytville. Based on this research, we believe we can use a drag hose across emerged corn through the V3 stage without a loss of yield and probably through the V4 stage if early season conditions are drier than normal.

Chart 3. 2014-2016 OARDC drag hose damage yield losses in corn

Corn growth stage

Plant population

2014

Yield

bu/acre

2014

Plant population

2015

Yield

bu/acre

2015

Plant population

2016

Yield

bu/acre

2016

3-year

population

average

3-year

average

bu/acre

No drag hose

30,166

145.1

31,850

167.2

28,625

145.1

30,214

152.5

V1

29,660

154.3

31,750

166.1

28,625

149.5

30,012

155.4

V2

30,166

157.9

32,000

165.3

28,500

141.2

30,222

154.8

V3

28,933

153.9

31,375

172.3

29,250

144.4

29,853

156.9

V4

29,264

149.7

23,500

123.5

27,500

152.1

26,755

141.8

V5

15,366

109.8

——-

——

16,000

126.3

15,683*

118.0*

*Indicates only two years of data

Future Plans

Funds are being solicited to purchase 12-row drag hose manure incorporation toolbars to have available to livestock producers and commercial manure applicators to use in Ohio for the 2017 crop season and beyond. Thanks to donations from the Columbus Foundation, Ohio Farm Bureau, Dietrich Inc., Cooper Farms, Hord Livestock, Conservation Action Project, and Bazooka Inc. we have almost secured the funds to build two toolbars.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Glen Arnold, Associate Professor & Field Specialist Manure Nutrient Management Application, The Ohio State University

Corresponding author email

Arnold.2@osu.edu

Other authors

Eric Richer, Sam Custer, Sarah Noggle, Jeff Stachler, Jason Hartschuh, Amanda Douridas

Additional information

Additional on-farm manure plot research results are available at www.agcrops.edu

YouTubes of OSU Extension manure application to emerged corn can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7jUsQNGM8fCHjbZUdT9pKw

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Ohio Environmental Education Fund, Ohio Pork Producers Council, Ohio Dairy Research Fund, Ohio Corn Marketing Board, Ag Credit, Farm Credit Services, Ohio Soybean Council, the Ohio Farm Bureau, and the Conservation Tillage Conference for funding support.

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

A Model Comparison of Daily N2O Flux with DayCent, DNDC, and EPIC


Proceedings Home W2W Home w2w17 logo

Purpose 

Process-based models are increasingly used as tools for studying complex agroecosystem interactions and N2O emissions from agricultural fields. The widespread use of these models to conduct research and inform policy benefits from periodic model comparisons that assess the state of agroecosystem modeling and indicate areas for model improvement. The increasingly broad application of models requires an assessment of model performance using datasets that span multiple biogeophysical contexts. While limited in the capacity to identify specific areas for model improvement, general evaluations provide a critical perspective on the use of model estimates to inform policy and also identify necessary model improvements that require further evaluation.

What did we do? 

The objectives of this model comparison were to i) calibrate and validate three process-based models using a large dataset; ii) evaluate the performance of a multi-model ensemble to estimate observed data; and iii) construct a linear model to identify and quantify possible model bias in the estimation of soil N2O flux from agricultural fields. We selected three models that have been used to evaluate N2O emissions from agricultural fields: DayCent, DNDC, and EPIC. Using data from two field experiments over five years, we calibrated and validated each model using observations of soil temperature (n = 887), volumetric soil water content (VSWC) (n = 880), crop yield (n = 67), and soil N2O flux (n = 896). Our model validations and comparisons consisted of commonly conducted statistical evaluations of root mean squared error, correlation, and model efficiency. Additionally, the large sample sizes used here allowed for more robust linear regression models that offered additional insight into relationships between model estimations and observations of N2O flux. We hypothesized that such a linear model would indicate if there was model bias in estimations of soil N2O flux. Ensemble modeling can reduce the error associated with climate projections and has recently been applied to the estimation of N2O flux from agroecosystems. Thus, we also constructed a multi-model ensemble to evaluate the use of multiple models to improve estimates of soil N2O flux.

What have we learned? 

In a comparison of three process-based models, calibration to a large dataset produced favorable estimations of soil temperature, VSWC, average yield, and N2O flux when the models were evaluated using RMSE, R2, and the Nash-Sutcliffe E-statistic. However, an evaluation of linear regression models revealed a consistent bias towards underestimating high-magnitude daily N2O flux and cumulative N2O flux. Observations of soil temperature and VSWC were unable to significantly explain model bias. Calibration to available data did not result in consistent model estimation of additional system properties that contribute to N2O flux, which suggests a need for additional model comparisons that make use of a wide variety of data types. The major contribution of this work has been to identify a potential model bias and future steps required to evaluate its source and improve the simulation of nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems. Process-based models are powerful tools, and it is not our objective to undermine their past and future application. However, more work is left to be done in understanding the biogeophysical system that produces soil N2O and in harmonizing the process-based models that simulate that system and which are used to evaluate management and generate policy.

Future Plans 

Future work should test our findings in additional agroecological contexts to determine the extent to which a bias towards underestimating peak N2O flux persists. A meta-analysis of published data may be the most direct method for doing so. New datasets will need to be collected that represent simultaneous observations of multiple system properties (e.g. soil NO3-, soil NH4+, and heterotrophic respiration) from different soil layers and at increased temporal frequencies. Model developers should use these rich datasets to identify the source of N2O estimation bias and improve the structure and function of process-based models.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation      

Richard K. Gaillard, Graduate Student, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author email    

rgaillard@wisc.edu

Other authors  

Curtis D. Jones, Assistant Research Professor, University of Maryland; Pete Ingraham, Research Scientist, Applied Geosolutions;

Additional information               

sustainabledairy.org

Acknowledgements     

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Additional Authors:

Sarah Collier, Research Associate, University of Wisconsin-Madison;

Roberto Cesar Izaurralde, Research Professor, University of Maryland;

William Jokela, Research Scientist (retired), USDA-ARS;

William Osterholz, Research Associate, University of Wisconsin-Madison;

William Salas, President and Chief Scientist, Applied Geosolutions;

Peter Vadas, Research Scientist, USDA-ARS;

Matthew Ruark; Associate Professor; University of Wisconsin-Madison

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

Review of Odor Management Planning Templates and Calculators Across the US

Proceedings Home | W2W Home waste to worth 2017 logo

Purpose

Odor is a common and prevalent problem for new and existing livestock operations, and odor is often a source of conflict between neighbors. Odor cannot be removed in entirety from livestock production, but it can be managed. A few states have developed odor management plan guidelines or templates that may be mandatory, or voluntarily for the sake of good stewardship. Our long term goal is to construct an odor management plan template for South Dakota and beyond, and improve producer-neighbor relationships. Towards this goal, we present a review of established tools, templates and odor impact calculators that are in use in the United States.

What did we do?

We sent a questionnaire to four odor management plan (OMP) developers in Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska and Pennsylvania. The questionnaire asked questions about the development process, users, marketing, and evaluation of odor management planning guides. We compared and contrasted the responses and identified opportunities to build on these past experiences elsewhere. Similarly, based on existing literature and online tools, four odor impact estimation calculators, or footprint tools were reviewed. These include the South Dakota Odor Footprint Tool, Odor From Feedlots Setback Emissions Tool (Minnesota), Odor Footprint Tool (Nebraska), and Purdue Odor Setback Model (Indiana).

What have we learned?

From the questionnaire it was clear that though an odor management plan is not a mandatory requirement in most of the states surveyed, the developers produced these guides for the betterment of the livestock industry of their state. During development of the OMPs, there was little exchange between producers, neighbors or policy makers collectively. Also, the use, evaluation and impact of the OMP templates was not tracked. There was not extensive marketing for the odor management plan guides aside from extension news updates and some presentations.

The pattern or format of the OMPs from the four different states was similar. Documentation of odor sources and record keeping of odor complaints was encouraged in all with a tabulated form. Michigan’s was the only guide to suggest quantitative estimation of odor impact, even though there are some nice and effective tools available to make these calculations for most states and regions. Odor monitoring was suggested in two states and one state suggested third party monitoring keep the assessment unbiased. Table 1 presents an overall review of questionnaire findings for the four states surveyed.

Table 1. Summary of responses for select questions posed to developers of odor management planning (OMP) templates or guides

All four odor footprint tools were compared based on the odor emission estimates and dispersion model incorporation. Two of the tools considered terrain factors in odor dispersion calculations. Additional comparisons are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of odor setback/odor footprint estimation tools

Future Plans

Building off of the feedback from OMP developers in other states, we plan to engage multiple interest groups in identifying the scope, use and dissemination of an OMP developed for South Dakota. There will be an emphasis on conflict resolution in the event of odor complaints so that odor complaints can be resolved locally (between neighbors) as much as possible.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Suraiya Akter, Graduate Research Assistant, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State University

Corresponding author email

suraiya.akter@sdstate.edu

Other authors

Erin Cortus, Associate Professor and Environmental Quality Engineer, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State University

Additional information

erin.cortus@sdstate.edu

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Jerry May (MSU), Mr. David Schmidt (UMN), Mr. Karl Dymond (Pennsylvania State), Dr. Richard Koelsh (UNL) for their kind response to the questionnaire.

Agenda for Waste to Worth 2017

Monday, April 17, 2017

waste to worth 2017 conference logo
4:00 pm – 7:00 pm Registration and Welcome Reception
Carolina Ballroom Foyer
Dinners for Six available

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

6:15 am Run/Walk Opportunity
7:00 am Registration
8:00 am – 12:15 pm Mass Mortality Workshop
Carolina Ballroom
9:00 am – 5:00 pm Southeastern NC tour – Swine waste to Energy Projects – Several digester based systems and business models will be highlighted Poultry waste to energy projects – Prestage AgEnergy , turkey litter and woodchip fired boilers
9:00 am – 5:00 pm Eastern NC tour – Pasture based systems for animal waste management (small farms) Horse farms at the rural/urban interface Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) facility – Goldsboro, NC Pastured hogs, hood house (hog w/o antibiotics), pasture based dairy, managing operations to be more organic.
9:00 am – 5:00 pm Western NC tour – Swine waste-to-energy and carbon credits Dairy – Sand separator and bedding recovery North Carolina Zoo – Dealing with exotic animal manure
12:15 pm – 5:00 pm Raleigh Area tour – Mass Animal Mortality Mgmt Tour – Field demonstrations will showcase various equipment and technologies used during mass animal mortality events. Animal compost windrows will be demonstrated and will include carbon sourcing construction, management, turning and troubleshooting practices. Site selection assessment for both outdoor composting and on-site burial will also be covered.
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Raleigh tour – The City of Raleigh’s Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility Co-Digestion – swine and food waste-to-energy NCSU – Fish Barn research, demonstration and teaching unit
6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Pig Pickin’ off-site at Local Brewery
Transportation provided

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

6:15 am Run/Walk Opportunity
7:30 am Registration
8:30 am – 10:15 am Opening General Session:
Working Collaboratively to Implement Policy and Practice Change (Kelly Shenk, US EPA)
Carolina Ballroom
10:15 am Break
10:30 am – 12:30 pm Spotlight on Manure Management in North Carolina and the Atlantic Coastal Plains
    Background, History, and Technical Information about Manure Management in North Carolina and the Coastal Plains (John Classen)
    Lessons earned from the Smithfield Agreement (Kelly Zering)
    NRCS Resource Concerns (Terri Ruch)
    Panel and Q&A: Challenges and Opportunities around Manure Management Systems (John Classen, Kelly Zering, Terri Ruch, Joe Hudyncia, Christine Lawson, Dave Elkin, and Joseph Ziobro)
12:30 pm – 2:00 pm Lunch
Carolina Ballroom
Lunch Conversations available
Animal Mortality Management
Pinehurst
Extension Resources: Professional Development
Biltmore/Hope
2
Dairy Manure Treatment Technologies
Tanglewood
1.5*
2:05 pm – 2:25 pm PA Finishing Swine Barn Experience: Changing from Mortality Burial to a Michigan Style Composting Barn (J. Craig Williams) Using Augmented Reality to Enhance Posters, Publications, and Field Demonstrations (Jill Heemstra) Mobile Struvite System for Nutrient Extraction from Dairy Manure (Joe Harrison)
2:25 pm – 2:45 pm Poultry Mortality Freezer Units:  Better BMP, Better Biosecurity, Better Bottom Line (Victor Clark) Cost Reductions in a Treatment System to Remove Phosphorus from Liquid Wastes (Clinton D. Church)
2:45 pm – 3:05 pm Avian Influenza Mortality Management Options and Lessons Learned (Josh Payne) Results of Nutrient Recovery System Installed on Large-Scale Dairy Operation after 2 Years of Operation (Kerry Doyle)
3:05 pm – 3:25 pm Mortality Composting Procedures Used During an Avian Influenza Outbreak (Josh Payne) Using Your Smartphone for Live Streaming or Capturing Video in the Field Nutrient Recovery from Anaerobic Digestates (Rakesh Covind)
3:25 pm – 3:45 pm Organizing Demonstrations and Tours for Government Officials and Extension on Animal Mortality Management (J. Craig Williams) Use Dry Dairy Manure Pellets as Nutrient Substrates for Yeast Growth (Zong Liu)
3:45 pm – 4:00 pm
4:00 pm Break
Livestock Waste Control Facility Issues
Pinehurst
0.5*
Innovative Water Quality Outreach Methods
Biltmore/Hope
1*?
Evaluating Agricultural BMP for the Chesapeake Bay Program
Tanglewood
1*
4:20 pm – 4:40 pm Nutrient Leaching Under Manure Staging and Sludge-Drying Areas (Rhonda Miller) Developing Science-Based Estimates of Best Management Practice Effectiveness for the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (Jeremy Hanson)
4:40 pm – 5:00 pm An Economical Method to Install Industrial Wastewater Storage Pond Liners (Matthew Germane) Mobile Technology in Support of Water Quality Outreach (Kerri Love) Recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Program Expert Panel on Manure Treatment Technologies (Douglas Hamilton)
5:00 pm – 5:20 pm Partnerships in the Manure Nutrient Management Field (Erin Cortus) Recommendations for Manure Injection and Incorporation Technologies for Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (Robert Meinen)
5:15 pm – 7:00 pm Poster Session and Social
Posters in Bellamy/Mendalhall, Social in Carolina Ballroom
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Dairy Production Systems of the Great Lakes Region (Carolyn Betz)
Cultivation of Duckweed on Anaerobically Digested Dairy Manure for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal (Lide Chen)
Nutrient Recovery Membrane Technology: Pilot-Scale Evaluation (John Classen)
Composting of Dairy Manure with the Addition of Zeolites to Reduce Ammonia Emissions (Mario de Haro-Marti)
Manure management impact on environment and animal welfare in current animal housing trends (Eileen Fabian)
Closing Abandoned Livestock Lagoons Effectively to Utilize Nutrients and Avoid Environmental Problems (Leslie Johnson)
Evaluation of a Solid-Liquid Manure Separation Barn (Teng Lim)
Aeration to Improve Biogas Production by Recalcitrant Feedstock (John Loughrin)
Comprehensive Physiochemical Characterization of Poultry Litter: A First Step Towards Manure Management Plans in Argentina (Roberto Maisonnave)
Use of Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) to Decrease Ammonia Emissions from Beef Cattle Bedded Manure Packs (Mindy Spiehs)
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Global Warming Potential in US Dairy Production (Nicholas Stoddart)
Recovery of Proteins and Phosphorus from Manure (Matias Vanotti)
Adapting to Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest: Promoting Adaptation with Five-Minute Videos of Agricultural Water Conservation and Management Practices (Elizabeth Whitefield)
Review of Odor Management Planning Templates and Calculators across the US (Suraiya Akter)
Effects of pH on Urease Activity in Swine Urine and Urea Solution (Alison Deviney)
Performance of Mitigation Measures in the Dairy Sector under Future Climate Change (Kristina Rolph)
Utilization of Woody Biomass and Manure as Agricultural Soil Amendments in Nebraska (Linda Schott)
Manure Treatment and Natural Inactivation of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus in Soils (Erin Stevens)
Intake and Digestibility of Nutrients, Manure Production, and Nitrogen Excretion as Affected by Nonfiber Carbohydrate Sources and Rumen Degradable Protein Levels in the Diet of Dairy Cows (Fei Sun)
Evaluating the Impact of Ammonia Emissions from Equine Operations on the Environment (Jessie Weir)
Gas-Permeable Membrane Selection Methodology for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery (Jacqueline Welles)
Early Stage Economic Modeling of Gas-Permeable Membrane Technology Applied to Swine Manure After Anaerobic Digestion (Yijia Zhao)
Digester Effluent’s Agronomic and Odor Emission Potential: A Swine Case Study (Rick Stowell)
Demonstration of Water Purification/Treatment/Recycling and Power Generation in a Commercial Dairy (Sergio Capareda)

Thursday, April 20, 2017

6:15 am Run/Walk Opportunity
7:30 am Registration
Sustainable Dairy CAP – Feed and Manure
Pinehurst
Air Quality
Biltmore/Hope
8:05 am – 8:25 am An Overview of a USDA Coordinated Agricultural Project on Dairy Production Climate Change Mitigation (Matt Ruark) Evaluating the Impact of Ammonia Emissions from Equine Operations on the Environment (Jessie Weir)
8:25 am – 8:45 am Methane Mitigation Strategies for Dairy Herds (Larry Chase) Using Wet Scrubber to Reduce Ammonia Emission from Broiler Houses (Hong Li)
8:45 am – 9:05 am Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Manure (Fangle Chang) Natural Resources Conservation Service Reaction to the Final H2S/Gypsum CIG Study Report (W. Hosea Latshaw)
9:00 am Nutrient Recycling Challenge – Snapshots of innovators’ nutrient recovery technology ideas (workshop)
Tanglewood
3*
Overview of the Nutrient Recycling Challenge (Hema Subramanian and Joseph Ziobro)
9:05 am – 9:25 am Estimating GHG Emissions from Manure Management Practices in Dairy Systems (Horacio Aguirre-Villegas) Additive to Mitigate Odor and Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Risk from Gypsum Bedded Dairy Manure (Eileen Fabian)
9:30 am
Showcase of Innovators; Technology Areas (Centrisys Corporation, Trident Processes, PRD Tech Inc, DVO Inc, and Barnyard Industries)
9:25 am – 9:45 am Reducing Greenhouse and Ammonia Emissions from Manure Systems (Rebecca Larson) USDA-NRCS and the National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) for Livestock and Poultry Operations (Greg Zwicke)
9:45 am – 10:00 am
10:00 am Break
Sustainable Dairy CAP – Manure and Crops
Pinehurst
Equine Environmental Management
Biltmore/Hope
1.5*
10:20 am – 10:40 am A quantitative assessment of Beneficial Management Practices to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints of dairy farms in the Great Lakes region (Karin Veltman) Methods for Regulating Dry Matter Intake in Grazing Horses (Paul Siciliano)
10:40 am – 11:00 am The Value of Cover Crops in Dairy Production Systems (Matt Ruark) Nutrient Cycling in Horse Pastures (Carey Williams)
11:00 am – 11:20 am A Model Comparison of Daily N2O Flux with DayCent, DNDC, and EPIC (Richard Gaillard) Elimination of Equine Streptococci from Soiled Equine Bedding (Robert Causey) Workshop for Innovators (Matias Vanotti, Jeff Porter, EPA and NRCS Partners)
11:20 am – 11:40 am Transferring Knowledge of Dairy Sustainability Issues through a Multi-Layered Interactive “Virtual Farm” Website (Eileen Fabian) Pennsylvania Horse Farm’s Whole Farm Balance Inputs of Nitrogen and Phosphorus (Ann Swinker)
11:40 am – 12:00 pm
12:00 pm – 1:30 pm Lunch
Carolina Ballroom
Lunch Conversations available
Anaerobic Digestion Systems
Pinehurst
2
Managing Manure Nutrients and CNMP
Biltmore/Hope
1.5*?
Swine and Poultry Manure Treatment Technologies
Tanglewood
1.5*
1:35 pm – 1:55 pm Innovative Business Models for On-farm Anaerobic Digestion in the U.S. (Nick Elger) Effectiveness of Livestock Exclusion in a Pasture of Central North Carolina (Dan Line) Phosphorus Recovery from Anaerobic Swine Lagoon Sludge Using the Quick Wash™ Process (Matias Vanotti)
1:55 pm – 2:15 pm Case Study: Generating Renewable Energy at Storms Farm, a NC hog farm (Steve Dvorak) Recovery of ammonia and production of high-grade phosphates from digester effluents (Matias Vanotti)
2:15 pm – 2:35 pm Estimating the Economic Value of the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Associated with Dairy Manure Anaerobic Digestion Systems Located in New York State (Peter Wright) What’s New with CNMP? (Sandy Means) Valorization of Manure Treatment for Poultry and Swine Operators (Ed Weinberg)
2:35 pm – 2:55 pm Monetizing Environmental Benefits Associated with Dairy Manure Management Systems that Include Anaerobic Digestion – Challenges, Opportunities, and Values (Curt Gooch) Developing A Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) (Jeff Porter) Nutrient Recovery Membrane Technology: Best Applications and Role in Conservation (John Classen)
2:55 pm – 3:15 pm Assessment of coordinated anaerobic digestion of dairy manure (Mahmoud Sharara) Characterization of Litter Produced in Turkey Production Operations in Virginia (Jactone Ogejo) Nitrogen Treatment in Lagoons (Rakesh Govind; recording only, no proceedings)
3:15 pm – 3:35 pm Integrating Small Scale Digestion Systems in Developing Regions (Rebecca Larson) A Feasibility Study on Optical Sensing Based Rapid Dairy Manure Nutrients Quantification (Gopi Kafle)
3:35 pm – 3:45 pm
3:45 pm Break
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pinehurst
Managing Soil Nutrients
Biltmore/Hope
1.5*
Evaluation of Manure Treatment Technologies
Tanglewood
1.5*
4:05 pm – 4:25 pm Evaluation of a Model to Predict Enteric Methane Production from Feedlot Cattle (Tracy Jennings) Fertilizer Value of Nitrogen Captured Using Ammonia Scrubbers (Philip Moore) Environmental Tradeoffs of Alternative Scenarios for Swine Waste Management Technologies:  A Life Cycle Perspective (Shannon Banner)
4:25 pm – 4:45 pm Livestock Methane Emissions Estimated and Mapped at a County-level Scale for the Contiguous United States (Robert Meinen) Assessment of Condensed Distillers Solubles (CDS) and Wet Distillers Grains (WDG) as Sources of Phosphorus Fertilizer for Corn and Wheat (Jasper Teboh) Inclusion of the Environment Bottom Line in Waste to Worth: The Interaction Between Economics, Environmental effects, and Farm Productivity in Assessment of Manure Management Technology and Policy (Shannon Banner)
4:45 pm – 5:05 pm How Well Do We Understand Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Open-lot Cattle Systems? (Heidi Waldrip) Gypsum as a Best Management Practice for Reducing P Loss from Agricultural Fields? (Dexter B. Watts) Manure Management Technology Selection Guidance (Jeff Porter)
5:05 pm – 5:25 pm Spatial variabilty in nitrous oxide and methane emissions from beef cattle feedyard pen surfaces (Kenneth Casey; no proceedings, recording only) USDA-NRCS Conservation Practice Standard: Amending Soil Properties with Gypsum Products (Allen Torbert) Cataloging and Evaluating Dairy Manure Treatment Technologies (Mark Stoermann)
5:30 pm Dinner on your own
Dinners for Six available

Friday, April 21, 2017

Energy Systems and Sustainability Efforts
Pinehurst
1.5
8:05 am – 8:25 am Environmental Sustainability of Beef (Alan Rotz)
8:25 am – 8:45 am Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling efficiency in US food supply chains – a national mass-balance approach (Karen Veltman)
8:45 am – 9:05 am Renewable Energy Set-Asides Push Biogas to Pipeline (Gus Simmons) On-Farm Nutrient Management Research:
Replacing Commercial Sidedress Nitrogen with Liquid Livestock Manure on Emerged Corn
(workshop by Glen Arnold)
Biltmore/Hope
1*
9:00 am Improving Presentation Skills:
Putting the Power in PowerPoint
(workshop by Callie Herron)
Tanglewood
0.5*
9:05 am – 9:25 am Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet and Gaseous Waste Streams: Challenges and Opportunities (Mark Philbrick)
9:25 am – 9:45 am
9:45 am Break
Climate Conversations and Resiliency
Pinehurst
1.5
Soil Microbes and Antibiotics
Tanglewood
1
10:05 am – 10:25 am Talking Climate with Animal Agriculture Advisers (Pam Knox) Panel Discussion: A Look at Extension Programs Working with Commercial Manure Haulers
Biltmore/Hope
Microarthropods as Bioindicators of Soil Health Following Land Application of Swine Slurry (Amy Schmidt)
10:25 am – 10:45 am Continuous Response Measurement: A Tool to Assess the Effectiveness of Agricultural GHG Mitigation Messaging among Extension Educators (David Smith) Sensitivity of Soil Microbial Processes to Livestock Antimicrobials (Daniel Miller)
10:45 am – 11:05 am Scenario Planning for the New York State Dairy Industry in a Changing Climate (Crystal Powers) Effectiveness of Different Dairy Manure Management Practices in Controlling the Spread of Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance (Jason Oliver)
11:05 am – 11:30 am Planning for resilience: Using scenarios to address potential impacts of climate change for the North Plains Beef System (Crystal Powers)
11:30 am Adjourn

ⓝ – nutrient management CCA credits requested (*indicates approval)

ⓟ – professional development CCA credits requested (*indicates approval)

ⓢ – soil and water CCA credits requested (*indicates approval)

Estimating GHG Emissions from Manure Management Practices in Dairy Systems

Proceedings HomeW2W Home  waste to worth 2017 logo

Purpose

This study had the objective of quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from different manure management practices and dairy farm sizes. A comparison of the main practices among farm sizes was also conducted to highlight practices that are able to minimize GHG emissions.

What did we do?

First, a survey was sent to Wisconsin dairy farms to collect information on manure management, machinery power, and time of operation. Manure management practices includeTable 1. Summary of the effects of various livestock antibiotics on decomposition under aerobic, anaerobic, and denitrifying conditionsd collection, transportation, storage, land application, and processing (anaerobic digestion (AD), solid-liquid separation (SLS), and sand separation (SS)). Second, modelling tools were used to estimate GHG emissions based on farm size and practice. Four farm sizes have been evaluated: small (1-99 animal units, 1 AU = 1,000 pounds of animal), medium (100-199 AU), large (200-999 AU) and permitted facilities (≥ 1,000 AU).

Three representative farms were modeled for GHG emissions based on survey results: a small farm (75 AU) handling 1.8 ton solid manure/day, a large farm (425 AU) handling 21.7 ton liquid manure/day, and a permitted facility (2,000 AU) handling 140 ton liquid manure/day and with manure processing. In addition, a base case scenario with the most representative practices for each farm size, and a low and a high GHG emitting scenario were modeled to analyze potential mitigation strategies (Table 1).

What have we learned?

Nitrous oxide (N2O) after manure land-application is the major contributor to GHG emissions in small farms (Figure 1). Most small farms land-apply manure daily or have short termFigure storage. Emissions can be reduced by using a barn cleaner instead of a skid steer as it is more efficient in terms of energy consumption. The high emitting scenario in small farms indicates that adding long term storage would increase GHG emissions mostly in the form of methane (CH4) from storage.

Storage is the major contributor to GHG emissions for large farms, where most emissions occur in the form of CH4. Storage CH4 emissions can be reduced by minimizing the storage retention time or by using a cover. Despite that manure storage has implications on air quality, its role is crucial for water quality purposes and therefore, removing the storage structure from the dairy farm is not a feasible option.

Manure processing is an interesting GHG mitigation strategy as shown in the permitted facility scenarios (Figure 1). AD and SLS achieve significant GHG emission reductions, where negative emissions indicate that AD displaces more GHG emissions from the production of grid electricity than the emissions coming from all manure handling processes. Injecting manure instead of surface applying it has proven to reduce ammonia emissions, but it resulted in an increase in N2O emissions in our model.

Future Plans

There is opportunity for future work analyzing data collected in the survey. These data include nutrient use, crop yields, bedding use and replacement, and milk yield and characteristics, which can be analyzed in the context of farm size and management practices.

Corresponding author, title, and affiliation

Aguirre-Villegas, Horacio Andres. Assistant Scientist. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Corresponding author email

aguirreville@wisc.edu

Other authors

Rebecca Larson. Assistant Professor. Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional information

References

Aguirre-Villegas, Horacio A., and Rebecca A. Larson. 2017. “Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Manure Management Practices Using Survey Data and Lifecycle Tools.” Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 169–79. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.133.

Acknowledgements

 

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2013-68002-20525. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 

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

2017 Waste to Worth Proceedings Submission Form

This form is for oral and poster presentations. If you have a workshop or panel, please send a one paragraph description, photos and short bios (2 or 3 sentences) for each presenter to Amber Patterson apatterson6@unl.edu and Jill Heemstra jheemstra@unl.edu. See this for an example panel description.

Proceedings Guidelines | Waste to Worth Conference Website | Example proceedings (selected for writing and/or use of imagery) Smith | Bogardus | Frequently Asked Questions

NOTE: If the form below does not show up for you, try these steps. 1) look for any warnings in the URL bar, click on them and try to resolve or allow the content 2) download this Word form, fill it out and email to Amber Patterson apatterson6@unl.edu or 3) Copy and paste the outline from the guidelines document into a blank Word (or similar format) document, create your proceedings, and email it with graphics/images as separate attachments to Amber.

Thank you for participating in the 3rd Waste to Worth conference! We look forward to seeing you and hearing more about your work.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should my paper be?

We recommend that your combined text fields are one page (in Word, Google Docs, or similar program). Images and tables can be added above and beyond that one page. The paper can be longer if you wish, but we request at least one page of text.

What are videos embedded in the past proceedings?

We try to record every presentation at Waste to Worth and embed that video in the proceedings paper after the conference. Every presenter can choose to not be recorded and can indicate such to the session moderator.

How will I know if my proceedings paper was submitted?

You should receive a confirmation email after you submit the form. If you do not, you can contact Jill Heemstra jheemstra@unl.edu. The electronic form system has been very reliable, but problems do occur, especially when many people are submitted at the same time (such as the due date). As such, we HIGHLY recommend that you compose your paper in Word, Google Docs, or similar program so that you have a backup copy.

Can I submit my paper after the due date?

Only papers submitted by the due date are guaranteed to be published by the conference. We do encourage everyone to submit their paper even after the due date. As time/personnel allow, we will try to get late papers published for use after the conference. These papers receive a large number of views, even after the conference is complete.

 

Avian Influenza Mortality Management Options, Composting Procedures and Lessons Learned

This presentation outlines mortality management options during an animal disease outbreak and highlight the composting methodology implemented on poultry operations during the HPAI outbreak, as well as the successes, challenges and lessons learned. This presentation was originally broadcast on February 17, 2017. More… Continue reading “Avian Influenza Mortality Management Options, Composting Procedures and Lessons Learned”