Tag: w2w25

Posted on

The Economics of Carbon Markets for Dairy Industry

Purpose

Dairy farmers in Washington state have been under significant pressure to reduce their carbon footprint in recent years. Dairy cooperative sustainability initiatives such as achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 have left many producers wondering what will be required of them to help their cooperatives meet this goal. Coupled with regulatory pressures to report on their greenhouse gas emissions and the threat of regulation to reduce them, uncertainty remains for producers around the types of climate-smart practices that will enable them to reduce their carbon footprint while remaining economically viable.

Without a thorough understanding of the costs and risks, pressures, or requirements to implement climate-smart practices may inadvertently drive consolidation and the accelerated loss of small to medium sized farms.

What Did We Do?

Utilizing Washington state dairy facility data, I conducted an economic cost benefit analysis of two climate-smart practices that capture GHGs from anaerobic storage: anaerobic digestors and the covered lagoon and flare system and the size of operation needed to implement both practices based on current and historic market conditions and technology costs. Private and public investment in climate-smart practices can have a substantial impact on whether they are economically feasible for producers to implement. I considered the impacts of various levels of cost-share on the size of farm able to adopt the technology based on several economic indicators.

What Have We Learned?

Most dairy farms cannot simply raise their prices to offset the costs of climate-smart practices, therefore it is critical to understand the broad economic impacts of imposing emissions reductions mandates. With consolidation being a well-documented trend across dairy farms in the United States, it is possible that climate regulations will only further exacerbate this trend due to the high capital costs and market risk associated with climate-smart farming that only facilities of scale can take on.

Future Plans

I am actively assisting research right now in Washington state with university and private researchers into dairy farm carbon intensities, across various farm sizes and facility types. An overview of this research may be available by Summer of 2025. Once this work is completed, we will have a better understanding of overall farm emissions and what climate-smart practices may be necessary for farms to implement to help achieve cooperative net zero targets.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Nina Gibson, Agricultural Economist and Policy Specialist, Washington State Department of Agriculture, KGibson@agr.wa.gov

Additional Information

Link to Podcast I hosted, the Carbon and Cow$ Podcast, which covers the risks and opportunities associated with carbon markets for dairy and livestock producers: https://csanr.wsu.edu/program-areas/climate-friendly-farming/carbon-and-cows-podcast/

Link to my program’s homepage at WSDA: https://agr.wa.gov/manure

My Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nina-gibson-b482a8119/

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Comparative Evaluation of Dairy Manure Compost Supply Chains in the US Pacific Northwest

Purpose

The overall objectives of this research are to describe the current linkages among participants in the dairy manure compost supply chains in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) states of ID, OR, and WA and to provide analytical insights into the challenges and opportunities for enhancing manure compost marketability and usage in the different regions. Obtaining an enhanced understanding of these market dynamics is necessary for explaining why and how dairy compost quality varies and for identifying strategies for establishing and/or strengthening linkages among market participants. Improving dairy compost quality and increasing usage among crop producers is important for achieving sustainable environmental quality and agricultural business profitability in all PNW states.

What Did We Do?

Our analysis builds on the underlying concept that is outlined in Extension bulletins and other references from universities in the PNW (e.g., Chen et al. 2011), which emphasize that developing good quality dairy manure-based compost requires achieving a proper Carbon (C) to Nitrogen (N) ratio (C:N) of about 30:1. It is common that supplemental C is needed to increase the C:N balance in dairy manure-based compost to that magnitude. There are various sources of supplemental C used by PNW compost producers, but the most common are cereals (barley and wheat) straw, corn stalks/silage, sawdust, and wood chips.

We created Figure 1 to describe, with several assumptions, the major participants in the PNW dairy compost supply chains and the nature of their typical interactions with each other. The main participants include dairies, compost businesses, logging businesses, cereals farms, laboratory testers, and silage farmers. We next implemented data-driven analyses to determine if and the extent to which the linkages among the dairy compost supply chain participants differ across PNW states, based on the structure of the dairy and other aligned industries (e.g., logging) in each state. The principal objective of the analyses was to quantify the relative spatial concentration of the dairy industries, which has implications for business profitability and policy-driven incentives for implementing the composting process. We used a couple of different measures of dairy market concentration for comparison. The first is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which is a statistical measure of industry concentration (Rhoades, 1993). We applied the calculation of the HHI in a manner that is different than is typically done such that the obtained values represent differences in the spatial concentration of the dairy industries in ID, OR, and WA. We supplemented the HHI values with calculations of the ratios of dairy cow inventories to cropland acreage. Lastly, to obtain insights about the relative strengths of linkages among potential dairy compost supply chain entities, we estimated the correlation between county level dairy cow inventories, cropland acreage, and the numbers of other entities (e.g., logging businesses) for each state.

Figure 1. Diagram of major PNW dairy compost supply chain linkages (Source: Authors)
Figure 1. Diagram of major PNW dairy compost supply chain linkages (Source: Authors)

What Have We Learned?

The estimated HHI values in our context could range from close to about 100, which would reflect an even distribution of dairy cows among all counties in a state, to 10,000, which would imply that all dairy cows are in a single county. Our estimated HHI values based on 2022 data from the USDA Census of Agriculture were 1,378 for ID, 2,307 for OR, and 2,082 for WA. Thus, by the HHI measure, the dairy industries in OR and WA are more spatially concentrated than that in ID. However, by the ratio of dairy cow inventory to cropland acreage measure, all states have counties with relatively high concentrations of dairy cows, but to different extents across states. Additionally, estimates from the correlation analysis at the county level show a positive relationship between dairy cow inventories and cropland acreage for all states (statistically significant at the 5% confidence level for OR). A negative, but not statistically significant, relationship was found between the number of logging businesses and dairy cows in all states, but the magnitude was largest in ID. Thus, it is more common that counties have both dairy cows and logging businesses in a county in OR and WA than in ID. These relationships help explain why wood-based amendments with higher C are likely more commonly used in the composting process in OR and WA than in ID, as well as how the associated compost qualities differ across states.

Future Plans

The analyses we have implemented so far are at the county level. We plan to implement additional analyses that include identifying larger multi-county dairy producing regions and compiling more data on the existing supply chain participants, including cropland acreage for other crops (i.e., non-grain and silage) in such regions. This expanded analysis will provide more regionally specific assessments of the differences in dairy compost components/quality among the major dairy producing regions in the PNW.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Patrick Hatzenbuehler, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist – Crop Economics, University of Idaho, phatzenbuehler@uidaho.edu

Additional authors

Srijan Budhathoki, Graduate Student, Washington State University

Mario de Haro-Martí, Extension Educator – Gooding County, University of Idaho

Anthony Simerlink, Extension Educator – Power County, University of Idaho

Additional Information

Idaho Sustainable Agriculture Initiative for Dairy

Acknowledgements

Research funding was provided by USDA-NIFA Sustainable Agricultural Systems Grant No. 2020-69012-31871 and the Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Manure Can Offset Nitrogen Fertilizer Needs and Increase Corn Silage Yield – Value of Manure Project

Purpose


Manure is a tremendously valuable nutrient source. Not all the nitrogen (N) in manure is plant-available at land application. Organic N is released into plant-available forms over multiple years. Inorganic N availability depends on the application method and timing, with more plant-available N from manure when injected in the spring than when surface applied in fall. A manure N crediting system was developed in New York in the late 90s that credits N from manure based on manure’s composition and application timing and method. With advances in farm management, the manure that dairy farms are land-applying now may be very different from the manure sources used to develop that crediting system. The Value of Manure project was initiated by the New York On-Farm Research Partnership in 2022 to update New York’s manure crediting system. Over multiple years, the project evaluates different manure sources, application methods, and timings that commercial farms now use. Additionally, we are documenting the impact of manure on yield beyond what can be obtained with inorganic fertilizer only.

What Did We Do?

Nineteen trials were implemented on commercially farmed corn fields across New York between 2022 and 2024 (Figure 1). Each trial had three strips that received manure and three that did not, for a total of six strips per trial (Figure 2a). Five “carryover” trials received manure in the spring of year 1, and we tested manure N and yield benefits in the second year after application. Manure was applied and tested in the same year in all the other trials. Soil type, dairy manure type (digestate, separated liquids, untreated, etc.), application rate, and application methods (broadcasted, injected, etc.) varied across trials (see our “What’s Cropping Up?” extension articles in the Additional Information section for more details).

When corn was at the V4-V6 stage each strip was divided into six sub-strips (Figure 2b), and subplots were sidedressed at a rate usually ranging from 0 to 200 pounds N/acre. Sidedress rates were trial-specific, based on the expected N requirement of each field according to the Nitrogen Guidelines for Field Crops in New York. In each trial, we measured manure nutrient composition, general soil fertility, Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test (PSNT), Corn Stalk Nitrate Test (CSNT), yield, and forage quality.

Figure 1. Nineteen Value of Manure trials have been implemented across New York between 2023 and 2024.
Figure 1. Nineteen Value of Manure trials have been implemented across New York between 2023 and 2024.
Figure 2. Layout of a Value of Manure study plot. Three strips received manure before planting corn (1a). At the V4-V6 stage each of the six strips received six different inorganic N sidedress rates (1b).
Figure 2. Layout of a Value of Manure study plot. Three strips received manure before planting corn (1a). At the V4-V6 stage each of the six strips received six different inorganic N sidedress rates (1b).

What Have We Learned?

In the three years of the project, we have documented how manure offsets fertilizer needs and “bumps” yields. Yield responses to manure and fertilizer N vary by location and year, influenced by field past management (manure history, crop rotation, etc.) and weather.

    • We observed no yield response to manure or sidedress N application in three trials (Figure 3A, Table 1 trial A). That was likely due to high N credits from past manure applications. Yet those trials were among the highest-yielding ones and had excessive CSNT results.
    • At the Most Economical Rate of N (MERN, the N rate that maximizes economic return), manure replaced inorganic N fertilizer in six trials by lowering sidedress fertilizer needs (Figure 3B, Table 1 trial B). In the manure strips for these trials, yields at MERN were higher than the yields at the MERN of the no-manure plots.
    • In three trials manure applications increased yields to such elevated levels (2.3 to 4.6 tons/acre), that it also increased the crop’s need for fertilizer N (Figure 3C, Table 1 trial C).
    • Significant yield bumps due to manure application were documented in fourteen trials. These yield bumps were also present in all five “carry-over” trials, where we saw that manure applied in year 1 benefited yields in the second year after application (Figure 3D, the carryover study of Figure 3C trial, Table 1 trial D).
Figure 3. Four examples of crop response to manure and sidedresss N as part of the statewide Value of Manure trials conducted between 2022 and 2024. Orange text boxes are the MERN and yield at MERN for manured plots; gray text boxes are MERN and yield at the MERN for no-manure plots. Yields are in tons/acre at 35% dry matter (DM).
Figure 3. Four examples of crop response to manure and sidedresss N as part of the statewide Value of Manure trials conducted between 2022 and 2024. Orange text boxes are the MERN and yield at MERN for manured plots; gray text boxes are MERN and yield at the MERN for no-manure plots. Yields are in tons/acre at 35% dry matter (DM).
Table 1. Most economic rates of N (MERN) for no-manure and manure plots and manure-induced yield increase (tons/acre at 35% dry matter) for four examples of crop response to manure and sidedress N as part of the statewide Value of Manure trials conducted between 2022 and 2024.
Trial No manure MERN Manure MERN Manure-induced yield increase
————- pounds N/acre ————- tons/acre
A 0 0 0
B 114 56 0.6
C 56 113 4.6
D * 132 128 2.7
*Note: Trial D was a carryover study where manure was applied in the spring of 2023 and we tested its value for 2024 corn.

Future Plans

To re-evaluate the current N crediting system and learn how to predict and take into account yield bumps, the Value of Manure project requires the addition of more trials beyond the nineteen trials completed so far. Thus, the Value of Manure Project will continue in 2025. We will be testing additional manure types and application methods in various soil types and weather conditions and follow up with several sites to determine carryover benefits into the third year after application.

Authors

Presenting author

Juan Carlos Ramos Tanchez, On-Farm Research Coordinator, Nutrient Management Spear Program, Cornell University

Corresponding author (name, title, affiliation)

Quirine M. Ketterings, Professor, Cornell University, qmk2@cornell.edu

Additional authors

Kirsten Workman, Nutrient Management and Environmental Sustainability Specialist, PRO-DAIRY and Nutrient Management Spear Program, Cornell University; Carlos Irias, Master Student, Nutrient Management Spear Program, Cornell University.

Additional Information

Acknowledgements

We thank the farms participating in the project and their collaborators for their help in establishing and maintaining each trial location, and for providing valuable feedback on the findings. This project has been funded by Northern New York Agricultural Development Program, New York Farm Viability Institute, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, Dairy Management Inc., and the Foundation for Food & Agricultural Research.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Performance of Manure Processing Systems in Wisconsin

Purpose

Advanced manure processing technologies offer the potential to enhance the sustainability of these systems by separating manure into various streams for more efficient post-processing management. This presentation will synthesize findings from multiple full-scale studies on manure processing systems, focusing on separation technologies. It will also include recent evaluations of systems designed to treat manure to a quality suitable for discharge into surface waters. The data presented will cover separation efficiencies of key components, system performance, operational challenges, barriers to adoption, and the results of life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts when integrated into dairy facilities. These insights can provide valuable guidance for producers and stakeholders on how to integrate these systems effectively to achieve targeted environmental and operational outcomes.

What Did We Do?

A number of full-scale manure separation systems were analyzed over time to assess the nutrient separation efficiency of each component. This included systems from previously published data as well as two new sites analyzed in 2024-2025.

Site 1. A total of 45 manure samples were collected over 37 weeks from the Aqua Innovations treatment system located in Middleton, WI. Samples were collected from the (1) influent manure (following digestion), the (2) separated solid (screw press)and (3) liquids from the separator (screw press), (4) separated solid (centrifuge), (5) liquids from separator (centrifuge), (6) ultrafiltration (UF) concentrate and, (7) UF treated liquid, and the (8) reverse osmosis concentrate, and (9) clean water discharged.

Site 2. Samples were also collected from a dairy with a Livestock Water Recycling system located in Kiel, WI. Similarly, samples were collected over 45 sampling events from (1) liquid influent entering the inclined screen/roller press (raw manure), (2) liquid effluent following the inclined screen/roller press, (3) solids following the polymer assisted inclined screen/roller press, (4) liquid effluent following polymer assisted inclined screen/roller press, (5) outflow from clarifier, (6) liquid effluent following reverse osmosis (“clean” water), and (7) nutrient concentrate following reverse osmosis.

Samples were collected and shipped to Great Lakes Labs after each week of sampling and manure analyzed for manure total solids (or dry matter), total phosphorus, total nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, potassium among many other sample parameters. Nutrient separation efficiencies were then compared for the entire system and each system component to previously collected data and data reported in literature.

What Have We Learned?

Separation efficiencies vary significantly for each nutrient through the system. Mutiple separation systems in series reduce variability in separation efficiency. Manure nitrogen is primarily removed from advanced treatment components, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis, while solids and phosphorus are primarily removed in the initial separation stages.

Future Plans

Data will be further analyzed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. The data will also be integrated into a partial life cycle assessment to determine the impact to various environmental impact categories. This will be useful in aiding farmers in selecting processing systems for targeted outcomes in terms of nutrient separation and environmental outcomes.

Authors

Presenting & corresponding author

Rebecca A. Larson, Professor, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Additional author(s)

Tyler Liskow, Engineer, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Brian Langolf, Researcher, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Horacio Aguirre-Villegas, Scientist, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Additional Information

https://dairy.extension.wisc.edu/articles/treating-manure-to-produce-clean-water/

Acknowledgements

Newtrient and the USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants for the funding to complete system sampling.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Enhancing Precision Manure Nutrient Application with Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) Sensors

Purpose

Land application of manure is crucial for providing nutrients to crops, yet challenges such as nutrient losses and reduced nutrient use efficiency (NUE) affect sustainability. This study evaluates a commercially available real-time near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) nutrient-sensing system to enhance precision manure nutrient application in crop production systems. The study assesses the impact of the NIRS system on manure application rates, NUE, and crop yield compared to conventional fixed-rate methods.

What Did We Do?

Field trials were conducted using a John Deere Harvest Lab 3000 NIRS system, rate controller, and Krone Flow meter on a manure tanker, Figure 1. Manure was applied to achieve a target total nitrogen rate for corn silage, with application rates varied to simulate manure nutrient variations during lagoon emptying.

Figure 1. Location of sensor on manure tanker
Figure 1. Location of sensor on manure tanker

What Have We Learned?

Although NIRS predictions taken in laboratory conditions for total nitrogen were lower than the ranges reported for Manure analysis proficiency (MAP) certified laboratory results, the ammoniacal nitrogen,  phosphorous (P2O5), and potassium (K2O) were with the MAP lab ranges reported in Sanford et al. (2020). However, additional data is needed for assessment of the sensor accuracy during field conditions.

First-year field trial data indicate that NIRS was closer to the intended nitrogen application rates and had improved NUE with no significant differences in yield compared to those using conventional fixed-rate application methods. Further, the system is capable of producing manure nutrient application maps that can be used for supplemental nutrient applications, Figure 2.

Figure 2: Nitrogen application maps produced by the sensing system during plot trials
Figure 2: Nitrogen application maps produced by the sensing system during plot trials

Overall, integrating NIRS into the land application system demonstrates potential improvements in precision nutrient application over conventional methods. Further trials and analyses are planned to assess the accuracy of the NIRS sensor and its broader impact on nutrient management and application precision.

Future Plans

Researchers plan to continue field trials for another one to two years to assess the impacts over multiple field years. This includes assessing the sensor accuracy in field conditions. Further, researchers’ previous trials have focused on applying based on manure nitrogen content. Additional trials will assess applying manure with a phosphorus limit using the same sensor. Lastly, researchers are working to guide farmers interested in integrating the system and aiding in using developed maps to improve supplemental nitrogen application.

References

Sanford, J.R., R.A. Larson, & M.F. Digman. 2020. Assessing certified manure analysis laboratory accuracy and variability. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 36(6):905-912. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.14214

Authors

Presenting author

Tyler Liskow, Engineer, Professor, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Corresponding author

Rebecca A. Larson, Professor, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, rebecca.larson@wisc.edu

Additional authors

Tyler Liskow, Engineer, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Joseph Sanford, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture under award number 2022-69008-36506.

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. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

The Effect of Cover Crops on Nutrient Leaching

Purpose

An NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) state-wide study examining soil health is underway.  Seventeen farms across the state of Utah are incorporating various soil health practices and are comparing them to their conventional practices (no soil health treatment).  Mini zero-tension lysimeters (12” diameter) were installed at two of the locations in northern Utah (Cache Valley), to collect leachate.  Cache Valley has a semi-arid climate with warm summers and cold winters.  The soil type on both farms is a Lewiston sandy loam.  Both of these farms apply manure and are incorporating cover crops as part of their soil health management.  The fields are irrigated.  Leachate is being collected to evaluate the impact of cover crops on nutrient leaching.  Other scientists are examining various soil health parameters, such as bulk density, soil carbon tests, water infiltration, etc.

Leachate is being collected bi-weekly throughout the growing season, and as late as possible into the winter.  Leachate samples are being analyzed for available N (ammonia and nitrate/nitrite), and dissolved phosphorus on a Lachat Auto-Analyzer using Methods 10-10701-2-A, 10-107-04-1-A, and 10-115-01-1-A, respectively.  Deep soil cores are also being collected to a depth of 5 feet and will be analyzed for nitrogen and phosphorus.

What Did We Do?

Mini zero-tension lysimeters were installed in the spring of 2023.  In year 1, both farms (GS and JC) planted corn with a cover crop (rye, clover, vetch, brassica mix) being interseeded at ~ the V5 stage.  Due to the short growing season, cover crop establishment early in the season, before canopy cover, is needed to get adequate cover crop growth in the fall.  In year 2, the GS Farm began transitioning to alfalfa.  Oats were planted in the spring and terminated for a late summer/early fall alfalfa planting.  Three-way grass will be interseeded into alfalfa in the spring of 2025 for the soil health treatment.  In year 2, the JC Farm missed the window for getting the cover crop interseeded into the corn crop.  There was no soil health treatment in effect for the 2024 growing season on the JC Farm.

Leachate is being collected bi-weekly throughout the growing season, and as late as possible in the winter.  Leachate samples are being analyzed for available N (ammonia and nitrate/nitrite), and dissolved phosphorus on a Lachat Auto-Analyzer using Methods 10-10701-2-A, 10-107-04-1-A, and 10-115-01-1-A, respectively.  Deep soil cores are also being collected to a depth of 5 feet and will be analyzed for nitrogen and phosphorus.

What Have We Learned?

On the GS Farm, the leachate from the soil health treatment had, on average, a lower nitrate concentration.  There was also less leachate produced, and less total nitrate going past the soil root zone.   On the JC Farm in 2023, the soil health treatment also produced leachate with a lower nitrate concentration than their conventional treatment.  There was also less total leachate produced and less total nitrate loss when cover crops were interseeded into the corn in 2023.  Those results disappeared in 2024 when a cover crop was not planted.  Even with the cover crop, the leachate (on average) exceeded the drinking water standard for nitrate concentration.  The application of manure in the spring likely contributed to this loss.

Future Plans

This study will continue for three more years.  The goal is to verify and demonstrate practices that improve soil health and minimize environmental impacts.

Authors

Presenting & Corresponding author

Rhonda Miller, Professor, Utah State University, rhonda.miller@usu.edu

Additional authors

Katie Hewitt, Graduate Student, Utah State University; Bruce Miller, Professor, Utah State University

Acknowledgements

Funding provided by NRCS CIG Grant “Utah Soil Health Partnership On-Farm Trials” – Agreement Number NR223A750013G009

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7-11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Using ManureTech Decision-Support Tools to Aid in Manure System Selection

Purpose

The purpose of the ManureTech Decision-Support Tools (DST) for Dairy and for Swine is to assist farmers, consultants, and others in the dairy/swine industry in optimizing the management of manure from collection to land application. By providing data-driven recommendations based upon customizable inputs and priorities, the ManureTech DST help users make informed decisions about manure management systems in consideration of the economic, environmental, and operational needs of farm management.

What Did We Do?

A multi-state team has developed Excel-based decision-support tools for selecting technology and systems for managing manure on dairy and swine operations as part of a USDA NIFA-funded project.

During this workshop, participants will be introduced to the ManureTech DST for Dairy and the ManureTech DST for Swine and will be provided with hands-on training in using the decision-support tool for dairy.  Major aspects of the tools that will be addressed in the workshop include an introduction to the user interface; entering primary inputs; prioritization of economic, environmental, and operational metrics; and reporting of results, including the ranking of manure system scenarios.

What Have We Learned?

In terms of learning, this effort has provided the project team with a fuller grasp of the complex nature of manure management!  In terms of accomplishments, the team has assembled a tool that considers the multi-faceted benefits and challenges of various manure management systems and presents users with a ranked list of systems for consideration, which should help expedite and enhance system selection.  Users of the ManureTech DST can provide farm-specific weight to economic, environmental, and operational criteria which allows ManureTech DST to rank alternative manure management scenarios in close alignment with individual priorities.

This visual illustrates what a user of the ManureTech Decision-Support Tool sees when weighing economic, environmental, and operational priorities of a farm, so that the rankings of the manure management systems reflect these farm priorities.  In the illustrated case, the user preferences favor economic priorities over others.
This visual illustrates what a user of the ManureTech Decision-Support Tool sees when weighing economic, environmental, and operational priorities of a farm, so that the rankings of the manure management systems reflect these farm priorities.  In the illustrated case, the user preferences favor economic priorities over others.

Future Plans

Future plans include completing beta testing / pilot-testing of the ManureTech DST and conducting additional training on using the tool.  Over a longer-range timeframe, the team would like to add some additional specialized capabilities and functionality, as a phase II effort.

Authors

Presenting authors

    • Erin Scott, Project/Program Manager, University of Arkansas
    • Varma Vempalli, Wastewater Treatment Specialist, City of Meridian (ID)
    • Jacob Hickman, Systems Analyst, University of Arkansas
    • Rick Stowell, Extension Specialist in Animal Environment, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    • Teng Lim, Extension Professor and Engineer, University of Missouri

Corresponding author

Rick Stowell, Extension Specialist in Animal Environment, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Richard.Stowell@unl.edu

Additional authors

    • Erin Scott, Project/Program Manager, University of Arkansas
    • Jacob Hickman, Systems Analyst, University of Arkansas
    • Jennie Popp, Associate Dean and Professor, University of Arkansas
    • Varma Vempalli, Wastewater Treatment Specialist, City of Meridian (ID)
    • Greg Thoma, Director of Agricultural Modeling and Lifecycle Assessment, Colorado State University
    • Teng Lim, Extension Professor and Engineer, University of Missouri

Additional Information

The ManureTech DST and related articles can be accessed at Decision-Support Tools – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge funding from the USDA NIFA AFRI Water for Food Production Systems program, grant #2018-68011-28691.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Summary of Manure Handling Certification Programs Across the United States

Purpose

Effective management of manuresheds is important to address regional mass nutrient imbalances of manure nitrogen and phosphorus (Speigal et. al., 2020). To date, a summary description of state-level certification programs of those that apply, transport, or broker manure has not been published in literature. The purpose of this research (Flynn et. al., 2025) was to: 1) enumerate and characterize manure handling certification programs across the US; 2) investigate correlation of state programs and manure surpluses/regional manureshed source areas; and 3) explore a Wisconsin case study focused on voluntary, market-based, statewide certification and correlation with reduced manure spills and safe land application.

What Did We Do?

Thorough internet examinations of state agency and university websites were used to compile descriptive data for state manure hauling, brokering, and application certification requirements. Data from a Qualtrics survey used to gather further details of certification programs received input from university or agency professionals from all 50 states. Data from the internet search and survey was compiled, quantified, and placed in a data repository (Erb, Inaoka, and Meinen, 2024). A case study summarized information from historical surveys, reports, and conference proceedings and reported impacts of certification and associated educational programming in the state of Wisconsin (e.g. Erb, 2022; Erb, 2024; Erb et. al., 2011; Erb et. al., 2021; Erb, Kostelny, et. al., 2024; Erb, et. al., 2009; Erb et. al., 2015; Erb and Stieglitz, 2007).

What Have We Learned?

Legal definitions of certification are diverse among states but can largely be defined as legal permissions to handle manure. Certification programs are present in 26 of 50 states. Certifications were placed into three categories: farmers, professional manure transporter/applicators, and manure brokers. Many states certify individuals in more than one category, that may be mandatory or voluntary. Categorization of certification programs revealed the following:

    • Producer certification existed in 21 states (15 mandatory, 6 voluntary).
    • Transporter/Applicator certification existed in 20 states (13 mandatory, 7 voluntary).
    • Broker certification existed in 10 states (7 mandatory, 3 voluntary).

When certification characterization was transferred to maps there were no clear standardization or spatial patterns between states. However, when compared to maps of animal concentrations and manureshed surplus areas, it was apparent that certification programs do cover much of the country’s intensive animal production regions. The largest lack of certification programs was in some Appalachian and western states.

Researchers concluded that state, watershed, and manureshed management goals can be assisted through certification of producers, transporters/applicators, and brokers that handle manure. Implementation of multi-state cooperation, standardization, and reciprocation of manure certification programs would assist in goals of parties across state, watershed, and manureshed boundaries.

Authors

Presenting author

Robert J. Meinen. Director Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Education Program, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, rjm134@psu.edu

Additional author(s) (name, title, and affiliation for each)

    • Colton Flynn. USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
    • Kevin Erb. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension, Green Bay, WI.
    • Jenifer L. Yost. USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
    • Mirai Inaoka. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
    • Sheri Spiegal. USDA-ARS, Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM.

Additional Information

Flynn, K.C., Erb, K., Meinen, R.J., Yost, J.L., Inaoka, M., and Spiegal, S. Manure Handling Certification Programs in Manuresheds Across the United States. Cleaner Waste Systems. February 27, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2025.100241

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Soil Property Effect on Nitrogen Mineralization of Dairy Manure in the Pacific Northwest

Purpose

Growers often use total nitrogen (N) concentration of dairy manure to estimate plant available N for crop production. This estimate often does not take into account the role soil properties may have on N mineralization (Nmin) rates. This study aims to determine how soil properties impact Nmin rates of dairy manure and composted dairy manure by aerobic incubation. The soil properties investigated, including soil texture, percent organic matter, pH, EC, buffer pH, NO3-N, NH4-N, Olsen P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, CEC, S, Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu, B, and CaCO3 equivalent, which are all accessible to producers sending soil samples to a commercial soil laboratory. The goal of this project is to incorporate soil properties into N availability prediction models for dairy manure to improve N use efficiency of field-applied manure.

What Did We Do?

A total of 16 different soil series were sampled throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho in major dairy producing counties at a 12-inch depth. These soils represent over 1.6 million acres in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). One solid dairy manure was sampled in Idaho and one composted dairy manure was sampled in Oregon to be applied to the soils during incubation. All the soils were analyzed for a full suite of soil physiochemical properties at a local soil testing laboratory. The manures similarly received a full analysis at the same laboratory.

We conducted a 12-week incubation of manure-amended soils at 77°F (25°C), sampling periodically for nitrate and ammonium to determine the difference in Nmin rates with changes in soil physiochemical properties. Approximately 1.1 lbs (500 g) of soil was added to 1-gallon Ziplock bags and brought to 80% field capacity. The soils were treated with dairy manure, composted manure, or no manure at a rate of approximately 400 lb N/acre (200 mg N/kg soil) with four replicates for each soil and treatment. Each of the 192 samples were randomly assigned a sample number corresponding to their location inside the incubator. The closed and loosely rolled bags were stored in 12 by 9 by 7-inch cardboard boxes, then placed inside an incubator at 77°F for 12 weeks. Soils were sampled at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12, where part of the sample was used to monitor soil moisture, and the other was frozen for future analysis. Analysis of the frozen samples for nitrate and ammonium content was conducted using a microplate spectrophotometer using vanadium (III) chloride and sodium salicylate methods, respectively.

What Have We Learned?

The analysis of frozen samples has just begun at the time of submission. Initial results will be available on the poster presented.

Future Plans

The next steps of this project are to conclude the nitrate and ammonium analysis of the soil samples and create Nmin curves with this data for each soil and treatment. These curves will be analyzed to determine if the differences in Nmin rates correlate with any of the tested soil physiochemical properties and which properties are most influential. Finally, we will create a model based on correlation data to express the changes in nitrogen mineralization depending on soil physiochemical properties that can be used by producers to adjust their dairy manure application rates depending on their soil test results.

Authors

Presenting author

Ryan A. Auld, Soil Science Graduate Student, Oregon State University

Corresponding author

Amber Moore, Extension Soil Fertility Specialist, Oregon State University, Amber.moore@oregonstate.edu

Additional authors

Jennifer Moore, Research Soil Scientist, Forage Seed and Cereal Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service; Yakun Zhang, Associate Professor, Oregon State University; Christopher Rogers, Research Soil Scientist, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service

Additional Information

Build DAIRY

Acknowledgements

I’d like to acknowledge the BUILD Dairy program and the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association for their support of this project, as well as the many producers who have allowed me to sample soils from their farms.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Marketability of biodegradable pots by coupling transaction data and survey-based consumer willingness to pay (WTP) estimates

Purpose

Plastic pollution remains a pervasive environmental challenge and identifying economically viable alternatives is imperative. While regulatory efforts primarily target plastic bags, recent research highlights consumer acceptance of biodegradable alternatives across various product categories, including plant pots. However, much of the existing literature relies on estimates for “willingness-to-pay” (WTP) of certain products—according to their attributes—by using survey-based data of potential spending, which may not reflect actual market purchase behavior. This study connects hypothetical WTP survey data with observed market transactions from consumer panel data with the goal of better assessing the market of biodegradable pots.

What Did We Do?

Our analysis focuses on plastic pot store purchases recorded in the NielsenIQ consumer (transaction) panel data from 2006 to 2009. To ensure compatibility with results from a recent study of survey-derived WTP estimates, we restricted the sample to households purchasing a single plastic pot per month. Price purchase data is inflation-adjusted to 2024 values using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) consumer price index data, updating the purchasing power to that of corresponding survey-based data. Given the limited number of scanner-based purchases (113 observations), we employed bootstrapping—a statistical technique that generates additional observations by repeatedly sampling from the original dataset—to augment the dataset to 471 transactions in order to meet the number of survey data observations.

A new price variable (composite price variable) was constructed by taking random market prices and adding random WTP survey data observations. These new prices and their dynamics represent increases in monthly expenditure. We incorporated key product attributes in our model; see details in Table 1 to analyze their effect. Attributes include different periods of biodegradability duration, the type of plastic product targeted by policy or regulation (single use food containers, packaging products, grocery bags, or all single-use products), and the type of bioproduct used (animal waste, agricultural waste, or wood waste feedstock). We estimated a conditional logit model using Stata, which allowed us to compare how consumers valued different options having several product attributes or features—including timespan for biodegradability and type of biodegradable material—when making purchasing decisions.

Table 1: Attribute tableSource: Field, 2024
Table 1: Attribute table
Source: Field, 2024

For the survey implementation, respondents are presented with three options each containing a randomly generated combination of four attributes and can select one option from three given options. A sample shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Sample choice blockSource: Field, 2024
Figure 1: Sample choice block
Source: Field, 2024

What Have We Learned?

VARIABLES Parameter Estimates
Previous Price, Increase in Expenditure (X0) -0.014***
(0.0012)
New Price, Increase in Expenditure (X1) -0.013***
(0.0012)
Time to Fully Biodegrade in years (X2) -0.003***
(0.0007)		 -0.004***
(0.0007)
Policy targeting:
(i) Single Use Packaging Products (X3) 0.067
(0.0824)		 0.112
(0.0833)
(ii) Single Use Food Containers (X4) 0.027
(0.0782)		 0.132*
(0.0782)
(iii) All Single Use Products (X5) 0.199**
(0.0888)		 0.292***
(0.0842)
Product source:
(i) Animal Waste Feedstock (X6) -0.010
(0.0681)		 -0.034
(0.0714)
(ii) Wood Waste Feedstock (X7) 0.015
(0.0661)		 0.025
(0.0667)
Neither Option 1 or Option 2 Policy choice (X8) -1.302***
(0.1110)		 -1.604***
(0.1100)
Observations 8,478 (471) 8,478 (471)

Column 2 shows estimate of attribute effects from combining transaction and survey WTP data, while Column 3 shows prior survey-based estimates of attribute effects. X₁ represents the New Price Variable in our analysis, while X0 corresponds to the increase in monthly expenditure in survey data analysis. Robust standard errors in parentheses. Asterisks indicate: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 3: Willingness-to-Pay Results ($)
VARIABLES WTP (n = 471) WTP (n = 471)
Time to Fully Biodegrade (years) -0.23 -0.26
Policy targeting:
(i) Single Use Packaging Products 5.15 7.97
(ii) Single Use Food Containers 2.08 9.46
(iii) All Single Use Products 15.31 20.86
Product Source:
(i) Animal Waste Feedstock -0.77 -2.44
(ii) Wood Waste Feedstock 1.15 1.76

Column 2 shows WTP estimates from combining transaction and survey WTP data, while Column 3 shows prior survey-based WTP estimates. All WTP estimates are in USD ($). n represents the total number of observations. Figures in bold represent significance at 5%.

Future Plans

We will incorporate demographic variables into the econometric model to examine how WTP varies across different consumer groups. Producers of biodegradable pots should consider WTP estimates across attributes in their feasibility assessment. Notably, each additional year of biodegradability decreases WTP by $0.23 per month, suggesting a preference for faster decomposition. Meanwhile, consumers exhibit no significant difference in WTP based on whether the bioproduct source is agricultural feedstock, animal waste, or wood waste, indicating flexibility in material choice.

Authors

Presenting & Corresponding author

Sanket Parajuli, Applied Economics Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Para5126@vandals.uidaho.edu

Additional author

Hernan Tejeda, PhD., Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho

Additional Information

Field, C. T. (2024). Greenbacks and grazing gambles: Exploring plastic preferences and pasture predicaments in two acts (Master’s thesis, University of Idaho).

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025). Consumer price index data. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved February 1, 2025, from https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Acknowledgements

We thank USDA NIFA Sustainable Agricultural Systems project IDA02004-CG (Award No. 2020-69012-31871) for supporting this research. We also acknowledge the Kilts Center for Marketing Data Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business for providing access to NielsenIQ datasets. The conclusions drawn from the NielsenIQ data are those of the researcher(s) and do not reflect the views of NielsenIQ. NielsenIQ is not responsible for, had no role in, and was not involved in analyzing and preparing the results reported herein.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2025. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Boise, ID. April 7–11, 2025. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Proudly powered by WordPress