Tag: dairy manure
Posted on April 21, 2022 June 22, 2022
Assessment of physical properties for cover crop and manure applied soils in Idaho's Magic Valley
Idaho ranks in the top 10 in the US for dairy, potato, barley, hay, sugarbeet, corn silage, and dry bean production with the highest producing area being in South Central Idaho. Crop and livestock producers in the Magic Valley depend on affordable access to clean water, healthy and productive soils, and quality grazing land to remain profitable. However, portions of the Middle Snake River, which provides irrigation and drinking water to the Magic Valley, have been impaired by high phosphorous and sediment loading for over two decades (Tetra Tech, 2014). To measure progress in producer efforts for reducing erosion and runoff, appropriate methods need identified. The soils in this region are prone to crusting, have low organic matter, and are high in calcium carbonates making these soils unique to much of the United States. Thus, the overall goal of this project was to identify management practices that enhance soil health physical properties in the Magic Valley.
Two study sites were located on the USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory farm in Kimberly, Idaho, and were established in 2013 (Long-Term Manure) and 2016 (Cover Crop). Long-Term Manure was set up as a randomized complete block design with four replicates and eight treatments. The treatments are as follows: annual application of solid dairy manure at rates of (i) 10, (ii) 20, and (iii) 30 ton per acre(dry weight), biennial application of solid dairy manure at rates of (iv) 10, (v) 20, and (vi) 30 ton per acre (dry weight), (vii) application of inorganic fertilizer (applied to match manure N and P rates; Fert), and (viii) no amendments (Control). A commercial crop rotation of wheat-potato-barley-sugarbeet was used at this study site, and sampling occurred under sugarbeet in 2020. All plots were disked immediately after manure application, and all plots were moldboard plowed prior to sugarbeet and potato planting. The Cover Crop study was set up as a split plot design with four replications and tillage as the main experimental factor (strip till vs disk/chisel plow). The four sub-treatments are as follows: (a) no cover crop or dairy manure (Control), (b) cover crop only (CC only), (c) manure only (M only), and (d) cover crop with manure (CC + M). Treatments that did not receive manure received inorganic fertilizer to meet recommended crop needs based on spring soil tests. Inorganic fertilizer was only applied to manure treatments if spring soil tests indicated that additional nutrients were required and the manure did not meet the crop needs. From 2016 to 2021, the field was cropped with continuous silage corn. Triticale was used as a winter forage cover crop and was planted directly after manure application and was harvested within one week of corn planting. Stockpiled dairy manure was applied at a rate of 30 ton per acre (dry weight) in the fall after corn silage harvest and incorporated by disking or left on the surface.
The physical properties accessed for each study in late summer 2020 were soil aggregate stability, runoff rate and rainfall before runoff, bulk density, and compaction. Two methods were used to measure soil aggregate stability: wet sieving and a hybrid method utilizing a Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer (CSI). The wet sieving method incorporated four nested stainless steel wire sieves at particle diameters of 5/32, 5/64, 1/64, and 0.002 inch. The samples were submerged in 9.5 inch of water oscillating up and down 1.5 inch at 30 oscillations per minute for 10 minutes. A CSI was used to measure soil aggregate stability at the heights of 1, 3, and 5 feet. The CSI operated at a constant rainfall rate of 0.79 inch of rainfall per 10 min of operation. Runoff rate and rainfall before runoff were calculated based on the values collected from the CSI using the equations listed in van Es and Schindelbeck (2001). The CSI was placed on top of a metal ring (9.5 inch diameter), and a runoff tube was fitted in the metal ring to measure runoff. The CSI had an air entry of 3.9 inch, and data was recorded every 2 minutes once runoff started to occur until the outflow reached steady state. Because each measurement took a minimum of one hour, only one block was measured each day for a total of four days. Bulk density measurements were taken at depths of 0-2, 2-4, and 4-6 inch at each plot. Compaction was measured using a penetrometer to measure a total depth of 12 inch at increments of 1 inch.
Two methods (wet sieving and CSI hybrid) were compared for accessing soil aggregate stability among the two studies. No differences in aggregate stability were found when the wet sieving method was used among treatments for both studies (Figure 1). However, the CSI hybrid method was found to be statistically different at an operational height of 1 foot among treatments at mean values of 0.147 ± 0.005 inch (CC + M), 0.145 ± 0.005 inch(CC only), and 0.146 ± 0.005 inch (M only) as compared to the control (0.124 ± 0.005 inch) for the Cover Crop study. It is also clear that there are large numerical differences in mean weight diameters between the operational heights for the Cover Crop study.
Figure 1. The mean weight diameter (MWD) at the Long-Term Manure (A, B) and Cover Crop (C, D) study sites. A and C represent MWD using the traditional wet sieving method, and B and D represent MWD using the Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer at 1, 3, and 5 foot. At the Long-Term Manure study site, 10A, 20A, and 30A represents plots that received dairy manure annually (ton per acre), and 10B, 20B, and 30B represents plots that received dairy manure biennially (ton per acre). Bars represent mean plus standard error. Columns within years not connected by the same letter are significantly different (p<0.05).
Significant differences in rainfall before runoff were found between treatments in the Cover Crop study, and the mean values were 2.26 ± 0.23 in (CC + M), 1.70 ± 0.23 in (CC only), and 1.53 ± 0.23 in (M only) when compared to the control (1.45 ± 0.23 in) (Figure 2). No differences were found in the Long-Term Manure study. When measuring bulk density, it was found that measurements at the 0–2-inch depth were found to be statically significant (p≤0.05) with means of 52.7 ± 3.7 pound per cubic foot (CC + M), 59.6 ± 3.7 pound per cubic foot (CC only), and 49.4 ± 3.7 pound per cubic foot (M only) when compared to the control (65.9 ± 3.7 pound per cubic foot), respectively. Compaction was found to be statistically significant at the depths of 1 through 4 inch and 10 and 12 inches. The tillage by treatment effect was also found to be statistically significant at 2 and 3 inches. Assessing physical properties among management practices can give producers a clearer insight into soil health in the Magic Valley.
Figure 2. The average runoff rate and rainfall before runoff at the Long-Term Manure (A, B) and Cover Crop (C, D) study sites. At the Long-Term Manure study site, 10A, 20A, and 30A represents plots that received dairy manure annually (ton per acre), and 10B, 20B, and 30B represents plots that received dairy manure biennially (ton per acre). Bars represent mean plus standard error. Columns within years not connected by the same letter are significantly different (p<0.05).
At the Long-Term Manure study site, dairy manure was applied annually or biannually from 2013-2019. The project now focuses on nutrient drawdown and manure will no longer be applied. Cover crops may be incorporated into the project. At the Cover Crop study site, inversion tillage will be performed spring of 2022 prior to planting silage corn to incorporate the dairy manure into the topsoil. Dairy manure has not been applied to the field since fall of 2020. Inorganic fertilizer will be applied if needed.
Presenting author
Kevin Kruger, Research Support Scientist, University of Idaho
Linda R. Schott, Nutrient and Waste Management Extension Specialist, University of Idaho
lschott@uidaho.edu
Additional authors
Jenifer L. Yost, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS; April B. Leytem, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS; Robert S. Dungan, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS; Amber D. Moore, Soil Fertility Specialist, Oregon State University
Part of this research was presented at the ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, in November of 2021. The link to the recorded presentation is found in the citation below:
Yost, J.L., Kruger, K., Leytem, A.B., Dungan, R.S., & Schott, L.R. (2021). Measuring Soil Aggregate Stability Using Three Methods in Aridisols Under Continuous Corn in Southern Idaho [Abstract]. ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.
https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2021am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/138171
More information about the Long-Term Manure project can be found in the following scientific papers:
Leytem, A.B., Moore, A.D., & Dungan, R.S. (2019). Greenhouse gas emissions from an irrigated crop rotation utilizing dairy manure. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83, 137-152.
https://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/id/eprint/1693/
Bierer, A.M., Leytem, A.B., Dungan, R.S., Moore, A.D., & Bjorneberg, D.L. (2021). Soil organic carbon dynamics in semi-arid irrigated cropping systems. Agronomy, 11, 484.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030484
The papers that were referenced in this proceedings paper are:
Reynolds, W. D., & Elrick, D. E. (1990). Ponded infiltration from a single ring: I. Analysis of steady flow. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 54, 1233–1241.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400050006x.
Tetra Tech. (2014). Reevaluation of Mid Snake/Upper Snake-Rock Subbasin TMDL: Data Summary, Evaluation, and Assessment.
van Es, H. & Schindelbeck, R. (2001). Field Procedures and Data Analysis for the Cornell Sprinkler Infiltrometer. Department of Crop and Soil Science Research Series R03-01. Cornell University.
This project was funded by a USDA ARS Cooperative Agreement and USDA NIFA Project Number IDA01657. The authors would like to thank Emerson Kemper for assisting with the lab work and Peiyao Chen for assisting with field work.
Greenhouse gas impacts resulting from co-digestion of dairy manure with community substrates
The US Dairy industry established a voluntary environmental stewardship goal to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) neutrality by 2050 among farmers and processors collectively. Manure management and enteric emissions combined account for approximately 70% of the GHG footprint of the US dairy industry, with nearly equal contributions from each (Thoma, 2013). There are multiple manure management systems used by dairy farmers in the Northeast and Upper Midwest that substantially impact GHG emissions. Quantification of GHG emissions for different manure management systems is necessary to compare options and strategies that can be applied to reduce GHG, especially methane, to move toward sustainability and reach the targets set by industry and governments.
Methane is the primary GHG emitted from the long-term storage of dairy manure, a water quality best management practice employed by many dairy farms today. Landfills are also a significant source of methane emission primarily due to degradation of organic waste, notably pre- and post-consumer food wastes (community substrates). Methane is a highly potent GHG that impacts warming by 25 – 28 times as much as carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) time scale (US EPA). However, because methane has a lifespan in the atmosphere of around 12 years, it has been accounted for on a 20-year GWP scale (84 times the impact of CO2) by the State of New York (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act). Manure management systems that substantially reduce methane, such as the co-digestion of manure with food waste, can achieve significant reductions of the GHG emissions associated with milk production.
The GHG emissions resulting from the anaerobic co-digestion of raw dairy manure and community substrate (i.e., food processing waste mixture diverted from landfilling) in an equal mass of each (total mass basis) were calculated as part of a larger study comparing eight different manure management systems. The community substrate was modeled as 50% ice cream and 50% dog food by mass. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions were calculated with equations that use the mass flow of volatile solids (VS) and nitrogen through the co-digestion manure management system that included digestate solid-liquid separation using a screw press and the long-term storage of separated liquid. Carbon dioxide and methane associated with system energy use and energy production as pipeline-quality renewable natural gas (RNG), as well as landfill organics diversion were also calculated. The parasitic energy use (heat and electricity) of the digester and related manure management and biogas upgrading equipment was supplied on an average annual load basis by a portion of the biogas produced. The total net GHGs were summed using a CO2-equivalent (CO2e) methodology (both GWP100 and GWP20 were computed) and normalized on a per lactating cow per year basis. A sensitivity analysis of eleven variables was conducted to quantify the impact of each on the net GHG result.
The co-digestion system net annual GHG impact was calculated to be −16 metric tons (MT) CO2e cow-1 (GWP100) and −43 MT CO2e cow-1 (GWP20). For the co-digestion mixture analyzed (50% liquid dairy manure, 25% ice cream, and 25% dog food), the anaerobic digester biogas production was 4 times greater than the biogas production for manure alone (on a per lactating cow basis). This significant energy production potential contributed an offset of 3.9 MT CO2 cow-1 year-1, assuming the net RNG after supplying the system's parasitic energy usage displaced the CO2 emissions from combusting approximately 380 gallons of diesel. In comparison, a methane leakage (or loss) of 2% from the digester to RNG system was equivalent to 18% of the energy offset at GWP100 (0.7 MT CO2e cow-1 year-1) and 62% at GWP20 (2.4 MT CO2e cow-1 year-1). Despite the greater contribution of methane leakage at GWP20 on a CO2e basis, the methane offset from landfilling the community substrate also substantially increased, resulting in just a 5 – 6% increase in the net annual GHG (remaining net negative) when methane leakage was varied from 1 to 3% under both GWP time scales. The methane leakage amount was also the most sensitive variable studied for the co-digestion system and the relatively low impact on total net GHG indicates the effectiveness of this type of manure management system as a tool to reach net GHG neutrality.
A next step in the assessment of co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste diverted from landfills is to continue improvement of our Cornell Dairy Digester Simulation Tool that predicts biogas production from a variety of food wastes combined in different quantities with dairy manure. This tool will also allow for the economic feasibility analysis of different co-digestion system sizes and substrate mixtures, inclusive of tipping fee variation and energy generation options (electricity and RNG) and associated values. This work will help farmers assess the feasibility of implementing or participating in a co-digestion system for manure management.
In future work contingent on funding, we plan to conduct comprehensive field measurements of methane emissions from the long-term storage of raw manure, separated manure liquid, and digested effluent. The equations that calculate methane are gross and depend on volatile solid content and degradability of the stored material, as well as temperature and retention time. Verification of these equations and inputs will give more confidence in utilizing bottom-up calculations of GHGs from manure management practices.
Lauren Ray, Extension Support Specialist III, Cornell PRO-DAIRY Dairy Environmental Systems Program
LER25@cornell.edu
Curt A. Gooch, Sustainable Dairy Product Owner, Land O'Lakes – Truterra; Peter E. Wright, Extension Associate, Cornell PRO-DAIRY Dairy Environmental Systems Program
More information on related work can be found on the Cornell University PRO-DAIRY website under Environmental Systems: https://cals.cornell.edu/pro-dairy/our-expertise/environmental-systems.
Thoma, G., J. Popp, D. Shonnard, D. Nutter, M. Matlock, R. Ulrich, W. Kellogg, D. S. Kim, Z. Neiderman, N. Kemper, F. Adom, and C. East. (2013). Regional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from USA dairy farms: A cradle to farm-gate assessment of the American dairy industry circa 2008. Int. Dairy J. 31:S29–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2012.09.010.
US EPA, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials. Accessed 2/24/2022.
Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. 2020. New York State Senate Bill S6599.
The Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets provided a portion of the financial resources to support the development of this work.
The use of cover crops and manure to retain soil moisture in Aridisols in Southern Idaho
It is important to measure soil moisture in semi-arid regions because future models predict severe droughts and a decrease in rainfall events by up to 40%. The effects of management practices, such as reduced tillage, cover cropping, and manure application, have not been evaluated in the semi-arid and irrigated crop production area of Southern Idaho. In this study, we investigated the effects of cover crops, dairy manure, and tillage on soil physical characteristics (soil water storage, infiltration, runoff, saturated hydraulic conductivity, bulk density) and silage corn yield in silty loam soils. The objectives of this research were to: (a) determine if cover crops and dairy manure increased soil water storage, or if the cover crops were depriving the cash crop of water, (b) determine if infiltration, runoff, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and bulk density were influenced by cover crops and dairy manure, (c) determine if silage corn yield is affected by cover crops and dairy manure, and (d) determine if there are differences between tillage types.
This study was conducted at the USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho. The experimental design was a split plot with four replicates and repeated measures, and the two main experiment treatments were tillage (strip till vs disk/chisel plow). The four sub-treatments were: (a) control (no cover crop or dairy manure), (b) cover crop only (CC only), (c) manure only (M only), and (d) cover crop with manure (CC + M). Treatments that did not receive manure received inorganic fertilizer to meet recommended crop needs based on spring soil tests. Inorganic fertilizer was only applied to manure treatments if spring soil tests indicated that additional nutrients were required. Stockpiled dairy manure was applied with a manure spreader at a rate of 30 ton per acre (dry weight) in the fall after corn silage harvest and incorporated by disking or left on the surface. Both the corn silage and the triticale were irrigated using handlines, as needed, during the water season, which was generally from mid-April through mid-October. Soil moisture was measured using a neutron probe throughout each growing season. Neutron probe measurements were collected every 6 inches to a maximum depth of 60 inches one to two times per month. Soil water storage (SWS) was calculated from 0 to 12 inches, 0 to 24 inches, and 0 to 60 inches using weighted depth increments. A Cornell Sprinkle Infiltrometer was used to measure infiltration and runoff rates, field saturated infiltrability, and rainfall before runoff in the middle of the growing season in 2020 prior to an irrigation event.
From this research, we found that the use of winter cover crops and fall applied solid dairy manure did not improve soil water storage in the semi-arid and calcareous soils in Southern Idaho. Soil water storage tended to be lower in the CC + M plots (Figure 1). The CC + M plots were able to infiltrate more water prior to runoff than the control plots, suggesting that the CC + M plots are drier (Figure 2). Infiltration, runoff, and saturated hydraulic conductivity did not improve with the treatments and remained similar to the control plots. Although some research has shown improvements in soil moisture, soil physical properties, and dry biomass yield when using reduced tillage practices, there were no differences between reduced tillage and conventional tillage. Silage corn yields tended to be highest in the M only plots and lowest in the CC + M plots, however there were no treatment differences in three of the six years of the study (Figure 3). Using triticale as a winter cover crop would be beneficial to increase total dry biomass yields in dairy systems that would like to increase their forage production, however it is not advised if a producer is only looking to increase silage production.
Figure 1. Average soil moisture storage (SWS; inch of water) by treatment from 2016 to 2021 in the top 15, top 30, and top 60 inches. Soil moisture storage was calculated from 0 to 12 inches, 0 to 24 inches, and 0 to 60 inches using weighted depth increments. Bars represent mean plus standard error. Columns within years not connected by the same number are significantly different (p<0.05).
Figure 2. Average rainfall before runoff by treatment in 2020. Bars represent mean plus standard error. Columns not connected by the same number are significantly different (p<0.05).
Figure 3. Average dry biomass yield for silage corn by treatment from 2016 to 2021. Bars represent mean plus standard error. Columns within years not connected by the same number are significantly different (p<0.05).
This spring, inversion tillage will be performed prior to planting silage corn to incorporate the dairy manure into the topsoil. Dairy manure has not been applied to the field since fall of 2020. Inorganic fertilizer will be applied if needed.
Jenifer L. Yost, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS
jenifer.yost@usda.gov
April B. Leytem, Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS; Robert S. Dungan, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS; Linda R. Schott, Nutrient and Waste Management Extension Specialist, University of Idaho
This research was presented at the virtual ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting in November of 2020. The link to the recorded presentation is found in the citation below. Although this research is not published in a scientific journal yet, we will be submitting a paper to Agricultural Water Management in early to mid 2022.
Yost, J.L., Leytem, A.B., Dungan, R.S., & Schott, L.R. (2020). The Use of Cover Crops and Manure to Retain Soil Moisture in Aridisols in Southern Idaho [Abstract]. ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings (2020) | Virtual, Phoenix, AZ.
The authors would like to thank Joy Lynn Barsotti for collecting the neutron probe measurements.
Going the distance: considerations for the use of manure pipelines
In this webinar, presenters share tips on what to look for, how to monitor your system, and what maintenance is needed for manure pipelines. This presentation was originally broadcast on February 18, 2022. Continue reading "Going the distance: considerations for the use of manure pipelines"
Cleanout for Lagoons and Anaerobic Digesters
In this webinar, presenters share their expertise in sampling and cleanout for lagoons and anaerobic digesters and considerations in planning these operations. This presentation was originally broadcast on January 21, 2022. Continue reading "Cleanout for Lagoons and Anaerobic Digesters"
Weeding the Worries Out of Manure Use
This webinar focuses on on adoption of place-based conservation practices to improve water quality. This presentation was originally broadcast on November 19, 2021. Continue reading "Weeding the Worries Out of Manure Use"
Effects of Adding Clinoptilolite Zeolite on Dairy Manure Composting Mix on the Compost Stability and Maturity
The purpose of this project was to demonstrate the effects of adding natural clinoptilolite zeolites to a dairy manure compost mix at the moment of initiating the composting process on characteristics of the final compost and nitrogen (N) retention. On-farm composting of manure is one Best Management Practice (BMP) available to dairy producers. Composting reduces the volume of composted wastes by 20 to 60% and weight by 30 to 60%, which allows the final product to be significantly more affordable to transport than raw wastes. When done properly, composting can convert a considerable fraction of the N present in the raw manure into a more stable form, which is released slowly over a period of years and thereby not partially lost to the environment (Rynk et al., 1992; Magdoff and Van Es, 2009). During the manure handling and composting process, between 50 and 70% of the N can be lost as ammonia (NH3) if additional techniques are not used to increase nitrogen retention. Most of the time, manures from dairies and other livestock operations don't have the proper carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) to be composted efficiently without added carbon. A balanced mix for composting should be between C:N of 30:1 to 40:1 (Rynk et al., 1992; Fabian et al., 1993). Since manures are richer in nitrogen (C:N ratios below 15:1), and bedding doesn't add enough carbon during most of the year, a great proportion of the available N is lost as NH3 due to the lack of carbon to balance the composting process, resulting in a lower grade compost that can generate local and regional pollution due to NH3 emissions. In many arid zones there are not enough sources of carbon to balance the nitrogen present in the manure. Due to this lack of adequate carbonaceous material, additional methods to reduce the loss of N as NH3 during the composting process are needed. Several amendments have been evaluated in the past to achieve this reduction in N loss (Ndegwa et al., 2008). Zeolites are minerals defined as crystalline, hydrated aluminosilicates of alkali and alkaline earth cations having an infinite, open, three-dimensional structure. Clinoptilolite zeolite is mined in several western states including Idaho, where mining is near the dairy production areas.
This paper showcases an on-farm project that explored the effects of adding clinoptilolite to dairy manure at the time of composting as a tool to reduce NH3 emissions, retain N in the final composted product, and evaluate its effect on the final product.
This on-farm research was conducted at an open-lot dairy in Southern Idaho with 100 milking Jersey cows. Manure stockpiled during the winter and piled after the corral's cleaning was mixed with fresh pushed-up manure from daily operations and straw from bedding and old straw bales, in similar proportions for each windrow. The compost mixture was calculated using a compost spreadsheet calculator (WSU-Puyallup Compost Mixture Calculator, version 1.1. Puyallup, WA). Moisture was adjusted by adding well water to reach approximately 50% to 60% moisture on the initial mix. Windrows were mixed and mechanically turned using a tractor bucket. Three replications were made for control and treatment. The control (CTR) consisted of the manure and straw mix as described. The treatment (TRT) consisted of the same mix as the control, plus the addition of 8% w/w (15%DM) of clinoptilolite zeolite during the initial mix. Windrows were actively composted for 149 days on average. Ammonia emissions were measured using passive samplers (Ogawa & Co. Kobe, Japan) and results were described in a previous Waste to Worth proceeding paper (de Haro Martí, et al. 2017). Complete initial manure (compost feedstock mix) and final screened compost nutrient lab analyses were performed for each windrow. Compost maturity tests were performed using the SOLVITA® test (Woods End Laboratories, Mt Vernon, ME). Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Analyses included ANOVA (PROC MIXED) and paired t-test when applicable.
The initial mix lab analysis revealed no significant differences in all parameters between control and treatment, except for ammonium (NH4+) where a tendency was observed. Many of the most stable parameters were very close to one another numerically, indicating a good management of the on-farm feedstock formulation and mixing. Ammonium at 553.4±100 mg/kg for CTR and 256.77±100 mg/kg for TRT showed a tendency (0.05<p≤0.1, Figure 1).
Figure 1. Ammonium ppm before and after composting
This difference from the beginning of the process indicates that clinoptilolite has an immediate impact on NH4+ when added to the compost mix, changing the NH4+ and NH3 behavior and volatilization even during the construction of the windrow.
Nitrate (NO3) concentration in the TRT compost, 702±127 mg/kg was three times higher than the CTR, 223±127 (p= 0.05, Figure 2).
Figure 2. Nitrate ppm before and after composting
The presence of such high amount of NO3 compared to the control indicates a strong prevalence of nitrification processes (Sikora and Szmidt, 2001; Weil and Brady, 2017). Elevated NO3 concentrations are desirable in high quality compost used in plant nurseries, green houses, and horticulture, and are usually obtained from feedstock with much higher carbon content than the one used in this research. The NO3 to NH4+ ratio (NO3:NH4) in the treated windrows is also indicative of a much more stable compost than what is to be expected in a dairy compost with such low initial C:N (Sikora and Szmidt, 2001). High NO3 concentrations in compost could, however, generate a concern for NO3 leaching if the compost is not managed properly during storage and at the time of application (Miner et al., 2000; Weil and Brady, 2017). Total nitrogen (TN) on the compost was 14,933±1,379 mg/Kg (1.5%) for CTR and 11,300±1,379 mg/Kg (1.1%) for TRT (p=0.13), showing no significant difference.
Table 1. Solvita® test results on finished compost
Sample TRT or CTR
Maturity Index Compost Condition O2 depletion Phytotoxicity Noxious hazard pH NH4+ Estimate (ppm) N-Loss potential
W 1 CTR 6.5 3.5 5.5 Curing 1.60% Medium/ Slight Moderate /Slight 9.1 500 Moderate/Low
W 2 CTR 6.5 2 4.5 Active 2.50% High Severe 9.3 1500 M/ High
W 3 TRT 7 5 7 Finished 0.70% None None 9.5 <200 V Low-None
W 6 TRT 6 5 6 Curing 1.20% None None 9.3 <200 V Low-None
The Solvita® test results from the screened composts (Table 1) show a significant difference (p=0.007) in the NH3 test results between CTR, index 2.5±0.35 and TRT, index 5.0±0.35. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) test results showed no significant differences between CTR and TRT. All other calculated parameters showed a significant difference between control and treatment. Maturity index was 4.8±0.33 for CTR and 6.7±0.33 for TRT (p<0.02). Oxygen depletion was 0.022±0.002 for CTR and 0.009±0.002 for TRT (p<0.02). NH4+ estimate was 1167 for CTR and <200 for TRT (p=0.05). Other estimated test parameters indicate a significant difference between CTR and TRT results. Control windrows showed more unstable conditions, reaching the active or curing status, medium to high phytotoxicity, moderate to severe noxious hazard, and moderate to low N-loss potential. In contrast, treatment windrows showed more stable conditions, including reaching finished and curing status, no phytotoxicity or noxious hazard, and very low to no N-loss potential.
These results, coupled with the NO3:NH4 ratio and much higher NO3 values in the zeolite amended compost, indicate that the addition of clinoptilolite zeolite to a dairy manure compost mix in this study induced nitrification processes, produced NH4+ retention, NH3 emissions reduction, and lower oxygen depletion without significantly modifying the CO2 production. It also led to compost maturity characteristics that are regularly achieved only in compost mixes with much higher carbon content and C:N ratios, usually associated with high quality composts. No negative effects were observed in the composting process or final product.
A greenhouse trial on silage corn comparing treatment and control compost effects followed. Results need to be analyzed and published.
Mario E. de Haro-Martí. Extension Educator. University of Idaho Extension, Gooding County, Gooding, Idaho. mdeharo@uidaho.edu
Mireille Chahine. Extension Dairy Specialist. University of Idaho Extension, Twin Falls R&E Center, Twin Falls, Idaho.
de Haro-Martí, M.E., H. Neibling, M. Chahine, and L. Chen. 2017. Composting of dairy manure with the addition of zeolites to reduce ammonia emissions. Waste to Worth, Advancing Sustainability in Animal Agriculture conference. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Fabian, E. E., T. L. Richard, D. Kay, D. Allee, and J. Regenstein. 1993. Agricultural composting: a feasibility study for New York farms. Available at: http://compost.css.cornell.edu/feas.study.html . Accessed 04/28/2011.
Lorimor, J., W. Powers, A. Sutton. 2000. Manure Characteristics. Manure Management System Series. Midwest Plan Service. MPWS-18 Section 1. Iowa State University.
Magdoff, F., & Van Es, H. (2009). Building soils for better crops – Sustainable soil management (3rd ed.). Brentwood, MD, USA: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program.
Miner, J. R., Humenik, F. J., & Overcash, M. R. 2000. Managin livestock wastes to preserve environmental quality (First ed.). Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.
Mumpton, F.A. 1999. La roca magica: Uses of Natural Zeolites in Agriculture and Industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, No. 7 (Mar. 30, 1999), pp. 3463-3470
Ndegwa, P. M., Hristov, A. N., Arogo, J., & Sheffield, R. E. 2008. A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for concentrated animal feeding operations. Biosystems Eng. (100), 453-469.
Rink, R., M. van de Kamp, G.B. Willson, M.E. Singley, T.L. Richard, J.J. Kolega, F.R. Gouin, L.L. Laliberty Jr., D.K. Dennis. W.M. Harry, A.J. Hoitink, W.F.Brinton. 1992. On-Farm Composting Handbook. NRAES-54. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. Cooperative Extension. Ithaca, New York.
Sikora, L. J., & Szmidt, R. A. 2001. Nitrogen sources, mineralization rates, and nitrogen nutrition benefits to plants from composts. In P. J. Stofella, & B. A. Kahn (Eds.), Compost utilization in horticultural cropping systems (pp. 287-306). Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press LLC.
Weil, R. R., & Brady, N. C. 2017. The nature and properties of soils (Fifteenth. Global Edition ed.). Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
This project was made possible through a USDA- ID NRCS Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) # 68-0211-11-047. The authors also want to thank the involved dairy farmer and colleagues that helped during this Extension and research project. Thanks to USDA-ARS Kimberly, ID for the loan and sample analysis of the Ogawa passive samplers.
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. 2019. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Minneapolis, MN. April 22-26, 2019. URL of this page. Accessed on: today's date.
Posted on April 18, 2019 October 22, 2019
Comparison of Sulfuric vs. Oxalic Sulfuric When Forming Struvite from Liquid Dairy Manure
The purpose of this project was to demonstrate a mobile fluidized-bed cone for extraction of phosphorus in the form of struvite (magnesium-ammonium phosphate) from undigested (raw) liquid dairy manure. Since Ca binds inorganic P, a particular emphasis was placed on evaluating the effect of oxalic acid as an acidifier and Ca binder.
Dairies often have excess P in manure in relation to the need for on-farm crop production. Easily mineable reserves of phosphorus (P) worldwide are limited, with a majority residing in Morocco (USGS 2013). One approach to recycling P is to capture excess P from dairy manure in the form of struvite for off-farm export as a nutrient source for crop production.
A portable trailer-mounted fluidized-bed cone (volume of 3200 L) was used to extract phosphorus in the form of struvite (magnesium-ammonium phosphate) from undigested (raw) liquid dairy manure. Batches of 13,000 liters of manure were evaluated and the system was operated at a flow rate of ~ 32 liters per minute. Sulfuric acid or oxalic acid-sulfuric acid were used to decrease the pH, and sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH. Oxalic acid was chosen for evaluation due to its dual ability to decrease pH and bind calcium.
Results of concentration of total P or ortho-P (OP) after manure treatment through the fluidized bed suggested no advantage of the combination of oxalic acid with sulfuric acid to decrease the concentration of P (see Figures 1 and 2). More detailed analyses of centrifuged post-bed samples of manure effluent indicated that the oxalic acid was binding the free calcium, but the resulting Ca compounds remained suspended in the effluent. Centrifuged manure samples had Ca contents ~23% of un-centrifuged samples when oxalic/sulfuric acid was used as a pH reducer. Centrifuged manure samples had Ca contents ~84% of un-centrifuged samples when sulfuric acid was used as a pH reducer. With raw manure, oxalate does not appear to be beneficial, unless there is a more effective step to drop Ca-oxalate out of suspension, such as centrifuging.
Figure 1. Concentration of OP or P in manure after pre-treatment with oxalic and sulfuric acid.
Figure 2. Concentration of OP or P in manure after pre-treatment with sulfuric acid.
Anaerobically digested (AD) manure will be evaluated with the same set of conditions that were utilized with raw dairy manure to determine potential benefits of using oxalic acid with AD manure.
Joe Harrison1, Kevin Fullerton1, Elizabeth Whitefield1, and Keith Bowers2.
1Washington State University
2Multiform Harvest
jhharrison@wsu.edu
Citations and video links
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2013. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2013-phosp.pdf
The Mobile Struvite Project Overview Video: Capturing Phosphorus from Liquid Dairy Manure and Cost Efficient Nutrient Transport
Dairy Struvite Video: Capturing Phosphorus from Dairy Manure in the Form of Struvite on 30 Dairy Farms in WA state
Alfalfa Struvite Video: Struvite, a Recycled Form of Phosphorus from Dairy Manure, used as Fertilizer for Alfalfa Production
This project funded by the USDA NRCS CIG program and the Dairy Farmers of Washington.
Posted on April 7, 2019 June 6, 2019
Comparison of Struvite to Mono-Ammonium-Phosphate as a Phosphorus Source on Commercial Alfalfa Fields
The purpose of this project was to demonstrate a regional nutrient (phosphorus (P)) recycling relationship between the dairy industry and alfalfa forage growers. Dairies often have excess P in manure in relation to the need for crop production on-farm. Easily mineable reserves of phosphorus (P) worldwide are limited, with a majority residing in Morocco (USGS 2013). One approach to recycling P is to capture excess P from dairy manure in the form of struvite for off-farm export for use as a nutrient source of crop production. Washington State produces a significant amount of alfalfa for domestic and international sales.
What did we do
Struvite (Magnesium Ammonium Phosphate – NH4MgPO4· 6H2O) and Mono Ammonium Phosphate (MAP) were applied to 33 and 30 acres (control and treatment, Farm 1); and 60 and 55 acres (control and treatment, Farm 2) sections of alfalfa fields at two commercial forage producers in Eastern Washington. Fertilizer (struvite or MAP) was applied on an equivalent P2O5 basis in August 2017 and September 2018 (Farm 1 – existing stand) and September 2017 and September 2018 (Farm 2 – new seeding).
Accumulative yield of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 1 was struvite = 7.14 tons, MAP = 7.51 tons. Accumulative yield (2 of 3 cuttings) of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 2 was struvite = 3.08 tons, MAP = 2.95 tons. Average P concentration of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 1 was struvite = 0.27, MAP = 0.27 (% DM). Average P concentration in alfalfa in 2017 for Farm 1 was struvite = 0.31, MAP = 0.32 (% DM). Average P concentration of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 2 for struvite and MAP was 0.27 and 0.28 % DM, respectively. Average accumulative P uptake of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 1 was 38 and 39 lbs P/acre for struvite and MAP, respectively. Average accumulative P uptake (2 of 3 cuttings) of alfalfa in 2018 for Farm 2 was struvite = 15 lbs, MAP = 16 lbs P/acre. Results indicate that struvite is equivalent to MAP as a P source for commercial production of alfalfa.
The nutrient recycling project will continue through 2019. In addition, companion replicated plots studies are underway to evaluate the effects of ratio of MAP:Struvite and amount of P application for yield and quality of alfalfa.
Joe Harrison1, Steve Norberg1, Kevin Fullerton1, Elizabeth Whitefield1, Erin Mackey1, and Keith Bowers2.
1Washington State University, jhharrison@wsu.edu
USDA-NRCS and the National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) for Livestock and Poultry Operations
The National Air Quality Site Assessment Tool (NAQSAT) was developed as a first-of-its-kind tool to help producers and their advisors assess the impact of management on air emissions from livestock and poultry operations and identify areas for potential improvement related to those air emissions.
In 2007, several land-grant universities, with leadership from Michigan State University, began developing NAQSAT under a USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG). The initial tool included beef, dairy, swine, and poultry operations. A subsequent CIG project, with leadership from Colorado State University, made several enhancements to the tool, including adding horses to the species list. In 2015, USDA-NRCS officially adopted NAQSAT as an approved tool for evaluating air quality resource concerns at livestock and poultry operations. USDA-NRCS also contracted with Florida A&M University in 2015 to provide several regional training workshops on NAQSAT to NRCS employees. Six training workshops have been completed to date (Raleigh, NC; Modesto, CA; Elizabethtown, PA; Lincoln, NE; Richmond, VA; and Yakima, WA) with assistance from multiple NAQSAT development partners. Additionally, USDA-NRCS revised its comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP) policy in October 2015 to make the evaluation of air quality resource concerns mandatory as part of CNMP development.
NAQSAT has proven to be a useful tool for bench-marking the air emissions impacts of current management on confinement-based livestock and poultry operations. In the training sessions, students have been able to complete NAQSAT runs on-site with the producer or producer representative via tablet or smartphone technologies. Further classroom discussion has helped to better understand the questions and answers and how the NAQSAT results can feed into the USDA-NRCS conservation planning process. Several needed enhancements and upgrades to the tool have been identified in order to more closely align the output of the tool to USDA-NRCS conservation planning needs. NAQSAT has also proven to be useful for evaluating the air quality resource concern status of an operation in relation to the CNMP development process.
It is anticipated that the identified needed enhancements and upgrades will be completed as funding for further NAQSAT development becomes available. Additionally, as use of NAQSAT by USDA-NRCS and our conservation planning and CNMP development partners expands, additional training and experience-building opportunities will be needed. The NAQSAT development team has great geographic coverage to assist in these additional opportunities.
Corresponding author, title, and affiliation
Greg Zwicke, Air Quality Engineer – Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team, USDA-NRCS
Corresponding author email
greg.zwicke@ftc.usda.gov
Greg Johnson, Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team Leader, USDA-NRCS; Jeff Porter, Animal Nutrient and Manure Management Team Leader, USDA-NRCS; Sandy Means, Agricultural Engineer – Animal Nutrient and Manure Management Team, USDA-NRCS
naqsat.tamu.edu
https://lpelc.org/naqsat-for-swine-and-poultry
https://lpelc.org/naqsat-for-beef-and-dairy/
C.E. Meadows Endowment, Michigan State University
Colorado Livestock Association
Iowa Turkey Federation
Iowa Pork Producers
Iowa Pork Industry Center
Iowa State University Experiment Station
Michigan Milk Producers Association
Michigan Pork Producers Association
Michigan State University Extension
National Pork Board
Nebraska Environmental Trust
University of Georgia Department of Poultry Science
University of Maryland Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
Virginia Tech University
Western United Dairymen
Whatcom County (WA) Conservation District