Journal of Nutrient Management - Qtr 2 – 2022

EAST Jim Dewitt 1-630-750-3482

j.dewitt@bauer-at.com

MIDWEST Trey Poteat 1-219-561-3837

t.poteat@bauer-at.com

WEST Jeff Moeggenberg 1-630-334-1913

j.moeggenberg@bauer-at.com

SALES DIRECTOR Ray Francis 1-219-229-2066

r.francis@bauer-at.com

PARTS/OPERATIONS Rob Hultgren 1-800-922-8375

r.hultgren@bauer-at.com

CONTENTS

Journal of Nutrient Management

Managing Editor

Abby Bauer

Art Director

Todd Garrett

Editorial Coordinator

Jennifer Yurs

Director of Marketing

John Mansavage

Advertising Sales Kaitlin Vrsek kvrsek@nutrientmgmt.com 641-990-6580

Advertising Coordinator

Patti Kressin pkressin@hoards.com

Online Media Manager

Patti Hurtgen phurtgen@hoards.com

Digital Marketing Manager

Michaela King mking@hoards.com

Publisher

W.D. Hoard & Sons Co.

Brian V. Knox, President

CONTACT INFORMATION

Editorial Office PO Box 801

28 Milwaukee Ave. West Fort Atkinson, WI 53538

Website: www.jofnm.com

Email: info@jofnm.com

Phone: 920-563-5551

ON THE COVER

The flow of manure on this Georgia dairy starts in the freestall barns, where it is flushed and scraped out of the alleyways. Manure then travels through sand settling lanes and screens that remove manure solids. The effluent is stored in lagoons and applied to about 2,000 acres of corn, sorghum, and ryegrass using center pivots.

Journal of Nutrient Management (ISSN# 26902516) is published four times annually in February, May, August, and November by W.D. Hoard & Sons Company, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@ jofnm.com Website: www.jofnm.com. Postmaster: Send address corrections to: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538-0801. Tel: (920) 563-5551. Email: info@ jofnm.com. Subscription Rates: Free and controlled circulation to qualified subscribers. For Subscriber Services contact: Journal of Nutrient Management, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538, call (920) 563-5551, Email:info@jofnm.com.

Copyright © 2022 W.D. Hoard & Sons Company. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Content may not be reproduced or used for any commercial activity without express written consent from W. D. Hoard & Sons Company.

Photo by Todd Garrett, Art Director.

Abby Bauer Managing Editor

COMMITTED TO MEMORY

When I was in middle school, the barn on my family’s dairy burned down. Most of the cows escaped, but the entire wooden part of the hip roof barn was gone, leaving just the brick walls standing.

After the dust settled and the smoke cleared, we used those walls as the foundation for the new barn that was built. During clean up and construction, the cows were housed and milked at a farm that had recently sold out about 25 minutes away.

It was a June day when construction of the new barn was complete and our herd could return home. Fittingly, the first cow to walk into the barn was one of the boss cows, a leader, that had always been one of the first cows to return to the barn when the cows were brought up from the pasture.

Even though the cows were unloaded through a different door (not the one they would have normally come through), that cow marched right down the alley and hopped into the stall that always had been hers, third from the front door.

That cow’s actions and ability to remember her old stall have always stuck with me. Cattle are truly creatures of habit.

Farmers can be creatures of habit, too, often because farm work and farm life require them to be. There are certain jobs and events that must happen at the same time every year, every week, or every day. This routine is comforting. It provides predictability and stability. Yet, if a job becomes so habitual, so second nature that a person’s mind isn’t focused on the task at hand, it opens the door for mistakes to be made or accidents to happen.

The same can happen when people have a lot on their plates and start rushing through jobs. Corners are cut and risks are taken that can lead to dangerous situations.

The demands of farm work intensify in the spring, carry through the summer, and before we know it, the busy harvest season will be

upon us. It’s a time of year when many in agriculture are running long work hours short on sleep, and unfortunately, the level of danger seems to elevate. In just the last week, there have been reports of at least two on-farm fatalities and one serious injury related to tractors in Wisconsin alone.

Manure handling comes with a unique set of risks, one of them being toxic gases. The article on page 16 explains why hydrogen sulfide is so dangerous — and so deadly. This silent villain can overcome people in a matter of seconds, and it can elevate to unsafe levels in unpredictable areas.

Last summer, an Ohio farm family went through unimaginable heartbreak as a result of toxic gas. Three brothers, all in their 30s, were doing maintenance on a pump in a manure pit. At some point, the trio was overcome by manure gasses, and despite lifesaving efforts, all three brothers passed away. Three lives were cut short, and a family and the surrounding community were left mourning.

This devastaating story is a reminder — and a warning — that dangers are present on the farm every day. These young men had a farm to run and a lot of life left to live. Don’t let this happen to your family, your employees, or yourself — work safely around manure gases, machinery, and animals.

It is so easy to take shortcuts when time and patience are running low. We do it while farming and in every day life. But one little misstep can change everything in an instant. Don’t let your story end this way. Commit to your memory the importance of making safe decisions.

Until next time, Abby

Let us know your thoughts. Write Managing Editor Abby Bauer, 28 Milwaukee Ave. West, P.O. Box 801, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538; call: 920-563-5551; or email: abauer@jofnm.com.

UNITED STATES

A report published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted that onethird of the food produced in the United States is never eaten. The amount of food waste in the nation has tripled since 1960. About half of this waste occurs at the consumption level, in restaurants and at home. The most wasted foods are fruits and vegetables, followed by eggs and dairy products.

This uneaten food contains enough calories to feed more than 150 million people each year. Beyond the nutritional losses, there is also an environmental impact. EPA reported that it takes the volume of greenhouse gas released by 24 coal-fired power plants, enough water and energy to support 50 million homes, and an agricultural land area the size of California and New York to produce these wasted foods.

In 2015, the United States announced a goal to halve food loss and waste by 2030, but little progress has been made. The United States wastes more food per person than almost any other country in the world. Reducing food waste would help reduce food insecurity as well tackle climate change.

are challenging the town’s ability to do this. The Dairy Business Association contacted officials at the state’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, asking them to review the ordinances passed in these towns to determine if they are consistent with state law. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce lobby group threatened a lawsuit against one of the communities for provisions found in its ordinance.

The ordinance for the towns in Polk and Burnett counties began as a response to a proposed 26,000 head hog farrowing operation that wanted to build in the area. As of press time, the ordinance had been passed by three of the town boards and was to be presented to the others in the following weeks.

(EGLE) and Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) are focusing these agricultural inventories in high-priority subbasins. The agricultural inventory process will collect data to locate and prioritize sites with the potential to address nutrient runoff and positively affect water quality. The plan also focuses on a pilot wetland restoration effort to reduce phosphorous runoff to Lake Erie. MDARD and EGLE are encouraging farmers to participate in the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) to help reduce nutrient loss from their fields.

MARYLAND

WISCONSIN

An ordinance crafted by a partnership of six towns in northwestern Wisconsin this spring would allow for more local input and control over farms with more than 500 animal units, addressing concerns about odor, water and discharge runoff, carcass disposal, air emissions, water use, and more.

At 500 animal units, the restrictions would affect farms half the size of what is officially defined and regulated as a concentrated agricultural feeding operation (CAFO), and local and state groups

MICHIGAN

State officials released a final version of the adaptive management plan for handling algal blooms on Lake Erie. This serves as a companion document to the Domestic Action Plan for Lake Erie that addressed the causes of blooms.

Michigan is working to reach its 2025 goal of 40% reduction in both total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus loss, which fuels algae growth in the lake. The state’s three focus areas include:

• Reducing loads from specific outlets and general runoff areas (point and nonpoint sources)

• Wetland restoration, green stormwater infrastructure, and other land conservation practices in both the rural and urban areas

• Engagement with partners and the public

The plan’s framework will evaluate the outcomes of actions taken to reduce phosphorous and develop and implement research projects to address gaps and uncertainties in existing phosphorus reduction methods and technologies. The plan also supports watershed management planning, with an emphasis on completing agricultural inventories.

The Michigan Departments of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

In response to the current Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreak, the state of Maryland is limiting the movement of poultry litter. The Maryland Department of Agriculture issued a poultry litter transport ban for part of the state, effective from March 9 to early August.

The order covers Cecil and Kent counties and parts of Queen Anne’s and Caroline counties. These producers cannot send their poultry litter to other farms or receive litter from other operations, even those outside of the restricted area.

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania is one of the Chesapeake Bay watershed states that is required by federal law to reduce pollution entering the bay by 2025. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state is not on track to meet its reduction goal.

An amended plan submitted in December met 70% of the state’s nitrogen reduction target, leaving it 9.7 million pounds short of EPA standards. There is also a gap in phosphorus and sediment reductions.

In April, the agency stepped up its permit oversight and will conduct more farm and municipal stormwater inspections. The state has 90 days to submit an improved plan.

PHOSPHORUS AND WATER QUALITY: WHERE WE’VE BEEN AND WHERE WE’RE GOING

It will take multiple practices and collaboration to protect our waterways from phosphorus runoff.

by Ryan Heiderman

The agriculture community continuously adapts to fulfill the ever-growing desires and needs of society. This willingness to try innovative practices that protect soil and water resources, while maintaining the productive capacity of the land, is essential to sustainable agriculture. A thorough understanding of the complex interactions between nutrients, water, and plant growth is necessary to meet the growing environmental pressures placed on the farming community.

According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, from 2007 to 2017, the amount of commercial phosphorus (P) fertilizer applied and manure P generated continued to increase in many states. At the same time, farm acreage was shrinking.

Overapplication of P contributes to both economic inefficiencies and environmental concerns, including harmful algal blooms and eutrophication of water bodies. Although much effort has been put into conservation adoption and implementation to reduce the amount and impact of particulate P (moves with soil, Figure 1) lost from cropland, there continues to be issues with dissolved P (moves with water) entering waterways.

The impact of legacy phosphorus

Buildup of P in fields, whether due to overapplication of manure, unrealistic

yield goals, or legacy accumulation of nutrients from fertilizers or manure, is causing negative impacts on streams, rivers, and lakes across the country. Accumulation of P in the surface soil is common in soils that receive surface applied fertilizer and manure. This accumulation, as indicated by high surface soil test results, can happen over years or even decades, and P can continue to mobilize even after additional inputs cease.

The mobility of legacy P in the dissolved form can act as a long-term source to surface waters. This unused P, which can leave fields dissolved in runoff, not only degrades water features but also represents an economic loss to producers. Residual P can persist for many years with the only significant drawdown coming from crop removal at rates of 3 to 5 ppm per year, or worse, from runoff and soil loss. The impacts of this legacy P are visible even

after aggressive steps are taken to reduce P inputs and losses.

Long-term changes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center shows from long-term monitoring that Midwest states have seen a modest rise in both total precipitation and extreme precipitation events. With extreme precipitation events comes the potential for enhanced water runoff. The majority of annual nutrient and sediment runoff can occur during a few, or even just one, of these large events if proper precautions aren’t in place.

Although Discovery Farms monitoring has seen extreme weather events occur, fields with appropriate conservation practices in place have been resistant to detrimental losses during these outlier events. Timing of these large precipitation events, and whether or not there is cover on the soil, will

Figure 1: Phosphorus is found in two forms. Phosphorus loss mitigation strategies may vary based on the form needed to be addressed.

often determine the extent of losses, underscoring the importance of keeping up with practices to buffer the impact.

The most evident impacts of large runoff events is seen in fields that do not have concentrated flow areas protected (Figure 2, left). A well-established, grassed waterway is critical to preventing losses via concentrated flow (Figure 2, right). With the potential of an uncertain climatic future, preparation and the ability to adapt will result in resilient farming systems.

Refining recommendations

Conservation practices that reduce erosion, improve infiltration, and slow the movement of runoff are widely encouraged to address soil and phosphorus loss from agricultural landscapes. Grassed waterways, cover crops, and conservation tillage, when used appropriately, have all been shown to

improve the water quality impacts of agricultural practices.

Why, then, do we see continued impairment of waterways due to excessive levels of phosphorus? While this can be frustrating at times, we need to keep refining and developing management suggestions based on new and relevant information. There is an ever-growing need for knowledge on how management practices drive water quality outcomes at scales from the field to a whole watershed. There are many lessons to be learned from regional efforts at tackling water quality issues derived from nonpoint P sources.

Three case studies

Phosphorus load reductions into Lake Erie in the 1970s and 1980s were once touted as major environmental success stories. Yet in the mid 2010s, even after the implementation of conservation practices to target nonpoint source P

loading, some of the largest and most widespread algal blooms ever witnessed in Lake Erie occurred.

Some potential culprits of this re-eutrophication problem seem to be the elevation in dissolved P loading, as well as more precipitation. This leads to a greater volume of water entering the tributaries leading to Lake Erie.

Early efforts at tackling these issues targeted particulate P, which is just one potential pathway of P loading. This may have had some unintended consequences of greater P stratification and buildup in the surface soil layers, leading to high levels of dissolved P during runoff events.

Extreme precipitation events and long-term increases in the volume of water flowing in tributaries may also be pushing the dissolved P further into the Lake. This causes a wider distribution of impacts.

Increased capacity of simple push-off design with no chains

Poly floor and sides promote selfcleaning and prevent material buildup

VertiSpread ® vertical beaters provide wide, consistent spread pattern

Increased clearance between implement and tractor for greater maneuverability

The Chesapeake Bay is North America’s largest estuary and has over 12 million acres of farmland within the watershed that drains into the bay. Despite widespread efforts to reduce P loading, including a 2010 implementation of total maximum daily load (TMDL) effort, there continues to be water quality issues.

As in the Lake Erie watersheds, the Chesapeake Bay has seen some progress in the reduction of P loading from conservation practices aimed at reducing soil and particulate P loss. However, an acceleration of dissolved P has continued to cause issues in the bay.

Again, a likely cause of this rise in dissolved P is the buildup of legacy P in the soil, which can potentially take decades to draw down. The impact of legacy P can oftentimes conceal the results from implemented conservation practices, as the release of this P can continue to cause issues long after conservation efforts are put in place. Long-term monitoring regularly sees continued high P loss from fields complying with nutrient management standards.

The implementation of Wisconsin’s 2010 Phosphorus Rule developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for surface waters in the state. While not directly regulating agricultural nonpoint P sources, the rule led to the development of important tools for best management practices and nutrient management planning.

The Wisconsin P Index is a planning and assessment tool for managing runoff P losses from cropland. The P Index utilizes weather information, soil loss equations, and field-specific data about topography, slope, and proximity to waterways to estimate runoff P losses for a particular field.

The P Index is integrated into Wisconsin’s nutrient management planning software SnapPlus. The P Index allows producers to evaluate how modifications to their fertilizer and/or manure management plans may reduce P losses and improve water quality impacts.

The development of these tools has led to smaller, albeit significant, reductions in total P loading, yet the persistence of legacy P continues to push dissolved P out of fields, causing impaired water quality. Since the mid 1990s, consistent progress in point source reductions has been made through the use of Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which has seen a 70% reduction in wastewater P from municipalities.

Stacking practices

Research suggests that no single practice holds the key to reducing environmental impacts of P loading. Recent efforts highlighted the need for a multi-prong approach through bundling or layering strategies. This includes altering the timing and delivery of fertilizer and manure applications, use of cover crops, restoration of headwater wetlands, streambank fencing, and vegetated riparian buffers to control drainage.

There are limited short-term approaches to tackling the dissolved P issue associated with legacy P buildup, but some innovative strategies are being considered and tested. The use of so-called P sorbing materials, those that bind to P and reduce the solubility, have shown some promising results. Application of these amendments directly to the soil has risks and may only lead to short-term reductions. The use of these materials on the edge of field structures, which filter runoff, may be one innova-

Figure 2: The field on the left lacks the protection of a grassed waterway in the concentrated flow area. On the other hand, the wellestablished, grassed water way on the right will help protect the field from loss.

tive strategy for capturing dissolved P.

Other opportunities may be found in social programs, such as nutrient credit markets or water quality trading programs. These types of programs allow source polluters to offset their contributions by paying into a fund or by buying or trading credits in a marketplace from other producers or farmers who are making reductions in their pollutants.

Voluntary opportunities such as environmental quality incentive programs and enrollment in conservation reserve programs are other indirect forms of reducing P source and loading. The establishment of producer-led watershed groups allows for collaboration among farmers to implement and evaluate innovative management strategies through funding opportunities and research partnerships.

Take action now

A major lesson learned is that widespread adoption of multiple practices aimed at addressing P loss, as well as continued monitoring of their impact, is necessary to continue to understand, advance, and refine management recommendations. Everyone wants clean water, pollutant-free recreational opportunities, and natural habitats for aquatic creatures.

Addressing the environmental impacts of agriculture need not wait or rely on regulations. Through collaboration and innovation, proactive efforts from all stakeholders will further the goals of improving water quality. ■

The author is with the University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension’s Discovery Farms program.

It is very common for manure storages to not be emptied completely, often because it is difficult to do so. This residual manure is considered aged or inoculated.

The aged manure is primed with methane-producing bacteria, so University of Guelph researchers predicted that pits containing aged manure would release more methane than those that were completely emptied out. In a study comparing manure storages that were filled with half fresh manure and half aged manure versus those with only fresh manure, that proved to be true.

In both warm and cold seasons,

fewer methanogen inoculum through complete emptying of a manure storage resulted in a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of emissions from stored manure are in the form of methane, so most of this reduction was in methane emissions.

The researchers took it a step further and evaluated whether different levels of leftover manure (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, or 25%) made a difference in released emissions. They found that the decline was linear. For example, when aged manure was reduced from 15% to 5%, methane emissions fell by 26% in warm weather and 45% in the cold season.

“Overall, this is a really significant reduction,” Claudia Wagner-Riddle, a professor at the University of Guelph, summarized in a North American Manure Expo presentation. “This is a technique that would be very helpful.” More complete emptying of storages would require engineering changes to the current design of manure storages, but this could be a worthwhile endeavor for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Between manure in storage, manure deposited on pastures, and manure applied to fields, emissions from farms related to manure average between 22% and 32%, Wagner-Riddle shared. ■

4103 LNMS

5105 LNMS

4103 LNMS DRAGHOSE SYSTEM

5105 DNMS

Equipped with All-Wheel Drive and choice of 3 or 5 wheels, we can help you spread your valuable nutrients in even the toughest conditions.

A new pathway to biogas from swine manure

A digester specifically designed for hog farms could open doors to biogas production.

by Doug Hamilton

When in Wisconsin a number of years ago, I had the opportunity to tour the Dane County Community Digester, which produces biogas (a mixture of high-energy methane and no-energy carbon dioxide) from manure collected from three dairy farms. The manure is mixed with fat and grease from restaurants in nearby Madison. The manure and grease contain enough energy to run a two-megawatt generator.

On the bus ride back to the conference headquarters, I overheard a conversation between two fellow passengers.

“That was impressive. Too bad it’s not possible to produce methane from pig manure,” one of them said.

My first impulse was to jump up and shout, “No! No! That’s not true!” But not wanting to prove I was rudely listening in on their conversation, I kept to myself.

It is possible

My fellow passenger was wrong, of course. Pound for pound, swine manure produces just as much biogas as any other manure, and usually at a higher methane content. What the person should have said was, “Because we

handle swine manure as a liquid, its low wet mass methane potential makes it difficult to digest economically.”

Wet-mass methane potential is the volume of methane you can expect to produce from a given mass of manure as it is fed to a digester. Adding water to swine manure makes it easy to move, but it also dilutes the organic matter. It is the organic matter that gets converted to biogas. We pay for ease of handling with low wet mass methane potential.

In the southern United States and in the tropics, liquid swine manure is flushed into anaerobic lagoons. A lagoon

This is the anaerobic digester at the Oklahoma State University Swine Research and Education Center.

treats manure by settling the solids, which anaerobic microorganisms convert to biogas, liquid, and phosphorus-rich sludge. Liquid on top of the sludge layer (the effluent) is recycled back to the barns for flushing. Nutrients in effluent are recycled to grow crops.

The lagoon-recycle system works pretty well for the farmer. It is low maintenance, requires hardly any labor, and returns valuable nutrients to the soil.

The problem is, since lagoons are open to the air, all that biogas rises up into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, which is usually blamed for climate change, is less potent.

Manure under cover

It is no surprise, then, that the most common digester on swine farms is a covered lagoon. The thought is to put an airtight lid on the lagoon and capture all the escaping methane. With the recent renewable natural gas (RNG) boom, there are companies in North Carolina, Utah, and Missouri doing just that — covering swine lagoons, cleaning up biogas, and injecting methane into nearby natural gas pipelines.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but the farther north you go, the less likely it is to produce biogas during the winter. Also, covering lagoons makes it difficult to control lagoon liquid level, recycle flush water to barns, and pump effluent out to fields.

A second route is to pretreat the flushed manure, reducing its organic matter content before it reaches the lagoon. Sending pretreated flush water to the lagoon reduces the organic loading, and it can turn an anaerobic lagoon into an aerobic lagoon. Aerobic lagoons do not emit methane, but we are back to the problem of low wet mass methane potential. Any digester capable of treating flushed swine manure would have to be nearly as big as a lagoon and would be impossible to heat during the winter.

Speeding up the process

Biosystems engineers at Oklahoma State University (OSU) came up with the idea of using an Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR) to pretreat swine manure ahead of the lagoon.

An ASBR digester converts manure to biogas in just a few hours. The digested

Swine Manure Slurry

Beef Manure (Outdoor Pen)

Corn Processing By-product

Beef Manure (Covered Pen)

Potato Peel

Dairy Manure

Sugar Beet Peel and Pulp

Alfalfa Silage

Slaughter Facility Sludge

Wood Shavings

Food Scraps

Reed Canary Grass Hay

Poultry Litter

Corn Stover

Oat Hulls

solids settle in the reactor, and treated effluent is decanted off the top. Good anaerobic microorganisms stay with the settled solids, so once a new flush of manure is mixed in the digester, they start producing biogas right away.

Early research showed that ASBR digesters remove as much as 95% of the organic matter from flushed manure if sludge is periodically removed from the reactor. Nutrients are recycled to crops in dried sludge. Best of all, an ASBR is onesixth the size of a conventional digester.

We built an ASBR on the OSU Swine Research and Education Center when the farm was moved to its new location. The digester works great at reducing organic matter, and the lagoon is practically odor free. Because of high effluent quality, a Bermudagrass hayfield is irrigated using subsurface drip tubing. Over time, though, we encountered a few problems. The rising and falling liquid level in an ASBR acts like a piston, so a rigid roof is in danger of being ripped off the top. The geomembrane reactor cover we chose couldn’t stand up to an Oklahoma hailstorm, either. We also found it difficult to maintain a consistent solids content in the reactor. Undaunted, we went back to the drawing board and came up with a second-generation design (patent pending). The new design has a floating cover to keep constant gas pressure in the digester. The mixing and decanting

systems were also upgraded. A smallscale prototype is in testing. More sludge settles in the digester and less solids leave with effluent. Pressure is so low, though, it’s difficult to measure gas production using our old flow meters. The prototype will soon be built at fullscale. Then, swine farmers will have a new, more efficient option for producing energy and renewable natural gas. ■

The author is a waste management specialist for Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service.

Figure 1. Wet mass methane potential of manures and co-digestion products

Figure 2. Four phases of the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor process

Source: L.B. Moody, R.T. Burns, G. Bishop, S.T. Sell, R. Spanic. 2011. Using biochemical methane potential assays to aid in co-substrate selection for co-digestion. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 27(3):433-439.

Source: D.W. Hamilton, H. Fernandez-Barriales Lopez, and E. P. Cuesta Alonso. 2020. Improved mixing system for anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Trans. ASABE. 63(4):933-942.

Finding fields that need manure

by

Curtis Dell, Sheri Spiegal, John Baker, and Peter Kleinman

The concept of a manureshed was developed to describe the amount of cropland needed to use the manure nutrients produced by a livestock operation without negative environmental impacts. Consider the manureshed as a cropland balance sheet to accommodate the nutrients from an operation’s manure.

Manuresheds have changed dramatically over time. Historically, dairies produced all, or most, of their own forages and feed. Manure nutrients could be reused for crop production on the farm without exceeding crop demand. So, the manureshed of these dairies was contained within individual farms.

Today’s manuresheds have grown. Trends toward larger farms in many regions of the U.S. have led to many dairies importing more forage and feed than in the past. The cropland available for manure application on individual dairies is often not sufficient to safely use the manure nutrients produced. In those cases, the manureshed becomes larger than the individual operation.

Manureshed area can vary greatly in different parts of the country. In regions that are dominated by small and medium-sized dairies, manuresheds generally remain small. However, the larger herds on many western U.S. dairies lead to large manuresheds.

Watching the water

Although the manureshed is a sound agronomic concept, its real relevance can

This map highlights four regional “manuresheds”: clusters of counties with surplus manure P (brown) and the surrounding “sink” counties required to assimilate the surplus P (gray). The black symbols represent the livestock industries that dominated manure production in the source area. Source: “Manuresheds: Advancing nutrient recycling in U.S. agriculture.” Agricultural Systems 182: 102813.

be found in water. Water quality concerns are the main factor limiting the amount of manure nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) that can be safely applied. Phosphorus buildup in soil from years of manure application can elevate P in field runoff to water bodies where that P can trigger algal blooms and other harmful microbial growth. Another important concern is the leaching of nitrates to groundwater, especially in sandy soils or areas with

shallow water tables.

The nutrient guidelines that have been developed in most states help farmers create manure and fertilizer application plans. These plans prevent excess nutrient accumulations and avoid application where the risk of nutrient losses is high.

Mapped by county

To understand the diversity of manuresheds within the United States,

If we connect the barns with the fields, we can understand when manure transport is really needed.

scientists from the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) evaluated nutrient balances at the county level. Using data from the USDA’s Census of Agriculture and International Plant Nutrient Institute, they estimated the amount of N and P excreted by each type of livestock in each county and compared that to the amount of the two nutrients that would be taken up by the crops grown in the county. This allowed them to determine if a county had nutrients in excess of the crop use (source counties) or if crops in the county have capacity to take up more nutrients than excreted by livestock (sink counties). The USDA ARS study showed that dairy production contributed to manure nutrient sources in about 200 counties across the U.S. However, in more than half of those counties, most manure came from other livestock. The researchers went further to identify the cases in which several P source counties were adjacent to each other, and they treated those clusters as “source areas.” Then, for each source area, they calculated the number of nearby sink counties necessary to assimilate the surplus manure P from the source areas. A source area and its surrounding sink counties was deemed as a regional scale manureshed. Dairy was a dominant contributor of manure P in two of the major source areas, one in northwestern Washington and the other in the Texas Panhandle (see figure). The researchers understand the limitations to their current analysis. Drilling down below the level of the county is not possible with these data; the Census of Agriculture and other USDA reports provide only county totals for manure and nutrient production and crop yields to protect producer confidentiality. Accordingly, the study did not remove counties with croplands with high soil P from the list of potential sinks, as soil P is not reported except at very general levels of spatial resolution. But the authors maintain that the regional manuresheds they identified were consistent with moving manure P away from counties where P would likely have built up in soils associated with dairy production to counties where that manure P could substitute for fertilizer in crop production. These limitations mean that they are using other approaches to better

understand nutrient balances and manureshed requirements for individual farms. For instance, they have used computer simulation models with data from example farms to estimate nutrient balances across a wide range of management types and herd sizes.

Moving manure

The manureshed offers a framework for understanding the need to move manure, but many factors can complicate manure trading. For instance, although manure is a terrific fertilizer resource, it often contains water that dilutes its nutrient content, may not match the nutrient requirements of the crops to which it is applied, and may bring certain liabilities, including odor, weed seed, and even pathogens. So, manureshed management is a complicated thing. Moreover, the distance that manure must be transported can also vary widely. In the Great Lakes and northeastern U.S., dairies are typically close to crop farms that could apply excess manure in place of commercial fertilizers. However, many western dairies import feeds from distant locations and do not have sufficient local croplands to safely use the manure produced. In those cases, manure must be transported longer distances.

Manure processing on the farm can dramatically improve the value of manure and its potential for off-farm transport. On farms where liquid manure handling systems are common, the water content adds to the cost of transportation. Equipment for dewatering manure is widely available and reduces the volume of manure transported.

Composting can create a value-added product from manure with markets for specialty crop production and home gardening. Technologies available to remove nutrients from manure and concentrate them into fertilizer products with commercial value is an alternative that is also being developed.

Communication networks to connect livestock producers with farmers who could use the manure nutrients are paramount for facilitating nutrient redistribution. Manureshed analysis, along with other nutrient management tools, gives farmers and technical service providers a tool to consider the opportunities and barriers for manure redistribution and potentially improve the chances for meeting a variety of environmental and production goals. ■

The authors are with the USDA Agricultural Research Service.

Manure versus fertilizer: The economic showdown of 2022

The key to maximizing manure’s value is to expand its impact on more acres.

by Scott Fleming

There is no certainty when it comes to farming. The only thing we can really plan on is that next year will not be the same as this year.

The agricultural markets are a prime example of this. Commodity prices are almost 50% higher than they were at harvest, fertilizer prices are double what they were just one year ago, and crop protection price spikes are just short of insane. All of these input cost increases place additional value on the unsung hero in animal agriculture: manure.

Knowing your numbers

Establishing a value for manure can be difficult. In my article, “Navigating manure analysis priorities” in the February 2021 issue of Journal of Nutrient Management, I touched on this very topic.

Manure has a tremendous amount of value, but the true value of manure may never be known. Not only does it supply nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), but there are a complete host of micronutrients present.

Manure also has a value outside of the fertility component. The way manure can feed the soil is drastically different from commercial fertilizers. Appropriate manure applications are a great contributor to overall soil health.

Manure feeds the soil in many ways. The primary method manure is used is as a fertilizer source. The foundation of establishing a fertilizer value of manure is breaking it down into each of its components. The math isn’t overly hard, but it isn’t simple, either.

Nitrogen is the first nutrient in a fertilizer analysis, so we will start there. Nitrogen may be one of the more complicated equations, namely because there are so many different nitrogen sources.

The easiest way to value commercial fertilizer is the price per unit of nutrient. This takes the source’s nutrient value and breaks it down into dollars per unit of fertilizer. To calculate dollars per unit of fertilizer, you must first calculate the units of nutrient per ton of fertilizer. Once the total pounds of nutrient per ton of fertilizer is calculated, you can then divide the price per ton of fertilizer by the units of nutrient per ton of fertilizer.

Example 1:

Urea (46-0-0) at $930/ton

2 ,000 lbs/ton x 0.46% N = 920 units N/ton

$ 930/ton ÷ 920 units N/ton = $1.01/ unit N

Example 2:

32% UAN (32-0-0) at $800/ton

2 ,000 lbs/ton x 0.32% N =640 units N/ton

$ 800/ton ÷ 640 units N/ton = $1.25/ unit N

Phosphorus and potassium price per unit of nutrient can be determined in a similar manner. Phosphorus can throw a curveball, though, due to the nitrogen that comes along with the phosphorus. When it comes to crediting nutrients and economics, the nitrogen in monoammonium phosphate (MAP) or diammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizers should certainly receive a credit. In this example, the nitrogen component of phosphorus fertilizer will be ignored for simple phosphorus value calculations.

Example:

MAP (11-52-0) at $800/ton

2 ,000 lbs/ton x 0.52 % P = 1,040 units P/ton

$ 800/ton ÷ 140 units P/ton = $0.77/ unit P

What are you applying?

Knowing the value of your manure is impossible without knowing what is actually in your manure. There are book values available for most common types of manure, but these values are just an approximation of what may be in manure. The only sure way to know what is in your manure is through submitting your samples for analysis. While manure analysis could certainly have a fixed cost associated with it, not analyzing may have a far greater cost.

Through collective observation of manure samples analyzed at Rock River Laboratory over the last year, a substantial amount of variability is observed. A statistical analysis of liquid dairy manure was performed to determine the amount of variability.

Nitrogen seemed to have the most even distribution of values, but it also showed a fair amount of variability. The average total nitrogen value was 16.4 pounds per 1,000 gallons with a normal range of 11.9 to 21 pounds of total nitrogen per 1,000 gallons.

Phosphorus and potassium have a less even distribution but a wider range in analysis. The average phosphorus value was 6.56 pounds of total P with a range of 4.33 to 8.79 pounds of total P. The potassium showed an even greater range of values, with an average value of 17.91 pounds and a range of 13.7 to 22.2 pounds of total K.

This would result in a total value of $32.36 for just 1,000 gallons of liquid dairy manure. When you multiply that price by your application rate, manure is no longer a liability. It is bringing a mountain of value as a fertilizer. Spread it out

The key to maximizing manure value is expanding manure’s impact on acres. Manure application is not a simple or inexpensive endeavor. Agitation, laying hose, setting tanks, trucking, pumping, and application all come with a hefty price tag per acre. While these costs can be highly variable, we can look to the 2021 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey for some guidance. The custom rate guide lists the cost per 1,000 gallons at $10 to $15 for dragline application with an average charge of $11.65 per 1,000 gallons. At a fairly standard application rate of 12,000 gallons per acre, that would be $139.80 per acre in manure application costs.

When we consider the value of the manure from our prior work, the nitrogen value alone exceeds the application costs. This 12,000 gallons of liquid dairy manure has an applied value just short of $400 per acre! Simple math says that for every dollar we spend on application, we are receiving almost

two dollars back in fertilizer.

There is also a cost to not fully utilizing your manure. This can come from reduced crop yield and higher commercial fertilizer inputs. As previously stated, manure is the total fertility package. Not only does it bring crop nutrients into the soil, but it is also feeding the biological life in the soil. The soil biology will thrive and help free up soil and manure nutrients.

The added expense associated with commercial fertilizer applications is easy to measure. The yield loss component of commercial versus manure is where things can get challenging. Without implementing “no manure” check strips, there is no measure of lost potential. Commercial fertilizer will supply the necessary nutrients to the crop, but it is not the same as the full complement of macronutrients, micronutrients, and organic matter supplied by manure.

In agriculture, it is easy to put a pencil to the hard costs. It is painless to put a number on a ton of saved fertilizer. With solid record keeping, analysis and benchmarking, and cost analysis, we can estimate the per acre costs of manure application.

However, there are also hidden costs in farming that are tough to measure. One of the greatest is the untold cost of not spreading manure around. Excessive manure application will inevitably lead to an extreme concentration of nutrients. When extremely high rates

of manure are applied to fields, or the same fields are used for manure application year after year, the soil will begin to accumulate excess nutrients. Excessive nutrients in soil can have a detrimental effect on the uptake of other nutrients. While this is an area where more research is needed, it is something that is best avoided.

Additionally, things like phosphorus drawdown are very slow processes. It could take decades of no manure application to return phosphorus values into the recommended range. All the while, manure must be applied to fields that are likely further and further from the production site at an ever-growing cost.

With record keeping and sound data to back it up, we can remove a fair amount of uncertainty around manure application. The first steps include finding out what is in your manure and establishing a value. Track down your commercial fertilizer prices and figure out the cost associated with each nutrient. Once the costs of commercial fertilizer are established, it is easy math to determine the fertilizer value of the manure. And again, spread manure around. It is an incredibly valuable resource and should be treated as such. ■

The author is a nutrient management specialist and sampling director at Rock River Laboratory in Watertown, Wis.

Statistical analysis of nutrient variability in manure sample

THE HEAVY TRUTH ABOUT HYDROGEN SULFIDE

by Robert Meinen

Hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) is undoubtedly the most dangerous gas associated with manure storage and handling. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) lists acceptable exposure concentration limits for H 2 S as 20 parts per million (ppm) with a 10-minute exposure maximum peak over an 8-hour shift as 50 ppm. OSHA lists concentrations as low as 700 ppm as the level that can cause immediate collapse and death within minutes, and 1,000 ppm is the level that can cause nearly immediate death.

An unfortunate by-product

Hydrogen sulfide can be produced as a microbial by-product of manure degradation, with production of the deadly gas exacerbated when anaerobic manure storage conditions favor proliferation of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Higher levels of H 2 S can be produced in manure when sulfur inputs into the manure are elevated from sources such as gypsum bedding, by-product feed ingredients, or sulfur-containing water sources. Temperature also impacts H 2 S production, since microbial activity increases in warmer manure. Higher H 2 S concentration will lead to greater emissions.

Emissions can occur one molecule at a time when H 2 S moves across a gradi-

ent from concentrated solutions at the manure surface to low concentrations in the air above the manure. However, since H 2 S is only slightly soluble in water, the molecule “wants” to come out of solution as concentrations grow.

In deeper anaerobic areas of a manure storage, where microbial production continually supplies H 2 S, concentrations of gas can elevate beyond their solubility limit and escape the solution by coming together to

form bubbles and release from manure through ebullition processes.

Other gases produced from microbial degradation of manure, such as methane and carbon dioxide, also form bubbles. Bubbles can contain a mixture of different gases.

Disturbing manure with processes such as agitation are expected to intensify H 2 S release. Violent manure movement brings higher concentrations found in the depth of manure to the

Due to its weight compared to oxygen, hydrogen sulfide can accumulate close to the ground or in confined spaces and becomes a threat to humans and animals.

This dairy’s heifer barn blocked air movement when winds shifted to the southeast during agitation, elevating hydrogen sulfide to a dangerous level between the manure storage and the barn.

NORTH

Heifer barn

surface, and shifting concentration gradients favor release of the poorly soluble molecule.

Worried about the weight

A characteristic that makes H 2 S dangerous is that it has a molecular weight of 34 grams per mole (g/mol), compared to the weight of dry air at 29 g/mol. The weight of air decreases with moisture, since water weighs just 18 g/mol. This means that certain atmospheric conditions and locations can raise the risk of H 2 S accumulation close to the ground, in low areas, or in confined spaces.

If air is still, the gas that leaves the manure surface may not be carried away, and since H 2 S is heavy, continual release can accumulate gas just above the manure surface. Such pooling of H 2 S can lead to deadly concentrations.

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights how all these factors led to the 2016 death of a worker and 13 cattle at a Wisconsin farm. The farm’s ration included a distillers syrup that contained sulfur above dietary recommendations, and the manure storage was deep and anaerobic. The incident occurred in mid-August when summer temperatures promoted microbial proliferation. Atmospheric circumstances enhanced the pooling characteristics of H2S because there was no wind. Humidity was high, thermal inversion conditions existed, and the worker had performed manure agitation.

In Pennsylvania, studies were conducted that compared H 2 S emissions during agitation at dairy farms that either used or did not use gypsum bedding and provided practical recommendations concerning manure handling. Gypsum bedding (CaSO4), derived from recycled drywall material from the construction industry, was shown to elevate H 2 S emissions during manure storage agitation.

On one dairy that used gypsum bedding, the ability of heavy H 2 S gas to pool provided a great learning opportunity. At this farm, measurements were made around the perimeter of a circular concrete manure storage (see photo). During agitation, when wind moved from the west, the maximum downwind H 2 S monitor reading was 64 ppm, a level above OSHA standards but not deadly. When the wind shifted and moved from the southeast, the downwind H 2 S monitor measured 500 ppm, the maximum reading the monitor could register.

What was the difference between these positions during this agitation event? We believe that as the breeze moved over the heifer barn seen at the top left of the aerial photo, a dead space was created, much like an eddy in a stream, that allowed the heavy gas to settle, pool, and become concentrated.

Areas such as this may not appear dangerous, but people should avoid working next to structures, like this heifer barn, that can provide obstruction to free air movement. When possible, manure handlers should position themselves so that wind travels across their position before crossing the manure storage. This can be phrased as “keeping the wind at your back.”

Avoid these spaces

Low-lying areas and confined spaces where H 2 S may pool should always be avoided. There are three characteristics

OSHA uses to define areas that are confined spaces:

1. Large enough to enter

2. Limited means of entry and exit

3. Not designed for continuous worker occupancy

These traits pertain to nearly every manure storage since none are designed for continuous worker occupancy. This includes any uncovered, open-air, outdoor storage. For this reason, consider any space inside of a manure storage fence as a confined space and never enter such spaces without proper entry equipment, ventilation, and precautions. Always pull equipment outside of the manure storage area for maintenance. Hydrogen sulfide is a deadly gas. Agricultural professionals, including manure system designers, nutritionists, farmers, manure handlers, agency personnel, and university employees, should work together to ensure worker and livestock safety. ■

The author is a senior extension associate with Penn State University’s Department of Animal Science.

Low disturbance application opens doors

For some farmers, low disturbance manure application, cover crops, and other conservation practices go hand-in-hand.

by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor

aron Augustian said he and his brother, Todd, were looking to try something different with manure application when they were asked to join the Great Lakes Demonstration Farms Network a few years ago. Since then, the pair has switched to low disturbance manure application and introduced the use of cover crops, and for the past two years, they have used both of those practices on 100% of the fields on their farm in Kewaunee, Wis.

“It’s been working great, as long as we don’t have another extremely wet year like we did in 2019 that made things more challenging,” Augustian said during a panel discussion at the Wisconsin Discovery Farms annual conference.

Splitting the application

For manure hauling, he said they used to do a majority of their application in the fall, putting on 14,000 to 16,000 gallons per acre, but Augustian felt that wasn’t good for soil health.

“How do we put on less manure, yet get the correct amount of nutrient?” Augustian and his brother asked themselves. “Low disturbance manure application fit into that equation very well,” he noted.

Now they will typically apply 6,000 to 10,000 gallons to an established cover crop, and then, depending on soil condi-

tions, come back with another application in the spring.

Barry Bubolz, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative area coordinator for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), said they don’t have an official standard for low disturbance manure application, but he offered a few criteria during the panel discussion.

For starters, low disturbance application is not full width tillage, and the goal is no more than 30% of row width disturbance. Ideally, he said this appli-

cation is done into a living crop or cover crop, and it is also preferable if it can be followed up with no-till planting, as that is an indicator that the level of soil disturbance was low.

“Low disturbance manure application has really opened up the door for utilization of some of these conservation practices,” Bubolz said, pointing to winter rye establishment, planting green, and interseeding.

Augustian said it can be hard to convince some custom applicators to apply less manure and return to the

Jesse Dvorachek, Aaron Augustian, Barry Bubolz, and Jacob Brey discussed low disturbance manure application during the Wisconsin Discovery Farms annual conference.

same fields multiple times. However, they have enjoyed success with this method so far.

“Last spring, Mother Nature cooperated with us, and we could plant 100% into green using no tillage tools,” Augustian said. He noted that in a rainy spring, they would use tillage if ruts were created and had to be leveled out.

Augustian shared that along with the successes came some failed attempts. For example, they tried to use one applicator tool that continued to plug up due to the high solids content (12% to 18%) of their manure. They switched to a different machine, and it has been working great ever since.

With low disturbance application, they have been able to incorporate several cover crops. A multi-species mixture is planted following the harvest of fourth crop alfalfa, and rye is planted after corn silage is harvested. He said about 15% of their corn is interseeded into a grass and clover mix, a practice that works well for them since some of their farmland is as close as 50 yards from Lake Michigan.

“I think the cooler weather helps establish these grasses and clovers,” Augustian shared about their location. Interseeding also alleviates some of the challenges of trying to get rye planted the same time corn silage is being harvested. He said they are planning to interseed 40% to 45% of their corn next year.

While low disturbance manure application can get a sideways glance from other farmers, the public has also questioned why the manure is sometimes not incorporated. For Augustian, this has been a teaching opportunity.

“When they see manure on the ground, there are questions,” he said. “We have been more proactive in letting our neighbors know what we are doing it and why we are doing it.”

Capture the most nutrients

Fellow dairy farmer Jacob Brey also noted the importance of education.

“It’s not their fault; they just don’t know,” he said of neighbors that might question their manure application processes. “We really don’t have anything to hide. We just need to tell the public what we are doing.”

He continued, “We need to do our job as farmers to tell the public all the good things we are doing to show them

typically at the end of May, they go through with another pass of low disturbance manure application. Last spring, right around Memorial Day, they applied 10,000 to 12,000 gallons, Brey said.

Then, after making some modifications to their corn planter, they no-till plant corn. They have found it works

farming can be a vital part of the economy and community going forward.”

Brey, who farms with his brother, Tony, near Sturgeon Bay, Wis., said it was just five years ago when he attended his first cover crops conference and all this was foreign to him.

Over the past three years, Brey said they have moved to a double cropping system on nearly all of their acres, thanks to the use of low disturbance manure injection and cover crops.

After corn silage comes off in the fall, those fields are immediately seeded down with either winter triticale or winter rye. They will plant triticale first, in September, as they found it needs to be in the ground sooner, and then they move to rye.

“After corn silage harvest, our number one priority is to get the cover crop established first to capture those remaining growing degree days we sometimes get in September,” Brey said. They use a manure tool bar borrowed from a nearby county’s land and water conservation department and apply 9,000 gallons per acre to the growing cover crop. They let the crop grow and soak up the nutrients, and then harvest it for forage the next spring. Triticale is usually of higher quality, so they feed it to dairy cows as a replacement for alfalfa, while the rye is used as heifer feed.

Once the forage is harvested,

best to let the manure dry a few days but not too long, as the soil can get very hard in a hurry.

Their goal is to have a living crop on all their ground throughout the year and to get manure to the crops when they can best utilize it.

“Especially with the high fertilizer prices, we want to maximize every gallon of manure we have. As a dairy farm, that is a big asset for us,” Brey said. Each farm is different

While the nutrient value of manure is undeniable, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to application. Jesse Dvorachek, who operates a custom application business based in Brillion, Wis., pumps 250 million gallons of dairy manure annually and has tried many styles of manure applicators.

“What I have learned over the years, when it comes to low disturbance manure application, is that there is no perfect tool,” he said. It really comes down to each individual farmer’s preference and situation.

Bubolz reiterated that thought.

“There is not one tool bar that fits every circumstance. You have to have the tool box loaded, because every year can be different,” he said. To find what might work best, Bubolz encouraged farmers to take opportunities to learn and visit other farms to see different practices in action. ■

Especially with the high fertilizer prices, we want to maximize every gallon of manure we have . . . that is a big asset for us.

PUCK INTRODUCES THE LONG REACH AGI

There is no denying that effective agitation is the key to regaining lagoon capacity and ensuring an even application of nutrients in the field. Agitation trailers tackle deep pits and hard-to-reach places. The first-ever telescoping agitation trailer takes things to the next level. This low-maintenance, high-efficiency agitation trailer features 50 feet of reach in a compact and user-friendly package. Some of the features of the Long Reach Agi are:

• A LightSpeed operating system

• Heavy-duty 25-inch slewing drive

• High and low agitation nozzles with 180 degrees of rotation

• Ability to switch from agitation to transfer mode without shutting down For more information, call 712-655-9200 or visit puck.com.

DIGESTED ORGANICS CONSTRUCTING LARGE DIGESTATE TREATMENT FACILITY

Digested Organics, based in Plymouth, Mich., has begun construction of the BC Organics Nutrient Concentration and Water Reclamation (NCWR) facility in northeast Wisconsin. This state-ofthe-art treatment plant utilizes unique membrane filtration equipment to process nearly 1 million gallons per day of digested dairy manure and return over 400,000 gallons per day of clean water to the environment. The NCWR facility is part of a large anaerobic digestion project called BC Organics, which is designed, owned, and operated by Dynamic. Raw manure from numerous dairy farms will be pumped and trucked to the facility for digestion in 16 aboveground tanks, capturing methane, which is purified and injected into nearby natural gas pipelines as renewable natural gas (RNG).

By removing nearly half of the digestate volume as clean water, the facility helps reduce the number of trucks moving digestate and minimizes the volume of material participating farms have to lagoon store and then land apply each year. Since the farms receive back more concentrated liquid digestate, they save money on land application, can use the liquid fertilizer in a more targeted fashion when needed (thereby helping to reduce runoff), and haul it to fields further away that traditionally receive less manure-based fertilizer.

Dan Nemke, partner and chief technology officer, said, “We have been working with Digested Organics and the farmer community near Greenleaf, Wis., for about three years to bring this project to fruition. We are excited that this project will provide substantial environmental benefits to this multi-generational farming community while also creating about a dozen local jobs for operators and plant staff.”

For more information, visit www.digestedorganics.com.

SMART SOAKER IMPROVES COW COOLING EFFICIENCY AND SAVES WATER

The Smart Soaker is a new tool available for controlling the process of cooling dairy cows at the feedbunk. It improves cooling efficiency while using only 60% to 70% of the water consumed in conventional soaking systems.

With more and more restrictions on water use and, in turn, waste disposal, reducing the amount of water that goes into the dairy waste and nutrient stream is critically important. Until now, the only way to save water was to reduce the soaking cycle duration and/or frequency. The Smart Soaker solves that problem without sacrificing any cooling benefit for the cow.

Using ultrasonic sensors and “smart” technology, feedbunk soakers are individually controlled and programmed to only operate when the environmental conditions warrant, and only if cows are present. This results in a huge water savings without reducing comfort for the cow.

Research has shown that cows only spend approximately 23% of their daily time at the feedbunk. This means that 77% of the time when the environmental conditions warrant soaking, the soakers do not need to be active. A massive reduction in water usage can be achieved by simply turning off individual units when cows are not in range. This technology does that.

The Smart Soaker technology was developed and is marketed by Agpro. For more information, you can visit their website (agprousa.com) or call 903-785-5531.

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SERVICES

Agricultural Digesters LLC

88 Holland Ln. #302 Williston, VT 05495

802-876-7877

info@AgriculturalDigesters.com

www.AgriculturalDigesters.com

Future Enviroassets LLC

513-349-3844

LF@futureenviroassets.com

www.futureenviroassets.com

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Hall Associates

23 Evergreen Dr. Georgetown, DE 19947-9484 302-855-0723

hallassociates@mediacombb.net

Tomorrow Water

1225 N. Patt St. Anaheim, CA 92801 714-578-0676

info@bkt21.com

tomorrowwater.com

Trident Processes Inc.

1-800-799-3740

frank.engel@tridentprocesses.com www.tridentprocesses.com

COATINGS

Industrial Solutions

5115 S. Rolling Green Ave. Ste. 211 Sioux Falls, SD 57108 605-254-6059

www.isusananoclear.com

DEWATERING EQUIPMENT

Press Technology & Mfg. Inc. 1401 Fotler Street Springfield, OH 45504 937-327-0755

dberner@presstechnology.com

WASTE HANDLING EQUIPMENT

R Braun Inc. 209 N. 4th Ave. St. Nazianz, WI 54232 920-773-2143

www.RBrauninc.com

PLACES TO BE

World Pork Expo

June 8 to 10, 2022

Des Moines, Iowa

Details: worldpork.org

National Pork Industry Conference

July 10 to 13, 2022

Wisconsin Dells, Wis.

Details: porkconference.com

Wisconsin Farm Technology Days

July 12 to 14, 2022

Loyal, Wis.

Details: wifarmtechdays.org

North American Manure Expo

July 13 and 14, 2022

Chambersburg, Pa.

Details: manureexpo.ca

Empire Farm Days

August 2 to 4, 2022

Pompey, N.Y.

R Braun Inc. 209 N. 4th Ave. St. Nazianz, WI 54232 920-773-2143

www.RBrauninc.com

 Don’t see your company listed? Send your company name, key contact, mailing address, telephone number, email, and website to marketing@jofnm.com with Professional Directory in the subject line.

Details: empirefarmdays. leetradeshows.com

Texas Animal Manure Management Issues Conference

August 10 to 11, 2022

Fort Worth, Texas

Details: texasmanure.org

U.S. Poultry and Egg Association’s Environmental Management Seminar

September 22 to 23, 2022

Destin, Fla.

Details: uspoultry.org/programs/ education/seminar

World Beef Expo

September 22 to 25, 2022

West Allis, Wis.

Details: worldbeefexpo.com

World Dairy Expo

October 2 to 7, 2022

Madison, Wis.

Details: worlddairyexpo.com

If you would like us to include your event on our list, please send details to info@jofnm.com.

STATEMENTS THAT REALLY BUG ME

by Thomas Menke

Iread an article in the Wall Street Journal recently about how food is produced and labeled. The following statement raised my ire: “Confinement livestock operations have polluted ground and surface water with animal waste.”

I have become a student of how authors carefully word things to express their bias. The hope of their misinformed opinion is that if printed as a fact often enough, it may become an accepted truth.

Since that set me off, I’m dedicating this article to a few things that bug me (without bias, of course). At the risk of offending a few or many, here are some comments or beliefs that get under my skin:

 Large livestock farms are bad for the environment. If Ohio is representative of the U.S. in general, we have over 30,000 livestock farms, of which fewer than 300 are large enough to be regulated. To stay in business, that 1% must account for every pound of manure and every drop of runoff water to ensure nutrients are balanced and waters remain clean. My instincts (and experience) indicate that the other 99% of farms need more attention.

 A specific soil test phosphorus number indicates whether there is a phosphorus runoff problem. Soil test phosphorus (P) is only part of the equation. Factors such as method of application, soil type and chemistry, field slope, tillage, and surface water connectivity are just a few aspects used to assess the impact phosphorus may have on water quality. A specific

soil test P value is not the best indicator of potential issues. More targeted field areas and alternative test methods should be considered to predict P impacts on water quality.

 No-till and cover crops are the answer to protecting water quality. No-till took partial credit for “saving” Lake Erie in the 1990s by reducing P-containing sediments entering the lake. No-till and cover crops slow erosion, but over time, phosphorus levels will rise at the soil surface. There are indications that these practices are increasing soluble phosphorus runoff. Ironically, Lake Erie’s harmful algal blooms of recent years are correlated with elevated soluble phosphorus. Coincidence?

 Grid sampling is the best soil sampling method. Bill Clinton approved the use of accurate GPS for civilians in 2000, and fertilizer dealers quickly went from reluctant soil samplers to grid gurus armed with robo-recommendations. Universities were quick to jump on the “next great thing” and off we went.

We know whether a soil sample is taken from a 40-acre field or a half-acre computer generated grid, it’s only as good as its interpretation. In my experience with manured soils, especially with high yields and/or forage production, soil samples over two years old

put us back in a position of guessing. When the frequency of grid sampling goes to four- or even five-year intervals because of sampling economics, I found the practice counterproductive. Even so, would we be able to manage manure in small grids? This leads to my next complaint . . .

 In-field variable rate manure applications are the way to go. The next exciting frontier? From a practical standpoint, variable rate applications of a multi-analysis fertilizer — manure — is chasing your tail. Which nutrient do you pick to determine rates? Is every gallon or ton the same? How will you even out the other nutrient variables you created across the field? I assume it can be done with multiple trips of variable rate fertilizer applications, but at what cost?

We erroneously treat soil fertility like an exact science. The longer you work with soil, the more you realize it’s a living, breathing ecosystem that interacts in imprecise ways. Once we grasp that concept, we can stop pretending we can control everything and look at manure applications more holistically. ■

The author is the president of Menke Consulting LLC, an agronomic and environmental consulting firm in Greenville, Ohio.

The longer you work with soil, the more you realize it’s a living, breathing ecosystem that interacts in imprecise ways.

TAMMI Conference is Back!

Texas Animal Manure Management

Issues (TAMMI) Conference

August 10–11, 2022

Agricultural waste management education and information to livestock and poultry producers and technical advisors.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Walt Coleman, dairyman and former NFL referee

conference agenda and details are available online.

For more information and to register, visit our website: www.texasmanure.org

Located in the Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic District, near Sundance Square and other popular attractions. The conference includes continuing education units (CEUs) for nutrient management, Dairy Outreach program Area (DOPA), and others. Full