# Alternative Waste Management Technologies

####### **Summary of Available Resources**

##### Prepared by

##### James E. Hannawald

Resource Conservationist

Natural Resources Conservation Service

###### **October 1999**

# 

Executive Summary

This report is a summary of available new alternative technologies for
animal waste management. A preliminary literature search revealed little
in new technologies for animal waste management. With the support of the
National Nutrient Team and the NRCS liaisons we were able to contact
researchers and others interested in waste management.

The report is divided into three sections, "Treatment, Utilization, and
Other Management". Most of the projects are on some type of treatment
that ultimately results in land application of the waste as a source of
fertilizer. There are a few projects looking at new uses for the manure.
Burning and pelletizing the manure are examples of alternative uses.
However, we need to look at these technologies closer since they tend to
concentrate the phosphorus in the final product. I did find two projects
(South Carolina and Oregon) where the researchers are looking at methods
of removing the nutrients from the manure. The nutrients then could be
custom blended into a more appropriate fertilizer mix for final land
application. In most cases I used the researchers description of the
project.

It is apparent that the industry is still relying on the final use of
any animal waste to be land applied as fertilizer.

Peter Wright, Animal Waste Specialist at Cornell University has a paper
titled "Manure Treatment of Existing and Proposed Manure Handling
Systems" Proceedings from Nutrient Management Planning: Competitive
Agriculture in Harmony with the Environment", Niagara Falls, Ontario
March 24-26, 1999. This paper is an excellent reference that summarizes
manure management alternatives presently available. It has been included
as Appendix I.

Ben Huebner, staff member of Senator Leahy\'s Office prepared a report
for the Vermont Alternative Dairy Manure Management Technology Working
Group titled Current and Future Dairy Waste Management Technologies and
Practices. These technologies are appropriate for other livestock
operations and not just dairy. This report is included as Appendix II.
It can also be found on our ITC web site.

This project should be continued in order to keep up to date on what is
being done and what some of the results are from the research. It has
been suggested that we develop some type of matrix of the projects.

I'm working with Chuck Lander, Dave Moffitt and Bob Kellogg on a
formalized paper utilizing this report dealing with the current
relationship of the geographic concentration of animal operations with
land application of manure and how these new technologies may affect the
land resource problems.

# Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Alternative Treatment 3

Alternative Utilization 8

Other Management 11

Appendix I 14

Appendix II 38

# 

**[Introduction]{.underline}**

This report is to identify new technologies for animal waste management.
A literature search revealed that most of the literature was about
existing technologies. We also began a search of the Internet looking
for new technologies for animal waste treatment. We had better luck in
this arena. With the support of both the National Nutrient Team and the
NRCS liaisons we were able to contact researchers and others interested
in waste management. As word got around that this work was in progress
we began to get more inquiries about it. Overall I feel we had a good
response to our requests. This report is a summary the responses that we
received as well as the sites that we found on the Internet. There is a
short summary of each project including a contact person, Internet and
email addresses if available All the data has been forwarded to Bengt
Hyberg for input into the economic analysis currently underway.
Documents and support information has been saved and will be available
upon request.

I first tried to divide this report into three sections, "Storage,
Treatment, and Utilization". Since we found very little relating to new
technology in Storage it was dropped and I added the "Other" section.
Several states such as Alabama and Iowa have very good Internet sites
that explain and describe the various alternatives available for animal
waste management. These sites will assist a producer in planning a
system for their operation. These examples are in the "Other Management"
section. The Appendix I is a paper presented by Peter Wright, Animal
Waste Specialist at Cornell University "Manure Treatment of Existing and
Proposed Manure Handling Systems" Proceedings from Nutrient Management
Planning: Competitive Agriculture in Harmony with the Environment",
Niagara Falls, Ontario March 24-26, 1999. This paper does a good job
summarizing manure management alternatives available to us as of today.
He details each management system and includes an economic analysis.
Appendix II is a report prepared by Ben Huebner, staff member of Senator
Leahy\'s Office for the Vermont Alternative Dairy Manure Management
Technology Working Group titled Current and Future Dairy Waste
Management Technologies and Practices. Many of the projects in this
report are appropriate for other livestock operations and not just
dairy. Many of the technologies in this report also came up in our
search.

There were a few projects looking into alternative uses. Sometimes it
was hard to determine if they were looking at a new use or really just
some form of treatment so the manure could be used as a fertilizer. The
ones that came up the most were burning poultry litter for energy and
pelletizing the manure to make it more transportable. We need to look
closer at these technologies since they both tend to concentrate
phosphorus in the residue. However, some are suggesting the addition of
nitrogen to better balance the nutrients to the crop needs. The bulk of
the projects deal with the treatment of animal waste. Composting came up
most often as an alternate treatment. Several states have manure
transport programs set up. For example, Maryland and West Virginia have
programs that help address the transfer of poultry litter to other
areas. It was surprising that alternative uses such as using manure as a
feed supplement to cattle did not show up. Agricultural Research Service
scientists have several projects where they are looking at the effects
of dietary phytase and high available phosphorus corn. The practice of
adding phytase to feed has been shown to be an effective means of
reducing the amount of phosphorus excreted. A couple of these are in the
Other Management section

Several respondents indicated that this type of report should go on the
Internet. This could be another future project that would encourage
Internet interaction. Another issue that surfaced and may warrant
further investigation was the issue of odor. There are numerous
researchers and companies looking in ways of reducing the odor. A couple
of these have been added in the Other section.

This report contains those projects that we have been able to gather
over a brief time period. This animal waste management technology is new
and dynamic. There are new concepts all the time. This project should be
an on-going one in order for us to keep up to date on new developments,
since the subject is important to the livestock and poultry industries
and it is evolving.

## Alternative Treatment

### University of Georgia 

# [Bioconversion of Broiler Poultry Litter]{.underline} 

The Biological Resource Engineering Laboratory (BREL) is the central
location for research on the biological conversion of renewable
resources and waste materials into value-added chemicals and other
products. The primary objectives of BREL are to add economic value to
under utilized food, agricultural, textile, and paper resources in the
state of Georgia through Bioprocessing and By-Product Recovery. Research
endeavors include the fermentation of carbohydrate wastes such as bakery
waste and poultry litter. BREL has facilities for the maintenance of
both anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms. Metabolic engineering is
routinely practiced with collaborating faculty.

About 1.2 million ton of poultry litter are removed from Georgia poultry
houses each year. This project explores the use of poultry litter as a
substrate for the production of fermentation products. Studies have used
Bacillus thuringiensis serovar japonensis strain buibui to produce
bioinsecticidal protein in solid and liquid fermentations. The protein
produced in solid substrate fermentation is being quantified, and
insects are used to evaluate the strength of the bioinsectide product.
Major hurdles have included the identification and removal of chemical
growth inhibitors in the litter and to quantify the amount of protein
produced in solid substrate fermentations.

Contacts:

<http://www.bae.uga.edu/dept/faculty/eiteman/brel/index.html#BREL> :
Poultry Litter

Tom Adams <tadams@bae.uga.edu>

Barbara Greyson <bgreyson@bae.uga.edu>

#### In-House Composting of Layer Manure

A manure management system, which utilized in-house low temperature
composting, was tested in an experimental layer house at the University
of Georgia. This system involved layers at commercial densities,
depositing their manure onto deep stacked materials located directly
beneath the cages. Weekly turning of the litter facilitated composting
with the layer house. Tests were conducted over a one-year period using
wood shavings and shredded paper products as a bedding material.
Temperatures were monitored daily and compost monitored on a periodic
basis. During a one year period approximately 3400 kgs of wet weight
manure was deposited into a single test box (1.2 m wide, 2.4 m long, 0.6
m deep) which originally contained 150 kgs of bedding material
contained. After a one-year period a 62% and 50% reduction in weight was
observed in the woodchips and shredded paper products, respectively. A
35% reduction in organic matter was observed prior to final composting
of the manure mixture. The dry weight analysis of the compost removed
from the house was 1.3%, 6.5% and 3.5% for N, P2O5, and K2O,
respectively. The compost removed from the house is currently going
through further composting for a 75 day period.

Contact: <http://bae.uga.edu/outreach/aware/thompson.html>

### North Carolina

The Animal and Poultry Waste-Management Center at North Carolina State
University is overseeing 11 projects evaluating existing
waste-management technology. These evaluations will give growers the
unbiased information they need to make informed decisions about
alternative waste-management technology. The waste-treatment systems
being evaluated were selected from 40 proposals submitted to the Animal
and Poultry Waste-Management Center. The proposals were selected in late
1996. These eleven projects are:

BioSystems Technology Inc. And RemTec Inc. Procedure

Bion Technologies Animal Waste Treatment System

Polymer-Enhanced Swine-Solid Separation

National Environmental Technologies Inc. Procedure

Newman Environmental Solutions Inc. Aerobic Treatment

Mobil Tangential Flow Separator

Swine Wastewater Dewatering/Composting Facility

Vermicompost System

Ekokan Inc. Animal Waste Management Treatment System

Partial Lagoon Aeration of Swine Waste

Rondali Inc. Animal Waste Management System

Following are examples of the systems being evaluated. The others can be
obtained from <http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agcomm/writing/wredp.htm>

#### Bion Technologies Animal Waste-Treatment System Evaluation/Demonstration Project

This system has been in place for approximately two years. Waste is
first treated aerobically in a bioreactor, then in a long, shallow
earthen reactor called an ecoreactor. The ecoreactor serves as a holding
cell, where solids are converted to sludge, which can be harvested for
use as fertilizer or a soil amendment. Liquid undergoes further
treatment in a secondary aerated reactor and is then recycled for pit
recharge. Excess wastewater and rainfall is treated in a third aerated
bioreactor.

Contact: Dr. John J. Classen, assistant professor, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, phone: (919)
515-6800, fax: (919) 515-7760, email: <JOHN_CLASSEN@NCSU.EDU>.

#### Polymer Enhanced Swine Solids Separation 

Separating the solid portion of waste from a swine building and allowing
only the liquid portion to enter a waste lagoon is considered desirable
because fewer nutrients end up in the lagoon and the solid waste may be
more easily converted to a value-added product. This project is an
evaluation of a system designed to separate solid and liquid waste. The
system employs a rotating screen separator, while separation is enhanced
with the addition of nontoxic, food-grade cationic polymers. The
polymers should increase flocculation, the clumping together of solids.
While solids may have a number of uses, in this case they are to be
fermented, then used as an ingredient in cattle feed.

Contact: Dr. Diana M.C. Rashash, area specialized agent (environmental
education), Onslow County, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
phone: (910) 455-5873, fax: (910) 455-6767, email:
<DRASHASH@ONSLOW.CES.NCSU.EDU>

#### Conversion of manure

Theo van Kempen is about to start a project that converts hog waste to
ethanol and ash at NCSU. We should be seeing more on this in the future.
This will be one that we want to keep an eye on the results as it should
produce a form of energy as well as a form of phosphorus that could be
blended with commercial fertilizer.

Contact: Theo van Kempen Email: <T_vanKeempen@ncsu.edu>

### Maryland

######## Pelletization of Manure

Perdue Farms Inc. is planning a joint venture with AgriRecycle Inc. to
set up a plant that can process 120,000 tons of poultry manure into
80,000 tons of organic fertilizer in a pelleted form that could be
easily shipped to areas outside of the production area.

Contact: AgriRecycle Inc., http://www.agrirecycle.com/

Perdue Farms Inc. <http://www.perdue.com/>

### Hawaii

#### Modified Deep Litter System

A promising technology developed in Hawaii for nutrient management in
small-scale swine operations. The deep litter system is practiced in
several environmentally sensitive and land-limited countries in Western
Europe (Netherlands) and Asia (Japan, Taiwan). However, several problems
arising form the static in-pen composting limited expansion of the
technology and practice\...the Modified Deep Litter (MDL) waste
management system is an innovative alternative to swine waste
management. The system incorporates a constant flow, dynamic
co-composting of diverted green wastes and other carbon waste materials
with the wastes generated by the hogs. The composting process is started
in the pens, but is completed outside of the rearing area, eliminating
the build-up of heat, parasites and disease in the pens. The MDL system
virtually eliminates the nonpoint source pollution potential to aquifers
and surface waters since no water is used for wash down operations. The
pay back is the production of a high-value organic soil amendment,
shifting the paradigm of livestock wastes from a liability to an
important revenue generating resource.\" \[A very clever and innovative
feature is the use of a sloping pen, in which the litter and manure
moves down by gravity and hoof action to be deposited in a holding and
secondary composing channel.\]

Anticipated goals:

This concept was demonstrated through an EPA section 319 grant in Kona,
Hawaii and is being promoted throughout Hawaii and in the other Pacific
Rim territories. Use of this technique is being encourage by CES and
NRCS in Hawaii wherever there is a suitable litter (C) source available.

Contact for further information:

Glen Fukumoto, Cooperative Extension Service, P.O. Box 208,

Kealakekua, HI 96750 ph (808)322-2718, fax 2493 <gfukumot@hawaii.edu>

### Oregon State University

Ron Miner has a small project attempting to evaluate the alternatives
for capturing nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, in a dry
granular form with good storage and shipping properties. My thoughts are
that this alternative may have particular application in developing
countries.

Ron Miner

Bioresource Engineering Department

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

Phone: (541) 737-6295

<minerj@engr.orst.edu>

### Minnesota

#### Turning Manure into Natural Gas, and Pollution-Free Fertilizer

Al Rutan of Rutan Research has been involved for over 30 years with the
design and development of methane gas producing equipment. Methane gas
occurs naturally in nature under various conditions, throughout the
world. Good planning and design are essential to efficient conversion of
the potential energy source. There must be a net energy gain.

Schlangens Egg Farm has installed a 9,200 gallon digester, which
produces methane and aged, processed fertilizer from their 75,000 bird
egg-laying operation in an energy efficient manner. All previous
attempts at employing the process of anaerobic fermentation, commonly
used in many sewage plants, to a farm application have not been energy
efficient. The process involves pumping manure from the chicken barn
through a pipe into a heated converted diesel tank located in a building
close to the chicken barn. This is where the digestion process takes
place. They are currently experimenting with mixing shredded garbage
paper with the slurry materials to thicken for storage, drying purposes.

Contact: Alvin Schlangen spi@albanytel.com

Al Rutan, <arutan@mail.mninter.net>

Rutan Research,

\(612\) 870-7461

Toll Free 1-888-663-3737

http://[www.commonlink.com\\\~methane]()

### South Carolina

There is an on going research project at the ARS facility at Florence
that is looking at the addition of Polymers to precipitate soluble
phosphorus from waste water. This could be a potential solution to our P
problem.

Contact: Patrick G. Hunt, Soil Scientist, Research Leader (843) 669-5203
ext 101.

Email: <hunt@florence.ars.usda.gov>

### Arkansas

Research work at the Poultry Production and Product Safety Unit
(<http://www.uark.edu/~usdaars/>) includes laboratory studies to
evaluate the effects of various compounds added to poultry litter on
soluble phosphorus, the products that are formed between these compounds
and phosphorus, as well as ammonia volatilization. Test plots are also
used to test the efficacy of various litter amendments to reduce or
prevent phosphorus runoff. In addition, one compound, alum, has been
shown to be an effective poultry litter amendment to reduce phosphorus
runoff, decrease ammonia volatilization from litter, and improve the
fertilizer value of the litter.

Contact: Philip A. Moore, Jr. (USDA/ARS, Fayetteville, Arkansas)
501-575-5724

<philipm@comp.uark.edu>

### New York

Resource-recovery waste treatment concepts\" that was developed for
domestic sewage treatment have been shifted to agricultural wastes such
as dairy cow manure. Presently, anaerobic digesters are being operated
on dairy and poultry wastes, and the resulting residue is processed for
stable fiber recovery and a soluble nutrient-rich liquid that is used in
a hydroponic alternative. Important fundamental concepts from this
research are significant quantities of clean, renewable energy, protein
independent farming and zero pollutant discharge systems that have no
ultimate disposal problems, with little or no negative impact on the
environment.

One year of \"proof-of-concept\" efforts have shown that the above
concepts are capable of minimizing the waste generated on a dairy.

Contact: W. J. Jewell and T. D. Nock,

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/aben/AnimalWaste Treatment.html

## Alternative Utilization

Alternative utilization of animal manures and byproducts are needed in
areas where the concentration of livestock or poultry present
significant environmental risks through land application methods. When
you mention alternative uses the following examples are discussed:
composting, energy generation uses, blending or mixing of wastes and
other materials such as fertilizers to create value added products and
animal feeding of wastes. These uses have been around for some time; I
tried to find new and different uses for this report.

## Georgia

### [Using Dairy Manure to Fertilize Year Round]{.underline}

At the University of Georgia two forage systems are being evaluated:

(1) abruzzi rye-clover, minimum till, seeded into bermuda sod in fall,
    and harvested as haylage in March, temperate corn, minimum tilled
    into rye stubble - bermuda sod and harvested for silage in July,
    bermuda hay harvested in summer and early fall; and

(2) abruzzi rye-clover minimum till seeded into corn stubble and
    harvested as haylage in March, temperate corn minimum till planted
    into rye stubble and harvested for silage in July, tropical corn
    minimum till planted into temperate corn stubble and harvested as
    silage in November. Each of these systems will be fertilized with
    irrigated dairy manure (about 600 lb of N/acre/year) and commercial
    fertilizer (based on soil test recommendations), in both small plots
    and under a center pivot system.

The overall goals of the project are to develop, evaluate and
demonstrate an economically and environmentally sound method of manure
utilization and crop production within a high-yield, intensive
agricultural system. Much of the project work involves the measurement
of nutrient recovery in crops and nutrient movement in the environment,
including nutrient uptake and sequestration in the adjacent, reforested
riparian zone. If the trend observed for the first crop continues for
the other two crops, it could result in an additional 25 to 30 pounds of
nitrogen per acre recovered as cattle forage, rather than being released
to the environment.

Contact: Larry Newton, Animal & Dairy Science

<http://www.bae.uga.edu/outreach/aware/newton.html>

### [Riparian Buffer Systems For Utilization of Agricultural Effluents]{.underline}

Methods are needed to utilize nutrients contained in animal manures.
Past research has shown that riparian buffer systems are effective in
utilizing nutrients contained within swine lagoon wastewater. Buffer
systems consisting of an upslope grassed area and downslope riparian
vegetation (forest or recommended wetland species) removes both N and P
from wastewater applied by overland flow. These systems have several
advantages over upland sprayfield systems. First, odor problems are
minimized as compared to spray irrigation of wastewater since the
effluent is applied directly to the soil surface. Second, this system
utilizes a portion of the landscape not commonly used for agricultural
production, and hence does not impact on land area available for row
crop production. Third, harvestible grass and timber which are then
removed from the site use nutrients contained in the waste. The system
is recommended for the landscape portion upslope of wetlands, since it
is not desireable or permissible to apply wastewater directly to
wetlands.

Contact: Dr. Robert K. Hubbard

<http://www.bae.uga.edu/outreach/aware/hubbard1.html>

## Connecticut

Under a Rural Development project in Litchfield County they are looking
at the potential markets for the production of nursery pots made from
composted manure. After liquid and solids separation the solids are
composted and then compressed into pots. Kathleen Johnson would be the
contact. Kathleen.Johnson@CT.usda.gov

## North Carolina

NRCS is utilizing the AgSTAR program for recovery and utilization of
methane gas from animal waste. We currently have two projects in North
Carolina with direct involvement and several others around the country
with various degrees of involvement.

Project Name: Barham Farm -- 4000 Sow, farrow to wean, operation

Description: All waste from this facility is flushed to a covered
anaerobic digestion lagoon with a design retention time of 65 days.
Methane gas produced during the digestion process is collected under the
lagoon cover and transferred to a gas utilization building. The gas is
used to fuel an IC engine turning a 120 KW generator. The power is used
on farm or excess can be sent out onto the grid. Recovered heat from the
engine is used to heat water for on farm use. All systems are monitored
by NC State University to determine effectiveness of waste decomposition
and gas yields.

Goals: 1. Demonstrate physical and mechanical process of methane gas
recovery on an actual farm.

2\. Demonstrate how collected gas can be utilized on the farm.

3\. Determine the actual economic benefits of gas collection and
utilization.

Contacts: Leland M. Saele, NRCS, Raleigh, NC (919) 873-2170 or email:
leland.saele@nc.usda.gov

Project Name: Ramsey Farm -- 400 Sow, farrow to nursery, operation; NRCS
Conservation Field Trial

Description: All waste generated at this farm is flushed into a covered
lagoon for digestion and methane gas recovery. The gas is collected from
under the lagoon cover and transferred to a gas utilization control
center where volume of gas is measured and (currently) flared off. All
systems are monitored by NC State University to determine effectiveness
of waste decomposition and gas yield.

Goals: 1. Determine how well system can be operated on a small farm on
older lagoon

2\. Determine cost and economics of operating on a small scale

3\. Determine gas yield from an older lagoon

Contacts: Leland M. Saele, NRCS, Raleigh, NC (919) 873-2170 or email:
leland.saele@nc.usda.gov

### [Report of the Agricultural Animal Waste Task Force]{.underline}

Nicholas School of the Environment

Duke University Durham, NC 27708-0328

April 1996

<http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/sigmon/agwaste/disposal.html>

Examples Of Alternative Waste Technologies

Innovative Uses of Waste. In response to growing concerns about manure
management, Entrepreneurial farmers and scientists have designed a
number of innovative uses for livestock waste. For example, when Jerry
Sherrill did not have enough land to spread the waste from his 100,000
broiler operation in Huntingon, Arkansas, he started a business called
Crappy Critters. Sherrill molds dried, composted chicken waste into
figurines of ducks, turtles, swans, and cats, and promotes them as
flowerpot ornaments that will eventually release their nutrients into
the soil (Krajick 1994). At the University of Georgia, researchers are
investigating means of rearing industrial quantities of insects in
animal waste, then feeding the insects back to the livestock as a feed
supplement. The larvae have a high protein content and are nutritionally
comparable to soybeans or corn (Krajick 1994). Krajick, K. 1994. Food,
flies, feed: Recycling in the chicken coop (innovative ways to use and
recycle chicken manure). Audubon 96(4):16-17

## Other Management

There was very little on new or alternative storage technologies. Most
of what is in the literature deals with known systems or structures.
There were several companies that have in-vessel composting systems that
could be short-term storage. These are included in the Alternate
Treatment section. Several states are looking at wetlands as a
management tool for waste treatment. I did not go into depth on these
since most are being used to treat the effluent released from lagoons.

Several states relate good information on the Internet covering the
various storage systems and existing treatment options. Alabama has a
series of publications on General Waste Management, Poultry Waste, Dairy
Waste, and Swine Waste at
<http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/publications/anr/anrae.html>.
Mississippi has an on line publication "Managing Animal Waste Nutrients"
that can be found at <http://www.ext.msstate.edu/pubs/pub1937.htm>. Iowa
also has a series of on line publications at
<http://www.ae.iastate.edu/waste.htm>. The University of Missouri has a
good site offering on line publications for Animal Waste Management at
this site <http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/waterq/index.htm>.
There are many additional sites available on the Internet.

NRCS in Connecticut is developing a GIS supported Program that utilizes
a spread sheet component to determine field size and travel distance
from the barn for optimum and safe manure utilization.

Contact: Kathleen.Johnson@nrcs.usda.gov

Several newspaper articles have been circulating that relates
information about the Enviropig from Canada. Three scientists at the
University of Guelph, Ontario, say they created a pig well, 3 pigs in
fact---who were injected with a spliced bacterium and mouse gene while
they were embryos. The gene allows the pigs to better digest phosphorus
in their feed. One report indicated 50% less Phosphorus in the manure.
It is estimated that it will be 3 to 5 years before the Enviropigs
become available to growers. A couple of web sites are
<http://www.loe.org/archives/990702.htm#feature8> and
http://www.agpub.on.ca/iss/99/june/cover21.htm

Ohio State University has a series of on-line Bulletins discussing
poultry manure management and utilization at
http://ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu/b804/.

The University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE) offers a regularly
scheduled Compost School. The objective of the school is to provide
training to people interested and/or involved with medium and
large-scale composting operations. This course is offered as a
certificate program by UMCE and will train personnel to be qualified
compost site operators. http://www.composting.org/

Odor is a growing problem that has not been documented because of a lack
of odor standards. There is no doubt that hog farms produce odor; to
what degree is uncertain. The only indication of the severity of the
problem is from the public. Although public complaints are not
substantiated with quantifiable data, the increase in public outcry with
the coincidental increase of swine is an indication that the problem is
real. A couple of on line discussions are included below:

From Duke University
http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/sigmon/agwaste/prob.html

Heavy odors are the most common complaint from neighbors of swine farms.
The intensity of odors from hog farms varies with waste management
practices and farm design. In North Carolina, hog waste is typically
stored in large holding ponds called lagoons. Lagoons on farms that
raise more than 2,000 pigs can hold millions of gallons of waste. These
waste lagoons emit ammonia, volatile fatty acids, and other gases that
are carried off farm property by the wind. Due to the constant additions
of new waste and subsequent anaerobic activity, odor is perpetually
present. As with any odor, weather conditions of wind, temperature and
humidity determine intensity and distance carried.

From Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/odour.htm

The swine industry and especially the intensive swine operations (ISO)
have had to face

opposition from rural communities. This social attitude results from
major developments. Large modern livestock operations concentrated the
production of waste, creating a stress on the environment. In parallel,
there has been a major increase in the number of dwellings in and around
agricultural areas.

Effect Of Dietary Phytase And High Available Phosphorus (Hap) Corn On
Broiler Chicken Performance

Research is being conducted to determine the effects on broiler chicken
performance and health by reducing dietary phosphorus levels in poultry
feed by treating the feed with the enzyme phytase, formulating diets
using high available phosphorus (HAP) corn, or when diets were
formulated with HAP corn and treated with the enzyme. Data indicates
that total phosphorus can be reduced by at least 11% in diets prepared
with HAP corn, or in diets supplemented with phytase without affecting
the performance or health of broiler chickens. When diets are prepared
with HAP corn and supplemented with phytase the dietary addition of
total phosphorus can be reduced by at least 25% without affecting
broiler chicken performance or health. These studies demonstrate that
the poultry industry can significantly reduce phosphorus in the diets of
chickens, which will reduce the environmental impact of the poultry
industry.

Contact: William E Huff, USDA/ARS POULTRY PROD. RE

Email: huff@comp.uark.edu

Use Of High Available Phosphorus Corn And Phytase Enzyme Additions To
Broiler Diets To Lower Phosphorus Levels In Poultry Litter

This is a companion project with the previous one. The objective of this
study was to examine the effect of different broiler diets on the amount
of phosphorus in broiler litter, and the effect on phosphorus runoff
when the different litter types are used as a fertilizer. The diets were
as follows:

(1) broiler feed that contained a special enzyme (phytase) to increase
    the amount of phosphorus retained by the bird; (2) a type of corn
    (HAP corn) which contains phosphorus that is readily available to
    the bird; (3) the special corn treated with the enzyme (HAP corn +
    phytase); (4) regular commercial broiler feed.

After two flocks of broilers were grown on each diet, the poultry litter
was collected and added to tall fescue plots at 3 tons/acre. There were
no significant differences in phosphorus runoff concentrations between
plots receiving the different poultry litter treatments. However, the
HAP corn and HAP corn plus phytase lowered phosphorus runoff by 22 and
26% respectively.

Contact: Philip A. Moore Jr., USDA/ARS POULTRY PROD. RE

Email: philipm@comp.uark.edu

# Appendix [I]{.underline}

Manure Treatment of Existing and Proposed Manure Handling Systems

Peter Wright

Animal Waste Specialist, Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Department

Cornell University

Agriculture is a vital component of any society. In North America
agriculture provides wholesome cheap food to consumers. Farms are also
important environmentally. Open space, wildlife habitats, and aquifer
recharge can be important environmental benefits of farms. However,
excess nitrates in the ground water, pathogens in the drinking water and
excess nutrients, BOD, and sediment in surface water can have a negative
effect on the environment. Farms can effect the environment through
odors, greenhouse gases, and acid rain also. Society has recognized some
of these negative effects and is asking farms to improve. To maintain a
competitive industry we need to be able to provide feasible alternative
practices based on science and good engineering that allow productive
agriculture while minimizing the effect on the environment.

There are a wide variety of farms. They vary in their resources and
their environmental concerns. Some farms have access to more capital,
skilled labor, management ability, land resources, water resources, and
markets than other farms.

Depending on the location and the management\'s personal values, each
farm can have different environmental concerns. Those in a watershed
that supplies drinking water may be more interested in controlling
pathogens and phosphorus. Those with a fresh water lake may be more
concerned with sediment and phosphorus. Those with neighbors may be more
concerned with odors. Those in a porous aquifer may be more concerned
with nitrogen leaching and pathogens. Others may only be concerned about
BOD loading that cause fish kills locally. Nutrient loading far
downstream may be a concern to some farms. Manure treatment methods will
be required to deal with each of these issues.

Some farms are interested in mass reduction to facilitate manure
movement off their farm. Development of by-products that can be sold at
a profit off the farm could help maintain profitability while improving
the environment.

There are many management issues that effect the choice of a manure
treatment system

Some of these issues include:

> 1\) minimize environmental damage
>
> 2\) maximize nutrient value
>
> 3\) minimize neighbor problems
>
> 4\) minimize damage to the land
>
> 5\) minimize cost

6\) minimize frustration

Although society may order these issues one through six, farmers may
order them six through one. Providing manure management alternatives
that will address the various concerns of these farms as well as be
successfully applied with the variety of resources the farms may chose
to allocate to them will require a number of different alternatives.

The following table describes some manure management alternatives that
either are being used or are proposed.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Manure Management     **Advantages**          **Disadvantages**
  Alternative**                                   

  **Daily Spreading** is  Capital costs are low.  Total costs may be
  being practiced by many Environmental effects   high. Nutrient and
  farms. Manure and other are hidden. Odor        pathogen losses during
  wastes are spread as    problems are minor.     times of saturated
  they are produced       Labor and equipment use soils may provide
  throughout the year.    is steady.              excessive delivery to
                                                  waterbodies. Field
                                                  accessibility may be a
                                                  problem.

  **Liquid Storage** to   Nutrient management can Odors are a big problem
  reduce spreading during be easier. Efficiencies when spreading. Large
  high loss and times     in handling can be      liquid handling
  when fields are         obtained to keep costs  equipment needs to be
  inaccessible. Required  down. Manure can be     available. Labor and
  in many areas,          spread when needed.     equipment needs peak.
  encouraged in all                               Non-earthen storage can
  areas.                                          be very expensive.
                                                  Catastrophic failure or
                                                  heavy rainfalls right
                                                  after spreading can
                                                  cause peak pollutant
                                                  discharges.

  **Odor Control** of     Would allow spreading   No technology has yet
  stored liquid manure is of the manure during    shown that it can
  a major need. Chemical  the growing season and  significantly reduce
  and biological          eliminate neighbor      odors without
  treatments have been    complaints              significant costs.
  tried and proposed.                             

  **Solid Separation** of Liquids are easier to   High capital and
  the manure solids       handle. Solids can be   operating costs.
  mechanically can        recovered for bedding,  Maintenance of the
  produce a \"solid\"     soil amendment, or      equipment is a problem.
  portion (15-30% DM) and exported off the farm.  Marketing of the solids
  a \"liquid portion\"                            may not be successful
  (4-8% DM).                                      on all farms.

  **Composting** of the   Odor reduction is an    High moisture contents
  manure by adding        important advantage of  of most manure makes
  bedding or an amendment composting. Equipment   conventional composting
  to produce a            for solids handling is  difficult. Sales may
  biologically decomposed available on most       depend on expensive
  product has had very    farms. Storage of       specialized mixing
  limited success on      solids is safer         equipment and good
  farms.                  environmentally than    management. Composting
                          liquid storage.         outside on large areas
                          Material may be         can create runoff
                          marketed.               losses.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Manure Management     **Advantages**          **Disadvantages**
  Alternative**                                   

  **Biodrying** of the    Odor reduction, volume  Management of drying
  manure by recycling dry reduction, and weight   process will be
  compost as the          reduction would occur.  critical. Costs of
  amendment to            Equipment for solids    operation may be high.
  composting, and using   handling is available   Material handling may
  the heat generated in   on most farms. Storage  be excessive.
  the aerobic             of solids is safer      Additional amendment
  decomposition to dry    environmentally than    may be required. Winter
  the manure/compost mix  liquid storage.         operation may require
  with forced air has     Material may be         closed buildings.
  been proposed.          marketed.               

  **High Solids Anaerobic Odor reduction, volume  Management of digestion
  Digestion** would       reduction, and weight   and drying process will
  produce a decomposed    reduction would occur.  be critical. Capital
  residual and produce    Equipment for solids    costs will be high.
  methane gas. Heat from  handling is available   Electric utility
  the gas or from an      on most farms. Storage  connections may be
  engine generator could  of solids is safer      difficult. Material
  be used to dry the      environmentally than    handling may be
  material for recycling  liquid storage.         excessive. Additional
  within the system. This Material may be         amendment may be
  system has been tried   marketed. Energy        required.
  experimentally on dairy production would meet   
  manure.                 the needs of the farm   
                          and allow excess to be  
                          sold.                   

  **Anaerobic Digestion** Odor reduction and      Management of digestion
  takes as produced       energy recovery will    process will be
  manure and digests it   occur. Effluent is      critical. Capital costs
  producing an odorless   reduced in solids       will be high. Electric
  effluent that has       content and can be      utility connections may
  reduced solids content  further reduced easily  be difficult.
  while retaining the     by mechanical solid     
  nutrients. Methane gas  separation. Demand for  
  is recovered that can   the anaerobically       
  be used to run an       digested solids is      
  engine generator.       greater than raw        
                          solids.                 

  **Lagoon Treatment** of Odors are reduced and   Solid harvesting and
  manure from the farms   solids are separated    dewatering can be
  consists of diluting    without mechanical      difficult. Exposure of
  the manure, allowing it treatment. Works well   large surface areas may
  to settle in large      with a flush system to  result in extra water
  shallow pools then flow remove manure from      volumes. Impermeable
  to a facultative lagoon barns. Solids may be    soils on moderately
  to be recycled as flush marketed. Liquids can   flat terrain are
  water to dilute more    be easily irrigated.    required to keep cost
  manure. Liquids and     Management is           down.
  solids are periodically relatively easy.        
  removed from the                                
  system.                                         
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Manure Management     **Advantages**          **Disadvantages**
  Alternative**                                   

  **Soil Treatment** by   Nutrients and odor      Management of this
  mixing manure into a    would be reduced in the system year round may
  naturally aerated       liquid effluent. P      be difficult. Build up
  biologically active     would be concentrated   of nutrients in the
  surface layer with an   in the soil treatment   soil treatment zone
  anaerobic lower layer,  area so that a farm     will require removing
  It is proposed that N   would not be tied to a  and replacing the
  will be removed, P      large land requirement  material on a regular
  concentrated and the    based on manure         basis. Capitol cost for
  effluent spray          disposal limits.        the impermeable layer
  irrigated for disposal.                         and drainage system may
                                                  be high.

  **Sequencing Batch      Odors, Nutrients and    Capital and operating
  Reactors** to reduce    COD would be reduced in costs may be high.
  the COD, N, in the      the liquid effluent     
  liquid effluent and     which could be spray    
  concentrate the P from  irrigated at hydraulic  
  the manure have been    loading rates on crop   
  proposed. A large       fields. High P solids   
  tank(s) would           could be exported so    
  alternately fill,       that a dairy would not  
  react, settle and       be tied to a large land 
  decant a treated liquid requirement based on    
  and concentrated        manure disposal limits. 
  sludge. Mechanical                              
  separation and dilution                         
  would precede the                               
  process.                                        

  **Total Resource        Odors would be          Capital costs will be
  Recovery** by combining controlled. Energy      very high. Operating
  the plug flow methane   would be recovered.     costs may not offset
  production process with Nutrients would be      by-product sales and
  solid separation, and   recycled. There would   savings in a cheap
  hydroponically          be no waste.            energy, cheap nutrient
  recovering the                                  situation.
  nutrients would                                 
  eliminate the waste and                         
  maximize production of                          
  useful by products.                             
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Some of these existing and potential treatment methods have not yet been
implemented on a farm. The time to implement in table 2 gives relative
estimates of when these systems could be avaliable for farm use. Each
system may be appropriate for some farms and not others. The size of the
farm may determine the appllicability of one system over another. The
system and the specific pollutant(s) they will treat need to be balanced
with the specific pollutant control needed on the farm, and the needs of
the farm for an efficient manure handling system. The management skills
of the farm as well as the closness (and marketing skills of the
operator) to a market will also have an influence on the choice of a
system. Table 2 lists some of the characteristics of each system.

**Manure Handling Options** will have different relative values on
different farms. Of course every farm is different both in their
resources and their goals. This scale is an attempt to compare the
systems with each other. For a specific farm it would have to be
reevaluated to reflect actual conditions for that farm.

**Scale 1 = poor 10 = good**

  ---------------- -------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----- ----------
  Characteristic   Daily    Liquid    Odor      Solid        Compost   Biodrying   High      Methane   Treatment   Soil        SBR   Total
                   spread   Storage   Control   Separation                         Solids              Lagoons     treatment         Resource
                                                                                   Methane                                           Recovery

  Runoff and       1        4         5         5            6         7           7         6         8           9           9     10
  Leaching                                                                                                                           

  Odors            5        1         5-10      2            9         9           9         10        8           8           10    10

  small farm       5        3         ?         2            5         7           6         3         6           9           4     5

  large farm       2        7         ?         6            2         5           6         8         8           6           7     6

  N reduced        5        4         n/a       5            4         4           4         6         7           8           10    10

  P export         2        1         n/a       3            5         5           5         4         6           7           9     10

  Pathogen control 1        3         ?         3            7         7           7         6         5           1-5         8     10

  Nutrients        5        8         6         7            4         4           4         9         2           2           2     10
  recycled                                                                                                                           

  Compaction       1        5         6         6            8         8           8         9         9           10          10    10

  Capital Costs    9        3-7       ?         5            7         4           2         2         4           4           3     1

  Operating Costs  5        7         ?         5            3-8                   3-8       3-8       5-7         5-7         2-4   ?

  Material sales   2        3         4         6            9         10          10        7         6           5           8     10

  Time to          10       9         1-9       9            9         5           3         7         7           2           3     1
  implement                                                                                                                          

  Simplicity       10       8         1-9       6            7         5           2         2         5           4           3     1
  ---------------- -------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------- ----------- ----- ----------

The descriptions above provide background and a basis for comparing
these manure management alternatives. With out a regulatory incentive to
control nutrients, pathogens, or odors, it will be hard for an
economically rational farm manager to increase production costs to
implement some of these alternatives.

Concentrating research on those alternatives that will provide odor
control, P concentration, and pathogen control at a reasonable cost
should be a priority. More documentation of the costs, pathogen removal
, and phosphorus concentration are important for any alternative
considered.

**APPENDIX A: System descriptions:**

**Daily Spreading**

**Description:** Spreading manure and wastewater daily as it is produced
is a low capital cost, low management option. Many farmers continue to
daily spread most of their manure. Nutrient management to reduce
fertilizer use can be difficult unless careful records and accurate
spreading tactics are used. Spreading close to the source of the manure
has caused soil storage of excess phosphorus on many farms.
Unfortunately, many of the cropped soils particularly those close to the
barns, have already been saturated with phosphorus, contributing to the
water quality problems. While odor issues are generally not a serious
problem on daily spread sites, runoff and leaching losses during
saturated conditions can add to the nutrient loading of a watershed.

**Environmental Impact:** There are a number of important questions
which need to be answered in order to document the environmental effects
of daily spreading. Critical among them is the transfer rate between
soluble P and bound P in the soil. Manure applications must be managed
in such a way that almost all of the P is adsorbed in the soil and bound
so that it cannot readily escape. Field and laboratory research will
need to determine the appropriate spreading rates and frequency on
different soils.

**Economics:** There are many misconceptions about the cost of daily
spreading. Some studies have shown a wide range of costs. When no
fertilizer credit is taken for the manure and inefficient methods are
used to spread it the costs approach \$200 per cow per year. Efficient
spreading and using the fertilizer value of the manure can produce a
positive value on some farms. The average farm in one study in western
NY lost \$75 per cow per year on their spreading operation.

**Land Requirements:** Daily spreading is a relatively land-intensive
operation, especially if phosphorus limitations are placed on the
spreading rate. Specialized application vehicles to move more manure
further may be needed.

**Management Strategy:** This alternative can be implemented on
individual farms, and in many cases can be accomplished using existing
manure spreading equipment. Custom spreading may be appropriate for
fields at considerable distances from livestock housing. Additional
record keeping will be needed on most farms.

**Acceptability:** Because it is a traditional manure management
practice, farmer and community acceptance of this alternative is likely
to continue to be high. However, longer hauling distances, less
efficient use of nitrogen with P balancing, and pathogen concerns may
discourage this option.

**Liquid Storage**

**Description:** Storing manure and wastewater to spread it at an
environmentally appropriate time can reduce the total loading of
nutrients to a watershed. Most farmers don\'t limit their spreading from
a storage to times when the environmental effects will be minimized.
Labor and equipment availability results in considerable application
during the fall, winter and early spring. Nutrient management to reduce
fertilizer use is easier when spreading from a storage. Records can be
kept and spreading patterns in each field observed to be sure of more
uniform coverage. There can be cost savings both in reduced fertilizer
use as well as efficient use of equipment when spreading from a storage.
Odor issues are a serious problem when spreading stored manure.

**Environmental Impact:** Management is the key to reducing the
environmental impact of spreading stored manure. Odor problems create a
continued pressure to avoid the warmer times of the year to spread.
Catastrophic failures can result when storages are breached, or when a
large runoff event washes all the manure off the land after the manure
storage was emptied on to many fields.

**Economics:** Storage can be an economic positive for the farm by
allowing efficient spreading operations and the use of the manure as a
fertilizer. Incorporating the manure to preserve the ammonia as a
fertilizer is an option for all of the manure when spreading from a
storage. Delays in planting or other ooperations due to the time it
takes to complete the manure spreading operation can cause a large loss
in net farm income. Weather variability makes spreading a years worth of
manure in the spring prior to planting a difficult task.

**Land Requirements:** Spreading from a storage can take even more land
than daily spreading if it is incorporated, as the nitrogen can be
utilized more completely. This will make it a relatively land-intensive
operation, especially if phosphorus limitations are placed on the
spreading rate. Less nitrogen will need to be added to a phosphorus
balanced rate if it is incorporated. Specialized application equipment
to move more manure further may be needed.

**Management Strategy:** This alternative can be implemented on
individual farms, and in some cases can reduce spreading costs. Custom
spreading may be appropriate on some farms. Management is very important
when unloading a storage to prevent spills or overloading of fields.
Odor control of the stored manure is an issue that each farm with stored
manure needs to consider.

**Acceptability:** Because of the increase in foul odors the community
may not accept this practice even when it can be shown to improve water
quality. Farms that can reduce their spreading costs, or improve the
ease of spreading operations may be willing to put up with some odor
complaints. People will be less and less willing to accept the odors as
the spreading is concentrated more in the warmer months and concentrated
on larger farms.

**Odor Control**

**Description:** Many processes have been proposed to treat stored
manure to reduce the objectionable odors. These include some of the
treatment process contained in this document as manure management
alternatives. Other biological, physical, and chemical proposals
include: Specific enzymes and bacteria, aeration, chemical reactants,
heating, drying, raising the pH, chemical masking, magnetism, and
electric currents. So far a process that is effective yet low cost has
not been found. Research continues world wide to provide a solution.

**Environmental Impact:** Odor control is essential to allow farms to
spread on land close to residences and during the summer. Potential
leaching and runoff concerns during the cooler wetter times of the year
is pushing those farms interested in water quality into a conflict with
their neighbors as they attempt to spread manure during the summer.
Spray irrigation on growing crops of an odorless manure would be the
best method of manure application to provide nutrients to the crop while
minimizing environmental losses.

**Economics:** The value of odor control is a hard quantity to define.
Avoiding neighborhood conflicts, increased quality of life, and avoiding
potential law suits does have a value. Regulations on odor emissions are
a real possibility in the future. These regulation will make some form
of odor control needed on many farms.

**Management Strategy:** Although there are some management techniques
to reduce odors and avoid neighbor conflicts the odors from stored
manure without treatment will challenge even the best managers.

**Acceptability:** Any system that is low cost and easy to manage will
be adopted rapidly by farms.

**Mechanical solids separation**

**Description:** Separating and hauling the separated solids from the
manure produced on each farm could potentially allow for the export of
approximately 20% of the phosphorus. There are a number of separators
commercially available. Most require the addition of extra water. The
screw press separator manufactured by Fan seems to work without
additional water added and provides a fairly dry product. It will
produce at least one cubic foot of 30% solid manure for every minute of
operation on a dairy farm. That rate will handle about one cow\'s daily
manure production per minute. This rate may be increased, depending on
the size of the solids, the moisture content of the manure slurry, and
the internal wear on the auger vanes. A truck mounted unit or units
could go from farm to farm on a regular schedule separating the manure
for export, or composting A storage facility on each farm would need to
handle the daily manure produced as well as the liquid remainder. This
system is being used in Europe.

**Environmental Impact:** Since the amount of phosphorus in the
separated manure solids is 20% of the total phosphorus in the manure,
removal of the solid produced from the separator would only reduce the
loading of phosphorus by 20%. It would have no effect on the pathogens.
Nitrogen would also be removed by 20%.

**Economics:** The separation equipment costs about \$30,000 for each
machine. If permanently installed on a farm it would take another
\$25,000 for the building pipes and plumbing. One machine would be
required for each 500 cows assuming an 8 hour day. The ownership costs
which include depreciation, insurance, a 15 year life, and interest at
10% would be \$3.50 per hour. The Fan separator uses 4 kW to turn the
auger, and 0.15 kW to run a vibrator to keep the manure entering
smoothly. Assuming a 10 hp manure pump motor uses 8 kW, the electrical
use per 500 cows would be 8.3 hours times 12.15 kW or 102.5 kW hours per
day. Maintenance on the separator is estimated at \$2.50 per hour. The
economics of truck mounted multiple units would have to be explored.
Liquid manure handling equipment would need to be obtained for each farm
left with the liquids.

**Land Requirements:** Two small three to four day storages for each
farm would be needed to store the manure until it was separated and then
to store the liquids until they could be spread. Vehicle access to these
storages would be needed if portable separators were to be used.

**Management Strategy:** Most farms are not large enough to justify a
dedicated separator. A private operator could set up an operation to
separate the manure, haul the solids to a central site for composting or
high solids anaerobic digestion, and then market the product. The profit
from the sales if any could be split between the farmer and the private
operator.

**Acceptability:** The farmers would need to convert to a liquid manure
spreading system. If all the solid manure was to be moved off the farm
this would not be that big a burden. The storage and spreading of the
liquid is a little easier to manage than handling a solid. More uniform
applications could be expected as well as slightly more N retention
since the liquid portion will infiltrate into the ground sooner. There
may be a slight odor reduction because the liquid manure will infiltrate
into the ground quicker.

**Composting**

**Description:** Composting is an aerobic decomposition process which is
an established on-farm manure management method. The energy liberated
during the decomposition process raises the compost temperature to
accelerate decomposition and evaporate water, resulting in a dried,
stabilized product in 3 to 6 months. A primary constraint on composting
is the requirement for a dry bulking amendment to create adequate
porosity in high moisture manures. This requirement can be reduced or
eliminated via the use of solid separation technology (see above) and/or
recycling dried product in the mixture (see Biodrying).

Composting could happen on individual farms with mobile equipment, or at
a centralized facility depending on the tradeoff between equipment and
manure transportation costs. Product marketing would likely be a
centralized function performed by a private contractor, who would also
provide equipment maintenance and management services.

**Environmental Impact:** Export of the compost product would result in
removal of phosphorous and nitrogen from the farm. To the extent compost
was used on the farm, phosphorus would remain while nitrogen would be
reduced through ammonia volatilization by 30 to 70%. In either case the
high temperatures achieved during composting would greatly reduce or
eliminate pathogens. The amount of manure composted could include only
the excess intended for export, or it could include the entire manure
stream as a way to treat manure before returning it to cropland.
Application rates could be limited to the phosphorus required by the
crop, so that nitrogen fertilizer would need to be imported. Odors will
be controlled with proper management.

**Economics:** The economics of on-farm composting have been documented
through a number of studies, including cases studies from throughout New
York State. Combined amortized capital and operation costs typically
range from \$5 to \$20/ton. The value of the compost product will offset
that cost to a limited degree, although marketing expenses will also
need to be considered. Tradeoffs between material transport (bulking
amendment and manure) and equipment transport will be analyzed for
specific clusters of farms to determine the optimal scale of a facility.

**Land Requirements:** The composting site(s) envisioned would most
likely be outdoor windrow systems, and would have to be designed with
adequate water quality protection measures. Retention ponds and pasture
irrigation systems have been used successfully for runoff management at
other farm composting facilities. Typical windrow composting operations
require one acre for every 3000 yards of material. Including some space
for runoff management, approximately 1.5 to 2 acres would be required
for a 50 cow dairy.

**Management Strategy:** Several management options are possible for
this technology. In the scenarios proposed, a subsidized private
contractor could manage the manure for several farms, either moving
equipment to individual on-farm sites or hauling manure to a centralized
facility. In a decentralized processing scenario, equipment would need
to visit each site regularly, with increased frequency during the summer
and early fall to provide relatively dry finished compost for storage
and sale the following spring.

**Acceptability:** Composting is an established manure management
approach, and multi-farm implementations already exist in the Northeast.
Several sites operate centralized facilities collecting manure from many
farms, while one operation contracts compost turning and management
services for several farms. Although these existing models demonstrate
widespread acceptance of composting by farmers and private businesses,
they also provide indications of the critical issues for community
acceptability. Centralized facilities, because of their larger impact on
the immediate neighborhood, are more likely to raise concerns about odor
and traffic. If economic and transportation analysis suggests a
centralized solution, these concerns must be carefully addressed.

**Biodrying**

**Description:** If managed carefully the heat generated by aerobic
composting can provide the energy to reduce 12% DM manure to a 60% DM
residual. Forced air composting, under a roof, with the air flow
controlled carefully would optimize this process. Composting works best
with an initial moisture content below 70%. Recent applications of
composting operations that have used forced air to compost six foot high
layers of manure in 21 days have shown the feasibility of this process.
Recycled compost at 40% dry matter could be spread in the alleys about 3
inches thick to absorb one days production of 12% DM manure. The mixture
could be scraped into a shed, piled 6-8 feet deep and aerated to produce
40% DM compost in 3 weeks. This recycle loop could be continued
indefinitely. One third of the compost produced each day would not be
needed to be recycled and would be stock piled for sale or land
application on the farm. This process could potentially compost all of
the manure produced with little additional amendment needed. The compost
would be reduced one half in volume and one sixth in weight from the
original manure due to water loss and solid conversion to gasses.

**Environmental Impact:** Pathogen control and odor control would be
substantial. Heat produced during the compost process has been shown to
reduce pathogen viability substantially. The aerobic nature of the
composting process produces few odors if managed correctly. Storing and
spreading a high solids product should reduce the runoff potential and
eliminate the potential of a catastrophic failure from the storage
system.

**Economics:** The capital cost for this system would consist of a three
sided composting shed with an aeration system installed in the floor.
Most farms have the needed material handling equipment on the farm. The
additional material handling, amendment if needed, and power for the
aeration equipment would be the operating costs. These costs may be
offset by sales of the product or use of the compost as bedding.

**Land Requirements:** The composting shed would need to be large enough
for 21 days storage of the compost manure mix piled 6-8 feet high.
Additional storage for the excess compost could be provided on a pad
with controls for rainwater runoff.

**Management Strategy:** Although the air control/temperature feedback
system may need to be automated to optimize moisture removal, the rest
of the system is well within the management capabilities of most dairy
farm operators. Solid handling of odorless compost should make manure
spreading much easier.

**Acceptability:** If successful this system would likely be adopted by
many small and medium sized farms that have yet to adopt to liquid
storage systems. Farmers and the community will enjoy the odor and
pathogen reduction.

**High Solids Anaerobic Digestion**

**Description:** This system would take the manure produced on the farm,
mix it with the dried by-product and send it through a high solids
anaerobic digester. The system would produce a stabilized pathogen free
by-product much like compost available to export off the farm. All the
phosphorous from the manure would be in this by-product.

Manure at 12% solids would be mixed with 50% solid by-product to make a
28% solid material that would be placed in a closed tank and heated to
thermophilic temperatures. This will produce methane which when
generated for electric use on the farm will also produce the heat needed
to both heat the digester and to help dry the effluent from the
digester. The effluent would need to be dried in a roofed structure with
aeration and waste heat from the generator. Most of the dried by-product
would be reused in the process but ultimately a steady flow of 5 cubic
yards per day per 100 cows of 50% solids would be produced to be
marketed off the site.

This process has not been used on a farm but has worked in large scale
operations in previous research activity by Professor William Jewell at
Cornell.

**Environmental Impact:** This process would package all the phosphorus
produced on the farm in a stabilized, deodorized humus much like compost
for export off the farm. The pathogens and weed seeds would probably be
killed. The volatile nitrogen (NH3) would be lost during the drying
phase. The farmer would have a portion of the by-product available to
use on the farm for fertilizer or organic matter amendments. Application
rates would be limited to the P required by the crop, so that nitrogen
fertilizer would need to be imported.

**Economics:** This system may be put on a single farm or at a central
site. The advantages of placing it on each individual farm include: the
ability to use the electricity generated on the farm to replace
electricity being purchased; the equipment needed to handle the high
solid materials are generally already on the farm; and transportation
costs would be limited to those used to export the final by-product off
the farm.

A central system would find some economies of scale in building the
digester tanks and in the engine generator to use the methane. The
expertise needed to run the system and market the by-product could be
concentrated at one site.

The capital costs would be high for this system. They would include a
closed vessel for the digestion, an engine generator, and a drying shed.
These costs could be as much as \$200,000 for a 100 cow farm.

The operating costs may provide a break even or better situation on a
single farm resulting in savings from electricity generated and bedding
produced. A centralized site may have difficulties selling the
electricity and have added transportation costs to move the dried
material back to farms for bedding.

**Land Requirements:** The area this system would take up would include
a 20 foot high by 15 foot diameter vessel and a 70 x 100 drying shed for
a 100 cow dairy. This should not be a significant constraint on most
farms.

**Management Strategy:** This technology would be about the same
complexity as existing anaerobic digestion systems. We can expect those
farmers with an above average management ability being able to operate
the system with ease, while those farms that are not managing well will
find running the system to be a burden. Handling the manure as a solid
would mean that most of the equipment to move the material would already
be on the farm and the operator would be familiar with the operation of
it. An outside service person could used to check the systems on a
regularly scheduled basis if enough farms were using the system. At a
central site a manager with the capabilities of a sewage plant operator
would be required to run the operation efficiently.

**Acceptability:** There would be some disadvantages to this system on
the farm. This system would potentially reduce the amount of recycled
nitrogen and phosphorus to the land. The nitrogen deficit would have to
be imported. It would add another enterprise that would have to be
managed on the farm. The advantages include electricity and bedding cost
savings and odor control. Good managers who were provided the capital
cost should benefit from this system.

The community should except this low odor processing. there would be an
increase in truck traffic especially at a multi-farm site. This system
would provide pathogen control, phosphorus export.

**Anaerobic Digestion**

**Description:** These biological treatment systems take manure as
produced at 12% DM and heat it, with waste heat from the engine
generator, then anaerobically digest it in an enclosed insulated trough
for about 20 days. The manure is continually being fed in and an odor
reduced effluent at about 8 % DM is continuously released. Methane is
produced that is used to power an engine which drives a generator.
Electricity produced exceeds the average dairy farm consumption of
electricity providing the possibility of power sales. The effluent with
all of the nutrients still in it could be stored to apply to the land.

**Environmental Impact:** The anaerobic process does reduce most
pathogens. The extent of this reduction depends on the temperature
regime in which the digester is operated. Most are run mesothermically
but thermophillic digesters are possible. Odor reduction is another
benefit of this process. The slight liquification and the enhanced
ability to separate the solids mechanically after digestion can make the
effluent easier to pump and irrigate. With the odor reduced spray
irrigation on growing crops is a real possibility. This has the
potential to reduce runoff and leaching losses.

**Economics:** There are economies of scale with this system. Farms with
over 800 cows would be more viable and may make a profit with these
systems. Smaller farms may not make a profit. Design modifications to
reduce the capital costs will continue. Centralized systems must
overcome transportation costs to be profitable. In cheap energy times
the sales of power may not produce enough of a cash flow to warrant use
of this system.

**Land Requirements:** The size of the digester needs to be large enough
for 20 - 30 days of hydraulic retention time. The engine generator and
solid separation system, if used, would require a building to house
them. The total volume of manure is not significantly reduced with
methane generation.

**Management Strategy:** Management of these systems is difficult for
most dairy farms. While the ordinary monitoring could be done with
existing personnel on the farm, when problems develop like engine
failure or reduced gas production in the digester, farm labor may not
have the expertise or be available to fix them. A private design and
maintenance organization should be able to provide this service for a
group of dairy farms.

**Acceptability:** Although these systems have been installed and
demonstrated for over twenty years few farms have continued operating
them. Cheap energy and the high capital costs are economic
disincentives. Maintenance demands also caused existing systems to be
abandoned. The need for odor control at a low cost may make them more
popular in the future.

**Treatment Lagoons**

**Description:** This patented process (Bion) uses managed shallow pools
to separate the manure solids into aquatically stabilized solids. These
solids are then harvested, dried, screened and then sold as a soil
amendment. The system recycles the biologically active liquid to move
the manure through the ponds. This is typically done by flushing the
alleys of a barn.

**Environmental Impact:** Although the amount varies, the phosphorus can
be concentrated in the solids so that up to 75% of it can be removed.
Although there is no specific knowledge of pathogen reduction, this may
be significant since the retention time in the system is long. There is
no temperature increase above ambient in this system. Odors are much
reduced when this system is operating correctly. Ammonium nitrogen is
lost into the air from this system.

**Economics:** The pond system and recycling pump would be a relatively
low capital cost on a favorable site. A flat site with low permeability
soil would keep the costs of installation down. Steep sites that require
an artificial liner would be much more expensive. The operating costs
may be offset by the sale of the product. If the barns were set up for
flushing, additional labor savings could be obtained as the recycled
water would clean the barns. Retrofitting a flushing system into a flat
barn would be very expensive. An existing 2% slope on the alley\'s would
be ideal. A method to further treat or spread the extra waste water
would need to be provided.

**Land Requirements:** The land requirements for the Bion system would
be high. A 100 cow operation would need about one acre of ponded area
and storage for 1 million gallons of effluent.

**Management Strategy:** The operation could be managed by:

Bion Technologies, Inc.

606 N. French Road, Suite 6

West Amherst, NY 14228

716-691-3385

The capital costs for the installation and a management fee would be
paid to this company and the profits from the sale of the Bion soil
would be split between the company and the farmer.

**Acceptability:** This process should be acceptable to the farmer once
the initial capital cost is taken care of. The effluent to be spread or
treated in a wetland will need to be managed. The system includes over
winter storage and does reduce odors. This system would be most
efficient operated on the farm in conjunction with a flushed freestall
housing. By potentially removing a larger portion of the phosphorus and
reducing odors, this system may become more popular with dairy farms.

**Soil Treatment**

**Description:** Applying high amounts of manure on a small area that is
managed for nitrogen removal and phosphorus concentration would convert
the manure into a soil amendment that could be exported. Manure would be
spread, aerated and mixed with the soil to promote aerobic activity in
the surface zone. Leaching into an anaerobic layer beneath the surface
would denitrify the nitrates produced in the aerated zone. The nitrogen
would be released as nitrogen gas. Phosphorus would be taken up by the
biological activity and adsorbed to the soil matrix. When the amount of
phosphorus leaching out became excessive the whole matrix could be dug
up and sold out of the watershed as a soil amendment. The site would
need a positive barrier to prevent water from leaving and would probably
require a roof for year round operation.

**Environmental Impact:** If successful this method would contain most
of the phosphorus for export out of the water shed. Pathogen removal
would be limited in this area since the retention time would be fairly
rapid. No temperature increase above ambient would occur, so pathogen
reduction would be dependent on processing time.

**Economics:** If no roof was required this system would be relatively
low cost on the right site. A flat area with a very low soil
permeability would be the least cost situation. A synthetic liner, a
drainage system, specific sand and loam fill would be needed. The mixing
and aeration operation should be able to be accomplished with existing
on farm equipment. The amount of time required is unknown. Professor
Bill Jewell at Cornell is currently evaluating the feasibility of this
system.

**Land Requirements:** A 100 cow dairy may need a 2.5 acre area for
their total waste management for this system.

**Management Strategy:** Once the process is demonstrated it should be
possible for the typical dairy farmer to manage the system. A consultant
may need to be available for trouble shooting, and to assist in the
marketing of the soil matrix when it is saturated with phosphorus. There
would be no advantages to a centralized system.

**Acceptability:** These systems may not be acceptable to the farmer. As
much time and effort may be required to operate the system as daily
spreading, while the fertilizer value of the manure would be lost to the
farmer. The sale of the soil matrix may pay for some of the fertilizer
imports needed. Good phosphorus reduction but the pathogen treatment is
unknown.

**Sequencing Batch Reactor**

**Description:** Certain microorganisms store phosphorus under
alternating aerobic - anaerobic conditions. Biological phosphorus
removal creates fluctuations in the oxygen content of a wastewater to
encourage this excess P uptake by microbial biomass. During the
anaerobic stage some of this phosphorus enriched biomass is withdrawn as
a sludge. This is an established treatment technology for municipal
wastewater, but has not been applied often to agricultural wastes. In
order to achieve adequate settling of the solids, manure collected as a
semi-solid would need to be diluted prior to treatment. Much of the
effluent from the system would be recycled as dilution water.

**Environmental Impact:** In this application the phosphorus enriched
sludge would be dried into a marketable product. Export of the product
would result in removal of phosphorous and nitrogen from the watershed.
Because of the relatively high tech nature of this treatment approach, a
centralized system would likely be built to serve a large number of
individual farms. Effluent from the system (beyond that required for
dilution) may be suitable for direct discharge, or might require spray
irrigation fields.

**Economics:** This is an expensive option, with costs similar to those
of a conventional wastewater treatment plant on a BOD basis. Professor
Carlo Montemagno at Cornell is currently developing this system in the
lab, to establish feasibility and costs for agricultural manure
applications

**Land Requirements:** Siting requirements would be similar to those of
a wastewater treatment plant. If spray irrigation of the effluent were
necessary, land requirements could increase significantly.

**Management Strategy:** As envisioned, manure in excess of crop
phosphorus needs would be hauled to a central plant for phosphorus
removal. The plant would be run by a public authority or under contract
to a private operator. The complexity and capital economies of scale
implicit in this approach would likely preclude operation on individual
farms.

**Acceptability:** On farms that need both odor control and phosphorus
balancing, this system may be required to stay in business. Farms just
meeting odor control may see the high cost as a disadvantage. If energy
and nutrient prices increase this system will not be the preferred
treatment system.

**Total Resource Recovery**

**Description:** This system in essence creates a high value recycling
system for the manure nutrients. The liquid stream from a solids
separator would be diluted and used to grow plant proteins
hydroponically that could then be fed to the cattle. On-farm production
of a high nutrient feed would reduce the need to import extra feed onto
a farm and into the watershed. The diluted manure could come from
several different treatment systems. An anaerobic digestion system
operated at thermophilic temperatures preceding the hydroponics system
would provide pathogen and odor control. The hydroponics system would be
contained in a greenhouse environment and potentially be used to grow
bacteria, simple and complex plants.

**Environmental Impact:** By reducing the import of nutrients this
intensive recycling program could improve the nutrient use efficiency on
the farm significantly. This would eliminate the extra phosphorus
loading onto the fields. Pathogens and odors would be completely
controlled if the system was preceded by a thermophilic anaerobic
digester. Caution should be exercised before using untreated diluted
manure, which could potentially recycle pathogens to animals through the
feed.

**Economics:** Depending on the operating costs this system could be
very feasible. A high protein feed, bedding or soil amendment from the
fibers, and energy are produced. There would be no waste discharge. The
capital cost would be high. A 100 cow dairy could expect the initial
costs to be on the order of \$250,000. Professor Bill Jewell at Cornell
is currently evaluating the feasibility of this system at pilot scale,
and those results should provide the necessary information for a field
scale pilot system.

**Land Requirements:** The 100 cow dairy would need about 2 acres of
greenhouse production. The anaerobic digester and the engine generator
would also need a building space.

**Management Strategy:** This system would be very intensely managed.
The green house would have to be managed by an expert. One scenario
would be for the farmer to enter into a partnership with an individual
or a corporation with this expertise. If successful, this strategy would
provide a range of opportunities for local economic development,
including services related to greenhouse production, digesters, and
composting of separated solids.

A centralized site would provide the opportunity for economies of scale
on the digester, and better management and production of the protein
supplement. Transportation cost of the manure and the difficulty of
selling the electricity produced would be the disadvantages.

**Acceptability:** This system could not be adopted by the farmer on his
own. The hydroponics production would be a complex and new skill to
learn. With the right partner this system should be accepted by the
farmers. The potential economic advantages are attractive.

This system should be seriously consider for the future. The capital
costs will be high but it would achieve the goal of pathogen, odor, and
phosphorus control. It should increase the economic viability of the
area with the creation of jobs and cheap energy.

**APPENDIX B: Two Existing Odor Control Systems:**

By comparing two feasible alternatives to manure handling that achieve
odor control, agricultural engineers and producers will be better able
to chose an effective and economically viable system for farms today.
These systems improve neighbor relations, reduce the impact on the
environment, and will help provide for sustainable development of the
dairy industry.

A comparison of two existing odor control treatments on dairy farms in
New York State shows the costs and benefits of each system. On Farm A an
anaerobic digester is used to stabilize the manure and collect methane
for the production of electricity. The effluent is then run through a
screw press to separate the solids for composting. The liquid effluent
is then stored for land application. This system is compared to Farm B
that uses the Bion treatment lagoon system. This farm uses flushing to
carry the manure to shallow ponds for solid settling. The solids are
recovered for off site sale. The liquid effluent is treated in a
facultative lagoon. The effluent from the lagoon is recycled for use as
the liquid for flushing the barn. Excess liquid is applied to crop land
as a nutrient supplement.

Both of these systems achieve significant odor control. The farm with
the anaerobic digester has a positive present value of the manure
handling system of \$698 per cow. This includes nutrients remaining,
solids sold off farm and electricity produced. The farm with the
treatment lagoon system has a negative present value of the manure
handling system of (\$390) per cow. This includes nutrients remaining
and solids sold off the farm.

Farm A:

This dairy farm is a 500 cow operation with a business plan goal of
milking 1,000 cows. Samples of manure were taken at the end of each
process in this system. The manure before and after anaerobic digestion
was sampled, as well as both flows from the separator. The manure
storage pond was sampled prior at the surface after winter storage.
There could be significant variation in these samples especially the one
from the waste storage pond. Dilution by precipitation milking center
wash water as well as settling may have distorted the nutrient contents.
Table 1 shows the percentages from each sample.

Table 1 Manure characteristics and estimated amounts per cow from Farm A
Anaerobic Digestion System.

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | %M    | %N    | %P    | %K    | Lb.   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| As produced per day       | 90    | 0.44  | 0.09  | 0.29  | 152   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| After digestion per day   | 93    | 0.45  | 0.07  | 0.26  | 146   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Separated liquid per day  | 95    | 0.43  | 0.06  | 0.28  | 126   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Separated solids per day  | 77    | 0.51  | 0.11  | 0.26  | 21    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| From storage per day      | 98    | 0.27  | 0.02  | 0.16  | 165   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nutrients available       |       | 163   | 12    | 97    |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Lb. per year              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Costs on Farm A

The \$365,000 first year expense for this system is high but there is
more opportunity for potential returns. After converting to a present
value over a 20 year life with 8% interest, the net per cow benefit is
\$698.22. Sales of electricity are assumed to \$24,000 per year. The
sales of solids are assumed to be \$32,445 per year, and assuming the
value of the nutrients at \$0.25 per pound the nutrients remaining are
worth \$34,060 per year. There are of course many factors not taken into
account in this analysis. The nutrients were assumed to be needed when
it may be that only nitrogen is needed on the farm. The electric value
will depend on a number of pricing and production interactions. The
sales of the solids hopefully will continue without competition from
another farm that might be closer to the market providing the organic
material at a lower cost.

Yearly expenses include \$15,000 per year for the maintenance of the
digester, engine, and generator. This will include occasionally
replacing the cover and removing the grit in the bottom of the digester.
The engines and generator repairs and scheduled overhauls are also
included in this yearly cost as is the one half hour of daily
maintenance to check the system. The spreading costs of the manure were
ignored as well as the offsite storage. The cost of the alley scrapers
is also not included in the system. The pumps were estimated to have a
10 year useful life. Their replacement was included in the present value
calculation. These costs are shown in table 2

Table 2. Costs for anaerobic digestion manure handling system for Farm
A.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | Present Value         | Yearly Amount         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| First Year Expense    | (\$365,000)           |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ten Year Expense      | (\$22,696)            |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Operation and         | (\$151,786)           | (\$15,460)            |
| Maintenance           |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Nutrient Value        | \$334,406             | \$34,060              |
| Remaining             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Solids Sold           | \$318,550             | \$32,445              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Electricity Sold      | \$235,636             | \$24,000              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Net Income            | \$349,109             |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Net Income per Cow    | \$698                 | \$35                  |
|                       |                       |                       |
| (with 500 cows)       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Without including the nutrient value the system has a present value of
\$1 per cow over the 20 year life of the system. When the dairy expands
to 1,000 cows, the net income present value will be \$1,100 per cow or
\$55 per year. Some farms may not be able to obtain a benefit from the
manure. Farms with fields that have high to excessive levels of
phosphorus and potassium may even see these nutrients as a detriment.
Appropriate nutrient management will be needed to utilize the nutrients
to maximize crop uptake. The ability to irrigate the effluent on growing
crops without excessive odors will increase the likelihood that the
nutrients can be used.

Farm B

This dairy farm is presently a 170 cow operation that can hold up to 300
cows. Samples of the solid leaving the farm and the liquid effluent
being applied to the fields were taken in this system. There is a
significant variation in these samples from ones taken in 1997. There
are differences due to the weather and the uncontrolled nature of the
biological processes that will make the nutrient concentrations and the
volume of waste water vary considerably. Dilution by precipitation,
milking center wash water, and silage leachate as well as settling may
have distorted the nutrient contents. Table 3 shows the percentages from
each sample from the spring of 1998.

Table 3 Manure characteristics and estimated amounts per cow from Farm B
lagoon treatment system.

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | %M    | %N    | %P    | %K    | Lb.   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| As produced               | 90    | 0.40  | 0.09  | 0.30  | 152   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Separated liquid          | 99    | 0.08  | 0.01  | 0.07  | 135   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Separated solids          | 83    | 0.37  | 0.10  | 0.07  | 17.5  |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nutrients available       |       | 39    | 5     | 35    |       |
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Lb. per year              |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Treatment Lagoon Costs

The \$94,919 first year expense for this system is a moderate investment
for a manure handling system. There is some opportunity for potential
returns, but the revenues from the sale of the solids have to be split
with the managing partner. After converting to a present value over a 20
year life with 8% interest, the net per cow cost of this system is
(\$390.27). The sales of solids are assumed to be \$6,000 per year, and
assuming the value of the nutrients at \$0.25 per pound the nutrients
remaining are worth \$3,354 per year. There are of course many factors
not taken into account in this analysis. The nutrients were assumed to
be needed when it may be that only nitrogen is needed on the farm. The
sales of the solids hopefully will continue without competition.

Yearly expenses include \$2,995 per year for the electricity and \$3,360
to remove the solids from the shallow solid settling ponds. The pump was
assigned a ten year life. The spreading cost of the manure was ignored
as well as the offsite storage cost. The additional benefit of cleaning
the barn is included in this system. The farmer, the veterinarian, and
the hoof trimmer are pleased with the results of the flush system. These
costs are shown in table 4

Table 4. Costs for lagoon treatment manure handling system for Farm B.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          Present Value           Yearly Amount

  First Year Expense      (\$94,920)              

  Ten Year Expense        (\$1,880)               

  Operation and           (\$62,396)              (\$6,355)
  Maintenance                                     

  Nutrient Value          \$32,930                \$3,354
  Remaining                                       

  Solids Sold             \$58,910                \$6,000

  Net Income              (\$66,346)              

  Net Income per Cow      (\$390)                 (\$20)
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Without including the nutrient value the system has a negative present
value of (\$584) per cow over the 20 year life of the system. When this
system spreads it\'s costs over 300 cows the negative present value will
drop to (\$125) per cow over 20 years. This is (\$6) per cow per year.
Again, some farms may not be able to obtain a benefit from the manure.
Farms with fields that have high to excessive levels of phosphorus and
potassium may even see these nutrients as a detriment. The lower amounts
of these nutrients in the effluent of this system will make this less
likely. Still appropriate nutrient management will be needed to utilize
the nutrients properly. The variation of the nutrient concentrations
because of the effects of weather on the process may make this system a
little more difficult to develop a nutrient management plan. The ability
to irrigate the effluent on growing crops without excessive odors will
increase the likelihood that the nutrients can be used.

Conclusions

Both the lagoon treatment system and the anaerobic digester are feasible
systems for dairy farms that will provide excellent odor control. The
management required is well within the abilities of most dairy farms.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each system that may be more
or less important to each farm. The lagoon treatment system works very
well with a flushing system to clean the barns. Gently sloping
topography and relatively impermeable soils will keep the initial costs
low. Farms that don\'t need all the nutrients in the raw manure may
benefit from the nutrient losses of this system. The anaerobic digester
system would be best for a farm that had high electric costs and could
use the nutrients for crop production.

Nutrient utilization and by-product sales are important in reducing the
cost of a manure handling system. Marketing the separated solids and
fully utilizing the nutrients in the manure can help pay for odor
treatment systems.

References:

Jewell, William J., P. E. Wright, N. P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski,
A. Zucker, \"Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion Options for Groups of
Dairy Farms In Upstate New York\" Final Report 6/97 Department of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, College of Life Sciences,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

Wright, Peter and S. P. Perschke, \"Anaerobic Digestion and Wetland
Treatment Case Study: Comparing Two Manure Odor Control Systems for
Dairy Farms\" Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting
Paper No. 984105 ASAE 2950 Niles Road St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659

Wright, Peter, Manure Spreading Costs and the Potential for
Alternatives. Proceedings from Managing Manure In Harmony with the
Environment and Society, 2/10-12/98 Ames, Iowa, West North Central
Region of the Soil and Water Conservation Society.

## Appendix II

**Memo on Current and Future Dairy Waste Management Technologies and
Practices**

**Prepared for the Alternative Dairy Manure Management Technology
Working Group**

**Prepared by Ben Huebner, 8/3/99**

**Introduction:** This memo is a result of the many conversations I have
had with agricultural scientists, agricultural economists, and
businessmen regarding how to deal with the problem of dairy waste
runoff. Although it was originally supposed to summarize documents about
existing technological practices, the lack of both documentation and
practices themselves has led to a different format. The **Mechanical
Separators** and **On the Market** sections give basic information about
commercial products including information on costs, services provided by
the company, capabilities, and contact information. When applicable, the
evaluation and contact information for a scientist who has evaluated the
technology is also included. The overview is not exhaustive, but instead
a cross section of the different technologies currently on the market.
All other sections are culled from conversations with various experts in
their respective fields. An extremely brief synopsis of their work,
opinions, and contact information is included. A few other brief notes
should be mentioned. Almost all figures in this memo were either
estimations or highly contingent upon external factors, and are
therefore meant solely to provide an idea on cost or results. Secondly,
I have spoken with everyone mentioned in this report. All of them are
available for any questions you may have. Also, the Supersoil project
has been omitted, as the group already has extensive information. And
lastly, Jim Hannawald of the USDA is currently working on a similar
project to this one. His report will be much more comprehensive, but
will only include a one or two sentence description of every technology
he finds. Mr. Hannawald will complete his project by October 1st, and
will make his findings available over the Internet. He can be reached at
301‑504‑3950 or jhannawald@md.usda.gov . Mr. Hannawald has received a
copy of this memo.

**Synopsis of Findings:** There was one statement I heard from almost
every animal waste expert in the field. AIf I knew a real solution for
the phosphorus problem, I wouldn=t be sitting here talking to you. I
would be a millionaire.@ Their point was that there are no silver bullet
solutions that will eliminate the P problem. There are, however, various
practices and technologies that tend to reduce P runoff. A combination
of these practices could provide the solution Vermont needs.

There are three major ways to reduce P runoff: nutrient management, land
management, and technologies that convert the waste into a marketable
product that can be moved off the farm. Nutrient management should
probably be the first action undertaken, as many dairy farmers are
wasting money by feeding more P to their herd than the cows require.
Much of this P is excreted, contributing to the waste problem. Good land
management practices are also essential, for 90% of phosphorus runoff
comes from only 10% of the land. By reducing or eliminating the amount
of manure spread on high runoff areas, the P problem, as well as other
animal waste runoff problems, can greatly be reduced.

Technological solutions tend to be far more expensive, but have the
added advantage of reducing or eliminating the need to spread excess
waste on the fields**.** These waste management practices first require
solid separation at the farm. The solids can then be composted in a
variety of ways, or be treated by a bioreactor to create a soil
supplement. Neither system reduces the amount of P in the end product,
but they do convert the waste into a product that can be sold off the
farm, given that a market has been developed.

Below are further explanations of the practices and products described
above, as well as prices and contacts. Also included are the thoughts of
waste management experts who could provide further information about
particular systems and waste management in general.

**Nutrient Management:** Reducing P intake by the animal can reduce both
P levels in excretion as well as reduce farmer feed costs. Larry Satter
with the US Dairy Forage Research Center of USDA-ARS researches dairy
nutrition and nutrient concentrations in manure. His own research,
research in the University of Bonn, and research in Holland have found
that dairy farmers are feeding their cows 20 - 30% too much phosphorus.
They confirmed studies done years ago by the National Research Council
(NRC) that even the highest yield dairy cows need only .38 - .40%
phosphorus as percent of dry matter, but are currently being fed an
average of .48 - .50%. Many dairy farmers over supply phosphorus because
of a myth that the NRC statistics are too old to be accurate and that
low phosphorus levels lead to reproductive problems (this last one is
only true in the extreme, not within the ranges of phosphorus intake for
dairy cows). Nutritionists are only beginning to realize that phosphorus
intake should be reduced. Mr. Satter also said that a reduction of
phosphorus intake from .50% to .40% will both lower phosphorus excretion
by 20 - 30% and save farmers \$10 - \$15 per cow per year. Mr. Satter
can be reached at 608-264-5353. See also Dr, H. H. (Jack) Vanhorn=s
contact information below.

**Land Management:** Dr. Andrew N. Sharpley, Adjunct Professor of Soil
Science at Penn State, USDA‑ARS, researches what controls Aphosphorus
lossage@ from watersheds. Dr. Sharpley points out that 90% of phosphorus
loss comes from only 10% of the land. The land most susceptible to
phosphorus loss, not surprisingly, are areas with a great deal of
runoff. Good land management practices, such as conservation tillage and
crop residue management, buffer strips, riparian zones, terracing, and
contour tillage can therefore reduce the levels of phosphorus that ends
up in Lake Champlain. The results will not be immediate, but they will
be significant, especially if combined with other waste management
systems. Mr. Sharpley can be reached at 814-863-0948.

**Mechanical Separators**: All kinds of dairy waste treatment begin with
solid separation. Without separation, the value per tonnage is far too
low to have any economic benefit to either the farmer or the waste
management provider. In addition, many treatment processes will only
work if the moisture level in the manure is reduced. Solid separation by
itself will yield some phosphorus results, as between 20 - 40% of the
phosphorus (depending on environmental conditions and who you talk to)
will be separated out with the solids. The solids can then be composted,
as is currently being done by a few farmers in Vermont, or can be
treated in a variety of ways (see technologies listed below). Multiple
separators are currently on the market. I chose the three listed below
mostly because they are the separators used by some of the other
companies below who have developed more advanced waste technologies or
they have done specific research on dealing with dairy waste. Their
prices are consistent with the rest of the market.

[Fan Separator]{.underline} - This company sells a solid/liquid
separator called the Press Screw Separator (PSS). The technology is
similar to a centrifuge. It is currently being used in over 2,000
dairies including a few in Vermont. Typically the machines are purchased
for dairies with 100 cows or more, but they are portable enough to be
shared by several small farms. Phosphorus reduction, according to the
company, is approximately 60% in the liquid phase and 60% in the solid
matter. (Note: This is inconsistent with some of the other reports I
have heard.) Costs vary, but usually are around \$30,000. Contact: Kyle
Weidmayer, 1-800-451-8001.

[Key Dollar Cab Incorporated]{.underline} - This is a side hill
separator. Waste is pumped up to a feed box, where it slides down a
screen, separating the liquids from the solids. The solids then fall
into a roll press, which removes the remaining liquid. This separator is
used mostly by those who use the solids for composting or
vermicomposting (see Tom Christenberry=s operation below). While not as
effective at separation as the fan separator, it is cheap. A model for a
300 head dairy costs about \$7,500. For more information, contact Hank
Svehaug at 1-800-241-2427

[Or-Tec Incorporated]{.underline} - Or-Tec actually doesn=t produce
solid separators, but builds a belt-press dewatering technology that can
accomplish similar results. The Or-Tec Mark II Belt Press System
contains a belt press and flocculation system to separate and dewater
solids. Liquids would then be spread on the fields, while the solids are
ideal for composting. The Mark II costs approximately \$60,000. Or-Tec
has also worked with soil management groups to address nitrogen,
potassium, and phosphorus issues. Specifically**,** they have worked
with the issue of the expensive of adding polymers to dairy waste (see
comments below) and how this expense can be reduced. For more
information, contact Ciaran O=Melia at 440-232-4224.

**Composting:** After solid separation, the cheapest and most common way
of dealing with the solid material is to compost it. Straw or sawdust
bedding are also good sources of carbon which can be used to dry the
materials. Adding carbon will help reduce nitrogen loss during
composting to the atmosphere. The composted material can then be used on
the farm or be sold, either in bags or in bulk. A good paper on the
advantages/disadvantages of large-scale, out-door composting of dairy
solids can be found at: http://ianrwww.unl.edu/pubs/wastemgt/g1315.htm

**On the market:** The following technologies are currently on the
market. Many of them are quite expensive, and almost all of them would
require some sort of cooperative effort between a number of dairy
farmers and possibly even some investors.

[Bion Technologies]{.underline} - The Bion Nutrient Management System
uses a variety of different technologies to treat dairy waste. A Solid
Ecoreactor captures and dewaters waste solids, which then undergo a
biological conversion into an organic soil-like material. This material
is marketed by the Bion Technologies company or can be used on the farm.
A Bioreactor assimilates nutrients using microbes. The technology is
scalable, dairy applicable, and designed specifically for each site.
There currently is a full scale test plant in Denmark, and a few other
commercial plants in various stages of construction in Europe. A
feasibility study can be obtained from the Danish Consul Bent Kiilerich
(312-787-7725). Unlike other companies, Bion is looking to build the
facility and charge a tipping fee, meaning that the farmers will not
have to put up capital or worry about the operation, but will incur
operational costs and will not receive a value added product. Tipping
fees would be highly site specific. Alan Grant is working on the
American side of this operation, and can be reached at 215-753-7725. He
will give Susanne a call when he can obtain better tipping fee numbers.
Dr. John Classen of the NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste Management
Department is currently conducting a study, but is not ready to make
preliminary conclusions. Dr. Classen can be reached at 919-515-6800 or
john_classen@ncsu.edu .

[BW Organics]{.underline} - This company has developed an in-vessel
composting technology for dairies which is currently being used in Texas
and Wisconsin. After using a solid separator out of a flow system, the
in-vessel composter makes the solid waste into a commercially viable
peat moss in three days (not including curing time before bagging or
bulk sale). The composter kills all pathogens and weed seeders.
Operational costs are minimal. Initial costs depend on the scale of the
dairy. A composter for a 100 cow herd would be about \$45,000, including
conveyer belts, and would fit in a 6\' by 16\' space. A 500 cow herd
machine would run \$145,000 and would measure 10\' by 50\'. A front end
loader and a building cover with a level cement slab would also be
needed. The cement slab must be level, as the angles within the machine
are important for the composting process. Stationary models and portable
models (that could be used by a group of farmers) are on the market. Dr.
Don Cawthon of Texas A&M University-Commerce has worked with BW Organics
on utilization of this technology, and a good summation of his work can
be found at:
http://www.tamu‑commerce.edu/coas/agscience/res‑dlc/dairy/dlc‑dair.html
. He noted that this is a technology that was adapted from the
BioConversion Companies similar design for municipal wastes. Some of the
benefits he saw are that it is a continuous flow system and that a
market could be developed for the peat moss like-substance. The product
would have to be spiked with nutrients, although the Aspiking@ would not
be necessary for the actual composting of the material. For more info
contact John Willis, owner of BW Organics at 1-800-933-1507. Dr. Cawthon
can be reached at 903-886-5350 or Don_Cawthon@tamu-commerce.edu .

[Environmental Products & Technologies Corporation (EPTC)]{.underline} -
EPTC has a commercialized, scalable technology called the Closed‑loop
Waste Management Process that incorporates four different technologies:
a solid separator , an aerobic bioreactor , an anaerobic digester , and
a dual‑fuel engine that drives a cogeneration powersystem . After the
slurry from the flow system goes through the separator, solids go to the
bioreactor and are converted into a marketable aerobic soil amendment.
Liquids go to the anaerobic digester where an enzyme promotes methane
production. The methane is used by the cogeneration powersystem,
creating electricity for the farm and the power grid. The remaining
liquids are filtered and spread. Waste is treated in about 1 - 3 days.
The system costs between \$150,000 for a 9 ton/day system to \$330,000
for a 40 ton/day system. Integration of all of the components of the
system is still ongoing. EPTC will also remove all solids from the farm
at no cost. Contact CEO Marvin Mears at 818-865-2205.

[Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co. -]{.underline} This company, with the
help of (or in conjunction with, this was unclear) QED Environmental
Systems out of Australia, produces the Mobil Tangential Flow Separator
(TFS). This is a chemical solid separator, a technology that is
especially effective for phosphorus removal. The TFS system uses lime,
ferric chloride, and polymers to precipitate and settle phosphorus.
Testing by the North Carolina State University Animal and Poultry Waste
Management Research Department found that 90% of the phosphorus was
removed. The technology is fully dairy applicable, and in fact was
originally developed in Australia for phosphorus problems resulting from
dairy waste. The end product is a compost that can be sold for use in
landscaping. Wandalup Farms in Australia and Murphy Family Farms in Rose
Hill, N.C. are currently using the technology. At the Australia
location, Aincome from the compost products is covering operating
expenses and infrastructure costs associated with the construction of
the treatment plant.@ (John Williams, NCSU Animal Waste Department). The
machine is 10 ft. by 15 ft. and must be protected from the elements. The
technology is scalable, depending on manure flow rate, with costs
starting at about \$100,000. Contact Chris Aurich of Gaston County
Dyeing Machine Co. (704-263-6000). For an economic and technical
evaluation of this technology, contact Dr. Phil Westerman chief
investigator of this technology for the NCSU Waste Management Department
(919-515-6742 or phil_westerman@ncsu.edu) or visit the evaluation web
site: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/k/kzering/resproject.htm

[Harmony Waste Management Technology - Harmony Products
Inc.]{.underline} - Based out of Chesapeake, VA, this company produces
commercial fertilizers (for agriculture, golf courses, etc.) from a
variety of different waste sources. While the company is in the process
of building its first plant, it has already licensed out its technology
to other users, including a farm in New York. The waste is mixed with
dry granular nutrients and then put into a reactor to create water
insoluble nitrogen. Ten to twelve ton can be processed per hour. The
technology is dairy applicable, but has not been used in this way due to
the low analysis (nutrient level) of dairy waste. In order to ship in
chemicals and ship out fertilizer, transportation (preferably rail)
would be needed, as well as natural gas. The technology could also be
combined with an anaerobic digester, although the company does not offer
them. Dairy waste could be combined with human sewage. This would
produce methane gas for energy usage, as well as provide the extra
nutrients to make fertilizer. Initial capital investment for the
machinery, not including a building to house it in, would be \$1.5
million. Operational costs range from \$18 - \$40 per ton depending on
the moisture level of the manure. Further information can be obtained
from Ray Grover, Executive VP, Technology at 757-523-2849.

[Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.-]{.underline} This company licenses a
waste technology which pasteurizes any wet waste (will work with dairy,
but can also process any other wet waste, including human sewage), and
turns it into pelletized animal feed. This is large-scale technology,
requiring an approximately \$12 million plant to be built. The plant
would be able to process 1200 tons of waste per day. Contact: Don Dyer,
1-800-377-5085 for basic information, Ed Kroeker 905-561-3816 for
technical information.

[Vermicomposting Process]{.underline} - This is not so much of a
specific technology as an existing process that is being researched by
the NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste-Management Center. After solids and
liquids are separated, the solids are added to worm beds which are
covered by greenhouses. The worms are harvested and sold, while the
substance left by the worms (called castings) is a peat-like soil
amendment which can also be sold. The NCSU investigator, Dr. Robert
Mikkelsen, found the results to be encouraging, but urged that a local
market must be found for the worms and the castings first. Dr. Mikkelsen
worked with Tom Christenberry, who owns a hog waste management business
in North Carolina. Mr. Christenberry suggested using a third party or
co-op approach, with a location in close proximity to a few dairy
farmers. He has found that vermicomposting produces a much higher
quality product than traditional composting, because much less nitrogen
is lost to the atmosphere. Costs are highly variable, as one needs to
set up the business on their own. A heated shed or greenhouse would need
to be built, as well as beds for the compost, and a lot of worms would
need to be purchased. Mr. Christenberry suggested that this process
should be done in addition to traditional composting, not in its place.
This procedure does not solve the phosphorus problem found in the
liquid. Dr. Mikkelsen can be reached at 919-515-2388 or
robert_mikkelsen@ncsu.edu. Tom Christenberry can be reached at
252-243-3928.

**Still under development:**

[Addition of Aluminum Sulfate or Aluminum Chloride to Reduce Phosphorus
Solubility]{.underline} - Most phosphorous runoff is not in the form of
Achunks of P@, but instead soluble P. Converting the P in dairy manure
to an insoluble material could greatly reduce the levels of P runoff.
Dr. Phil Moore of the University of Arkansas has worked with aluminum
sulfide and aluminum chloride as additives that could create the
insoluble aluminum phosphate. Aluminum sulfide has the unfortunate
byproduct of hydrogen sulfide, the chemical used in stink bombs to
produce that rotten egg smell. Aluminum chloride, however, has been a
successful substitute for aluminum sulfide. Phosphorus runoff was
reduced by 90% with chicken litter and between 40% - 80% with hog waste.
Mr. Moore is currently testing the success of the aluminum chloride
additive to dairy waste, and will have full results in about two months.
Preliminary results show one problem. Dairy manure does not have the
buffer qualities of hog and poultry waste, and therefore the waste
becomes acidic. This can be rectified with the addition of lime.
Secondly, the reduced nitrogen ammoniazation benefits which make this
process very cost effective for poultry and swine do not apply to
outdoor dairy herds. Therefore, the addition of aluminum chloride is all
cost, offering no value-added product to the farmer. Costs have yet to
be determined. More information can be obtained from Phil Moore at
501-575-5724 or phillipm@comp.uark.edu .

[Addition of Polymers to Precipitate Solids from Liquid Wastewater
Streams]{.underline} - Dr. Pat Hunt is working on this project for the
Agricultural Research Service of the USDA. This could be a solution to
the soluble P problem, and technically it works. Unfortunately, for
reasons yet to be determined, it takes 4 to 6 times more polymers for
cow waste as for hog waste. This makes the costs prohibitively
expensive, although Dr. Hunt believed that the \$7 per cow per day
figure cited by others was a bit of an overstatement. Research is
ongoing. Dr. Hunt can be reached at 843-669-5203 x 101 or
hunt@florence.ars.usda.gov .

[Alkaline Stabilization]{.underline} - ARS is working on alkaline
stabilization over in Beltsville. Stabilization is achieved by mixing
the manure with certain industrial wastes, such as ash. The result is an
odorless, pathogen free lime that can be sold on the commercial market.
Alkaline stabilization is not harmful to the environment. In fact, the
exact same process has been used for biosolids for years. ARS is
currently finishing up a study on using the process for dairy manure.
One added benefit is that while a solid separator is useful, it is not
necessary to achieve good results. Straw or sawdust can be used. Another
benefit is the process is relatively quite cheap, although good cost
numbers have not been nailed down. Pat Millner works on this project and
can be reached at 301-504-8163 x 344 or pmillner@asrr.arsusda.gov

[Using Algae to Remove Nutrients from Wastewater]{.underline} - Walter
Mulbry of ARS is working to modify an existing technology used by the
Smithsonian to clean fish tanks with algae into a technology that could
remove nutrients from wastewater. Initial investigations show that algae
can be grown on the liquid portion of manure, removing close to 100% of
the nitrogen and phosphorus from the liquid. After being treated by an
anaerobic digester, the liquid is pumped to the top of a 1 m by 50 m
Araceway@ with a 1% or 2% grade. The depth of the liquid is 1 inch. The
raceway is covered by a screen upon which the algae grows. Harvesting is
easily accomplished by scraping the screen once a week. Testing so far
has been exclusively on a small scale in the laboratory, but an outdoor
testing site should be built by the end of September. Once enough algae
is grown on the outdoor raceway, testing will begin to find uses for the
algae. The hope is that the protein-rich algae can be fed back to the
cows, perhaps eliminating the need for dairy farmers to buy soy beans.
The algae could also be dried and made into a fish food for aquacultural
use. Further testing is also being done to determine whether the
residual liquid is safe for discharge, or whether the process will work
without the use of an anaerobic digester or solid separator. The process
would only work in temperatures of 50 degrees Farenheit or higher,
meaning that the liquid manure would have to be stored during the
winter. Costs are still being determined, but the components seem to be
very cheap. The real question is whether uses for the algae crop can be
developed. For more information, Walter Mulbry can be reached at
301-504-6417 or wmulbry@asrr.asrusda.gov

**General Resource List:**

[H.L. Goodwin, Poultry Economist for the University of
Arkansas]{.underline} - Dr. Goodwin is currently working on a
feasibility study for setting up a manure bank in the Ozark Plateau
region. A manure bank is a third party organization which allocates
manure (electronically or physically) from the farmers and transfers it
to businesses utilizing some of the technology above or to farms which
require fertilizer and do not have P runoff problems. These
organizations are often needed to create an economy of scale for waste
treatment technologies to be financially viable. He has a number of
contacts in Europe, where manure banks are currently in use with varying
degrees of success. Dr. Goodwin=s speciality is essentially the
logistics of what it takes to get enough manure to the right place at
the right time from a number of farmers. His belief is that the
economics of the waste transport would require that the manure bank be a
quasi-government organization. Dr. Goodwin can be reached at
501-575-7118 or haroldg@comp.uark.edu .

[Keith Hummel, Agricultural Research Service]{.underline} - Mr. Hummel
has worked for the last 5 years with an anaerobic digester in
Beltsville, MD. The machine was installed for odor control, and for that
purpose it has had great success. They have not bought a methane
cogenerator, however, because they found that not enough electricity can
be generated to make the system economically viable. He also stressed
that their tests have shown that anaerobic digestion has no effect on
phosphorus levels. A digester, such as the one ARS uses, would cost
somewhere under \$200,000 (he was not sure, as their digester had
special attachments for research purposes), and would service up to 450
dairy cows. Mr. Hummel can be reached at 301-504-9243.

[Barry Kintzer, National Resource Conservation Service]{.underline} -
Mr. Kintzer has worked with Mr. Yamada (see below) and Andy Fish of the
Senate Minority Agriculture Committee on soil waste management issues.
He believes that currently there are no true solutions to the P problem
. He also adds that systems which only treat the solid portion of the
manure after liquid/solid separation are problematic because
approximately 30 % of the phosphorus remains in the liquid stream.
Coagulants used to remove more phosphorus from the stream will be
prohibitively expensive, up to \$7.00 per cow per day. For small dairies
with solid removal systems, he suggests setting up a community
composting facility. The fertilizer produced by this facility may
require Aspiking@ with nutrients to be commercially viable, but this may
be an economically viable solution. Mr. Kintzer may be reached at
202-720-4485.

[Dr, H. H. (Jack) Vanhorn, Researcher on dairy waste issues from the
University of Florida]{.underline} - Dr. Vanhorn has worked with the P
issue, as well as general waste management. It his belief that most of
the technologies on the market will have limited economic success, as
they are just too expensive for most dairy farms. He suggests that the
first action that needs to be taken is nutrient management to reduce the
amount of dietary phosphorus being fed to the cows in the first place.
(vanhorn@dps.ufl.edu or 1-352-392-5594)

[Dr. Mike Williams, Director of the North Carolina State University
Animal and Poultry Waste-Management Center]{.underline} -Dr Williams is
in charge of conducting multiple research projects on waste management
systems. He is a good source for what is out there and what will be out
there in the coming years. (mike_williams@ncsu.edu or 1-919-515-5386)

[Jim Wimberly, President of the non-profit organization Foundation for
Organic Resources Management (FORM)]{.underline} - FORM is an
organization which deals with agricultural waste and environmental
issues. Mr. Wimberly is an expert in this field. It is his belief that
the technology is certainly out there to treat the animal waste problem.
The problems is not in the technology, but instead in the economic
strategy. Without the development of economies to scale, farmers do not
have the incentive to adopt these new technologies because they will
result in a net loss. He is currently conducting a study on what kind of
an organization could make technologies such as composting truly cost
effective (public/private, non-profit, co-op, or other third party).
Even with these organizations taking care of the waste, transportation
will only be economical if the dairy farms are highly concentrated (say
10 within a 10 mile area), or if the individual farms first use a solid
separator to get rid of some of the added water weight.

As for specific technologies, Mr Wimberly believes that composting or
anaerobic digestion may be viable alternatives if done in a cooperative
fashion. He also sees a lot of promise in two emerging technologies. The
USDA and EPA are working in a technology that will gassify manure. The
ash produced (within which will contain all of the phosphorus), will be
a dry, homogenous, and highly marketable nutrient supplement. A
feasibility study that is currently in the works has found that the ash
could be sold for \$50 - \$70 per ton. The gases would be combined to
form ethanol, a clean fuel. As Congress has already approved ethanol
subsidies, some of this money could legitimately be funneled into this
project. The technology is being developed specifically for dairy
manure. He also sees promise in a manure-to-ethanol technology being
developed by Professor of Poultry Science Dan Long, of Crowder College I
spoke with Dr. Crowder. It seems that his technology is still in the
developmental stages, and would require major governmental funding to be
achievable. He is however working with a 500 cow dairy, so this
technology might be useful for a larger Vermont dairy in the future. Dr.
Long can be contacted at 417-451-4700 or dlong@crowdercollege.net

In the few months, Mr. Wimberly will also be calculating the amount of
manure being generated and phosphorus levels from that manure
county-by-county. This information could be useful for getting more
funding at a later date. In addition, Mr. Wimberly offered his services
as a consultant to the group, and would be willing to travel to VT to
meet with the group. Mr. Wimberly can be contacted at 501-442-3918 or
jim@organix.org. More information on waste management can be found at
his web site www.organix.org .

[Randy Yamada, US Agency for International Development (USAID) Managing
Director for Activity Development]{.underline} Mr. Yamada is working
with agricultural waste companies in Taiwan to develop new waste
management systems. He emphasizes that there is no Asilver bullet@
technology out there that will solve all agricultural and municipal
waste problems, partially due to the existing technology and partially
due to economics. Mr. Yamada is a good resource for animal/human waste
projects, and for a look at the future of waste management. Most of his
projects, however, are fairly large scale and capital intensive.
(202-712-1699)

[Bob Wright , Soil Management Division of the Agriculture Research
Service]{.underline} - Mr. Wright is a good general resource for finding
contacts about various research programs. It is his belief that
technological solutions are only one part of the phosphorus puzzle. For
technologies, he sees anaerobic digesters and treatment technologies to
only be viable for large operations. For smaller farms, land management
and nutrient management might be a better solution. He pointed out that
90% of the phosphorus runoff is coming from 10% of the land. Reducing or
eliminating the spread of manure on these areas can greatly reduce the
amount of phosphorus that ends up in Lake Champlain. Changing the diet
of the animals can also reduce phosphorus levels in the manure up to
25 - 30%. This can also be done by adding an enzyme to the feed that
changes the phosphorus into a more digestible form. Mr. Wright is
involved in many projects on soil management being conducted by ARS, and
therefore is a great source for further contacts. Mr. Wright can be
contacted at 301-504-4638.