Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: April 27, 2016

Subject: Ash from manure burning annotation petition

NOSB Chair: Tracy Favre

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: 

Guidance Statement:

Other: X (No action)

Statement of the Recommendation: 

EnergyWorks BioPower, LLC submitted a petition to revise 7 CFR 205.602(a), ash from manure burning, 

to include the following annotation: “except where the combustion reaction does not involve the use of 

synthetic additives and is controlled to separate and preserve nutrients.” EnergyWorks, “owns and 

operates a facility in PA that uses a staged thermochemical reactor to extract over 30 tons of minerals 

from 240 tons of egg-layer poultry manure each day.” 

Poultry manure is sourced from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), dried to normalize 

moisture content, conveyed to a thermochemical reactor, exposed to heat and oxygen to achieve 

proper conversion of organic material into combustible biogas (where the primary goal of the process is 

denitrification),and mineral ash is removed, cooled, tested and sold. 

The Subcommittee did not request a TR having determined not to add the annotation to the material 

listing; the continued blanket prohibition aligns with previous board recommendations. All prior board 

recommendations have supported the prohibition of ash from manure burning. 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and Organic Regulations): 

Ash from manure burning was originally placed on §205.602 based on its incompatibility with organic 

production. Burning removes carbon and nitrogen from the final ash product and lessens its soil-building 

value. Utilizing burning as a method to recycle millions of pounds of excess poultry manure 

inadvertently supports the business of CAFOs by creating an organic industry demand for ash. Utilizing 

ash from manure burning in order to assist CAFOs in their reduction of environmental and human health 

contamination is not a compelling argument for consideration for addition to the National List. The 

annotation amendment fails the OFPA criteria and should not be added to the National List.
NOSB Vote: 

Listing Motion: Motion to annotate ash from manure burning at §205.602(a) - nonsynthetic 

substances prohibited for use in organic crop production - with the following annotation: “except 

where the combustion reaction does not involve the use of synthetic additives and is controlled to 

separate and preserve nutrients.”

Motion by: Carmela Beck 

Seconded by: Colehour Bondera

Yes: 0 No: 15 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

 

Motion Failed. The Subcommittee supports retaining the existing prohibition of ash from manure

burning in organic crop production.
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee

Petitioned Material Proposal - Ash from Manure Burning

January 5, 2016 

Summary of Proposed Action:

EnergyWorks BioPower, LLC submitted a petition to revise 7 CFR 205.602(a), Ash from Manure Burning, 

to include the following annotation: “except where the combustion reaction does not involve the use of 

synthetic additives and is controlled to separate and preserve nutrients.” The petition states that 

EnergyWorks, “owns and operates a facility in PA that uses a staged thermochemical reactor to extract 

over 30 tons of minerals from 240 tons of egg-layer poultry manure each day.” The petitioner argues 

that annotation approval will provide the following benefits: will generate renewable electricity; will 

prevent excess nutrients in the environment; and will increase development of similar commercial 

processing facilities throughout the US. 

Poultry manure is sourced from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), dried to normalize 

moisture content, conveyed to a thermochemical reactor, exposed to heat and oxygen to achieve 

proper conversion of organic material into combustible biogas (where the primary goal of the process is 

denitrification),and mineral ash is removed, cooled, tested and sold.

As referenced above, ash from manure burning is currently listed at §205.602 as a nonsynthetic 

substance prohibited for use in organic production. The petitioner claims that this “NOP prohibition was 

established because burning of manure was seen as being wasteful of nutrients.” They explain their 

petition rationale by 1) “suggest[ing] that extraction of minerals by controlled combustion preserves 

their non-synthetic nature”, 2) “while allowing organic growers to derive increased value from manure 

as a nutrient resource.”

The Subcommittee did not request a TR having determined not to add the annotation to the material 

listing; the continued blanket prohibition aligns with previous board recommendations. All prior board 

recommendations have supported the prohibition of ash from manure burning. At the fall 2015 NOSB 

meeting, the Board renewed the prohibition during the Sunset 2017 material reviews, stating, “ash from 

manure burning was placed on §205.602 based on its incompatibility with organic production; burning 

these materials is not an appropriate method to use to recycle organic wastes.”

The Crops Subcommittee has determined that the annotation amendment fails the OFPA criteria and 

should not be added to the National List.

Evaluation Criteria (see attached checklist for criteria in each category)

 Criteria Satisfied? 

1. Impact on Humans and Environment ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A 

2. Essential & Availability Criteria ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A

3. Compatibility & Consistency ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A 

Substance Fails Criteria Category: [3] Comments: Ash from manure burning was originally placed on 

§205.602 based on its incompatibility with organic production. Burning removes carbon and nitrogen 

from the final ash product and lessens its soil-building value. Utilizing burning as a method to recycle 

millions of pounds of excess poultry manure inadvertently supports the business of CAFOs by creating 

an organic industry demand for ash. Utilizing ash from manure burning in order to assist CAFOs in their 
reduction of environmental and human health contamination is not a compelling argument for 

consideration for addition to the National List. 

Subcommittee Action & Vote

Motion to annotate ash from manure burning at §205.602 - nonsynthetic substances prohibited for 

use in organic crop production - with the following annotation: “except where the combustion 

reaction does not involve the use of synthetic additives and is controlled to separate and preserve 

nutrients.”

Motion by: Carmela Beck

Seconded by: Colehour Bondera 

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

The motion failed, thus the Subcommittee supports retaining the existing prohibition of manure 

ash in organic crop production. 

Approved by Subcommittee Chair, Zea Sonnabend, to transmit to NOSB February 26, 2016

NOSB Evaluation Criteria for Substances Added To the National List - Crops 

Category 1. Adverse impacts on humans or the environment? Ash from Manure Burning: 

Question Yes No N/A Comments/Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is there a probability of environmental 

contamination during use or misuse? 

[§6518(m)(3)]

X CAFOs contribute to environmental pollution 

and human health issues

2. Is there a probability of environmental 

contamination during, manufacture or 

disposal? [§6518(m)(3)]

X

3. Are there any adverse impacts on 

biodiversity? (§205.200)

X

4. Does the substance contain inerts classified 

by EPA as ‘inerts of toxicological concern’? 

[§6517 (c)(1)(B)(ii)]

X

5. Is there potential for detrimental chemical 

interaction with other materials used in 

organic farming systems?

[§6518(m)(1)]

X

6. Is there a toxic or other adverse action of the 

material or its breakdown products?

[§6518(m)(2)]

X

7. Is there persistence or concentration of the 

material or breakdown products in the 

environment? [§6518(m)(2)]

X
8. Would the use of the substance be harmful 

to human health or the environment? 

[§6517 (c)(1)(A)(i); §6517 (c)(2)(A)(i); 

§6518(m)(4)]

X Provided 205.203 requirements are met.

9. Are there adverse biological and chemical 

interactions in the agro-ecosystem? 

[§6518(m)(5)]

X

10. Are there detrimental physiological effects 

on soil organisms, crops, or livestock? 

[§6518(m)(5)]

X

Category 2. Is the Substance Essential for Organic Production? 

Question Yes No N/A Comments/Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is the substance agricultural? [§6502(1)] X Egg-layer poultry manure

2. Is the substance formulated or 

manufactured by a chemical process? 

[§6502(21)]

X Manufactured using a thermo-chemical 

reactor exposed to heat and oxygen to 

achieve proper conversion of organic 

material into combustible biogas (where the 

primary goal of the process is denitrification), 

mineral ash is removed, cooled, tested and 

sold.

3. Is the substance formulated or 

manufactured by a process that chemically 

changes a substance extracted from 

naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral 

sources? 

[§6502(21)]

X

4. Is the substance created by naturally 

occurring biological processes? 

[§6502(21)]

X

5. Is there a natural source of the substance? 

[§ 205.600(b)(1)]

X

6. Is there an organic substitute? 

[§205.600(b)(1)]

X

7. Is there a wholly natural substitute product?

[§6517(c)(1)(A)(ii)]

X

8. Are there any alternative substances? 

[§6518(m)(6)]

X

9. Are there other practices that would make 

the substance unnecessary? [§6518(m)(6)]

X
Category 3. Is the substance compatible with organic production practices? Ash from Manure Burning: 

Question Yes No N/A Comments/Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is the substance consistent with organic 

farming and handling? 

[§6517(c)(1)(A)(iii); 6517(c)(2)(A)(ii)]

X Ash from manure burning is a by-product of 

the poultry factory farm industry, while we 

support the need to find creative solutions to 

prevent environmental pollution and public 

health concerns due to the build-up of excess 

manure accumulation, we don’t support the 

industry creating the need.

2. Is the substance compatible with a system of 

sustainable agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)]

X See above.

3. If used in livestock feed or pet food, is the 

nutritional quality of the food maintained 

with the substance? [§205.600(b)(3)]

X

4. If used in livestock feed or pet food, is the 

primary use as a preservative? 

[§205.600(b)(4)]

X

5. If used in livestock feed or pet food, is the 

primary use to recreate or improve flavors, 

colors, textures, or nutritive value lost in 

processing (except when required by law)? 

[§205.600(b)(4)]

X

6. Is the substance used in production, and 

does it contain an active synthetic ingredient 

in the following categories:

[§6517(c)(1)(B)(i);

copper and sulfur compounds

X

toxins derived from bacteria X

pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, 

fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins 

and minerals

X

livestock parasiticides and medicines X

production aids including netting, tree 

wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky 

barriers, row covers, and equipment 

cleansers

X