Southeastern Sustainable Animal Waste Management Workshop Declared Success
The AWARE team would like to thank all of those that helped with or participated in the 1997 Southeastern Sustainable Animal Waste Management Workshop held in Tifton, Georgia, February 11-13. This was the AWARE team's first workshop and by all accounts, it was an outstanding success. More than 250 people attended the workshop to listen to more than 50 speakers and view over 25 exhibits and posters. From the comments that we received, it was obvious that there was a need for this type of workshop and that many benefited from it. The only thing that did not go as planned were the farm tours on the last day of the workshop, but unfortunately, we cannot control the weather. Even so, a fair number of workshop attendees managed to see some field research in Tifton and a handful braved the rain to see some swine and dairy facilities further south.

Although the response to our conference evaluation form was not overwhelming (about 25% of registered attendees), it was indicative of the comments we heard. A summary is presented below.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
		% of total responses
1. The location was:	46	48	6	0
2. The facilities were:	47	53	0	0
3. The length of the workshop was:	37	57	6	0
4. The ability to communicate with others involved with animal waste was:	49	45	6	0
5. The level of interest and enjoyment was:	30	66	4	0
6. The information and educational value was:	52	46	2	0
7. The usefulness of the information was:	27	71	2	0
8. Overall, I thought this conference was:	45	55	0	0

Things liked best about the conference: diversity of speakers and programs, organization, proceedings

Things like least about the conference: location, technical nature of some talks

The next workshop should be in: 1 year (41%) 2 years (55%) 3 years (4%) 5 years or more (0%)

What best describes you:

Producer (12%) Agribusiness (12%) Educator/Assistance Provider (57%) Researcher (18%)

The impact of this workshop on your profession/farm/life will be:

Significant (41%) Some (59%) Little (0%) None (0%)

We expect to complete a follow-up survey in about six months to find out if anyone actually made changes based on what they learned in the workshop. While the workshop targeted producers and agribusinesses, this group was only 24% of our audience. We do, however, feel that the workshop will have the desired impact as about 57% of the audience were Extension/NRCS personnel that interact with landowners on a daily basis.

Hopefully, the team approach that Georgia took in sponsoring this workshop can be carried throughout the Southeast and result in some sort of regularly scheduled animal waste conference. Both North Carolina and South Carolina expressed interested in holding the next workshop so perhaps the AWARE team can facilitate these efforts in some way. The conference evaluation form also asked for suggestions of additional activities with which the AWARE team should be involved. The most popular request was that the team work to have more field days or equipment demonstrations. Several people also requested that the AWARE team do a better job with communication through either a newsletter or electronically (based on this request, this newsletter is being sent to everyone that attended the workshop.) Other common suggestions were that AWARE interact more with governmental agencies, environmental groups, and integrators, that we do more industry specific trainings and tours, and that we put together technical information on the design and use of waste management structures and equipment. The AWARE team core members will meet to plan future activities in the near future. In the mean time, feel free to provide input on what type of future activities you would like to see. (Risse)

Workshop Proceedings and Videos
We still have plenty of copies of the workshop proceedings available for $25. These may be ordered by phoning 706-542-2154. The funds collected from these sales will help support future AWARE activities. I have placed a complete table of contents and full versions of each of the keynote papers on our website (http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/). We also had each session (concurrent, opening and closing sessions) videotaped. UGA Extension personnel can borrow these tapes from the Extension AV library in Athens for up to two weeks. Others can borrow tapes from either Mark Risse or Glen Harris to either view or make their own copies. (Risse and Harris)

Summary of Composting Session
The Composting session at the Animal Waste Workshop had a total of 6 speakers and over 100 people attended this session. The speakers were very knowledgeable and interesting and there were a lot of questions for each speaker. Dr. Wayne McLaurin kicked things off with a discussion of the fundamentals of composting. He gave a clear description of the stages of composting from a physical and biological perspective and showed several slides of state of the art equipment available for composting. Dr. K.C. Das then presented the progress and future of the University of Georgia's new bioconversion research and demonstration program. He showed the importance of this venture and the potential future of technology development for agricultural and other wastes. Dr. Miguel Cabrera then presented the nutrient aspects of composts. He described how composts release plant essential nutrients over time and how composts compare with direct broiler litter and commercial fertilizer application. After this talk there was much discussion pertaining to the benefits of composting over direct land application. Ms. Nancy Allen of Community Environmental Inc., presented the work her company had done in developing food waste composting systems for the Georgia Department of Corrections around the state. This was a 10 minute video presentation followed by a few minutes of discussion. Dr. Stan Savage then presented the principles and practices of developing good mortality composting systems. Dr. Savage presented the practical aspects within the perspective of the science of composting and answered many questions on this newly growing method of mortality disposal. The last speaker was Mr. David Moore of Midwest Bioconversion Systems Inc. who presented a demonstration of compost turning equipment. This demo was very useful as Mr. Moore showed some unique features of his system and compared this with many others available in the market. He was particularly good at illustrating the need for good management practices for attaining a desirable product. (K.C. Das)

Composting Conference on Tap
The first Southeastern Composting Conference (formerly Composting in the Carolinas) is a biannual event that rotates around the Southeast. The planning committee for this conference met recently and agreed that the next time around it will be held in Athens, Georgia (some time in Oct-Nov 1998). The conference will involve the entire southeast region from Florida to Virginia. As hosts, we would like several people from Georgia involved in the planning committee that includes people from all aspects of the composting industry. Persons interested can contact K.C. Das at 706-542-8842 or kdas@bae.uga.edu. The planning committee is scheduled to meet next on April 9, 10:30 AM in Charlotte, NC. (K.C. Das)

Summary of Nutrient Management Session
The nutrient management session at the recent Sustainable Animal Waste Management Workshop actually spanned two concurrent session periods. Both we're well attended. Glen Harris, UGA Extension Agronomist, moderated both sessions and opened the first with an overview of the basic nutrient management plan and current related issues. Environmental soil testing (especially for P), more detailed manure analysis, and fertilizing according to nitrogen vs. phosphorous as the priority nutrient, were highlighted.

The next presentation was by Phillip Moore, USDA-ARS in Fayetteville, Arkansas, who discussed using alum (aluminum sulfate) to reduce ammonia emissions and decrease phosphorous runoff from poultry litter. A study was described where alum was added to commercial houses in northwest Arkansas and alum treated litter was applied to 1-acre watershed to measure runoff. Bird weight gain and feed conversion were better, and mortality was lower, for the alum treated houses vs. the non-treated controls. Alum treated litter reduced both soluble reactive and total phosphorous in runoff water compared to untreated litter in the watersheds. Based on increased bird performance alone, the alum treatment should be economically attractive to both poultry growers and integrators. Reasons why this practice is slow to be adopted were also discussed.

Clint Truman with the USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed Lab in Tifton, GA presented the next talk on poultry litter fertilization and nitrogen and phosphorous runoff. Based on a number of field studies on row crops in south Georgia, it was concluded that at proper application rates, poultry litter can be used to maximize crop yields while minimizing detrimental environmental effects.

The final talk of the first session was given by Dan McCracken, UGA Soils Researcher, on using new tools to guide poultry litter applications on corn. Field studies using both a chlorophyll meter and the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) were described. Both tools show promise but currently warrant further research validation.

Next, an electronic nutrient budget spreadsheet was demonstrated by Wayne Adkins, UGA Extension Engineer. The program appeared user friendly and useful for both liquid or solid animal waste. In addition, Mr Adkins managed to make what some may think of as a boring topic, one of the most entertaining talks of the session.

Larry Newton, UGA Dairy Researcher presented the next topic on nutrient budgeting for dairy farms. A detailed discussion, presented in spreadsheet and flow diagram forms, clearly indicated the complexity of systems involving feed, animal, waste, and environment.

Although not intended as a regulatory talk, the next presentation by David Crouse, North Carolina State University Animal Waste Specialist, described the extensive animal waste management plans required in North Carolina due to recent legislation. Comprehensive plans with eight different components including odor control and emergency management, as well as intensive and detailed training requirements were described. One legislative act requires persons who apply animal waste to land to attend at least 10 hours of training, pass a test, pay and annual fee and complete continuing education credits in the future!

Last but not least, Stan Wilkinson, with the USDA-ARS Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center in Watkinsville, GA presented results from a new study involving the effect of nitrogen source and beef cattle management on soil quality. Poultry litter, ammonium nitrate and crimson clover N sources were imposed on forage utilization schedules ranging from hay to pasture to unharvested. The poultry litter treatment proved to be the most economical and gained the most soil P. Grazed systems seemed to gain more soil P than hayed or non-hayed systems. Little gain in soil quality for any treatment was measured during the initial stages of the study reported. (Harris)

Delmarva Poultry Survey
The Food and Resource Economics Department of the University of Delaware recently completed a study and publication called, "Nutrient Management by Delmarva Poultry Growers: A Survey of Attitudes and Practices." The main objectives of this study were to assess the status of the current waste management practices of poultry producers on the Delmarva Peninsula and to investigate how these practices can be changed if necessary for environmental improvement. The study basically consisted of a survey of 2,000 poultry growers in the Delmarva region. Some interesting findings included:

• 64.2% of the respondents did not raise crops and 27.3% had less than 30 acres.
• 40% of the growers cleaned out their poultry houses twice in the last five years and 83% cleaned out 1 to 4 times in five years.
• Clean-out litter was land applied on own or rented land (36%), given away or sold (61%), composted (1%), and fed to livestock (0.2%).
• Dead Birds were composted (53%), buried (22%), land applied (9%), given away or sold (4%), incinerated (3%), fed to livestock (3%), and used for biogas production (1%).
• 73% calibrated their manure spreaders annually or more often.
• 39% of those that land applied litter had a nutrient management plan.
• 46% had a litter storage facility.
• While 66% thought that water pollution was a serious threat to the Delmarva region, 36% thought there were too many regulations aimed at preventing water pollution.
• 78% thought that the government should share the cost of agricultural pollution prevention practices, but 60% thought that society's desire for environmental improvement would ultimately reduce their income.

There are many other interesting facts and figures in this publication and overall it shows that most growers are concerned and doing something to prevent pollution. The study concludes that the best alternatives for managing poultry waste in the future will be through increased regulation, better transport and marketing strategies, improved processing to add value to wastes, and more research on the environmental impacts. The grower comments from the survey are included in the appendix of this publication and I found them very interesting. To order this publication, call 302-831-2512 and request publication number FREC RR96-01. (Risse)

New Odor Control Technique ?
Edward Thomas of the Agricultural Research Institute in New York reported on several odor control methods at the Animal Agriculture conference in New York. Although not recommended in Georgia, one of the most interesting methods he reported was on farmers that were using pine oil in the form of "Pine-Sol" household disinfectant. He states that when Pine-Sol is added at a rate of 1-2 quarts per 4,000 gallons of liquid dairy manure as the spreader tank is filled, land application odors were much less offensive to odor panels. While this equates to a cost of $0.44 to $0.88 per 1,000 gallons of waste, the advantage is that it only needs to be used where odor would be a potential problem.

Again, while there is not enough data to endorse this concept in Georgia, it is mentioned to simulate some thought on this issue. We will be doing some testing in Georgia in the near future to see if this concept has any potential. Without data, I would caution anyone thinking about adding this to their lagoons as we are unsure of the impact that pine oil would have on the microbial life that degrades waste in lagoons. Meanwhile, use the following common sense methods of controlling odor:

• Incorporation: inject, plow, or disk manure into the soil immediately following application.
• Rate: heavier rates produce more odors, do not fully utilize nutrients, and could impair water quality.
• Reduce aerosol production: Limit agitation and avoid breaking the crust on lagoons. When irrigating use lower pressures.
• Timing: Morning applications allow for more drying time and less dispersion. Avoid weekends and holidays for your neighbors sake.
• Common Sense: Communicate with and help your neighbors and they will be less likely to object to odors. (Risse)

Animal Waste a Growing Environmental Issue
The estimated unusable amount of manure produced by confined animals in the US is more than 61 million tons per year. According to a new repost CAST, this figure is increasing. And as animal concentration and farm proximity to residential areas also increase, concerns grow about management of such waste.

"If it's properly distributed and used on productive cropland, manure could decrease commercial fertilizer cost significantly and help industry grow in many parts of the country. Total potential manure fertilizer value from all livestock and poultry production nationally would be around $3.5 billion per year.", Dr. Alan L. Sutton, Purdue University, Department of Animal Science.

On a nationwide basis an average of 15% of nitrogen, an essential plant nutrient usually purchased as a commercial fertilizer, could be replaced by using animal manure. Approximately 42% of crop phosphorus also could be supplied this way.

Given current prices, manure's primary benefit for producers is as a nutrient source for crops. But substantial price increases for livestock feed ingredients or for fossil fuels could increase demand for livestock manure as a feed ingredient or as an energy source.

Animal manures can be subject to various heating processes producing, among other things, industrial petrochemicals. Although these products can be used for fuels or can be processed for production of carbon black, synthetic rubber, printing ink, and other products, they are generally not economical. Animal manures also can be used as a nutrient source in the production of yeasts and algae, which in turn can be used as animal feed ingredients although again, not economically.

According to the CAST report, water quality research, particularly that focussing on agriculture's effect on watersheds, and air quality (odor) research both are critical. But manure management research funding from all sectors has decreased significantly since the early 1970's.

The CAST report list six research areas likely to yield positive environmental benefits. These are:

1. modification of animal diets
2. development or improvement of manure treatment processes
3. nutrient control and utilization of manures in soil-cropping systems
4. reduction and control of odor
5. economic analysis of manure systems alternatives
6. development of and economic incentives for new technologies using processed manure and further processed products

A complete copy of the report, Integrated Animal Waste Management, may be purchased from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), 4420 West Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014. Cost of the publication is $20.00. Shipping for the US and Canada is $3.00 plus $1.00 per additional publication. Refer to R128, November 1996. (Bill Segars)

Home page is Working Well
The AWARE homepage recently passed it's 1,000th visit and has had more than 150 different people visit the site since it was set up. These numbers look pretty good but I think they could be better. Let anyone interested in Animal waste know about http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/. It is especially important that we link this page to others so if anyone is setting up a homepage please consider linking our site to yours. Besides the workshop proceedings, several Extension publications have been added to the site. (Risse)

Extension At Work:
Animal Waste as Fertilizer in Bacon County
On February 18, 1997 Bacon County Extension Director Danny Stanaland organized a Animal Waste Management Workshop for agricultural producers in the region around the city of Alma. Producer's from layer, broiler, dairy and swine operations were present. The meeting was conducted by Frank Henning, Special Agent, who gave an overview of many of the latest best management practices that apply to animal waste management. Topics covered included sampling techniques for soil and manure, nutrient budgeting and record keeping, calibrating manure spreaders, odor control, and State and Federal Regulations.

One thing that everyone in attendance had in common was the desire to learn how to manage animal waste to reduce pollution while maintaining their productivity and sustainability. Simply put, they wanted be able to comply with EPA and EPD's rules and still be able to make a decent living.

Fortunately, this task is not impossible, at least not where animal waste is concerned. Every day more producers realize that agricultural by-products like poultry litter, and lagoon effluent are valuable because of their nutrient content. More than ever before, producers are testing the manure from their operations, so that they can either sell it for a fair price or apply it to their own crops and get the most out of the nutrients it contains. Applying manure correctly makes good sense, both economically and environmentally. Or, as Tom Thompson, a Putnam County Dairy farmer puts it - by correctly land-applying dairy waste to crops and pastures "I'm turning my liabilities into an asset".

These producers also learned that their local county Extension Agent can be a valuable source for information on animal waste management. With the new Nutrient Management Plan computer programs that are now available, Agents can help make applying manure as easy to understand as the N-P-K numbers found on a bag of fertilizer.
(Frank Henning)

Animal Agriculture and the Environment Conference
I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference called "Animal Agriculture and the Environment: Nutrients, Pathogens, and Community Relations" held in Rochester, New York. This was an excellent conference that focused on some regional concerns that were somewhat different from those we face here. Since dairy farms are the predominant agricultural operation in that area, most of the talks focused on dairy manure. The three things that I found most interesting and different from our concerns were 1) their interest in pathogens, 2) the New York City Watershed program, and 3) C.A.R.E. vs. Southview farms.

Pathogens:

It seems, in the Southeast, most of our concern with animal waste is from the nutrient point of view with some concern for fecal coliform levels. From the opening session of this conference, where it was stated that contamination by pathogenic microorganism is the most significant health concern associated with animal agriculture, their primary concern is obviously on pathogens. Coliforms are only used as an indicator of these pathogens as the precense of coliform could mean that pathogens such as protozoa, bacteria, and viruses may be present. Protozoans are unicellular organisms, including Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium, that may be human parasites. Bacteria, including E. Coli and Fecal coliform, are a concern as they are derived from warm-blooded animal intestines and may transmit diseases to humans. Viruses are less understood in terms of the effect on animals or human health but some studies have supported the association of human viruses with animal hosts.

Several speakers discussed the control of many of these pathogens and for the most part, they are managed in the same ways we manage nutrients: by preventing runoff and seepage into groundwater. One unique paper focusing on Cryptosporidium actually recommended that calf manure be segregated (since calves are more prone to carry this pathogen) and spread only in the winter on top of snow or frozen ground. While this recommendation goes against everything that we have been taught concerning land application of manures, it shows their concern for the impacts of this pathogen. They have found that the only way to rapidly eliminate this pathogen is to expose it to temperatures below freezing. In a discussion on the Animal Waste Workshop tour, it was questioned why composting was not viewed as a viable option to this problem.

New York City Watershed Program:
One reason the Northeast is so concerned with pathogens is the fact that most of their drinking water is from surface sources rather than groundwater. In fact, the New York City Watershed Program is designed specifically to protect surface waters from non-point source pollution so that it can be used as drinking water for the City of New York. The driving force behind this program was a 1989 ruling that was going to require New York to filter all of it's drinking water at a cost of $5-$8 billion plus $200-$500 million in annual operating costs. To avoid filtration and these costs, the city sought to implement a watershed protection program on the 1,216,000 acre watershed that supplied all of their water.

Initially, they proposed to implement this program using strict regulation, new policing power, and land acquisition. These proposals were met with strong resistance from the landowners and agricultural sector and by 1992 the project was in jeopardy of failing. By organizing several agricultural, environmental, and regulatory groups led by the NY Soil and Water Conservation Committee the program then proposed a voluntary program centered on whole farm planning that was acceptable to all parties. Under the new program, any farmer or landowner within the watershed can receive both technical and financial (100% cost share) assistance to install BMP's or change land management practice on his operation. The program is funded by water fees that New York City residents pay. The initial five year contract allocated more than $40 million to the program with more than $20 million budgeted for actual construction of on-site BMP's. As of 9/96, 208 of the 500 farms within the watershed had signed up for the program and it appears that all parties involved are still enthusiastic about the project. Complete details of the program are in the conference proceedings. Besides the widespread acceptance of the program with all parties involved, the true success story lies in the fact that this is one of the first programs I have heard of that makes the people in need of cleaner water directly pay the costs of obtaining it. It is also interesting that the entire watershed was initially broken into nine sub-basins. Eight of these basins were primarily agricultural and one was urban. In the urban watershed, the program could not devise a voluntary program and they have installed filtration equipment that costs more than the voluntary program designed to cover the other eight subbasins. Is agriculture really the culprit here?

C.A.R.E. vs. Southview Farms
While the New York City Watershed program was inspirational, this talk could send most farmers into a depression. Southview Farms is one of the largest dairy farms in New York with more than 2,000 cows and 1,100 tillable acres. Their manure is stored in five lagoons with land application through irrigation systems and the primary manure use. In 1987, a group of neighbors concerned about water quality and odors formed an organization called C.A.R.E. (Concerned Area Residents for the Environment). C.A.R.E. began a water quality monitoring program that found several wells in the area (6 of 18 tested above 10 mg/L with maximum of 18 mg/L) were contaminated with nitrogen and that, on occasion, surface water from the farm exceeded State standards. Initially, C.A.R.E tried to stop operation of the farm lagoons and construction on additional lagoons through local and State regulatory agencies, however, linking the farm to the groundwater contamination was not possible since neither the aquifers or groundwater flow in this region were mapped. In 1993, C.A.R.E. sued Southview Farm for violation of the Clean Water Act through the Federal Court system. After several rulings, appeals, injunctions, etc., in late 1994, the United States Court of Appeals handed down a final ruling that stated that Southview farms was in violation of the clean water act.

While the details of the case and the impacts on Southview farms are not that important, the impacts of the ruling could affect any agricultural operation in the United States. Dr. John Martin, an expert witness in the case from the University of Delaware, summed up the verdict as stating, "...with a couple of exceptions, any animal feeding operation using land application as a method of manure disposal will be in violation of the Clean Water Act." The reason for this was that C.A.R.E. could only prove that Southview farms was responsible for water quality impairments on two days. On both days, stormwater runoff from the area where manure had been land applied collected in a natural swale, flowed through a ditch and eventually reached a pipe that discharged into the Genesse River. The court concluded that although this was not a "point source" regulated by the Clean Water Act, the equipment used to spread the manure could be considered a point source. The other critical consideration was that this ruling extends the definition of a "confined animal feeding operation" to not only the operation but also all the land that receives manure from the operation and therefore the agricultural stormwater exemption does not apply.

What does this ruling mean for Georgia farmers? Well, for starters, it is more important than ever before that we use proper nutrient management plans and try to prevent the movement of manure nutrients to off site areas. We need to do everything we can to be environmental stewards and, when problems do arise, do everything in our power to prevent them in the future. It also means that the "agricultural exemptions" written into so many of our state laws may not carry much weight once a good lawyer gets hold of them. This could have impacts on much more than just animal operations.

A complete copy of the proceedings are available from the Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service (NRAES), publication number NRAES-96, 607-255-7654 or nraes@cornell.edu.
(Risse)

National Animal Waste Management Center Proposed
A proposal to establish a National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management will be submitted for a Center Planning grant under the USDA's Fund for Rural America. This proposal is a collaborative effort of 13 land-grant universities including the University of Georgia and led by North Carolina State University. If funded, the center will promote the development of new, environmentally benign methods of managing the manure and waste by-products produced by animal agriculture. The initial grant request is simply for $25 thousand to assist with planning activities. These activities will include a "benchmark study" to assess current activities and information and several planning meetings with committee members and stakeholders. If the planning grant is funded, it will lead to the development of a full scale proposal for the center. Hopefully, you will hear more about this in future newsletters. (Risse)

Why Farm?

The following reasons were taken from readers of Progressive Farmer:
* Being a farmer, you know your wife married you because she loves you and not for your money.
* Your land is too far from town for a parking lot and too flat for a golf course.
* You like the feeling of being in shape without having to resort to running laps or lifting weights.
* Because the man who farms should eat better than the man who doesn't.
* Farming makes you feel like the farmer who bought several claw hammers from a hardware salesman for $8 each. One day the salesman saw the farmer selling those hammers for $2. When asked why he was selling the hammers for less than he paid for them, the farmer replied, 'It sure beats farming.'
* Because nature is putting on a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week show, and farmers have the front row seats. (Risse)

Required Nutrient Management Plans
Recently an article in The Pennsylvania Interagency Nutrient Management Newsletter addressed the question of whether or not Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Act that requires Nutrient Management Plans placed Pennsylvania's farmers at a competitive disadvantage. In that state, many have argued that it does since larger processors and vertically integrated operations would choose to locate in other areas with less regulation. This article argued that it did not based on two assumptions. The first was that nutrient management plans were cost effective and that more often than not a farmer could benefit from them. Secondly, it stated that most other States had similar regulations. It cited a Purdue University study that found that twelve states limit manure spreading to a predetermined amount, usually based on crop removal of nitrogen. Furthermore, it stated that three states have soil phosphorus thresholds or limits within a watershed. For Georgia to sell voluntary nutrient management planning, which many believe is the way to go, we need to stress both of these facts. Nutrient Management planning is beneficial and it is probably necessary to avoid the burden of greater regulation. (Risse)

Question of the Quarter
Will alum treated poultry litter tie up soil phosphorous when applied to fields, will it decrease the value of poultry litter as beef cattle feed, and what does it cost ?

Submitted by Stan Savage- UGA Poultry Scientist and John Baldwin-UGA Peanut Agronomist. Answered by Dr. Philip Moore, USDA-ARS Soil Scientist, Fayetteville., Arkansas.

At current rates being used, alum does not even tie up all the phosphorous in the poultry litter let alone tie up phosphorous already in soil. About 50 to 75 % of the phosphorous in manure is precipitated when treated with alum. Tieing up 95% of the P is more desirable but the amount of alum required to do this would not be cost-effective. Growers should not be worried about not having enough P for crops. Litter application rates based on N will have more than enough P even with alum treated litter. On-going research indicates that soil test P levels will continue to climb when using alum treated litter, but at a much slower pace than when using untreated litter.

Two-years of feeding trials using alum treated and untreated poultry litter conducted by Dr. Glen Aiken, USDA-ARS in Booneville, Arkansas proved one thing -- cattle do not like the taste of alum treated litter. Palatability is apparently affected since consumption rates were much lower for the alum-treated litter. Cattle blood, fecal, and hair samples did not indicate any health or safety problems. Again, the cows just did not like it. If possible, growers are encouraged to set aside one house and not treat with alum in order to have litter to feed to cattle.

The cost of the treating one poultry house with alum is approximately $400 for the chemical and $80 for spreading. No clean by-product alums that would reduce this cost have been found at this time. While this costs seems to be the largest barrier for adoption of this practice, benefits due to increased weight gains, improved feed conversion and reduced energy costs can total as much as $1131 to the grower and integrator combined. Cost-sharing funds through the USDA EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) program may help growers and integrators realize the benefits of using alum and help speed the adoption of this practice along.

Calendar
National Dairy Heifer Contract Growers Meeting. April 10-12, Atlanta, Georgia. Contact: 706-542-2581.

Interactions: Investigating Ecosystem Dynamics at a Watershed Level. April 13-16, Athens, Georgia. Contact: Jean Steiner 706-769-5731.

Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center Open House and Tours. April 16, Watkinsville, Georgia. Contact: Jean Steiner 706-769-5731.

Georgia Groundwater Conference. April 29-30. Jekyll Island, Georgia. 770-429-0187.

Fifth International Livestock Environment Symposium. May 29-31, Bloomington, Minnesota. Contact: 614-888-4456.

Poultry Mortality Workshop. June 10, Jasper, Georgia. Contact: 706-542-2154

Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting. August 4-6, Athens, Georgia.

University of Georgia Agricultural Showcase. August 28, Tifton Georgia.

National Water Quality Watershed Project Symposium. September 22-26, Washington, D.C.

Ammonia and odour control from animal production facilities International Symposium. October 1997. The Netherlands 31.73.5286555.

This Newsletter was created at the University of Georgia by:

Co-Editors: Glendon Harris Mark Risse

Agronomist Ag Engineer

http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/vol2_2.html