Volume 2 Number 3

In this Issue:

Results of AWARE Team Meeting

AWARE Mentioned in Biocycle

New Waste Regs in North Carolina

Litter on Trees?

Poultry Litter/Biosolids Composting in South Carolina

Reducing Ammonia in Pig Manure

Reducing Wastewater in Swine Operations

Multi state Web Site Training on Land Application of Animal Waste

Geography of Hope

Remember EQIP and CRP

More on Phytase

Farmers Credited With Cleaning Up Chesapeake Bay

Reviews by Henning

Question of The Quarter

Calendar

I recently had the opportunity to attend an informational meeting and a tour of the composting facility. The meeting was attended by about six SC county extension agents from the surrounding area as well as Drs. Dick White and Jim Camberato from Clemson University. Georgia was represented by myself and Richard McDaniel, Burke County Extension Coordinator as well as a farmer from Georgia who had already purchased some of the product. Besides the general information mentioned above, most of the meeting discussion centered around moisture and nutrient variability of the product and nitrogen availability. Mr. Brad Owens from Poultry Power, in charge of sales and marketing, admitted that moisture variability and odor are the two largest challenges with this product. Mr. Owens said that they are looking into enzymatically treating the compost for odor and possibly adding a "charcoal ash" for both odor and moisture reduction. Questions on nitrogen availability were raised mainly due to a animal waste analyses report done by Clemson University that was provided. Since a sample of the compost was run as a broiler litter sample, the estimated plant available nitrogen was calculated as being 60 % of the organic N and 80 % of the ammonium N. This availability factor for the organic N fraction is suspected to be high, although how much lower the figure should be is unknown. Best "guesstimates" from specialists from both Clemson and Georgia was more around 20 %. Conducting N mineralization studies in both the lab and field were suggested as a way to get a better handle on this figure. Considerable discussion then centered on if the product is not valued for it's fertilizer content, how much value could be placed on it as a soil amendment. The difficulties of determining such a figure was discussed as well as the strategy of putting this product on weak, sandy areas to get the most benefit from it.

We then went on a tour of the facilities, starting at the wastewater treatment plant. We were joined there by a number of folks involved in the daily operations as well as another Clemson Specialist, John Chastain. An interesting fact about the dewatered biosolids is that they are only pressed to 17 % solids, instead of 30 % which is more common (e.g. like in Brunswick, GA where they are composting biosolids and yard waste). They said it is actually difficult to press more water than this out, which may be due to the fact that the main industrial input to the wastewater treatment plant is from textile mills (cotton fibers?). Although this may add to the product's moisture content problem, a discussion ensued on whether this water holding capacity could be an additional benefit (compared to other composted materials) realized in the field.

We then traveled a short distance to the composting facility itself where the biosolids are mixed with poultry litter trucked in from the local poultry houses. After mixing, the material is loaded into composting bins measuring 6 feet high by 6 feet wide by 35 feet long. The bottom of each bin is lined with a number small PVC pipes where air is forced through the piles using pumps. The material is held in each bin for 16 days at 40 degrees C with no turning. Then the material is stacked under a covered facility until sold. In addition to selling and shipping the product, Poultry Power is also considering providing spreading service and covering of piles with plastic for certain costs.
Overall, this is an interesting product that could prove useful for crop production. As far as I know, it is the first product of its kind to be labeled as a fertilizer in Georgia. I'm surprised they have not considered adding a dry material, such as yard waste, to the compost mix to decrease the moisture content. However, they certainly appear to be making an honest effort to fulfill their goal of "creating a product that is safe and economically beneficial for our customers". (Harris)

Reducing Ammonia in Pig Manure
Ammonia released from manure and urine in hog facilities and anaerobic lagoons is one of the major odor problems related to pork production. Work at Purdue and Penn State Universities has shown that changes in protein/amino acid nutrition can result in reductions of ammonia in fresh manure of 25 to 40% and in anaerobically stored manure of 32 to 56%. Pigs were fed standard 13% crude protein corn-soy based finishing diets, 10% protein diets (protein deficient), 10% protein diets plus four synthetic amino acids or 18% protein diets (excess protein). In all cases, the 10% protein diet supplemented with amino acids (lysine, threonine, tryptophan and methionine) produced the least ammonia. The plausible explanation is that this diet had less nitrogen in amino acids which the pigs could not efficiently utilize. Therefore, a greater portion of the nitrogen was utilized for pig growth and less had to be converted to obnoxious ammonia nitrogen.

Many producers are being encouraged by packers, genetics supply and feed companies to increase the protein levels in their diets to attain greater growth rates from their pigs. This is only wise if they can achieve greater profits from use of high protein diets. Many factors determine whether these increases will be profitable including the genetic potential of the pigs for lean growth, the feed intake levels and the concentration and digestibility of nutrients of than amino acids. It makes sense that more efficiently utilized diets would also be more profitable, but the best way to determine this is for the producer to have a Nutrition Audit completed by the UGA Lean Pork Production Efficiency team. Formulation of diets based on lean gain efficiency is complex but necessary to achieve optimum profitability. (Rick Jones)

Reducing Wastewater in Swine Operations
Reducing wasted water in swine operations has many practical, economical and ethical justifications. The amount of waste water that enters the manure collection system in a swine operation is very difficult to estimate. One rule of thumb from Nebraska estimates that each 1000 lb of growing pigs produce 1 cubic foot of manure and urine per day. The allotment for waste water is 0.5 cubic feet. This would mostly include wash-down and sprinkler water, and waste from pig drinkers. Experience in the warmer South would indicate even greater wastage because pigs tend to play with nipple waterers and are sprinkled to relieve heat stress more of the year. Due to the great variation in water management and methods of removing manure from hog facilities, it is not inconceivable that waste water would equal or exceed the 1 cubic foot per 1000 lb of pig. Therefore, on a finishing floor with average body wights of 150 lb, each pig might produce 0.15 cubic feet of manure and urine and add 0.075 to 0.15 cubic feet of waste waster for a total of 0.225 to 0.3 cubic feet (2.24 gallons) per day.

At this year's World Pork Expo, a large percentage of the trade show equipment was aggressively advertised as having the advantage of reducing water use and wastage. Wet/dry feeders are touted in research results as reducing water wastage by 40-50 percent over conventional dry feeders plus nipple waterers. Modified nipple waterers also show significant reductions in water waste. The "swing type" nipple waterer is hung by chains from the ceiling and reduces playing with the nipple by pigs. Other adaptations have added cups below nipples to encourage pigs to consume the water that dribbles from their mouths while operating the nipple.

The bottom line is reducing loss of a precious resource, clean water, while reducing costs of production. Some would counter with the position that we need to add water to pig wastes to dilute, cover and transport it to the lagoons and to crop fields.. However, we can always use recycled lagoon or pond water for these purposed and conserve precious ground water. (Rick Jones)

Multi state Web Site Training on Land Application of Animal Waste
A few months ago Dr. Bob Lippert, Soil Fertility Specialist, from Clemson University approached me about experimenting with offering a multi state-in-service-training program for county agents via the Web. It sounded like a good idea and I agreed to help him and the other participating specialists. These included Dr.s' Jim Camberato, John Chastain, Kathy Moore, and Bill Stringer, Clemson University and Dr.s' Charles Mitchell and Lee Norfleet, Auburn University. The host site was Clemson University and the training was offered May 19-23, 1997. Seventeen agents from Clemson University, eight agents from the University of Georgia, and one specialist from Auburn University participated in the program.

Selected materials from Auburn, Georgia, North Carolina State, and Clemson were linked to the Web page. The information included most aspects of animal waste disposition such as nutrient content, sampling techniques, nutrient availability, application rates, spreader problems, and odor control. Agents were allowed to view the information as their schedule permitted and to ask questions and discuss concerns via E-mail from Netscape. A listserv was set up so questions and answers could be viewed by all participating in the training. There was a little concern that agents may be a apprehensive about getting involved in the dialogue. However, after the material had been up on the Web site for about two days, questions and comments started flowing freely. This removed any doubt that agents would not fully participate. At the conclusion of the training, agents were asked to evaluate the training. With but one exception the evaluations were quite good.
In conclusion, utilizing the many features of the Web for multi state in-service-training is an innovative new way of distance learning. It is not applicable to all disciplines, however, for many subject matter areas it has tremendous potential. Some of the major attractions to this approach are:

1. It can be done whenever the agent has some time to sit at a computer
2. There is no travel involved
3. Only a knowledge of how to access Netscape or other Web browser and how to use e-mail is required
4. A tremendous amount of hardcopy can be downloaded for future reference
5. The agents have the advantage of discussing a topic with several specialists and county agents from the participating states

If you would like to view this site, which is also linked to the AWARE site, the address is: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/manure.html. You will also find several links to information and materials from Georgia. (Owen Plank)

Geography of Hope
The USDA-NRCS recently released an excellent publication called America's Private Land, A Geography of Hope. This 80 page publication has high quality, full color graphics and pictures on almost every page that are very educational and enjoying to read. The text takes you on a trip through America and addresses the relationships between land and people, the state of our land and water, the considerable progress we've made in improving our private lands, and the future directions and trends that we must continue to sustain this great country. It is truly inspirational and I would recommend it to all that have a vested interest in agriculture or private land ownership.
While there are many positive quotes I could have pulled form this publication, the one that has particular interest to readers of AWARE news is: "Concentrated animal production sites are of particular environmental concern because of the potential for nutrient and bacterial contamination of water resources as well as odor problems affecting neighboring communities. Industrialization of the livestock production sector, spurred by economies of size and new production and processing technologies, has produced livestock concentrations and geographic shifts unprecedented in the United States. Parts of the Southeast and West are the primary hot spots for animal manure problems, in part because of soil and climatic factors and in part because those areas lack adequate cropland on which to apply manure properly." (Risse)

Remember EQIP and CRP
The USDA is currently conducting sign-ups for two programs that have the potential to aid all livestock and poultry producers with animal waste management. The first program is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Continuous Sign up (14). This program allows farmers to implement high priority practices such as filter strips and buffers on any eligible land at any time. Any streamside buffer would be considered eligible land and often filter strips around waste management facilities would probably qualify if it were close to a stream or wellhead protection area. These practices are proven to be extremely effective at preventing pollution and this program should allow Georgia farmers to implement these practices at little cost.
Sign-ups are also underway for the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) that will provide $4,083,000 dollars in cost share assistance to Georgia farmers willing to install certain environmental protection practices on their farms. This money must be obligated by August 31, 1997 and 35% of it is available statewide. I would encourage all of you to help the NRCS and FSA in locating and encouraging farmers to take advantage of these programs as they can benefit the entire state. (Risse)

More on Phytase
Progressive Farmer recently reported that Phytase, a genetically engineered enzyme, cuts by up to 60% the amount of phosphorus found in poultry and pig manure. While earlier issues of AWARE News (see Vol. 1, No. 2) reported on the details and benefits of phytase, the exciting news that this article reports is that phytase production now occurs in big enough quantities to be cost effective in feed rations. Under the Natuphos brand from BASF, the product costs $11.50 per pound but only about 3 ounces are needed in a ton of hog feed. That amount costs $2.31 but replaces $2.38 in mono-dicalcium phosphate per ton of feed. While phytase is commonly used throughout Europe, in the U.S. it is still being tested. Results from these studies are indicating that it is cost effective for both poultry and swine production. Ken Vanderburg, product manager for BASF enzymes reports that layer producers that incorporate Natuphos into their rations are witnessing savings up to $1.10 per ton of feed (reported in Georgia Farmer). In the broiler market, research indicates that producers can save between 10 and 70 cents per ton of feed in grower and finishing diets. With economic savings like these, the environmental benefits associated with less phosphorus in the manure are just icing on the cake. (Risse)

Farmers Credited With Cleaning Up Chesapeake Bay
Another recent article in Progressive Farmer (June/July 1997) titled "The Heroes of Chesapeake Bay" says that thanks to farmers, this national marine treasure is healthier and again a source of pride. In 1987, a goal was set to reduce the load of nitrogen and phosphorous reaching the bay 40 % by the year 2000. Thanks to implementing nutrient management plans on 1.5 out 7.4 million acres of cropland in the watershed, nitrogen was reduced 5 % and phosphorous 21 % between 1987 and 1992. This accomplishment is even more impressive knowing that it was done on a voluntary basis. One EPA official admitted he was skeptical they could get that far using voluntary measures. He also realized that "the costs of upgrading sewage treatment plants are spread out over thousands of bill payers. Investments on the agriculture side are made by individual farmers spending substantial amounts of money".
Some farmers did get at least some payment incentives. For example, since 1990, almost 300 Virginians claimed tax credits amounting to $200,000. Here they say they reduced their applications of nitrogen on 133,000 acres by 2 million pounds and phosphorous 3 million pounds. One farmer pointed out that "before, we weren't accounting for nutrients from the chicken litter we spread on crop fields". Some farmers, especially young farmers, are also worried that as the deadline of the year 2000 gets closer, regulations will tighten. In good growing years, the concern is that producers will risk not making top yields if crop nutrients are restricted.
Another important issue is the realization that city sewage, auto exhaust, power plant emissions, suburban development and deforestation along feeder streams -- in addition to agriculture -- affect the bay's water quality. Farmers in particular would like to see more education of urban residents, particularly in the area of fertilization. Continuing voluntary nutrient management plans, as well as using practices such as cover crops, conservation tillage, and innovative animal waste handling, will hopefully keep the fingers pointed away from farmers. One cattle farmer in Maryland concluded that it is not worth fighting regulations. In his mind, producers who "go with the flow and participate" in government programs can usually cope with environmental demands and "those who buck the tide may go under". (Harris)

Reviews by Henning
The following three journal article reviews were submitted by Frank Henning, Special Extension Agent - Water Quality located in Putnam County:

1) Phosphorus Movement And Adsorption in a Soil Receiving Long-Term Manure And Fertilizer Application. Eghball, B., G.D. Binford and D.D. Baltensperger. 1996. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1339-1343.
The objective of this study was to determine the extent of phosphorus (P) movement in a coarse-textured soil receiving long-term manure or nitrogen (N) and P fertilizers. In a previous study, Eghball determined that downward P movement in soils after P fertilizer application is small. Results from this study confirm previous findings, but they go a step further. In this study, it was found that phosphorus adsorption maximum or index were poorly correlated with P movement in soil. They also found that phosphorus from manure moved deeper into the soil profile than from chemical fertilizer at similar P loading rates. The author concludes that phosphorus movement in organic forms depends on the chemical reaction of organic compounds and the manure may have enhanced P movement deeper into soil. The results from this study suggest that additional precautions may be necessary to protect groundwater from manure-P, with its high capacity for downward movement.
2) Phosphorus Transformations in Poultry Litter - Amended Soils of Atlantic Coastal Plain. M. Mozafferi, M. and T. Sims. 1996. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1357-1365.
Accelerated eutrophication due to the inputs of excessive nutrients from agricultural and urban sources is currently threatening the water quality of Delaware's Inland Bays Watershed. This watershed is impacted by a highly concentrated poultry industry. In fact, (78%) soils in this watershed have either high or excessively high soil P.Mozafferi and Sims conducted this study to gain a better understanding of P transformations in poultry litter-amended soils. They designed experiments to determine the influence of poultry litter on P release, on the amount and forms of soil P, and on soil P sorption capacity in three soils from this watershed.
They found that soil test P was increased markedly by litter application. When these increases are compared with crop removal values reported for major agricultural crops the authors conclude that continuous poultry litter applications will produce soil test P values in excess of those required for economically profitable crop production. They also found that a large percentage of the litter P added (63-90%) was found in the nonapatite inorganic P fractions reported to be important for the eutrophication of surface waters. Additions of poultry litter also significantly reduced P sorption capacity. These results raise questions about the effect of long- term poultry litter applications on the degree of P saturation of soils.

3) Infiltration of Fecal Bacteria Through Soils: Timing and Tillage Effects. Soil Science News & Views, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service
Land-applying animal wastes potentially exposes humans and animals to fecal pathogens, either by direct contact with soil and produce, or through groundwater contamination. Organisms like salmonella, escherichia coli, protozoa such as cryptosporidium and Giardia, and enteric viruses are often found in human and animal wastes. Whether soil adequately filters these pathogens before they reach groundwater depends on soil properties like porosity, texture, water content and depth, soil management and rainfall intensity and duration.
Agronomic practices and crop management techniques such as manure application and tillage influence soil structure can affect water movement. Previous studies have looked at how tillage affects microbial movement, but few have looked at no-till systems that result in greater macropore flow. Macropore flow is a term often used to describe how water moves rapidly through large soil pores in unsaturated soil. Dr. Mark Coyne and others at the University of Kentucky recently conducted this study to compare fecal bacterial transport through shallow no- tillage and chisel/disk soils to which dairy manure had been applied.
They found no differences in bacteria die-off rates due to tillage treatments. However, tillage did result in fewer fecal coliforms over time. They also found that these bacteria moved downward to a depth of at least 35 inches, suggesting that fecal bacteria could contaminate groundwater in a well-structured, shallow soil under no-till systems. They concluded that dairy manure can be used on a long-term basis without degrading the bacteriological quality of shallow water below the rooting depth, but it has potentially serious short-term effects, particularly where ground water levels are near the soil surface.

Question of The Quarter
I noticed that Clemson University reports "available N" for poultry litter samples. What does this mean? (Richard McDaniel - Burke County, GA Extension Coordinator)

According to their report form, "available N" is calculated by adding 60 % of the organic N and 80 % of the ammonium N (which are also both reported). This also assumes that the manure will be incorporated immediately after application. Otherwise, 15 % of the ammonium N will be lost for every day the manure is not incorporated. One cause of confusion is that organic N is not measured directly, but instead is calculated by subtracting ammonium N from total N. Total N is usually measured using a laboratory procedure called the "Kjeldahl method" but is not reported on the Clemson form.
In Georgia, the UGA Agricultural Services lab in Athens reports total N for poultry litter samples. According to information in the UGA Leaflet 206, Poultry Waste - Georgia's 50 million Dollar Forgotten Crop, this value can then by multiplied by a first-year N availability coefficient of 0.6 (if soil incorporated within two days) to calculate "available N". The UGA lab will also run an ammonium analysis if requested. Both the UGA and Clemson reports also include P 2O5 and K2O fertilizer value figures as well as concentrations of calcium, magnesium, zinc, copper, manganese and sodium. Clemson also routinely runs sulfur. Finally, the Georgia Department of Agriculture laboratory in Tifton will also analyze poultry litter samples, but report percent of N, P and K only. (Harris)

Calender
National Water Quality Watershed Project Symposium. September 22-26, Washington, D.C.
Ammonia and odor control from animal production facilities International Symposium. October, 1997. The Netherlands 31.73.5286555.
Sunbelt Agricultural Expo, October 14-16, Moultrie, Georgia.
Nutrients in the Neuse River, December 8-9, New Bern, North Carolina
AWARE North Carolina Tour, December 8-12 (tentative)

http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/vol2_3.html