AWARE NEWS

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources passed a proposal to modify the rules and regulations for water quality control (Rule 391-3-6-.20) to create the "Swine Feeding Operation Permit Requirements". The stated purpose for these rules is to provide for the uniform procedures and practices to be followed relating to the application for and the issuance or revocation of permits for swine feeding operations. As stated in our last newsletter the AWARE team had proposed several changes to these rules, however, most of these suggestions were not incorporated into the new regulations.

The complete rules are available on the DNR web site at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/ (look under the EPD Rules link and then at Water Quality) or the swine regulations are linked to the AWARE site. A summary of the rules was given in the last newsletter but some dates that you may want to remember are:

Requirements for 300 to 1000 AU farms (750 to 2500 head, 55 lbs. or more):

submit registration form by October 31, 2000;
submit Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) by October 31, 2000
educate and certify operator by October 31, 2001;
implement CNMP plan by October 31, 2002;

Requirements for operations with more than 1001 AU (2500 head, 55 lbs. or more):

all of the above plus individual NPDES permits are required by October 31, 2000 and must be submitted 180 days in advance.

The details for the "Operator Training and Certification Requirements" have not been established, but they will be released in January. Training and certification courses may be offered as early as this summer.

While Georgia’s and much of the nations swine industry is currently in a tailspin, I do think that it is vital to get this information out to as many producers as possible. Judging from my recent experiences conducting NPPC On-farm odor/environmental assessments, very few producers realize the time and finances that it will take to comply with these regulations. I would advise county agents and other agriculture professionals to begin getting the word out on these new regulations and producers to begin planning for compliance. (M. Risse)

What’s Up Next in Georgia?

After completing the swine regulations, several DNR Board members as well as representatives from public interest groups stated that new regulations for dairy and poultry operations will be discussed this winter. Several meetings have already been held to discuss the issues surrounding the regulation of these industries. The AWARE team sponsored a meeting September 7 in Athens to respond to several specific questions proposed by the Southern Environmental Law Center. More than 25 researchers, commodity representatives, and public interest group representatives attended this meeting. At the meeting members of the AWARE team responded to questions such as "What is the best method for storing poultry litter?", "Should lagoon size be limited?", "What are the alternatives to land application of poultry litter?" and several others. A summary of the meeting is available on the AWARE web page under the activities link. Overall, it was a good meeting with lots of lively discussion.

We should continue to promote a dialogue between interested parties in this area. At a recently held Alliance for Environmental Stewardship meeting in St. Louis, many private individuals from both public interest groups and the agricultural commodity groups shared opinions on how we should address these issues. Besides learning that everyone wants to use the EPA as the scapegoat, it was surprising to hear that almost everyone in the private sector wanted regulations based on science. However, the public interest groups did not think the USDA and land grant Universities could be trusted while the commodity groups did not think that the USDA should be working with or sharing information with the EPA. How do we develop science based regulations without trusting and working with the most knowledgeable scientists? How do we work toward equitable solutions when opposing sides can not communicate? I don’t know the answers here.... do you?

AWARE Develops Position Paper on State Cost-Share Program

As a result of our joint meetings to discuss the issues, one area that we did reach some agreement on was the fact that there was a definite need for a State cost share program. With new regulations, the fact that farmers are "price-takers" and cannot pass on additional costs to consumers, and the inadequacy of federal funding, farmers need assistance in protecting the environment. Other states in the region have state cost-share programs to supplement the federal funds. A cost-share program in Georgia would benefit the general public by enhancing and protecting the state’s natural resources. As such, it should have widespread support from the agricultural, environmental, and regulatory communities. Our purpose in this concept paper is to put the issue of a state cost-share program on the table for discussion. It is our scientific judgement that the adoption of BMP’s is the best way to address agricultural non-point source pollution and protect Georgia’s environment. However, adoption of BMP’s will be severely limited by farmers’ inability to pay for implementing these practices unless there is a state cost-share program. We are prepared to assist in the development of a comprehensive proposal for a state cost-share program if there is wide-spread support for this effort. A complete copy of the position paper is available on the AWARE web page under the policy link.

Other Meetings in Georgia

Other meetings in Georgia have also recently involved several AWARE team members. The Coastal Georgia Center for Sustainable Development held a workshop on "Animal Production and Water Quality" in Midway, Georgia in September. More than 40 coastal citizens and decision makers attended this workshop to hear from several scientists, farmers, and other representing the coastal counties. While the title and several of the talks focused on all types of animal production, most discussion was centered around the new poultry processing plant that has been proposed in Ware County. Hopefully, some of the information presented will lead to a more informed decision and further discussion.

In early October, Senator Ralph Hudgins hosted a public meeting in Jefferson, Georgia. Approximately 300 people that seemed to be predominantly poultry growers attended this meeting to provide their input to 14 State senators and representatives. While the program focused predominantly on grower demands for sound scientific evidence indicating that there is a need for increased regulation and for a State Cost Share program, there was also considerable discussion on how to encourage greater transportation and utilization of poultry litter. It was exciting to hear talk about investing in technology and commercialization of litter utilization options such as extrusion and composting that will not only help solve the environmental problems but could stimulate rural economies and lead to increased returns to the farmers.

Many decisions concerning animal agriculture in Georgia will be made in the next few years. Public meetings and dialogue are essential as the elected or appointed officials have the power to make decisions but often people such as yourself have the information that they need to make a better decision. We encourage each of you host or attend these meetings so that agriculture and our environment can thrive in the years to come.

Georgia Poultry Federation Passes Resolution

On August 19, 1999 the Board of the Georgia Poultry Federation passed a resolution to formalize a program to improve environmental protection and establish uniform practices within Georgia that are consistent with or better than the national standards for best management practices in poultry. The purpose of the document is to provide for a statewide program for nutrient management plans, best management practices and operator training for all poultry operations in Georgia. It states that all poultry producers shall develop, implement, and maintain a nutrient management plan and best management practices that meet NRCS standards no later than January 1, 2002. The minimum elements of these plans are to include an evaluation of storage, maintenance of buffer zones, land application details, a mortality management plan, record keeping, and plans for complete utilization and transportation. It also states that all producers shall be trained in the proper development and implementation of nutrient management plans no later than January 1, 2001.

UGA Develops Poultry Training Notebook and Training Schedule

A task force including UGA faculty, members of the Georgia Poultry Federation, and representatives of the NRCS has completed development of educational materials to assist in the development and implementation of voluntary comprehensive nutrient management plans for Georgia’s poultry producers. These educational materials are being combined into a CNMP training notebook which provides detailed information explaining the steps and procedures required for properly managing poultry litter. The notebook contains sections relating to current State and Federal regulations affecting poultry operations, procedures for soil and litter analysis, nutrient budget worksheets and records, application and storage methods, practices for preventing soil erosion and water contamination, and appropriate methods for dead bird disposal.

The development of this notebook is being followed by extensive extension and outreach efforts. With the cooperation of the poultry industry, the University of Georgia is providing educational meetings and training sessions for poultry company personnel and contract growers. To date, more than seven different companies have scheduled over 23 different training sessions for growers in their areas. One company has completed training of all of its growers. The implementation of these programs represents a proactive approach and demonstrates the commitment of this industry to management practices that are protective of the environment. For more information on the training program, contact Dan Cunningham at 706-542-1325.

Rendering Plant Odor Control Program Established

In response to growing public concern over rendering operations, the Georgia Department of Agriculture has established the Malodor Control and Assessment Program (Rules of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, Chapter 40-16-4 rendering Plant Odor Control). A malodor is a chemical that can be detected at extremely low concentrations in air. Under this program, renderers in Georgia will be required to develop a site specific plan that implements a preventative system of controls to reduce odor. The plan will define measures for evaluating and controlling odors from raw material transportation and storage, processing, wastewater treatment, and air emission control systems. The Commissioner of Agriculture or a designated agent can then enter a plant at any time to inspect the plant to determine compliance with this plan. Furthermore, each plant must record and respond to all odor complaints and share this information with the Department of Agriculture. In response to this new rule, the Rural Air Quality Team at the University of Georgia has already received several requests for information and has begun to work on applied research projects to develop solutions. While some neighbors may not appreciate rendering plants, they are a very important part of Georgia agriculture and actually help the State in many ways. Practical solutions need to be developed for this industry as many farms will be facing similar issues on an increasingly frequent basis.

Dairy Survey Mailed

Speaking of informed decisions, the AWARE team, in conjunction with the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, is conducting a survey of all dairy farms in Georgia. In addition to detailed questions on the costs and income on a dairy farm, the questionnaire has quite a few questions on waste management practices. This information is critical as we do not have reliable data indicating how farms are managing their manure in Georgia. Without this information, it is almost impossible to consider the economic impacts of proposed regulatory changes. If you get this survey or field questions on it, please support this effort as it will only help us to get a more accurate indication of what is or isn’t needed in Georgia.

Other Surveys of Interest, Layers, Dairy

Larry Guthrie, of the Animal and Dairy Science Department recently conducted a survey of dairy producers in Morgan and Putnam counties. The purpose of the survey was to determine the top production and research issues facing dairy farmers in Georgia. On the production side, the dairy farmers listed waste management and using animal waste as fertilizer as number 5 and 10 respectively. Other research topics identified as top priorities included intensive grazing, methane gas production and utilization, feeding programs, and interestingly enough ..."how to exit the dairy business with as much money as possible".

The Georgia Poultry Federation also conducted a survey of egg producers in the state. Ninety-one farms responded representing about 95% of the layer operations in the state. Of those that responded 31% used liquid waste management systems and the remainder handle their waste as a solid. Of the 29 using liquid systems, 24 had more than 30,000 layers. If these operations were constructed today, all would be permitted under Georgia’s Water Quality Control Act. Currently, there is no way of permitting these operations if they have been in operation prior to the development of the Water Quality Control Act. The Georgia Poultry Federation should be commended for these efforts as it represents a proactive step on their part to collect and use information that the Environmental Protection Division needs.

EPA Releases Draft Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for CAFO’s

On August 6, the USEPA released a draft of its "Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal feeding Operations." USDA and EPA estimate that 95 percent of the 450,000 animal feeding operations will be encouraged to implement voluntary comprehensive nutrient management plans under the AFO Strategy. An estimated 15,000 to 20,000 CAFO’s will be required to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans as part of National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Approximately 2,000 permits have currently been issued for CAFO’s. CAFO’s generally include the largest facilities (those with 1,000 or more animal units), facilities with unacceptable conditions such as direct discharge into waterways, and facilities that are significant contributors to water quality impairment.

In an effort to facilitate and improve implementation of the NPDES permitting program for CAFO’s consistent with existing regulations, EPA has published this draft guidance manual and example permit. The guidance is intended to aid state and EPA regional permitting authorities by providing information on:

Which facilities need to apply for an NPDES permit
The key elements of an NPDES permit for CAFO’s
The relationship between NPDES permits and comprehensive nutrient management plans
The types of NPDES permits that may be issued to CAFO’s
Public notice requirements
Co-permitting of corporate entities
Land application of manure and wastewater
Monitoring and reporting requirements.

EPA has prepared a draft example permit for state and EPA regional permitting authorities to use as a basis for both individual and general NPDES permits. The example permit demonstrates and provides additional information about how the guidance should be implemented.

The draft guidance is available at http://www.epe.gov/owm/afo.htm. Hard copies of the document can be obtained from USEPA’s Water Resource Center at (202) 260-7786. Comments may be submitted to Greg Beatty by e-mail at beatty.gregor@epa.gov, by fax at (202) 260-1460 or by mail at 401 M Street/MC 4203/Room 2304 NEM/Washington, DC 20460. The comment period is sixty days.

Task Force on Nutrient Management Established

Based on input from the AWARE team, Dean Buchanan charged a Task Force on Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning in June. The task force includes a variety of scientists and extension specialist from the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences as well as members of organizations such as the Institute of Ecology, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the Georgia Department of Agriculture. It will address the development of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) strategy in Georgia. Some of the immediate objectives of the task force are: define a CNMP that will be acceptable in Georgia; develop tools or training aids to assist professionals who will be developing CNMPs; train county agents and others in using these tools; and develop a strategy for implementing CNMP. Obviously, the first commodity that will be affected is Georgia’s swine industry since CNMP’s will be required on these operations. However, this task force will also have an impact on other commodity groups that choose to use CNMP’s to manage their nutrients in an environmentally responsible manner. Look for the development of a basic guidance document outlining what CNMP’s should include in early December and the development of more comprehensive documents, training tools, and workshops in the coming year. For more information on the task force, contact Mark Risse mrisse@bae.uga.edu.

Georgia Works on National Animal Waste Curriculum

The EPA and USDA are jointly funding a project to develop a National Curriculum for managing animal wastes. This curriculum includes lessons on everything from storage and handling and advanced treatment strategies to managing odor and land application systems. It is being developed by experts around the country and produced by the Midwest Plan Service. The curriculum will be pilot tested in six states around the country including Georgia. In Georgia, the pilot testing will consist of both a review of the draft curriculum as well as at least two workshops next summer targeting dry and liquid waste management systems. Right now, reviewers are needed for each of the 24 lessons in the curriculum. Anyone interested in providing reviews for one or more of the lessons please contact Mark Risse at mrisse@bae.uga.edu or 706-542-9067.

Odor Management -- Top Ten Hit List

As stated in the last newsletter, the NPPC's On-Farm Odor/Environmental Assistance Program has kicked off in Georgia and several assessments have already been conducted. The National Pork Producers Council recently provided a summary of the most common odor

and environmental problems detected on farms during farm visits conducted around the country. Here are the top ten "opportunities":

(1) Animal health debris in the lagoon on the downwind side of the containment facility and on the inside berm after pumping. Solution -- Use trash cans for garbage.

(2) Improper dilution rates for lagoons. It's especially important to make sure you use enough fresh water to charge a new lagoon at its startup time.

(3) Lagoon that is actually a holding or storage basin rather than a treatment lagoon. Storage basins hold manure until it can be applied to land but will release more odors at times throughout the year.

(4) Dirty fans and dust accumulation on shutters. Solution -- clean fans at least monthly, with special attention to pit fans and minimum ventilation fans. Dust control -- Make sure feed drops extend into the feeders, fill feeders more frequently and make sure all feeders have lids. Pelleting and added fat reduce dust from feed. All-in/all-out pig flow with washing between groups will reduce dust.

(5) Improper ventilation operation due to controllers not working properly.

(6) Infrequently removing manure from gutters, especially in pull-plug systems without recharge, with leaking plugs, or without adequate recharge volumes. Also look for feed wastage that accumulates in the gutters. Make sure you have adequate separation distance between the recharge line intakes from the lagoon and the lagoon's discharge drain line;

(7) Lack of vented caps on manure line clean-outs and pit pump-outs;

(8) Lack of adequate recharge in shallow pits. Make sure you have enough dilution water available and that its pumped into shallow pits on a timely schedule;

(9) Poor surface drainage around the facility including perimeter erosion control, leading to stagnant water and odor;

(10) Lack of manure management plans. Remember, you will need documentation to prove your compliance with your plan. (From: J. Pork 99 19(5):32, 1999).

Another Top Ten: Site Selection Tips

Consulting agricultural engineer Terry Feldmann of Feldmann & Associates offers these top10 siting tips to avoid odor problems:

(1) Consider the direction of prevailing winds and wind speed when siting a facility.

(2) Review temperature and net radiation data to help determine the season or month which has the largest potential for odor production.

(3) Determine distances to residences and other places that people frequent such as businesses, schools, churches, recreational areas, etc.

(4) Orient facilities so that their shortest axis (i.e., width)is perpendicular to the wind direction of most concern.

(5) Rate the landscape and topography of potential sites.

(6) Review the site topography for potential air drainage problems.

(7) Determine if there are residences and other places frequented by people that are located downslope of the site.

(8) Evaluate the available manure application areas of a particular site.

(9) Develop options for dead animal disposal for a site.

(10) Consider whether or not the site is located in a traditional livestock production area.

(From: National Hog Farmer, June 15, 1999)

More on Controlling Manure Basin Emissions

The best solution for controlling emissions from manure basins changes by location and site. Geomembrane lagoon covers can reduce emissions by 90% if the exhaust gases are collected or burned; they range from $2.25 to $3.60 per square yard. Straw covers (12 inches thick) can reduce hydrogen sulfide and odor by up to 90%; the major problem with straw is the handling after it sinks. Costs for straw include purchase at $0.45 to $0.90 per square yard and application at $0.18 to $0.27 per square yard. Assuming two applications per year, the total cost would be about $1.80 per square yard per year. Low-rate aeration can reduce hydrogen sulfide and odor by 90%; it works by creating a facultative lagoon which has an aerobic layer on top of an anaerobic layer. The bacteria found in the aerobic area oxidize odorous compounds generated in the anaerobic layer. Estimated cost to operate a low-rate operation system is $0.20 per square yard per year ($0.05/kilowatt-hour, 180 days/year of operation in the upper Midwest). Aeration is more cost-effective in northern climates than southern climates. (From: Pork 99 19(5):54,56, 1999).

Company Sees Chicken Litter Handling as Natural Progression

Eastern Shore Forest Products recycles wood residuals from the lumber industry into mulch, bark, potting soil, compost, biomass fuel and animal bedding. "Our biggest business is manufacturing poultry bedding," says Tom Johnson, president of the Salisbury, Maryland-based company. Already supplying the material to some of the Delmarva Peninsula’s 2,800 poultry farms, Johnson thought it was a natural progression to manage the used material.

In a partnership with a fertilizer company, Eastern Shore plans to build a 50,000 ton/year organic fertilizer granulation plant where poultry litter will be separated into two categories. The first will be a particulate-sized product that will consist mostly of manure with very little bedding. The product has a high nutrient content and will be used as a base for a variety of organic-based fertilizers. The remainder of the material will be formed into pellets, which are used in a gasification unit to produce steam. "The fuel will be used locally," explains Johnson. "We intend to set up boilers at the processing plants, which will pay for the steam." Johnson says that part of the funding for construction of the plant will come from a grant from the state’s Animal Waste Technology Fund.

Eastern Shore Forest Products will not pay growers for the manure, but will clean out the material and transport it to the plant at no cost. "It really is payment in kind," he explains. "Growers typically have to pay to have the chicken houses cleaned out." (From: Biocycle, September, 1999)

More Options for Managing Manure

This past March, the Joint Institute for Energy and Environment (JIEE) convened its first Workshop on Farm Animal Wastes. JIEE is a consortium comprising the University of Tennessee (UT), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The organization is based at UT. The meeting focused on formulating ways to reduce the environmental impacts of farm animal manure. In particular, workshop participants--which included nearly 60 representatives of federal and state government, federal research laboratories, universities, private industry, and nonprofit organizations from across the United States and Japan--sought ways to develop value-added products from farm waste and to devise improved practices for managing this inevitable by-product of farming operations.

Workshop participants divided into small discussion groups to examine how research could solve problems associated with various practices on the modern farm. Members of the breakout group on utilities and energy production suggested that deregulated utilities investigate farm animal waste and other paths to "green" energy. By partnering with farmers, who would supply the methane, utilities could add methane-based energy to their offerings and help reduce greenhouse gases. Methane can also be used to power fuel cells, an emerging battery-like energy alternative that uses chemicals to produce electricity. Although most are run on hydrogen, research is exploring use of methane harvested from farm animal waste to power these devices.

A breakout group on animal production advocated a closed-loop farming approach in which wastes are cycled back into the production system. In this kind of system, a farmer would raise herds; their wastes would be used as crop fertilizer and for electricity on the farm; the farmer would build buffer zones to reduce the amount of wastes leaching into nearby streams; and wastes would be converted to energy, building materials, and fertilizers for off-farm sales. The group also stressed the potential for green marketing and labeling so that the extra costs associated with raising animals via more environmentally benign methods would be borne by consumers, not farmers.

Members of the breakout group on crop production suggested that agricultural researchers develop animal feed crops that contain lower levels of phosphorus or that have increased ability to take phosphorus up into their roots, so that less phosphorus will reach groundwater and surface water. Crops can also be used as part of buffer zones and engineered wetlands designed to protect water quality.

Despite its leadership in other realms, the United States trails some countries in application of practices that reduce environmental damage from the front end, partly because of our vast landmass and abundant resources. For example, the conference highlighted successful farm waste management in an agricultural village in China. The village uses underground pits to collect human, hog, and chicken waste. Methane gas from the pits is pumped directly from farms into homes for cooking, heating, and lights. Wastewater is used for raising fish or irrigation on orange fields and rice paddies. Today, the city makes $400,000 in revenue from biogas and the liquid and solid components of waste.

For more information contact John Sheffield, The University of Tennessee, Joint Institute for Energy and Environment, 314 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, or call 423-974-9224

Analyzing Different Methods to Compost Poultry Litter

In a study funded by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, researchers teamed up with a private composter to evaluate alternative technologies to generate a valued-added compost for the landscape and nursery industry. Static pile and turned windrow technologies were investigated on a commercial scale with the composting of nearly 1,000 tons of material. The major difference between the technologies is the amount of energy and labor required. Static pile systems require less energy but more time than windrow turned systems. There was no process advantage for passively aerated static piles over static piles, but costs of passive aeration for pipes and labor was higher than for static piles. Machine turned windrows completed active temperature production within 100 days while portions of both the static and passively aerated piles continued to actively compost past 300 days. Process operational costs and compost quality were similar among the compost methods studied. Production operational cost is driven by the cost of compost ingredients and accounted for 60 to 70 percent of the cost in the pilot study. Ingredients were poultry litter, wood chips and sawdust. Screened compost was produced at an operational cost of $30/ton while unscreened compost could be produced for $20/ton of compost. A production scheme where poultry litter is static pile composted on farms for later transport to regional processing centers appears feasible. This two-part composting procedure would eliminate the transport of raw litter and improve poultry biosecurity. Most likely, a private compost business would provide the expertise, on-farm compost procedures and operate the regional facility. (The full report will appear in a coming issue of Compost Science & Utilization, a sister publication to BioCycle.)

Litter Transport and Manure Matching Services

The Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Office of Resource Conservation has developed a pilot Poultry Litter Transport Project (PLTP) and Manure Matching Service (MMS) to help growers comply with the nutrient management requirements of the state’s Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998. The PLTP is a four-year $750,000 pilot designed to ease the transition to phosphorous-based nutrient management. Farmers with excess material are offered up to $20/ton to assist with testing, loading and transporting fees. The program has the potential to transport between 60,000 and 70,000 tons of poultry litter/year over the next four years.

The MMS was created to link farmers who have excess manure with those who can safely utilize it as a nutrient source. It also supports transport programs and marketing techniques to promote and facilitate the transfer of manure. MMS collects information about the source, nutrient value, condition and price of manure and matches it with location, nutrient and timing needs of recipients. For more information about the programs, call (877) 762-6873 or visit the Department of Agriculture’s website at www.mda.state.md.us.

Georgia Research: Water Quality under Different Tillage and Nutrient Sources

This study was conducted at the USDA-ARS facility near Watkinsville, Georgia in 1997 and 1998. The site consisted of 12 instrumented tile drained plots on a nearly level Cecil Sandy Loam soil. Cotton was grown in the summer followed by rye as a cover crop in the winter. Four treatments of conventional and no-tillage and poultry litter and ammonium nitrate were replicated three times. The results of this study indicated that nitrate losses were not any different with respect to tillage. The nitrate losses in the drainage was higher for poultry litter treatment, however, the differences were relatively small and considered to be biologically unimportant. The same study indicated that cotton lint yield on these plots was 30 and 50% higher for the no-till and no-till poultry litter plots than for the conventional till and conventional till-commercial fertilizer plots. The lead researcher on this study was D. M. Endale of the USDA-ARS and he can be reached at 706-769-5631.

USDA-CRIS Animal Waste Research

Animal waste management research generated by searching USDA’s Current Research Information System (CRIS) database - USDA’s computer-based documentation and reporting system for ongoing agricultural related research - has been summarized by Richard Hegg of USDA’s CSREES/Plant and Animal Systems (PAS). The search was made by species, program area and level of funding. It found 93 dairy waste management research projects ($1,509,000); 38 beef ($291,000); 70 swine ($1,895,000); 114 poultry ($1,546,000); 34 aquaculture ($413,000); and over 100 unspecified waste management projects. The CRIS database can be accessed at: http://cristel.nal.usda.gov:8080/.

Advancing Poultry Industry’s Environmental Compliance

A recently completed research report, "Environmental Framework and Implementation Strategy for Poultry Operations" ("Poultry Dialogue"), will result in a more complete understanding of the extent of environmental pollution with regard to nutrient pollutants, which in turn could facilitate the poultry industry’s environmental protection compliance. Areas examined by the Poultry Dialogue Research and Innovative Technologies Workgroup included mass balance of nutrients; redistribution of nutrients; energy options; water quality; dietary management for waste stream reduction; and public health issues. The Poultry Dialogue report, as finalized in December, 1998, can be downloaded from the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association site: www.poultryegg.org/hot/strate~1.htm.

Georgia Animal Waste Management Report

Several members of the AWARE team will be attending a USDA-CSREES sponsored Animal Waste Initiative Workshop later this month. The purpose of the workshop is to kick-off a national initiative in animal waste management that could lead to increased research and training efforts from the USDA. As part of the workshop, the representatives developed a summary paper outlining various issues in Georgia. A complete copy of this paper is on the AWARE webpage. In the paper we listed the top environmental issues or concerns as 1) Insuring that agricultural livestock operations remain economically competitive at a time of increasing environmental regulation, 2) Developing equitable ways of dealing with competing demands on water quality and quantity, 3) Insuring that new regulations are based on science rather than perception, and 4) Developing methods of measuring and controlling livestock odors in areas where urban/suburban expansion is encroaching on traditionally agricultural areas. We also outlined some of the state strengths related to animal waste management issues as well as areas where we should try to have more regional cooperation. Take a look at it and let us know if you think we got it right.

Outstanding Resource

The Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES) recently released a publication called Poultry Waste Management Handbook (NRAES-132). This 65 page book appears to be an outstanding resource with current and useful information on everything from manure production and characteristics to application and utilization. It is a must for those dealing with poultry litter management regularly. It can be ordered for $16 from www.nraes.org or by phoning 607-255-7654.

Events

November 9, 1999. Natural Resources Conservation and Technology Workshop & Farm Tour, Albany Civic Center, (includes talks and stop at poultry farms). Preregister at 912-723-3841.

November 14-16, 1999. Animal Residuals Management Conference: Developing, Testing, and Implementing Technological Advances, Crystal City, Virginia. Contact: Water Environment Federation at 1-800-666-0206.

November 15-17, 1999. Understanding and Addressing Groundwater Risks: The Groundwater Foundation Fall Symposium, Atlanta, GA. 402-434-2740 or info@graoundwater.org.

November 16-17, 1999. Biomass Power, Growing an Industry for the new Millennium, Crystal City, Virginia. www.ubeca.org

December 5-7, 1999. Innovative Technologies for Planning Animal Feeding Operations, Denver, CO. 785-899-3070 or ron.schierer@ks.nrcs.usda.gov .

December 15-17, 1999. Conservation 2000, New Orleans, LA.

Contact: CTIC@CTIC.purdue.edu 765-494-9555.

April 18-19, 2000. Management of Swine and Poultry Waste, Jackson, MS. http://www.msstate.ars.usda.gov/1stcall.htm

June 4-6, 2000. Symposium on Nutrient Management and Water Quality in Southeast United States: Problems and Solutions, Tallahassee, FL. Ombuya@famu.edu.

October 9-11, 2000. The Eighth International Symposium on Animal, Agricultural, and Food Processing Wastes, Des Moines, Iowa. Contact: James Converse 608-262-1106

Co-editors: Mark Risse

Extension Ag Engineer

Glen Harris

Extension Agronomist

To get on the mailing list to receive copies of the AWARE news please contact Cathy Felton at 706-542-3086 or feltonc@bae.uga.edu. Out of state subscribers will be requested to make a one time donation of $25 to cover the costs of postage and handling. This issue and all back issues are also available on our web page.

cc: Dr. Gale Buchanan

Dr. William Lambert

Dr. Bobby Tyson

CAES Department Heads

District Directors