In this issue:

Draft of New Animal (non-swine) Feeding Operations Permit Requirements released 2

Are These Regulations Technically Sound? 3

Dairy Survey Completed 4

Visit to Poultry Mortality Processing Plant 6

Swine Certification Training Date Set 7

UGA CNMP Task Force Release 7

Market Bulletin Adds Section to Broker Poultry Litter 7

Special CAFO Session in EPA Region 4 Workshop 8

Quad-State Cattle BMP Workshop in Calhoun 8

Composting Events Scheduled in Athens 9

Hurricane Floyd Floods Farms, Challenges Regulators 9

USDA Comments on EPA Draft Guidance 10

U.S. EPA Gathers Information on CAFOs 10

Vermont Dept. Of Agriculture Cracks down on Large Farming Operation 11

Notes from NPPC 11

Court Injunction on Hog Facility in Georgia 12

Brief Progress Reports from the Animal Waste Management Center 12

Choosy Cows Choose Late-cut Hay 14

Report on Economics of Water Quality Protection 15

Waste Management Practices Report 15

Nebraska Newsletter on Feed Managament 15

Other Neat Things at the Manure Matters Website 15

A Little Light Reading? 16

DOE Reports on Farming and Greenhouse Gases 16

Events 16
 
 
 

Draft of New Animal (non-swine) Feeding Operations Permit Requirements released

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR)released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the rules for water quality control on March 15, 2000. The new rule (391-3-6.21, Animal (Non-swine) Feeding Operation Permit Requirements) is the first draft of what all animal feeding operations in Georgia will be required to follow. A public input meeting will be held April 10, 2000 at 10:00 am at the Georgia Forestry Center in Macon. After that, they anticipate revising the draft rule and doing a 30 day public notice followed by a hearing in the summer. The full DNR Board will vote on adoption of the proposed rule at their September 26 meeting and the final rule will be effective in December 2000. The complete rule is located on the AWARE webpage. Comments may be sent to:

WHat's an Animal Unit?

Animal Type	300 AU	1000 AU
Beef Cattle	300	1,000
Dairy cattle (milked or dry)	200	700
Horses	150	500
Laying hens or Broilers*	9,000	30,000

*Only if Liquid manure handling system is used
 

As expected, the rule closely follows the exception of not having a 3,000 animal unit (AU) category. The rule breaks operations into three categories; 301-1,000 AU, existing operations with more than 1,000 AU, and new operations with more than 1,000 AU. All operations in the State are required to operate without discharge of pollutants to surface water and all new operations are required to have manure management systems that are designed to meet NRCS guidance. Operations above 300 AU will have to develop and submit a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), train and certify an operator, meet lagoon design requirements, and register with the Environmental Protection Division.
 

Operations greater than 1,000 AU must meet all of the above requirements and:

• apply for a permit that includes public notification,
• install at least one up-gradient and two down-gradient wells, around each irrigated field and at least one down-gradient well for each lagoon,
• monitor effluent and wells semi-annually for a variety of contaminants,
• submit documentation of lagoon closure when it occurs,
• and maintain two feet of freeboard in the lagoons at all times.

Are These Regulations Technically Sound?

This is difficult for one person to answer so I encourage you to get involved on the AWARE listserve to participate in the debate. For the most part, these regulations are a significant improvement over the swine regulations. There are, however, some areas where they are substantially different from recommendations of the AWARE team. For example, it appears that existing operations under 300 AU do not have to maintain 2 ft. freeboard in lagoons or waste storage ponds. Lagoon overtopping is the greatest risk most operations face and this is one area where we probably do need to manage operations better. Likewise, we suggested that all lagoons be equipped with staff gauges so that manure levels could easily be observed and monitored.
 

On the negative side, these regulations propose some of the strictest monitoring requirements in the country. Personally, I am totally opposed to groundwater monitoring on land application areas. Not only does this monitoring encourage farmers to spread manure on a limited area to reduce costs but it is also costly and does not encourage producers to view manure as the resource it is. Our educational efforts encourage farmers to use manure on as many fields as possible at lower application rates and to even mix commercial fertilizers and manure to prevent phosphorus build up in the soil. If monitoring is required, this strategy will be cost prohibitive and soon agricultural operations will be forced into "waste disposal" rather than manure utilization. In addition, many of the required tests such as five day Biological Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids on lagoon effluent will be of no value to the farmer and of little benefit to the regulatory agencies, yet they will substantially increase monitoring costs. Finally, the AWARE team has participated in numerous debates on buffers and set-backs. For the most part, I believe that most scientists agree that these are necessary, especially from lagoons and barns. For water quality benefits, there is considerable evidence that a 100 ft. buffer from surface water resources will provide substantial benefit. However, when dealing with odor there is little evidence to support any specific distance and there is a question of how this can be regulated under a water quality act. The most limiting aspect of these proposed buffers and set backs will probably be the 150 feet between land application areas and the property lines. To me, it seems strange that this is greater than the buffers to water and once again encourages producers to not utilize their manure resources on all available land. For example, on a square ten acre field, over four acres would not be available for manure application. Therefore, the farmer will require this much additional land elsewhere and will probably have to import fertilizer to produce a usable commodity in that buffer zone.
 

The positive of this situation is that we all have plenty of time to request changes to the rule. I encourage each of you, whether you are a scientist, farmer, or activist to let the Department of Natural Resources board and staff know how you feel about these rules. For information on the DNR board members, see http://www.ganet.org/dnr/

Dairy Survey Completed

The last issue of AWARE News mentioned a Dairy Survey that we were conducting. This survey is now complete and is yielding some useful information. The purpose of this project was to conduct an industry wide survey to describe current manure management practices on dairy farms and to ascertain the information required to estimate the cost of compliance associated with proposed regulatory changes. While the project is not complete, I thought I might share some interesting findings with you.
 

The data used in this study came from a statewide survey of all dairy farmers permitted to sell milk by the Georgia Department of Agriculture. The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development conducted the survey. Questionnaires were developed and reviewed by the scientists involved as well as county agents, Department of Agriculture professionals, farmers, and survey specialists. The surveys were mailed to every dairy in Georgia. Responses were collected for a period of three months after which all the data was entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. A total of 55 responses was received representing a 13% response rate. The average age of the farmers was 49 years with ages ranging from 30 to 76. All of the responses came from males who had farmed from 0.5 to 59 years. On the average, the respondents had been dairy farming for 25 years. Seventy-seven percent of the farmers own a computer and 57% use it to help them manage the farm. The internet is available to about 51% and about 47% use e-mail. This has important implications in how educational programs and information can be delivered to the farms. The farmers that did have and use computers on their farms tended to be younger and have larger operations.
 

Farm size averaged 593 acres and ranged from 132 to 2,175 total acres. This included both owned and rented land. Over half the dairy farmers rented land. The average acreage rented was 184 acres. This is an important finding in light of the proposed regulations as most farmers would probably be reluctant to install monitoring wells on rented land. The respondents milked from 60 to 900 cows with an average of 303 cows in the milking herd. This compares favorably with the State average herd size of close to 200 cows. Over half of the dairy operations depend on an additional enterprise for supplemental income. The most common crops grown on dairy farms were corn, winter wheat and other small grains. More than 90% also grew hay and the average acreage in hay was 184 acres.

Of the farms that reported expenses, the farmers spent nearly twice as much on fertilizer as they did on waste management.
 

Most farmers had more than one lagoon as shown in the adjacent figure. 92% reported that their lagoons were built according to NRCS standards. 53% of the farmers own their own pumping equipment. Having pumping equipment is essential to timely application of manure. The farmers that owned their own equipment, pumped their lagoons about once every 5.9 months while those that did not own pumping equipment applied manure once every 16.1 months. Approximately, 25% reported using some type of solid separator and those with the ability to separate solids were more likely to move manure off of the farm.
 

Forty seven percent of the respondents stated that they had a nutrient management plan and on the average all farmers ran more than one soil test per year. Most manure is land applied to corn, pasture, and hay. On the average, farmers reported that they had 0.55 acres available to land application per cow. The figure below depicts the distribution of the number of acres used for manure application divided by the number of milking cows. In general, using a total confinement system with a crop such as corn and a healthy lagoon, most nutrient management plans based on nitrogen uptake would call for 0.4 to 0.8 acres per cow. The range of 0.8 to1.5 acres per cow would probably be appropriate for phosphorus based plans. As you can see, many of the farmers should be applying manure to more of their land. This will usually require significant investments in irrigation equipment and if the proposed regulations are not changed, additional monitoring wells and analysis.
 

Some other interesting findings included the following:

• Less than 20% have the ability to inject or incorporate manure.
• More than 80% value manure as a soil amendment and the average farmer reported savings of almost $7,000 per year due to manure utilization.
• 57% said that they would be unable to comply with regulations with cost exceeding $10,000.
• Only 8% reported that they had ever received complaints about odor and of those that did the average frequency was 1.5 times per year.

 

Visit to Poultry Mortality Processing Plant

Last month I had the opportunity to visit a poultry mortality processing plant operated by Alabama Protein Recycling in Troy, AL. This facility was very innovative and impressive. Alabama Protein Recycling supplied local growers with freezers to store their dead birds. Whenever the freezer is full, the company will then send a truck to haul the mortality to a processing plant in Troy. At the plant, mortality is ground, mixed with soybean meal, dried, and converted to animal feed. The process has been proven to produce a safe, high value, animal feed supplement with more than 48.5% Protein and 12.5% fat. The facility is privately owned and operated and receives income through both grower fees and sales of the feed.
 

While this concept is not new, this is one of the first successful commercial operations that I have seen. Both the integrator representatives and growers I talked with were very satisfied with the system. This type of system offers the highest form of pollution prevention as recycling of the protein is advantageous to disposal. In both Alabama and Florida, growers can apply for NRCS "EQIP" incentive payments to convert to this type of mortality management. I believe that this is the type of venture that Georgia should pursue for dealing with both mortality and manure or litter. Often, further processing can convert these "waste" into value added products and stimulate the economy at the same time. For more information, contact Alabama Protein Recycling at 800-909-3230.
 

Swine Certification Training Date Set

The initial offering of the two day swine certification training is scheduled of July 19-20, 2000 as part of the annual Pork Congress at Lake Blackshear in Veterans State Park. This training will be based on the recently released regulations and include sessions on nutrient management, best management practices, water quality and regulations, monitoring, record keeping, and emergency response. Testing will be administered by the Department of Agriculture following the training. The training will be loosely based on the new EPA/USDA National Animal Waste Curriculum and serve as a pilot test of those materials. Producers will develop an example CNMP during the training session. This workshop is only open to pork producers, and a limited number of county agents, and NRCS employees, however, we do expect to have additional training sessions in the following year. For more information, contact Roger Bernard of the Georgia Pork Producers at 912-477-8200.
 

UGA CNMP Task Force Release

The Nutrient Management Task Force (See last newsletter) which includes a wide variety of University Faculty and Stakeholders has developed a document called Nutrient Management for Georgia Agriculture (Bulletin 1185). It outlines exactly what the University feels should be in a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan and how they should be structured. Copies of this publication can be obtained from Mark Risse at mrisse@bae.uga.edu. It is also located on the AWARE web page.
 

While the Task Force has completed its first goal of defining Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans in Georgia, they are still working on several other goals. They are in the process of developing new tools and sample CNMP's to use in CNMP development. The goal is to develop an interactive software package to assist individuals in CNMP development. They are also working on a strategy to train agricultural professionals and farmers in CNMP development and using the tools they develop. Finally, they are initiating research projects to develop a phosphorus index for Georgia and hoping to prioritize research needs for improved nutrient management that will maximize productivity while protecting the environment. Feel free to contact me or watch the AWARE news for further information.
 

Market Bulletin Adds Section to Broker Poultry Litter

The Georgia Department of Agriculture Farmers and Consumers Market Bulletin recently added a new section on poultry compost. The purpose of this section is to help connect poultry growers with excess litter with those who need it. This provides an excellent marketing tool to our growers and may help those that need litter. Over the last year, there has been considerable discussion about growers with too much litter, however, I have always felt that the market for poultry litter was rather tight. Many cattle farmers and growers in South Georgia have indicated to me that they would use more litter if they could find it at reasonable prices. Litter brokers and haulers often have waiting lists for people wanting to get litter. Through informal surveys conducted during poultry awareness training meetings, early indications seem to suggest that few growers have difficulty in moving litter off the farm. Nevertheless, the Department of Agriculture should be applauded for establishing this new section that will hopefully stimulate the litter market, especially for non-traditional litter users. To subscribe to the Market Bulletin phone 404-656-3722.

Special CAFO Session in EPA Region 4 Workshop

On April 12 in Atlanta there will be a special CAFO session held as part of the EPA Region 4 "Opportunities for Fam*A*Syst in Watershed Planning" Workshop. This day long session will include presentations by Hank Zygmunt of EPA Headquarters, Dr. Hilda Hatzell, CAFO coordinator for EPA Region 4, Doug Knox of the National Farm*A*Syst office, and Steve Charmichael, NRCS/EPA Region 4 Liaison. Georgia will be spotlighted in this program through presentations on the Agricultural Pollution Prevention Program and on the Nutrient Management Awareness Training Program. This training effort is truly a national model as at last count nearly 95% of all broiler growers in the state had completed this training and the feedback has been very good. For more information on the CAFO session or the entire workshop, contact Lisa Ann McKinley at 404-562-9403 or mckinley.lisa@epa.gov.

Quad-State Cattle BMP Workshop in Calhoun

Cattle producers are coming under increasing scrutiny as sources of non-point source pollution. Concerns include the use of poultry litter as fertilizer and cattle access to streams. There are various Best Management Practices that can reduce these potential impacts. On May 24-25th NW Georgia Experiment Station in Calhoun, GA will host a Water Quality Workshop for Cattle Producers. This workshop will explore the BMPs that can be used throughout the farm to reduce impacts to water quality. Examples and demonstrations will focus on the Coosa River Watershed, but the information will be valuable for other regions in the Southeast. Extension agents, NRCS personnel and producers from the four states in the Coosa River Watershed have been invited to attend. The program includes the following presentations and demonstrations:

Presentations Demonstrations

Overview of Coosa River Water Quality Station 1: Grazing management as a BMP

Overview of Redbud Farm Rotational grazing, fencing, and

Hydrogeology restricted grazing

Identification of Pollution Source Areas Station 2: Reducing stream impacts

Nutrient Movement on Cattle Farms Alternative water sources and shade,

Importance of Nutrient Management stream fencing and riparian buffers

Nutrient management plans Station 3 - Spreader calibration

Whole farm planning Station 4 - Pollution prevention tools
 

For more information contact Julia Gaskin at jgaskin@bae.uga.edu or (706) 542-1401.

Composting Events Scheduled in Athens

May 1-5 is Compost Awareness Week and UGA's Bioconversion Center is hosting several events to celebrate. On May 2, composting experts will be on hand to teach local school children from grades 3-5 about the art of composting and its benefits. A Composting Open House on May 3rd will target community leaders, municipal solid waste directors, recycling coordinators, farmers or anyone interested in composting. The Center will be open to the public from 8:00AM to 12:00PM. There will be displays on:

• home composting,
• composting yard waste,
• municipal solid waste,
• biosolids,
• agricultural by-products,
• construction and demolition recycling.

Hurricane Floyd Floods Farms, Challenges Regulators

Hurricane Floyd dropped nearly 20 inches of rain on the eastern third of North Carolina on September 15 - 16, 1999. Several days later, up to six more inches rained down on the swollen rivers and saturated land. When the skies cleared and the rivers crested, 19,000 square miles of this largely rural region were flooded. More than 30,000 homes were damaged, and tens of thousands of people displaced. The agricultural community was not spared. Of some 2,000 livestock operations in the region, fifty were flooded and one in six had operational problems. Thirty thousand swine and almost 3 million poultry were reported dead.
 

One initial challenge was the disposal of drowned livestock. Concerned about the spread of disease from the decaying carcasses, the state set up three regional incinerators to which remains could be transported. Officials also authorized burial of dead livestock and composting of poultry. Another challenge was preventing additional waste spills. Livestock producers in flood areas were requested to report their lagoon conditions to the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Those who timely reported potential problems were eligible for more favorable treatment under environmental self-reporting policies.
 

The catastrophe focused attention on the 185 animal operations that were built within the 100-year floodplain before 1997 rules outlawed the practice. DENR issued a policy allowing "repair", as opposed to rebuilding, of floodplain lagoons which were less than 50% damaged, provided the repairs otherwise comply with current standards. As part of its $2.2 billion request for immediate emergency federal disaster relief, the State of North Carolina has requested $50 million to move lagoons or install new treatment technologies for 333 hog farms in floodplains, at an estimated cost of $150,000 for each operation. The State has also requested $90 million in federal funds for water protection efforts such as removing debris from waterways, repairing and re-seeding stream banks and vegetative stream buffers, and restoring flood control structures.
 

USDA Comments on EPA Draft Guidance

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed comments objecting to EPA's draft Guidance Manual and Example National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Concentrated Animal feeding Operations. Glenda Humiston, Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at USDA , said in comments filed about the draft Guidance Manual that the policy has called for permitting outside the scope of the Clean Water Act.
 

USDA emphasizes "voluntary, incentive-based approaches" as the way to achieve a reduction in pollution associated with CAFOs. In general the USDA is concerned about the financial and regulatory burden which may be placed on livestock facilities which may be without adequate technical assistance to meet their obligations. USDA has specific concerns about the draft Guidance Manual's language covering human-made conveyances. If farmers have installed such devices, the fact that a facility with 300 to 1000 animal units may be treated as a CAFO could actually discourage farmers from trying to control contaminated runoff. USDA's comments also addressed several issues related to the draft Guidance Manual''s approach to storm events. Maybe the "Unified" National Strategy was not that "Unified" after all...
 

U.S. EPA Gathers Information on CAFOs

In furtherance of the Unified National Strategy to minimize the water quality and public health impact of animal feeding operations, the EPA is in the process of reviewing and revising existing effluent guidelines for such facilities. The Office of Science and Technology, within the Office of Water is responsible for the guideline revision initiative. The project involves studying the existing industry and actual performance of technologies which are already in use. EPA gathers information on numbers, size and location of facilities, production practices, costs and waste reduction technologies already in place. EPA also looks at alternative ways to reduce the effect of new regulation on small businesses.
 

The EPA has worked out a protocol for acquiring some of the data needed for effluent guideline revision from the USDA, and has actually received some of the data. The information is provided in aggregate form in order to protect the confidentiality of farmers who submit information. It includes:

• the number of farms and farm sizes of feedlots in different regions- to estimate the size of the industry,
• the number of animals- to develop estimates of how much cropland is necessary to use the nitrogen and phosphorus in their manure,
• the acreage of crop and pasture land available at the animal feeding operations - to estimate costs of nutrient application and manure transportation costs.

For more information on USEPA's CAFO efforts, go to "http://www.epa.gov/owm"

and click on "Animal Feeding Operations".
 

Vermont Dept. Of Agriculture Cracks down on Large Farming Operation

The Vermont Department of Agriculture wants to fine the owner of a large-scale Northeast Kingdom dairy operation for not applying for a large farm operation operating permit. The farmer faces $5,000 in penalties, plus an additional $100 a day fine for each day that he fails to file for a permit--which state law requires for farms with 950 or more animal units, the equivalent of about 680 mature cows. The case filed recently against this farmer, who has thousands of cows spread over several farms, comes three years after the Vermont Legislature passed a law regulating large farming operations. The proposed fine is one of dozen enforcement actions the department has pursued over the last year. Department staff had written the farmer several times explaining the large-farm law. He failed to respond and missed two deadlines the state imposed to file for the permit. He was also cited last year by the department for violating regulations designed to prevent manure from flowing into streams.
 

I put this story in the newsletter this month for two reasons. First, in the wake of new regulations in Georgia and several other states, many farmers will be tempted to avoid the registration process out of fear or simply to avoid the cost. As this story illustrates, that may not be an effective strategy. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the story shows how typical regulatory agencies work. In this case, the farmer had several opportunities to apply for the permit and make things right but chose not to. Often, regulatory agencies are not "out to get" farmers and only use fines as a last resort. When given these "opportunities" it is very important that you make the most of it and try to do the right thing. Otherwise, the regulatory agency will be forced to act in some manner and everyone will lose out in the long run.
 

Notes from NPPC

On January 12, Dr. Rick Jones attended a meeting of the National Pork Producers Association's Extension Advisory Committee. He was updated on many critical industry issues, but of possible interest to AWARE members was a report on the On-Farm Odor Assessment/Environmental Assurance Program's developing database. To date there have been almost 800on-farm assessments completed (9 in Georgia). The database of findings in these assessments is limited but growing daily. Two-thirds of the "challenges" or problem areas discovered and documented in the assessment reports were management related. In other words, application of BMP's would significantly reduce odor and manure safety issues. The other third of the challenges have been facility or equipment items that would require increased investment by the producer to solve the problem. Estimates ranged from a few hundred dollars to $22,000 on individual items. NPPC is encouraging producers to take advantage of the assessment programs now because there is a potential for a large demand for assessments as newly developed regulations take effect in many states.
 

Court Injunction on Hog Facility in Georgia

According to a story in last month's Progressive Farmer, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld a temporary injunction to stop the construction of a commercial hog breeding facility. Neighbors of the facility argued that it would hurt air and water quality. The court found that the neighbors presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the operation would cause them irreparable harm. The citation for this case is Superior Farm Management, LLC v. Montgomery, 513 S.E.2d 215.

Brief Progress Reports from the Animal Waste Management Center

The following progress reports are from projects funded by the Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center last year. The University of Georgia is a member of this Center. For more information see http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/
 

Rendering of Animal and Poultry Offals by Ohmic Heating at Elevated Pressures,

P. R. Ferket and L. F. Stikeleather, This project is divided into three phases: Phase I) Test the concept of ohmic heat processing of proteinaceous slurries; Phase II) Design a prototype ohmic cooking system; and Phase III) Evaluate the biological safety and nutritional quality of the products processed by ohmic cooking. In Phase I, ohmic heat processing technology was found to be very energy efficient method of heat processing for small-scale operations. Temperature, pressure, and dwell time inside the ohmic cooking cell can be simply modified to achieve the degree of heat processing necessary to coagulate proteins, liquefy fats, and destroy spoilage and disease agents such as viruses, bacteria, mold spores, protozoa, yeast, and prions (the suspected cause of BSE, scrapie, and CJV). Phase II is still in progress, however, developmental work on pressurized ohmic cooking and installation of a fluidized-bed dehydration unit was accomplished. Phase III of this research will not begin until phases I and II are complete.

Development of an Objective Approach to Odor Characterization While Assessing Diet as a Tool to Manage Odor Emission, Theo van Kempen. Two experiments have been carried out under the heading of the above project. The first experiment looked at the effect of dietary phosphorus and calcium sources on ammonia and odor emission, while the second project looked at the impact of feed-grade antibiotics. Air and odor samples from both experiments have been forwarded to Iowa for olfactory and chemical analysis, while air is analyzed on-site using an FTIR spectrometer. Findings thus far are that phosphoric acid does reduce ammonia emission effectively, but its effects on odor emission are less clear. The effects of growth-promoting levels of antibiotics on ammonia emission are inconsistent and likely not relevant. Thus far, only a very limited dataset has been used to evaluate if FTIR can be used as an electronic nose, and it is premature to draw any conclusions at this point.
 

Threshold Soil Phosphorus Levels in a Benchmark Soil of the Southern Piedmont,

David Radcliffe. The objectives are to determine the relationship between concentrations of dissolved phosphorus (P) in runoff and different measures of P in soil and litter for the Cecil series soil. This will be accomplished using a rainfall simulator to apply water to a small plot from which runoff will be collected and P concentration measured. Six fields that are in hay or pasture where poultry litter was applied will be selected. Fields will be selected to have a span in the range of soil test P from the low to very high category. A plan has been developed for using the data in Georgia to determine when a P-based nutrient management plan must be used.
 

The Use of Animal and Poultry Waste for Sod Production,

Mike Goatley. The field research evaluating broiler litter applications for sod production in Mississippi will be initiated this spring. Arrangements with a sod producer for a research site at his farm have been made and the plot locations and experimental design are being worked out. Soil samples from the sites have been taken for initial determination of chemical and physical properties.
 

Reducing Nutrient Losses from Dairy Farms in Franklin and Bedford County Virginia Through Improved Herd Nutrition and Feeding Management, Katharine Knowlton. The objectives this project are to demonstrate the impact of nutrition on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) excretion, nutrient losses, and nutrient management planning on dairy farms in a critical watershed area, to evaluate the economic impact of reducing nutrient losses through refined nutrition, and to disseminate the information gained from the demonstration farms to farm and non-farm stakeholders. Key accomplishments are the selection of ten cooperator herds, sample collection (feed, milk) began, and members of farm advisory teams (all cooperating farmers and their advisors) met in November for presentation of the project, explanation of goals and approaches, and for training in the use of farm advisory teams. All farms have received initial analysis of potential to reduce N excretion using milk urea N content as an indicator of wasted N. Farms will continue to receive this analysis monthly following analysis of milk samples. The first of two statewide conferences covering current nutrient management regulations, and dairy management techniques (agronomic, herd management, waste handling) to reduce nutrient losses will be held March 15^th, 2000.
 
 
 

Evaluation of Commercial Systems for Controlling Dust-borne Odorants Emitted from Swine Buildings, Robert Bottcher. This project involves developing and evaluating better methods of accounting for dust when measuring odors from swine buildings, and to evaluate a windbreak wall concept as well as an indoor ozonation system for controlling odor emissions. For the windbreak wall evaluations, two sets of windbreaks capable of withstanding 50+ mph winds have been designed and constructed at a swine farm. One design uses steel EMT conduit frames anchored to the ground, with UV-resistant tarps fastened to the frames. This design withstood 50+ mph winds from Hurricane Floyd with only a few plastic ties breaking. Another design uses treated posts anchored to the ground with roofing material fastened to the cable and posts. Measurements of airflow, dust, and odor levels exiting the windbreak enclosures are being conducted. The ozonation project involves a system in which ozone is generated inside specialized cabinets using UV lamps in a 200 ft long, 1,000 head swine finishing building and distributed into the indoor air using plastic distribution ducts. Several sets of measurements of odor, dust, ammonia, ozone, temperature, and humidity have been taken over a range of air conditions and pig age. One set of data at full ventilation showed that the dust level decreased by 60% in the ozonated building. Ammonia levels were 58% (P<0.01) lower in the ozonated building compared to the control building, 1.3 ppm compared to 3.1 ppm. Other data sets using lower ozonation levels have not shown such a high dust reduction. Application of odor measurement methods which better account for dust may be needed if the ozonation system does reduce odor emissions by reducing dust-borne odor compounds.
 

Enhanced Microbiological Removal of Nutrients and Heavy Metals

John Classen, Initial experiments with Aspergillus niger in semi-defined media including only copper showed absorption into the fungal biomass to be the predominate mode of metal removal. A series of batch experiments measuring the amount of metal adsorbed, absorbed, and remaining in the broth showed that up to 97% copper and 72% zinc could be removed from yeast extract - sucrose broth (YES) in seven days. A. niger was able to remove 91% of the copper and 70% of the zinc from treated swine wastewater. Efforts are now underway to isolate the protein involved in metal removal with the goal of cloning the responsible gene. These efforts have been unsuccessful to date.
 

Integration of Anaerobic Digestion and Intermittent Aeration for Swine Wastewater

Jay Cheng, In this research project, the investigators are trying to scale up and evaluate an integrated system of anaerobic digestion and intermittent aeration for swine wastewater treatment. In a lab-scale system consisting of an biofilm anaerobic digester followed by an intermittent aeration tank organic compounds in the wastewater were successfully degraded in the digester and nitrogen removed in the intermittent aeration tank. The overall removal efficiencies for chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus (TP), and volatile suspended solids (VSS) were 85%, 92%, 90%, 25%, and 91%, respectively. To scale up and evaluate the system, a pilot-scale anaerobic digestion - intermittent aeration system is being set up at Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory. Raw wastewater from the swine houses on site will be treated in this pilot system. The performance of the system in organic waste (COD and VSS) destruction and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal from swine wastewater will be evaluated. Tests will be conducted to improve overall performance of the system. A successful performance of the pilot system will lead to a full-scale demonstration.
 

Choosy Cows Choose Late-cut Hay

While it does not have much to do with manure, I found this recent USDA ARS report interesting. Cattle prefer alfalfa hay harvested in the afternoon rather than in the morning. The tall fescue research showed up to a 50 percent difference in forage preferences based on cutting time. Animals may prefer the later harvested hay, the report shows, because it has more total nonstructural carbohydrates than hay harvested in the morning.
 

The ARS Scientists are studying other chemical and physical characteristics of tall fescue, alfalfa and similar forages. Investigations into minerals such as calcium, magnesium and potassium, which may influence animal forage choices, are also underway. For more information contact Henry F. Mayland, 208-423-6517, mayland@kimberly.ars.pn.usbr.gov.
 

Report on Economics of Water Quality Protection

USDA's Economic Research Service has just released a report titled "Economics of Water Quality Protection from Nonpoint Sources: Theory and Practice." The report outlines the economic characteristics of five instruments that can be used to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution (economic incentives, standards, education, liability, and research) and discusses empirical research related to the use of these instruments. The report is available on the web site: http://www.econ.ag.gov/epubs/pdf/aer782/
 

Waste Management Practices Report

In July of 1999, the General Accounting Office published ANIMAL AGRICULTURE Waste Management Practices; a Report to the Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. The 40-page report addresses five items requested by the Senate. The five subjects are: waste management practices used in the United States, practices used in other countries, potential new practices based on technologies transferred from other industries, federal financial and technical assistance available to producers for waste management and the processes for obtaining this assistance, and the role of federal agencies in conducting and/or supporting research to develop new waste management practices, including innovative uses of current practices. The report includes background information about the agricultural economic sector as well as the environmental concerns associated with CAFOs. It also addresses the availability of financial assistance, both for farmers and for research projects. The report is available by writing to the GAO at U.S. General Accounting Office/PO Box 37050/Washington, DC 20013, at the GAO home page, <http://www.gao.gov> or by calling (202) 512-6061
 

Nebraska Newsletter on Feed Managament

An article entitled "Feed Program Impact on Land Requirements for Managing Manure Nutrients from a Feedlot" by Rick Koelsch, Livestock Environmental Engineer, of the University of Nebraska can be accessed from the Manure Matters Web Site (http://www.ianr.unl.edu/manure). The newsletter discusses how feed rations can impact the manure management plan. It demonstrates how nutrient management (specifically nitrogen and phosphorus) strategies can impact land requirements for manure application.
 

Other Neat Things at the Manure Matters Website

The proceedings from "Environmental Phosphorus Issues and Animal Production" presented on February 22, 2000 in Lincoln, NE is now posted under the Resources link on the Manure Matters Website, under "Phosphorus Issues." (www.ianr.unl.edu/manure/adobe/PWorkshop.pdf)
 

Also, while you are there, check out the "virtual tour" of a trip taken in Kansas recently to explore new technologies being applied to small livestock operations to treat runoff and manure using vegetative systems. Six vegetative filter strips and 2 wetland systems were visited during the two day trip. Photographs and a narrative of the systems are posted at http://www.ianr.unl.edu/manure/tour/kansas.html.
 

A Little Light Reading?

American Scientist is an illustrated bimonthly magazine of science and technology published by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. The January-February issue (Vol. 88, No. 1) includes an article about the environmental effects of CAFOs in North Carolina. The author, Dr. Michael Mallin, has been tracking the environmental impact of CAFOs for some time, and the article includes observations made during and after Hurricane Floyd. A summary of the article can be found at http://www.sigmaxi.org/news&events/amsci-summary.htm
 
 
 

DOE Reports on Farming and Greenhouse Gases

The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a new report analyzing U.S. agricultural activities and their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The report finds that agriculture contributes two percent of the world's greenhouse gases. The study further concludes that agriculture and forestry industries could help reduce emissions by producing and utilizing more bio-based products, fuels, and power. In addition, the report says the use of advanced agricultural practices, such as improved forest and animal waste management, cultivation, and irrigation techniques, can also contribute to reduced emissions. Copies of the report are available from the DOE website at http://www.doe.gov.
 

Events

April 10, 2000. Public Comment Session on Proposed Georgia Regulations, Macon, GA.
 

April 10-12, 2000. Opportunities for Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst in Watershed Planning Workshop, Includes special CAFO session, Atlanta, GA. Lisa Ann McKinley, 404-562-9403.
 

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

May 2-5, 2000. Compost Awareness Events at Bioconversion Center, Julia Gaskin, jgaskin@bae.uga.edu or 706-542-1401.
 

May 15-17, 2000. Workshop on Animal Waste sponsored by the Joint Institute for Energy and Environment and the Alliance for Environmental Stewardship, Knoxville, TN. www.jiee.org/Alliance/workshop.html or 423-974-0721.
 

May 22-23, 2000. Riparian Buffer Conference, McKimmon Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/wqg/ or call Joni Tanner at (919) 513-1678.
 

May 24-25, 2000. Cattle BMP Workshop, Calhoun, Georgia. Julia Gaskin, jgaskin@bae.uga.edu or 706-542-1401.
 

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

July 9-12, 2000. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Milwaukee, WI. http://asae.org/meetings/am2000/
 

July 19-20, 2000. Swine Certification Workshop. Lake Blackshear, GA. Roger Bernard, 912-477-8200.
 

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

October 9-11, 2000. Y2K Composting in the Southeast Conference and Expo, Charlottesville, VA. Www.conted.vt.edu/y2kompost.htm or 919-715-6524.
 

April 17-19, 2001. "National Watershed Outreach Conference," Catamaran Hotel,

San Diego, CA. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/outreach/events/aprilconf.html or

contact Stacie Craddock at craddock.stacie@epa.gov, (202) 260-3788.
 

May 21-23, 2001. Sixth International Livestock Environment Symposium. Louisville, KY. http://www.asae.org/meetings/.
 

Editor: Dr. Mark Risse

Biological and Agricultural Engineer
 

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

CAES Department and District Heads