Presentation on theme: "Water Quality Issues from Dairy Farms in the Northeast Peter Wright, State Conservation Engineer Natural Resources Conservation Service Syracuse NY Curt."— Presentation transcript:
Water Quality Issues from Dairy Farms in the Northeast Peter Wright, State Conservation Engineer Natural Resources Conservation Service Syracuse NY Curt Gooch, PRO-DAIRY Environmental Specialist Cornell University
Barnyards Eliminate Reduce the size Reduce the runoff Exclude outside water Pavement increases runoff Vital to control runoff flow
NRCS Standard Source Control Scrape, time in barnyard, waterers Solid removal 15 minutes of 2 yr 24 hr rainfall Cleaned out Filter area larger of: 15 min. flow time for 25 yr 24 hr storm 0.5 inches deep OR 500Lbs N per acre per year
Abuse Areas Purpose? Increased loading Fences can be moved Image
Barnyard Runoff Assumptions: 20 gallons manure /cow per day 32 Lbs. N/1000 gallons of manure 230 Lbs. N / cow per year Time in barnyard proportional to manure left Daily cleaning leaves 10% available to flow Settling removes 25% of N
Barnyard Runoff 230 Lbs. N / cow per year 10% Time in barnyard 23 Lbs. N/cow/yr. Daily cleaning leaves 10% available to flow 2.3 Lbs. N/cow/yr. Settling removes 25% of N 1.7 Lbs. N/cow/yr.
Barnyard Purpose? Holding Feeding or water Resting Exercise Heat detection Eliminate!!
Bunk Silos Storage of: Silage juice Runoff Drainage water 25 year 24 hour storm Silage leachate is very high in BOD, N and P
Solutions Catch and store it all –Then spread according to a NMP Roof the Storage Collect only the concentrated low flow –Treat dilute high flows in a grass filter
Effluent Varies Silage juice Dry matter Runoff from rainfall Outside water Amount of empty bunk area Evaporation Other commodities
Conclusions: Concentrated Sources Need to be Controlled Prevention is Key Look for Low Cost Alternatives to Treatment
Why Do We Store Manure? To reduce the need for frequent hauling and land spreading To allow land spreading at a time when soil and climatic conditions are suitable To allow nutrient application at or near the crop’s growing season
Potential Goals of Separation Remove a portion of solids for pumping ease Reclaim separated solids for bedding Partition nutrients for application to far off fields or export Reduce the size or extend the use of a long term storage
Needed Information The impact of separation on Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) The quantity and quality of reclaimed manure solids so accurate economic projections can be made with respect to their end use Nutrient partitioning between separated solid and liquid effluents to determine the potential for nutrient export
Example Test Methods for Nutrients and Solids Sampling / Monitoring ParameterTest Method Total Solids (TS)EPA 160.3 Total Volatile Solids (TVS)EPA 160.4 Total Phosphorous (Total P)EPA 365.3 Ortho Phosphorous (Ortho P)EPA 365.3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)EPA 351.4 Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH 3 -N)SM18 4500F Organic Nitrogen (ON)By subtraction Total Potassium (Total K)EPA SW 846 6010
Centralized Digestion Advantages Economics of sale Equipment Management Disadvantages Manure transportation Electric utilization CNMP/CAFO - biosecurity
Anaerobic Digestion Systems Biological Manure and Effluent Handling Separation Gas Collection Conditioning Engine Electric Heat Management
Conclusions Alternative Systems depend on farm situation Maximize By-Product Use Maximize profits or lower costs Integrate with other enterprises More Research is Needed
Summary Producers generally do not know the annual cost for handling manure on their farm. The projected annual economic cost for the analyzed system is $427,000 or $127 per cow. A complete analysis should include cost of conveying manure to the SMS and the cost of applying processed effluent to crop land. A complete analysis also needs to include the nutrient value cost/benefit for the cropping enterprise.