farm manure-to-energy initiative - lpelc€¦ · 15/3/2019 · farm manure-to-energy initiative...

Farm Manure-to-Energy InitiativePresented by

Kristen H. Evans (Sustainable Chesapeake)Preston Burnette (Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc.)

John Ignosh (Virginia Cooperative Extension)Dr. Mark Reiter (Virginia Tech)Mac Curtis (Windview Farm)

Mike Weaver (Mike Weaver Farm)Glenn Rodes (Riverhill Farm)

Drivers• Chesapeake Bay

“pollution diet” (Total Maximum Daily Load)

• High-density animal production = high P loading.

• Cost-effective alternatives to land application.

Farm Manure‐to‐Energy Initiative Partners: National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, Sustainable Chesapeake, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Environmental Finance Center at UMD, Lancaster County Conservation District, Chesapeake Bay Commission, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, International Biochar Initiative, Eastern Shore of Virginia Resource Conservation & Development Council, Flintrock Farm, the Mark Rohrer Farm, the Mike Weaver Farm, Riverhill Farm, Wind View Farm, Frye Poultry Farm, and the Double Trouble Farm, Enginuity Energy LLC, Wayne Combustion, Total Energy, Blue Flame, LEI Products.

Project Funders: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, USDA

Conservation Innovation Grant Program, and the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program

Technical Guidance: Jeff Porter (USDA‐NRCS East National Technology Support Center ), Greg Zwicke (USDA‐NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team), Jane Corson‐Lassiter (USDA‐NRCS Virginia), U.S. EPA Regiona 3, Chesapeake Bay Program, Don McNutt (Center for Dairy Excellence) Dr. Michael Buser (Oklahoma State University), Dr. Paul Patterson (Pennsylvania State University), Mike Czarick (Univeristy of Georgia), Dr. Jonathan Moyle (University of Maryland), Dr. Jactone Arogo (Virginia Tech), Jennifer Timmons (Univeristy of Maryland Eastern Shore), Bill Brown (University of Delaware), James McNaughton (AHPharma, Inc.), Gerald Redden (Maryland Hawk Corporation), Earl Ray Zimmerman Poultry Farm, Dave Lovell (Old Mill Farms), Robert Clark (Virginia Cooperative Extension), Bill Satterfield (Delmarva Poultry Industry), Hobey Bauhan (Virginia Poultry Federation), Stephen Versen (Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services), Christopher Hopkins (N.C. State Animal & Poultry Waste Management Center), Maryland Dept. of Environment, Pennsylvania Department of the Environment, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Virginia Department of Enviornmental Quality, and the Virginia Waste Solutions Forum.

Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the project partners, funders or technical advisors. Also, mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute the endorsement by authors, project partners, funders, or technnical advisors.

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center Webcast Series September 18, 2015

This presentation is archived at: http://www.extension.org/pages/21819/chronological-webcast-archive

cc: kendoman26 ‐ https://www.flickr.com/photos/52443231@N00

cc: Kecko ‐ https://www.flickr.com/photos/70981241@N00

Photo by Will Montague - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License https://www.flickr.com/photos/36607441@N05 Created with Haiku Deck



cc: NASA Goddard Photo and Video ‐ https://www.flickr.com/photos/24662369@N07

Common Fertilizer AnalysisCommon Fertilizer Analysis

Fertilizer label: N-P2O5-K2O

Fresh poultry litter: ~3-3-2

Biochar: ~2-8-4

Poultry litter ash: ~0-10-10 to 0-20-20

Superphosphate: 0-20-0

Triple super phosphate: 0-46-0

Muriate of potash: 0-0-60

Fertilizer label: N-P2O5-K2O

Fresh poultry litter: ~3-3-2

Biochar: ~2-8-4

Poultry litter ash: ~0-10-10 to 0-20-20

Superphosphate: 0-20-0

Triple super phosphate: 0-46-0

Muriate of potash: 0-0-60

Triple Super PhosphateTriple Super Phosphate

Poultry LitterPoultry Litter

Poultry Litter AshPoultry Litter Ash

Slide courtsey of Dr. Mark Reiter, Virginia Tech

Slide courtsey of Dr. Mark Reiter, Virginia Tech



Corn Grain YieldCorn Grain Yield

Slide courtsey of Dr. Mark Reiter, Virginia TechSlide courtsey of Dr. Mark Reiter, Virginia Tech

5 Year Avg.: Retail Fertilizer Value5 Year Avg.: Retail Fertilizer Value

N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O Value

--lbs per ton “as-is”-- ---$ per ton “as-is”--- ‐‐$/ton‐‐

Ash10-14-13

0 277 260 0 161 138 299

Ash20-18-24

0 360 480 0 209 254 463

Ash30-16-23

0 320 460 0 186 244 430

PL3-2-3

64 48 53 37 28 28 93

Cost/lb. $0.58 $0.58 $0.53


Ship “Back” the NutrientsFresh PL

Ship “Back” the NutrientsFresh PL

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Livestock_and_Animals/Livestock Poultry and Other Animals/12 M158 php



Ship “Back” the NutrientsAsh Co-Products

Ship “Back” the NutrientsAsh Co-Products

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online Resources/Ag Atlas Maps/Livestock and Animals/Live

SpreadingSpreading

Ash = More dust if untreated.Ash = More dust if

untreated.


Conclusions: PL Ash as Fertilizer Conclusions: PL Ash as Fertilizer

Poultry litter ash will have real fertilizer value. Highly dependent on feedstock.

Number of flocks.

Will need to be reformulated to practically transport and spread.

“Contaminants” are well within traditional fertilizer ranges.

Based on nutrient value alone, will be transportable out of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Poultry litter ash will have real fertilizer value. Highly dependent on feedstock.

Number of flocks.

Will need to be reformulated to practically transport and spread.

“Contaminants” are well within traditional fertilizer ranges.

Based on nutrient value alone, will be transportable out of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.




cc: USDAgov ‐ https://www.flickr.com/photos/41284017@N08

Comparing Reactive Nitrogen in Air Emissions: Thermal M2E vs. Land Application of Untreated Litter

500 Tons/Yr of Poultry Litter

*Land application emissions rates From Pote, D. H. and J.J. Meisinger. 2014. J. of Soil & Water Cons., Jan./Feb. 2014, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 17‐25

Comparing Potential Reactive Nitrogen Loss: Thermal M2E vs. Land Application of Untreated Litter

500 Tons/Yr of Poultry Litter in Lancaster County, PA

*Land application edge‐of‐stream and delivered phosphorus loss estimated using the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool with the “manure transport” practice, assuming 500 tons of poultry litter transported out of the watershed from Lancaster County, PA.



Comparing Estimated Phosphorus Loss: Thermal M2E vs. Local Land Application500 Ton/Yr Poultry Litter in Lancaster County, PA

*Land application edge‐of‐stream and delivered phosphorus loss estimated using the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool with the “manure transport” practice, assuming 500 tons of poultry litter transported out of the watershed from Lancaster County, PA.

Perceived Challenges: Particulate Matter Emissions Data is still coming in

Once final stack test data is available from all locations, information will be shared in project report and additional outreach materials (e.g., project eXtension website, etc.)

This data will be key in informing next steps for work beyond this project

While still awaiting additional data….

One area of interest is that the tested units emit somewhat similar fine particulate matter, ranging from grey to white, and sticky/moist to dry

Next Steps: Learning More About this White Stuff

What is it? Perform Speciation Analysis to identify compounds Via Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

What size of particulate matter is it? Perform Particle Size Distribution Analysis to determine range of particle

diameters Via laser diffraction

Special thanks to Dr. Michael Buser, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University

Via Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

SEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash#/media/File:Back‐Scattered_Electron_Micrograph_of_Coal_Fly_Ash_small.tifPSD: sample PSD analysis performed by Beckman Coulter on PM catch from engineering emission test 3/2014



Enhancing & Exploring Appropriate Emission Control Technologies

Example Emission Control Technologies

Source:IA DNR Air Pollution Control Images, http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environment/AirQuality/HowAirPollutionIsControlled.aspx

Where We’re At Now

Reviewing and interpreting data Please note that additional data collection and

stack sampling is planned

We anticipate learning a lot more about emissions from these units in the coming weeks as all data comes in and is analyzed

Reaching out to consult with experts in combustion engineering and pollution abatement technologies to review options

Some Key Considerations Going Forward How can existing emission controls be improved?

Are there alternative or complementary emission control technologies that are appropriate for scale and setting?

Operation & Maintenance?

Parasitic load?

Time Requirements?

What are the properties and potential markets of recovered material? Could this help offset abatement costs?

Photo by Ken Lund - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/75683070@N00 Created with Haiku Deck



Photo by JefferyTurner - Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.flickr.com/photos/40518938@N00 Created with Haiku Deck



LINK: http://www.extension.org/pages/68455/

Farm Manure‐to‐Energy Initiative Partners: National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, Sustainable Chesapeake, Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Environmental Finance Center at UMD, Lancaster County Conservation District, Chesapeake Bay Commission, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, International Biochar Initiative, Eastern Shore of Virginia Resource Conservation & Development Council, Flintrock Farm, the Mark Rohrer Farm, the Mike Weaver Farm, Riverhill Farm, Wind View Farm, Frye Poultry Farm, and the Double Trouble Farm, Enginuity Energy LLC, Wayne Combustion, Total Energy, Blue Flame, LEI Products.

Project Funders: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Funders Network, USDA

Conservation Innovation Grant Program, and the U.S. EPA Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program

Technical Guidance: Jeff Porter (USDA‐NRCS East National Technology Support Center ), Greg Zwicke (USDA‐NRCS National Air Quality and Atmospheric Change Team), Jane Corson‐Lassiter (USDA‐NRCS Virginia), U.S. EPA Regiona 3, Chesapeake Bay Program, Don McNutt (Center for Dairy Excellence) Dr. Michael Buser (Oklahoma State University), Dr. Paul Patterson (Pennsylvania State University), Mike Czarick (Univeristy of Georgia), Dr. Jonathan Moyle (University of Maryland), Dr. Jactone Arogo (Virginia Tech), Jennifer Timmons (Univeristy of Maryland Eastern Shore), Bill Brown (University of Delaware), James McNaughton (AHPharma, Inc.), Gerald Redden (Maryland Hawk Corporation), Earl Ray Zimmerman Poultry Farm, Dave Lovell (Old Mill Farms), Robert Clark (Virginia Cooperative Extension), Bill Satterfield (Delmarva Poultry Industry), Hobey Bauhan (Virginia Poultry Federation), Stephen Versen (Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services), Christopher Hopkins (N.C. State Animal & Poultry Waste Management Center), Maryland Dept. of Environment, Pennsylvania Department of the Environment, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Virginia Department of Enviornmental Quality, and the Virginia Waste Solutions Forum.

Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the project partners, funders or technical advisors. Also, mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute the endorsement by authors, project partners, funders, or technnical advisors.



farm manure-to-energy initiative - lpelc€¦ · 15/3/2019 · farm manure-to-energy initiative...

Documents