potential for litter use in renewable energy systems by ... · data are analyzed using descriptive...

January 2009

*Professor, Assistant Professor, Professors, and Research Associate, respectively.

RReeppoorrtt bbyy

KKiimm JJeennsseenn,, EErrnniiee BBaazzeenn,, BBuurrttoonn EEnngglliisshh,, RRoollaanndd RRoobbeerrttss,, aanndd JJaammeeyy MMeennaarrdd**

Department of Agricultural Economics, 302 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.

Ph: 865-974-7231.

PPootteennttiiaall ffoorr LLiitttteerr UUssee iinn RReenneewwaabbllee EEnneerrggyy SSyysstteemmss bbyy TTeennnneesssseeee PPoouullttrryy

OOppeerraattiioonnss

This project was funded in part by a grant from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

Study Summary

Energy costs comprise a significant cost to poultry producers. Rapid increases in fuel

costs highlight the need for investigation of poultry house energy requirements and alternative

energy sources. This study measures Tennessee’s poultry litter production and willingness of

poultry producers to supply litter as energy systems feedstock. Data for the study were

obtained from a survey of Tennessee poultry producers in late 2008. Just over 61 percent of

the poultry producers surveyed indicated they would be willing to sell a portion of their

operation’s litter for energy conversion in a centralized project. Among producers willing to

commit litter to a project, they were willing to sell an average of 408 tons per year. The

average price that producers indicated they would need for their litter if picked up at their

farm was $23.85 per ton. Based upon the survey results, statewide, there appears to be

potential for 12 community-scale facilities or two region-scale facilities.

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Study Purpose 1

Previous Studies 1

Data and Methods 2

Study Results 3

Poultry Operation Size 3 Use of Litter for Energy Purposes 5 Poultry Litter Production and Disposition 7 Poultry Operation Energy Use 10 Producer and Poultry Operation Characteristics 14

Potential for Energy Conversion Facilities

16

Conclusions 20

References 21

Appendix 23

List of Tables

Table 1. Average Poultry Operation Sizes Among Survey Respondents

in Tennessee 4

Table 2. Tennessee Poultry Farms and Inventory, 2002 Census 4 Table 3. Average Size of Poultry Houses 5 Table 4. Average Age of Poultry Houses 5 Table 5. Types of Bedding or Cover Materials Primarily Used in

Poultry Houses

7

Table 6. Litter Removals From the Operation 8 Table 7. Average Sales Price of Litter Removed From the Farm and

Sold 8

Table 8. Disposition of Litter by Second-Party Cleaning Service 9 Table 9. Use of Litter Storage Methods 9 Table 10. Equipment Owned or Rented for Litter Disposal 10 Table 11. Types of Indoor Lighting Used. 11 Table 12. Insulation of Poultry Houses. 12 Table 13. Heating of Whole Poultry Houses 12

Page

Table 14. Types of Poultry House Heating Equipment Used 12 Table 15. Use of Heating Fuels 13 Table 16. Air Conditioning of Whole Poultry Houses 13 Table 17. Other Electricity Uses by Poultry Operations 13 Table 18. Average Acreage of Poultry Farms 14 Table 19. Farm Business Organization 14 Table 20. 2007 Net Income from Farming Before Taxes 2007 14 Table 21. Debt per $100 of Farm Assets 15 Table 22. Educational Level of Tennessee Poultry Farmers 15 Table 23. Organization Memberships of Tennessee Poultry Farmers 15 Table 24. Assistance Obtained by Tennessee Poultry Farmers 16 Table 25. Potential for On-Farm Digester Systems (1,000 tons per year

litter or more) 16

Table 26. Potential for Community/Regional Scale Energy Systems 17 Table 27. County Level Projections of Litter Availability for

Centralized Energy Conversion 18

Table 28. Projected Tons Farmers Could Commit to Centralized Energy Conversion Across Price per Ton Required

19

Table 29. Estimated Value of Litter as Fertilizer 20

List of Figures

Figure 1. Locations of Producers Surveyed and Responding Producers 3 Figure 2. Producers’ Willingness to Sell a Portion of Litter for Energy

Conversion in a Centralized Project 6

Figure 3. Producers’ Preferences Regarding Selling Litter Under Long-Term Contracts

6

Figure 4. Share of Litter that Stays On-Farm and On-Farm Uses 7 Figure 5. Producers’ Participation in Energy Audits for the Poultry

Operation 11

Potential for Litter Use in Renewable Energy Systems 1

Potential for Litter Use in Renewable Energy Systems by Tennessee Poultry Operations

Introduction and Study Purpose

Energy costs constitute a significant portion, often over half, of cash expenses for poultry

producers (Cunningham, 2008). Over the past five years, wholesale propane prices have doubled

(DOE/EIA, 2008). Rapid increases in costs highlight the need for investigation of poultry house

energy requirements, alternative energy, and conservation practices. Poultry litter, the bedding

and waste materials removed from poultry houses, can serve as an energy feedstock for heating

and electricity generation. Energy systems using litter, however, require investment of dollars,

labor, and management by poultry operators. Litter may be applied as fertilizer or sold to litter

handlers/farmers to be applied on nearby farms. Hence, the value in energy production must be

sufficient to draw litter away from current uses. A national tax credit is currently applicable for

production of electricity from poultry litter. Also, green power premiums, renewable portfolio

standard credits, and greenhouse gas credits may be applicable in the future.

The objectives of this study are to assess poultry litter production and willingness of

poultry producers to supply litter to energy systems in Tennessee. Information regarding poultry

litter availability, current uses of litter, operation energy needs, and willingness to supply or

invest in poultry litter conversion facilities are obtained through a survey.

Previous Studies

A 2001 survey of the Tennessee poultry industry showed that 52 percent of litter was

used on owners’ operations, 21 percent was removed by handlers, 16 percent was removed by

owners, and 10 percent was used by nearby farmers (Goan, Warren, Park, and Roberts, 2002).

Since 2001, no comprehensive survey of poultry litter production or disposition has been


conducted for the state. Furthermore, to our knowledge no survey regarding energy

requirements and willingness to invest in or supply litter for alternative energy systems has been

conducted.

Recent studies have examined issues of land application and composting of litter

(Armstrong, Goodwin, and Hamm, 2007; Carreira, Young, Goodwin, and Wailes, 2007; Howry,

Stoecker, Storm, and White, 2008; Kemper, Goodwin, and Mozaffari, 2008). Whittington’s

(2007) study examined availability of poultry litter for energy feedstock but did not incorporate

costs of removal, handling, or transportation, revenues, or costs for conversion. Flora and Riahi-

Nezhad (2006) conducted a feasibility study for using litter for energy purposes in South

Carolina. They employed facility scales of 1,000 tons of litter per year for an on-farm facility,

10,000 tons per year for a community-scale facility, and 50,000 tons per year for a regional-scale

facility.

Data and Methods

To obtain information about poultry litter production, types of bedding/cover used,

current applications or uses of poultry litter, poultry house energy needs, and willingness to

supply litter for energy purposes, a mail survey of Tennessee poultry producers was conducted.

The survey was mailed in September 2008 to 499 poultry producers, who according to National

Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), had at least one poultry house in Tennessee. A total of

122 producers responded for a 24.45 percent response rate. A map indicating the locations of

producers who received the survey and those who responded is shown in Figure 1. The survey

contained questions about size of operation, litter production, and current energy use. The

survey also contained questions regarding willingness to supply litter to an energy conversion

facility, pricing, and market arrangements, including contracts. The survey was divided into


sections for poultry operation size, use of litter for energy purposes, poultry litter production,

poultry operation energy use, and information about the operator and poultry operation. A copy

of the survey instrument is provided in the Appendix.

Figure 1. Locations of Producers Surveyed and Responding Producers.

Data are analyzed using descriptive measures and represented in bar and pie charts.

Throughout this document the letter N is used to represent the number of responses to a

particular question.

Study Results Poultry Operation Size

The predominant type of operation was broiler production (Table 1). For broiler operations,

the average number of houses was 4, with 6 flocks per year, and 22,110 birds per flock per

house. Multiplying the houses per farm by the birds per house gives an average inventory of

89,766 broilers and 20,138 roasters. These data can be compared with the state average

inventories in Table 2 (USDA/NASS). The state inventory of broilers and other meat chickens

was 25,608,347 on 1,120 farms or 22,865 birds per farm. Furthermore, for layers, the most

common inventory category in the state was 1 to 49 birds, while the survey results were about

3,032 birds per farm. It should be noted that farm size was larger, in part, because the sample in

RespondedSurveyed


this survey was limited to operations with at least one commercially sized house as identified by

NASS.

Table 1. Average Poultry Operation Sizes Among Survey Respondents in Tennessee.

Type of Production Houses

per Farm Flocks per Year per House

Birds per Flock per

House Chicken Broilers 4.06

(N=76) 6.03

(N=76) 22,109.81

(N=76) 2.31 1.50 Chicken Breeders

(N=16) (N=16) 13,659.38

(N=16) 2.00 1.15 Chicken Layers

(N=14) (N=13) 1,516.15

(N=13) 2.22 2.22 Chicken Pullets

(N=9) (N=9) 17,600.00

(N=9) 1.50 2.50 Chicken Roasters

(N=4) (N=4) 13,425.00

(N=4) Table 2. Tennessee Poultry Farms and Inventory, 2002 Census. Farms Number Layers 20 weeks old and older 3,551 1,160,590Farms with inventory of- 1 to 49 3,101 52,156 50 to 99 259 15,581 100 to 399 120 17,189 400 to 3,199 5 6,757 3,200 to 9,999 13 97,932 10,000 to 19,999 38 572,783 20,000 to 49,999 15 398,192 50,000 to 99,999 - - 100,000 or more - -Pullets for laying flock replacement 970 778,371Broilers and other meat-type chickens 1,120 25,608,347Turkeys 550 4,102Emus 186 2,051Ostriches 52 188Ducks, geese, and other poultry 1,946 NA

(Source: USDA/NASS 2002 Census of Agriculture, Tennessee)


Poultry producers were asked to indicate the dimensions and ages of their six largest poultry

houses. As shown in Table 3, most of the poultry houses were 400 to 450 feet long by 40 to 45

feet wide. The average age of the poultry houses was between 10 and 15 years (Table 4).

Table 3. Average Size of Poultry Houses. House N Average Length Average Width 1) 118 405.20 Ft 42.84 Ft 2) 103 409.10 Ft 43.31 Ft 3) 61 410.36 Ft 45.18 Ft 4) 54 415.87 Ft 46.20 Ft 5) 25 444.88 Ft 41.40 Ft 6) 22 447.45 Ft 41.32 Ft

Table 4. Average Age of Poultry Houses.

House N Age of House

(in years) 1) 116 14.17 2) 101 13.87 3) 59 14.00 4) 53 13.02 5) 24 11.17 6) 21 10.33

Use of Litter for Energy Purposes

About 61.2% of the producers indicated they would be willing to sell a portion of their

operation’s litter for energy conversion in a centralized project (Figure 2). They were willing to

commit an average of 407.90 per operation (N=62). The average price that producers indicated

they would need for their litter if picked up at their farm was $23.85 per ton (N=55). Some

producers were unwilling to sell a portion of their litter for energy purposes because they already

had litter committed to other buyers or they used the litter as fertilizer on their own farm.


Figure 2. Producers’ Willingness to Sell a Portion of Litter for Energy Conversion in a Centralized Project (N=121).

The majority (67%) of those willing to sell litter for energy purposes preferred that to sell it

under long-term contracts (Figure 3). About 55.90% percent indicated they would be willing to

invest in a cooperative that uses litter and other wastes to produce and sell energy (N=105).

Commonly cited reasons for being unwilling to sell litter included their litter was already

committed to other uses, they did not believe they could afford to invest financially, or they

planned to retire in the next few years.

Yes67.16%

No32.84%

Figure 3. Producers’ Preferences Regarding Selling Litter Under Long-Term Contracts

(N=67).

When producers were asked whether they would be willing to invest in a small-scale on-farm

digester to convert poultry litter to methane gas, 59.10% indicated they would (N=110). Among

those who were unwilling, commonly stated reasons were they believed they could not afford to

Yes61.16%

No38.84%


invest in a digester system, their operation did not have enough litter, the litter was already

otherwise committed, and they did not have enough labor to operate it.

Poultry Litter Production and Disposition

On average, annual litter production was 543.96 tons per year per farm (N=106). As can be

seen in Table 5, the most commonly used types of bedding or cover materials were pine shavings

and sawdust and hardwood shavings and sawdust. Less commonly used materials included rice

hulls and pine or hardwood chips

Table 5. Types of Bedding or Cover Materials Primarily Used in Poultry Houses.

Bedding/Cover Type

Percent Using

(N=117) Pine shavings & sawdust 58.12 Pine or hardwood chips 12.82 Hardwood shavings & sawdust 34.19 Rice hulls 13.68 Other 5.98

About 53.34 percent of the litter stayed on-farm (Figure 4). The primary on-farm use of litter

was for fertilizer on hay/grassland. The second most common use was application as a fertilizer

to cropland.

(N=105)

Figure 4. Share of Litter that Stays On-Farm and On-Farm Uses.

If their litter was applied as fertilizer, producers were asked to indicate the amount of

commercial fertilizer they believed they replaced with litter applications in an average year.

On-Farm Uses (N=87): Applied as fertilizer to cropland 15.07%Applied as fertilizer to hay/grassland 70.83%Composted 7.82%Other 6.29%

Off-Farm Use

46.66%On-Farm

Use53.34%


They responded with average estimates of about 106.47 pounds per acre of nitrogen, 72.24

pounds per are of P205 (Phosphorus) and 66.05 pounds per acre of K20 (Potassium) being

replaced (N=21).

Among the farmers who composed litter, about 72.5 percent composted litter for use on

their own farm (N=40). About 35 percent composted litter to sell to others (N=40).

If the litter was removed from the farm, the producers were asked to indicate the uses of

the removals. Over half of the farmers cleaned out their own houses and sold the litter off-farm

to another party (Table 6). Some also traded the litter for cleaning out services (31.77 percent).

For the litter removed from the farm and sold, producers indicated the price per ton. As

shown in Table 7, the price for litter which was delivered and applied on land was about $9/ton

higher that litter sold and picked up by the buyer. The value of litter at the farm gate was about

$15 per ton.

Table 6. Litter Removals From the Operation. Percent (N=69)

Given away to a third party in return for them cleaning out and removing it 31.77

Cleaned out and removed by me then sold to another farmer or third party 59.03

Paid service to clean out and remove 5.14 Other 4.06

Table 7. Average Sales Price of Litter Removed From the Farm and Sold.

Average Price per Ton

Delivered and applied on someone else’s land (N=26) $23.42

Delivered but not applied on someone else’s land (N=5) $18.20

Sold, but picked up by buyer (N=19) $14.95


Some farmers used a second party to clean out their houses. The average fee was

$1,198.68 per house (N=19). In the majority of cases, the litter was used on the farmer’s own

land or spread on someone else’s land (Table 8). For the litter applied to the farmer’s land, on

average the litter was applied to 121.84 acres (N=19). If the farmer sold the litter removed by

the second-party cleaning service, the average price per ton was $18.57 (N=7).

On average the producers had their poultry houses cleaned out 2.12 times per year

(N=113). The approximate depth of the litter when their houses are cleaned was 8.62 inches

(N=104).

About 67 percent used some method of storing litter (N=118). The most commonly used

method was roofed-storage structures, while the least commonly use method was bunker-type

(Table 9). On average, the litter was stored about 101 days.

Table 9. Use of Litter Storage Methods.

Table 8. Disposition of Litter by Second-Party Cleaning Service.

Disposition of Litter by Second-Party Cleaning Service Percent (N=39)

Spreads the litter on my land 56.41 Spreads the litter on someone else’s land 23.08 Re-sells the litter 15.38 Stacks the litter for later disposal 15.38 Other 12.82

Method Percent Using Storage Method (N=118)

Open stockpiles 2.54 Covered stockpiles 5.93 Bunker-type storage 1.69 Roofed-storage structures 62.71 Does not store litter 33.05


Most farmers had tractor front-end loaders and almost half had manure spreaders (Table

10). Just over a third had spreader trucks and just over a quarter had dump trucks.

Poultry Operation Energy Use

Almost 92 percent of the farmers used electricity or propane solely or together as their

energy sources (N=115). On average about 143,259.74 kWh of electricity were used by the

entire poultry operation in a year (N= 31). The average annual electricity bill for the entire

poultry operation was about $10,281.82 (N=107). This is about $.07 per kWh. Among the

poultry operations using propane, the average use in a year was 11,592.49 gallons (N=82). The

average annual propane bill for the entire poultry operation was $ 24,173.26 (N=91). This is

about $2.08 per gallon. About 64.86 percent of the producers received an energy cost offset

from the company with which they contracted production, 29.73 percent did not get an offset

from the contracting company, and 5.41 percent did not contract their production (N=111).

When an offset was provided, on average, it offset about 21 percent of their energy costs (N=60).

About 91.15 percent of the houses had more than one thermostat in their poultry houses,

(N=113). Among those having thermostats, the temperature was typically set at 78.14 degrees

Fahrenheit in the winter (N=99).

Table 10. Equipment Owned or Rented for Litter Disposal. Percent With Type of Equipment (N=110):

Equipment Owned Rented Skid Steer Loader 30.00 4.54 Tractor Front End Loader 84.55 <1 Manure Spreader 43.64 3.64 Spreader Truck 33.64 3.64 Dump Truck 26.36 6.34


Sixty-five percent used electricity for outdoor lighting (N=115). The predominant type

of indoor lighting was incandescent followed by fluorescent (Table 11).

Table 11. Types of Indoor Lighting Used.

Type Percent of Indoor Lighting Provided

(N=117)

Incandescent 56.49 Fluorescent 16.97 Compact fluorescent 12.47 LED (light-emitting diode) 12.37 Other 1.70

As can be seen from Figure 5, most producers had not participated in an energy audit or

consultation. However, over 55 percent were interested in participating in one to reduce their

energy use and associated costs.

7.89%

36.84%55.27%

Have Participated

Have Not, and NotInterestedHave Not, butInterested

Figure 5. Producers’ Participation in Energy Audits for the Poultry Operation. (N=114).

The producers were asked to indicate whether the sidewalls, endwalls, or ceilings were

insulated for their six largest poultry houses. Nearly all of the poultry houses had the ceilings

and endwalls insulated (Table 12). Sidewalls were less frequently insulated. However, in newer

houses, the sidewalls were often insulated.


Producers were asked to provide information about heating of their six largest poultry

houses. Results regarding the heating of the poultry houses are shown in Tables 13-15. Over 80

percent of the houses had whole house heating. The types of heating equipment used are shown

in Table 14. The majority used LP as a fuel, with some also using natural gas and electricity

(Table 15).

Table 13. Heating of Whole Poultry Houses.

House N Percent With Whole Building Heating 1) 116 80.17

2) 104 81.73

3) 63 84.13

4) 55 85.45

5) 25 88.00

6) 23 86.96

Table 14. Types of Poultry House Heating Equipment Used.

House N Furnace Boiler Heat Pump

Ceiling Heat

Space Heater

Radiant Tube Other

1) 109 34.86 1.83 .92 7.34 3.21 5.50 40.37 2) 98 33.67 1.02 1.02 9.18 31.63 6.12 40.82 3) 59 27.11 1.69 1.69 8.47 28.81 8.47 47.46 4) 50 30.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 30.00 10.00 50.00 5) 23 30.43 4.35 0.00 4.35 26.09 21.74 39.13 6) 21 33.33 4.76 0.00 4.76 23.81 19.05 38.10

Table 12. Insulation of Poultry Houses. Percent Insulated

House N Sidewalls Ceiling Endwalls 1) 112 66.96 98.21 86.61 2) 96 67.70 96.98 85.42 3) 56 73.21 98.21 85.71 4) 48 77.08 97.92 83.33 5) 24 91.67 95.83 91.67 6) 21 90.47 100.00 95.24


Tables 16 and 17 present information on energy use for purposes other than heating

including air conditioning, office equipment, refrigeration, and water heating systems.

Table 17. Other Electricity Uses by Poultry Operations.

Table 16. Air Conditioning of Whole Poultry Houses. House N Percent with Whole Poultry House Air Conditioned

1) 111 22.52

2) 99 21.21

3) 59 18.64

4) 52 15.38

5) 25 20.00

6) 22 22.73

Other Than Heating, Cooling,

or Ventilation Refrigeration in

the Building

Electricity Office

Equipment Water Heating

Systems House N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent

1) 113 68.14 111 23.42 109 35.78 111 17.11 2) 101 68.32 100 22.00 96 30.21 99 13.13 3) 60 70.00 59 6.78 56 26.79 58 0.00 4) 53 69.81 52 5.77 49 28.57 51 0.00 5) 24 66.67 23 8.70 23 30.43 23 0.00 6) 21 66.67 19 10.53 20 35.00 20 0.00

Table 15. Use of Heating Fuels.

Percent Using Type of Fuel

House

N Electricity Natural

Gas Bottle

LP Fuel Oil or Kerosene Coal Other

1) 111 8.11 11.71 86.49 .90 0.00 2.70

2) 100 8.00 11.00 88.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

3) 60 3.33 11.67 86.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

4) 53 3.77 13.21 83.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

5) 25 4.00 8.00 88.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6) 22 4.55 9.09 86.36 0.00 0.00 0.00


Producer and Poultry Operation Characteristics

The average farm size was 187.28 acres (N=113). Shown in Table 18, the largest portion

was in hay/grassland, followed by woodland, and row crops. Among those renting land, the

average amount of rented land was 22.00 acres (N=78). Most farmers (76%) characterized their

poultry operations as full ownerships/sole proprietorships (Table 19).

Table 19. Farm Business Organization. Business Organization Type Percent (N=116) A full owner (sole proprietorship) 75.86 A renter 2.59 A part owner in a partnership, family 15.52 A limited liability corporation (LLC) 2.59 Other 3.45

About 42.70 percent (N=101) of the farm’s household income before taxes was from off-

farm sources in 2007. As shown in Table 20, nearly 20 percent of the farmers had net income

from farming between $50,000 and $75,000. Over half had $50,000 or greater in net farm

income.

Table 20. 2007 Net Income from Farming Before Taxes 2007 (N=111). Income Category Percent Income Category Percent Negative (less than $0) 6.31 $35,000-$49,999 9.91 $0-$9,999 7.21 $50,000-$74,999 18.02 $10,000-$14,999 7.21 $75,000-$99,999 10.81 $15,000-$24,999 8.11 $100,000-$149,999 13.51 $25,000-$34,999 5.41 Greater than or equal to

$150,000 13.51

Table 18. Average Acreage of Poultry Farms. Acres/Farm Acres Across All Farms Row crops(N=24) 154.71 3,713.04 Close-grown crops (ex: wheat, sorghum) (N=8) 96.25 770.00 Hay/grassland (N=95) 112.03 10,642.85 Woodland (N=84) 64.14 5,387.76 Other (N=39) 16.64 648.96


Over one-fourth of the farmers were debt free (Table 21), and nearly half had debt of less

than $10 for every $100 of farm assets.

Table 21. Debt per $100 of Farm Assets (N=93). Debt Category Percent Debt Category Percent $0 26.88 $15-$19.99 9.68 $1-$2.99 11.83 $20-$39.99 8.60 $3-$4.99 6.45 $40-$69.99 11.83 $6-$9.99 3.23 greater than $70 13.98 $10-$14.99 7.53

On average, the farmers had been producing poultry for 14.69 years (N=116). The

average age of the farmers was 56.05 years (N=119). Displayed in Table 22, nearly all

responding farmers had at least a high school diploma or GED. Nearly one-fourth had a college

degree or higher.

The most common membership was in Farm Bureau (Table 23), followed by cooperative

membership. Nearly 40 percent of the farmers had obtained USDA grants or loans (Table 24).

Just less 37 percent had used University of Tennessee Extension assistance.

Table 22. Educational Level of Tennessee Poultry Farmers (N=117). Education Level Percent Some high school or less 8.55 High school graduate or GED 43.59 Some college 23.08 College graduate 18.80 Post graduate 5.98

Table 23. Organization Memberships of Tennessee Poultry Farmers (N=111). Education Level Percent Grower or commodity organization 14.41 Cooperative 45.95 Farm Bureau 88.29 Hunting-related organization 9.91 Environmental organization 3.60


Potential for Energy Conversion Facilities

Information from the survey was used to project potential for farm-scale, community-

scale, and region-scale energy conversion facilities. Following Flora and Riahi-Nezhad (2006),

facility scales of 1,000 tons of litter per year for an on-farm facility, 10,000 tons per year for a

community scale facility, and 50,000 tons per year for a regional scale facility were used.

In Table 25, it can be seen that 59 percent of those responding would consider investment

in an on-farm digester. The total population was 499 farms. Using the percent from the survey

and the population, the potential number who might consider on-farm systems was projected at

295. From those who would consider an on-farm system, the percent was found that had at least

1,000 tons of litter per year from their farm (18 percent). Multiplying this percent by the project

number interested of 295 gives a projection of 53 farmers who might have both an interest and at

least 1,000 tons of litter for an on-farm digester.

Table 25. Potential for On-Farm Digester Systems (1,000 tons per year litter or more). Percent who would consider investing in a small-scale on-farm system 59%Total statewide population of facilities with at least 1 house 499Potential number who would consider on-farm systems 295Percent producing at least 1,000 tons litter per year among those who consider on-farm digester systems

18%

Potential number willing with at least 1,000 tons litter per year 53

Projections for community of regional scale energy systems are shown in Table 26.

About 61 percent of the farmers indicated they would consider supplying an energy conversion

Table 24. Assistance Obtained by Tennessee Poultry Farmers (N=65). Organization Percent USDA Grant or Loan 38.46 University of Tennessee Extension 36.92 Small Business Administration (Grant, Loan, or Technical Assistance) 4.62 Other 40.00


facility. This percent is multiplied by the total population to give the projection of 305 farmers

who might supply an energy conversion facility. The average amount of litter per farm that

producers indicated they could commit was 408 tons per farm per year. This amount per farm is

multiplied by the potential number of those who would consider being suppliers to arrive at a

total projected amount of 124,486 tons. If a community scale facility requires about 10,000 tons

of litter per year, a projected 12 facilities could be supplied. If a region scale facility requires

about 50,000 tons of litter per year, a projected 2 facilities could be supplied.

Table 26. Potential for Community/Regional Scale Energy Systems. Percent who would consider supplying an energy conversion facility 61% Total population of facilities with at least 1 house 499 Potential number who would consider supplying a conversion facility 305 Average tons of litter could commit per farm 408 Total tons of litter 124,486 Potential number of community scale (10,000 tons litter) facilities 12 Potential number of. regional scale (50,000 tons litter) facilities 2

While the information above provides overall projections regarding litter availability for

energy facilities, the proximity of these facilities to concentrations of litter supply sources is

critical. Transportation costs to more distance conversion facilities could be prohibitive. Based

upon amounts farmers would be willing to commit to energy purposes, the percentages of the

overall state total by county were calculated. These percentages for each county were then

multiplied by the statewide projected tonnage to arrive at county-level projections (Table 27).

Bradley, Obion, and Bedford counties appear to have the greatest potential litter availability for

energy conversion in community or region-scale projects. Additionally, poultry producing

counties in close proximity to one another might have potential for combining their litter for a

centralized facility


Table 27. County-Level Projections of Litter Availability for Centralized Energy Conversion.

County

Share of Litter Tons Could be Committed to Centralized

Energy Conversion Projected Annual Tons/County

Across the Population Bradley 28.45% 35,411 Bedford 9.28% 11,557 Obion 9.01% 11,211 Greene 6.89% 8,579 Weakley 5.00% 6,219 Fentress 4.70% 5,849 Lawrence 4.68% 5,820 Clay 4.50% 5,605 McMinn 3.82% 4,752 Pickett 3.52% 4,387 Polk 2.74% 3,412 Coffee 2.67% 3,324 Wayne 2.55% 3,168 Franklin 1.96% 2,437 Giles 1.92% 2,388 Hamblen 1.72% 2,145 Marion 1.36% 1,691 Lincoln 1.17% 1,462 Macon 1.17% 1,462 Overton 1.17% 1,462 Moore 0.78% 975 Washington 0.39% 487 Bledsoe 0.35% 439 Warren 0.20% 244 Total 100.00% 124,486

The projected values for tons of litter were also examined across prices that farmers

stated they would need for the litter if it were picked up at their farm (Table 28). Notably, at

about $10 per ton, around half of the litter that could be committed would be available. At $20

per ton, nearly 90 percent might be available. If the tons of litter that might be committed by

respondents are projected to a population level, then at $10 per ton, enough litter would

potentially be available to supply six community-scale facilities or one regional-scale facility. At


$20 per ton, enough litter would potentially be available for 10 community-scale facilities or two

regional-scale facilities.

Table 28. Projected Tons Farmers Could Commit to Centralized Energy Conversion Across Price per Ton Required. Price per Ton Stated as Required

Tons Farmers Indicated Could be to Committed Centralized

Energy Conversion

Percent of Total Tons Could

Commit

Projected Tons Across the Population

$0 5,900 26.19% 32,608 $10 or less 10,848 48.16% 59,955 $15 or less 14,030 62.29% 77,541 $20 or less 20,024 88.90% 110,669 $25 or less 21,084 93.61% 116,527 $30 or less 21,684 96.27% 119,843 $35 or less 21,834 96.94% 120,672 $40 or less 21,934 97.38% 121,225 $50 or less 22,174 98.45% 122,552 more than $50 22,524 100.00% 124,486

In Table 29, the value of litter as fertilizer on crop and pasture land is estimated. The

farmers’ estimates of pounds of N, P, and K fertilizers per acre replaced with litter are multiplied

by the U.S. average prices for these fertilizers to obtain the estimated dollar values of fertilizer

replaced. The estimate of total value of fertilizer replaced per acre is around $74.53. To obtain

the fertilizer value per ton of litter applied, the farmers’ estimate of litter applied per acre is used.

For those using litter on their farms, the average tons of litter per acre applied by farmers across

crop and hay land was about 2.00 tons/acre (N=73). This gives an estimated value of litter as on-

farm fertilizer of $37.26 per ton.


Conclusions

Just over 61 percent of the poultry producers surveyed indicated they would be willing to

sell a portion of their operation’s litter for energy conversion in a centralized project. Among

producers willing to commit litter to a project, they were willing to sell an average of 408 tons

per year. The average price that producers indicated they would need for their litter if picked up

at their farm was $23.85 per ton. This was higher than the average farmgate price of litter sold,

suggesting that higher prices might have to be paid than currently received to draw litter away

from current buyers.

Based upon the survey results, statewide, there appears to be potential for 12 community-

scale facilities or two region-scale facilities. Bradley, Obion, and Bedford counties have the

greatest potential litter availability for energy conversion in community or region-scale projects.

These areas merit further investigation for the feasibility of a centralized energy project that uses

poultry litter.

Among producers who were unwilling to sell litter to a centralized project, most either

already had committed it to other users or were using it on their own farms. On-farm use was

primarily as a fertilizer for hay/grassland. The projected value in this use was $37.26 per ton.

Table 29. Estimated Value of Litter as Fertilizer. Fertilizer Prices* Fertilizer Replaced with Litter

$/ton $/poundFarmers’ Estimate

of Pounds/Acre Estimated

$/Acre Ammonium nitrate 509 0.25 106.47 27.10 Super-phosphate 44-46% phosphate 800 0.40 72.24 28.90 Potassium chloride 60% potassium 561 0.28 66.05 18.53 *Average U.S. prices paid by farmers for ammonium nitrate, super-phosphate 44-46% phosphate, potassium chloride 60% potassium. Source: USDA Economic Research Service. U.S. Fertilizer Use and Price. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/.


References

Armstrong, A., H. Goodwin, and S. Hamm. “Co-processed Poultry Litter and Dewatered

Municipal Biosolids: Feasibility as an Alternative Management Approach for Surplus

Waste.” Selected Paper SAEA 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, AL.

Carreira, R., K. Young, H. Goodwin, and E. Wailes. “How Far Can Poultry Litter Go? A New

Technology for Litter Transport.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39, 03

(December 2007): 611-623.

Cunningham, D. “Broiler Production Systems in Georgia 2007-2008 Costs and Returns

Analysis” Department of Poultry Science. Available at

http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1240-3.pdf. Accessed 9/8/08.

Flora, J. and C. Riahi-Nezhad. "Availability of Poultry Manure as a Potential Bio-Fuel Feedstock

for Energy Production," University of South Carolina, Report to South Carolina Energy

Office, August 2006.

Goan, C., L. Warren, B. Park, and R. Roberts. “ Production and Utilization of Poultry Litter in

Tennessee” Paper Presented at Poultry Science Association 91st Annual Meeting. August

11-14, 2002, Newark, DE.

Howry, S., A. Stoecker, D. Storm, and M. White. “Economic Analysis of Management Practices

to Reduce Phosphorus Load to Lake Eucha and Spavinaw.” Selected Paper SAEA 2008

Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, TX.

Kemper, N., H. Goodwin, and M. Mozaffari. “The Nitrogen Fertilizer Value of Baled Broiler

Litter for Cotton Production in the Arkansas Delta” Selected Paper SAEA 2008 Annual

Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, TX.


United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Weekly U.S. Propane

Wholesale/Resale Price. Available at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wprwsus4w.htm. Accessed 9/8/08.

Whittington, A. “Availability of Poultry Litter as an Alternative Energy Feedstock: The Case for

Mississippi” Selected Paper SAEA 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, AL.


APPENDIX

Survey Instrument


Energy and Your Poultry Operation This survey should take about 20-25 minutes to complete. All individual responses will be held completely confidential and only summarized results will be presented in publications. Your responses are completely voluntary. Please have the primary decision-maker of the poultry operation complete the answers. If your poultry operation is no longer in service, please write “Out of Service” at the top of the survey and return in the postage paid envelope. If you should have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact Dr. Ernie Bazen or Dr. Burton English at (865) 974-3716. Several technologies are available for converting poultry litter to energy sources. Some of these are scale appropriate for on-farm energy conversion, while others are scale appropriate for centralized facilities for energy conversion. A brief description of these technologies is provided below. Please read these descriptions prior to beginning the survey. • Direct combustion technologies burn biomass material by application of direct heat. The biomass feedstock

can be burned to produce steam without pre-processing. The steam can then be used in a process and/or passed through a steam turbine/generator set to produce electric power.

• Gasification is a process that converts materials, such as biomass, into carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen. This resulting “biogas” is then used as a fuel in a steam boiler. The steam can then be piped to a steam turbine to generate electric power. Gasification relies on chemical processes at elevated temperatures greater than 700°C, which distinguishes it from biological processes that produce biogas, such as anaerobic digestion.

• Anaerobic digestion occurs in a controlled environment such as a biogas plant, where organic waste and bacteria are placed in an airtight container, called the digester. The breakdown of material produces biogas, which can then be passed through a generator. The process can be used to treat organic wastes and the process produces a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production, helping replace fossil fuels. The nutrient-rich solids left after digestion can be used as fertilizer.

• Pyrolysis is thermal decomposition occurring in the absence of oxygen. Fast pyrolysis occurs in a few seconds or less. The biomass decomposes to generate vapors, aerosols, and some char. The material is cooled and condensed to transportable liquid oil with approximately half the heat content of conventional fuel oil.

I. Poultry Operation Size 1. Please indicate the number of poultry houses you have in production for each category, number of

flocks per year per house and average number of birds per flock per year. Average Per House

Type of Production Number of Houses

in Production Number of

Flocks per Year Number of

Birds per Flock Chicken Broilers _________ _________ _________ Chicken Breeders _________ _________ _________ Chicken Layers _________ _________ _________ Chicken Pullets _________ _________ _________ Chicken Roasters _________ _________ _________ Turkeys _________ _________ _________ Other (Please describe: _____________ ________________________________) _________ _________ _________


II. Use of Litter for Energy Purposes 2. Would you be willing to sell a portion of your operation’s poultry litter for energy conversion in a

centralized energy project? (Circle the answer) Yes (Skip to Question 4) No (Continue to Question 3) 3. Why are you unwilling to sell a portion of your operation’s poultry litter for energy purposes?

(After answering this question in the space provided below, Skip to Question 7)

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

4. How many tons per year could you commit to a centralized energy facility project? __________ tons

5. What price would you need for the litter if the centralized facility arranged for litter to be picked

up at the farm? (If you would exchange the litter for hauling, please indicate a price of $0). __________ $/ton

6. Would you prefer your farm’s litter to be sold for energy through long-term contracts? (Circle

the answer) Yes No 7. Would you be willing to invest in an energy cooperative that uses litter and other wastes to

produce and sell energy? (Circle the answer) Yes (Skip to Question 9) No

8. Why are you unwilling to invest in an energy cooperative that uses litter? ______________________________________________________________________________

9. Would you be willing to invest in a small-scale on-farm digester to convert poultry litter to methane gas? (Circle the answer)

Yes (Skip to Section III) No

10. Why are you unwilling to invest in an on-farm digester? _________________________________________________________________________________ III. Poultry Litter Production 11. What types of bedding or cover materials do you primarily use in your poultry houses? (Circle

the answers)

a. Pine shavings & sawdust e. Rice hulls h. Chopped straw, hay, or corn stover b. Pine or hardwood chips f. Peanut hulls i. Crushed corn cobs c. Pine or hardwood bark g. Sand j. Processed paper d. Hardwood shavings &

sawdust k. Other (Specify: ___________________________________)

12. How much litter is produced on your farm per year? __________ tons


13. What share of the litter stays on your farm for use as fertilizer or for other purposes? _______ %

If you use some litter on your farm, continue to the question below. If you do not, please skip to Question 17 and continue. 14. For the litter used on your farm, indicate the uses.

Applied as fertilizer to cropland __________ %

Applied as fertilizer to hay/grassland __________ %

Composted __________ %

Other (Please describe:___________________________________________) __________ %

Total litter used on farm = 100%

15. If you apply litter as fertilizer, in an average year, how much commercial fertilizer do you replace with the litter applications? N (Nitrogen) ________ pounds/acre K20 (Potassium) ________ pounds/acreP205 (Phosphorus) ________ pounds/acre Other ________ pounds/acre (Please describe: _______________________)

16. If you composted litter, did you (Circle the answers)

a. compost the litter for use on your own farm?

b. compost the litter to sell to others at a price of __________$/ton?

17. If litter is removed from the farm, indicate uses of the removals. Given away to a third party in return for them cleaning out and removing it __________ % Cleaned out and removed by me then sold to another farmer or third party __________ % Paid service to clean out and remove __________ % Other (Please describe:_________________________________________) __________ % Total litter removed from the farm = 100%

18. If litter is removed from the farm and sold, please indicate the sales price: Price per Ton For litter you delivered and applied on someone else’s land? __________ $/tonFor litter you delivered but did not apply on someone else’s land? __________ $/ton

For litter you sold, but the buyer picked it up? __________ $/ton

19. If you used a second party to clean out the poultry houses, what was the fee? ___________$/house

20. The second-party cleaning service: (Circle the answers and fill in the blanks) a. Spreads the litter on my land ________acres d. Stacks the litter for later disposal b. Spreads the litter on someone else’s land and I

charge _________$/ton for the litter e. Piles the litter for composting

c. Re-sells the litter for __________$/ton

f. Other (Specify:_________________________ ______________________________________)


21. How many times do you clean or have your poultry houses cleaned each year? _________ times per year

22. What is the approximate depth of the litter when your poultry houses are cleaned? _________ inches

23. How do you store litter?

24. Do you own or rent any of the following equipment that could be used for litter disposal?

IV. Poultry Operation Energy Use 25. Do you use energy sources other than electricity or propane? (Circle the answer)

No Yes (Source: __________________________________)

26. About how many kWh of electricity does the entire poultry operation use in a year? ______ kWh

27. About how much is the annual electricity bill for the entire poultry operation? $_________

28. If your poultry operation uses propane, about how many gallons do you use in a year? _______ gallons

29. About how much is the annual propane bill for the entire poultry operation? $__________

30. Do you get an energy cost offset from the company with which you contract production? (Circle the answer)

a. Yes, it covers about __________ % of my energy costs

b. No, my contracting buyer does not provide an energy offset

c. No, I do not contract my production

Method Place an ‘X’ by method of storage

How many days do you store litter?

Open stockpiles _________ _________ Covered stockpiles _________ _________ Bunker-type storage _________ _________ Roofed-storage structures _________ _________ I do not store litter _________ n/a

Place an ‘X’ by the equipment: Equipment Owned Rented

Skid Steer Loader _________ _________

Tractor Front End Loader _________ _________

Manure Spreader _________ _________

Spreader Truck _________ _________

Dump Truck _________ _________


31. How many thermostats do most of your poultry houses have? (Circle the correct answer)

None (Skip to Question 33) One More than one

32. During the winter, the thermostats are typically set at: ______________ degrees Fahrenheit

33. Is electricity used for outdoor lighting for your building(s)? (Circle the answer) Yes No

34. For indoor lighting, what percent of the light bulbs are: (Percent should total to 100%).

Incandescent? __________% Fluorescent? __________% Compact fluorescent? __________% LED? (light-emitting diode) __________% Other? __________% Total=100%

35. Have you ever participated in an energy audit or energy efficiency consultation for your

business? (Circle the best answer) a. Yes

b. No, and I would not be interested in participating in the future

c. No, but I would be interested in participating in the future

36. Please provide the following information for up to six of your largest poultry houses. (Place an ‘X’ if insulated):

House Length Width

Age of House

(in years) Sidewalls Ceiling Endwalls

1) ________ Ft _________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____ 2) ________ Ft ________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____ 3) ________ Ft _________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____ 4) ________ Ft _________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____ 5) ________ Ft _________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____ 6) ________ Ft _________ Ft ________ _____ _____ _____

37. Please circle the answers regarding the heating/cooling systems in the poultry houses listed in Question 36.

House

Is the whole building heated?

What equipment is used to provide heat? (use key

below)

Can the heating system use

multiple fuels?

What fuels are used for heat? (use key

below)

Is this building air-conditioned?

1) Yes No A B C D E F G Yes No H I J K L M Yes No







Heating Equipment Key

A. Furnace (forced hot air) B. Boiler (hot water circulating system) C. Heat pump D. Ceiling heat (radiant heat in ceiling) E. Portable or built-in space heaters F. Radiant tube heating G. Other (Describe:________________)

Fuel Key H. Electricity I. Natural Gas J. Bottle LP gas (butane, propane, tank gas) K. Fuel oil or kerosene L. Coal M. Other (Describe: ___________________)

38. Please circle Yes or No for each electricity use that applies to the poultry houses listed in

Question 36.

House

Electricity used for purposes other than heating, cooling, or

ventilation? Refrigeration in the

building?

Electricity used for any office equipment?

Water heating system other in addition to

space heating systems? 1) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 2) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

3) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No




V. Information about You and the Farming Operation 39. In what county is your poultry operation located? _______________________ and Zip Code?

_________ 40. What is the size of your farm in acres? ____________acres 41. How many acres of your farm are in the following: (Acres should total the answer in Question

40)

42. How many acres of your farm operation do you rent? ___________acres 43. Which best describes your farm business? (Circle the answer)

a. A full owner (sole proprietorship) d. A limited liability corporation (LLC) b. A renter e. A cooperative c. A part owner in a partnership, family f. Other (Please describe: ______________ held corporation, or other corporation ________________________________)

Row crops? __________ acres Close-grown crops (ex: wheat, sorghum)? __________ acres Hay/grassland? __________ acres Woodland? __________ acres Other? (Please describe: ___________________________________) __________ acres


44. What was your net income from farming in 2007 (before taxes)? (Circle the answer)

a. negative (less than $0) f. $35,000-$49,999 b. $0-$9,999 g. $50,000-$74,999 c. $10,000-$14,999 h. $75,000-$99,999 d. $15,000-$24,999 i. $100,000-$149,999 e. $25,000-$34,999 j. Greater than or equal to $150,000

45. What percent of your household’s total net income (before taxes) was from off-farm sources in

2007? __________% 46. For every $100 of farm assets you have, how many dollars are financed with debt? (Circle the

answer) a. $0 f. $15-$19.99 b. $1-$2.99 g. $20-$39.99 c. $3-$4.99 h. $40-$69.99 d. $5-$9.99 i. greater than $70 e. $10-$14.99

47. How many years have you been producing poultry? ____________ years 48. What is your age? ____________ years old 49. What is the highest education level you attained? (Circle the answer)

a. Some high school or less d. College graduate b. High school graduate or GED e. Post graduate c. Some college

50. Do you currently belong to any of the following types of organizations? (Circle all that apply)

a. Grower or commodity organization d. Hunting-related organization b. Cooperative e. Environmental organization c. Farm Bureau

51. What assistance or services have you received in the development of your poultry business? (Place an 'X' beside each answer that applies) _____ USDA Grant or Loan _____ Small Business Administration Grant or Loan _____ University of Tennessee Extension _____ Small Business Administration Technical Assistance _____ Other assistance services (Please describe: _______________________________________)

Thank you for completing this survey. Please place the completed survey in the postage paid envelope and return by mail.

potential for litter use in renewable energy systems by ... · data are analyzed using descriptive...

Documents