managing manure to minimize environmental impact · best management practices exist to minimize the...

Managing Manure to Minimize Environmental Impact

Or Bugs, Drugs, and Manure

Goal = Create Awareness not Controversy

Trained as Dairy Nutritionist

Moved into whole farm nutrient management

- Work both ends of the cow

• Potassium requirement of the early lactation cow

• Impact of Balancing for Amino Acids on Milk Productionand Environmental Impact

Feed Management

A Key Ingredient in Livestock

and Poultry Nutrient Management

Current Projects

Feed Management

A Key Ingredient in Livestock

and Poultry Nutrient Management

Relationship of manure application and tillage practices in shallow groundwaterNitrate levels.

Removal of phosphorus from liquid dairy manure as struvite

Use of anaerobically digested dairy manure for grass and corn silage production

Development of a decision aid tool for accounting of nutrients, gas production, nutrient removal, carbon credits for community ADs and ADs receiving Added feedstocks. (ADOPT)

Characterization of air and odor issues and ADs

Struvite

[MgNH4PO4.6(H2O)]

Best management practices exist to minimize the impact of manure management on the environment

Take Home Messages

Manure is a valuable source of nutrients for crop production, but can also be a source of pathogens which could raise bio-security and human health concerns

Anaerobic digestion of manure reduces common pathogens in manure by at least 90%

When land applied, anaerobically digested manure has significantly fewer bacteria, both initially and for weeks thereafter

As more manure is moved off-farm for human crop production, greater attention needs to be given to insuring that the manure presents a low risk of contaminating food crops

Go to –

http://www.extension.org/animal+manure+management

Microorganisms

There are over 150 pathogens, or disease-causing microorganisms, in livestock manure which pose a risk to humans

Some, such as E. coli O157:H7 and certain Campylobacter spp., are not pathogenic for the host species from which the manure originated but are for other species exposed to the manure containing the agent.

Land application of dairy manure poses a risk to both humans and grazing animals as pathogens applied in manure are known to survive in soil long after application

Survival Times of Pathogens in Various Media(days)

Micro-organism

Slurry Fecal Paddies

Soil Water

Salmonellasp.

250+ 200+ 150+ 16

E.coli 300+ 200+ 200+ 35

General maxima

1 year

Viruses, maxima

1 year

Protozoan cysts, maxima

180+

Helminth ova

7 years

- Summarized in NRAES -147 – Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds

Pathogens & Indicator Organisms

• Pathogens are present at low levels in the environment, water and foods– Even at low numbers, high risk involved

– Difficult to detect

– Example: E Coli O157:H7 has an infectious dose of only 1 – 10 cells

Slope

Applied

Waste

Seepage & Filtering

Soil Type,

water content

& pH

Vegetative

Cover

Runoff:

concentrated

or sheet flow

Soil Bacteria

Competition

Water Table Soil Organic Matter

Soil Aeration

Air Temperature

Humidity

Freeze-Thaw Cycle

Sunlight

Ultraviolet

RadiationPrecipitation

Barnyard Runoff

Storage System

Leakage

Drying

Dilution

Control Factors

(metals, disinfectants,

antibiotics, pesticides)

Adsorption

Waste

Storage

Figure 1 depicts the factors affecting the viability of pathogens along transportpathways. In general, cool temperatures, moist conditions, and lack of direct-sunlight promotes the survival of microorganisms; while UV light, drying conditions, and limited crop canopy promote die-off of microorganisms

The fate of antibiotics used at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has gained recent attention by the regulatory community

Watanabe et al. (2010) reported the occurrence of antibiotics in the environment on two dairies. Samples were collected at the points of use of antibiotics and subsequent points of manure handling.

They observed that although antibiotics had been used for decades on these two dairy farms, the antibiotics seemed to be detectedwithin farm boundaries

Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics continues to be a concern of medical health professionals and veterinarians alike.

West et al., (2010) documented the presence of antibioticresistant bacteria in samples from waterways in close proximity to waste-water treatment plants and CAFOs.

From 830 environmental bacterial isolates, 77.1% were resistant to only ampicillin, while 21.2% were resistant to combinations of antibiotics including ampicillin (A), kanamycin (K), chlorotetracycline (C), oxytetracycline (O), and streptomycin (S).

Multi-drug-resistant bacteria were significantly more common at sites close to CAFO farms.

Numerous studies have documented the presence of hormones in manure and their subsequent fate when manure is stored in manure lagoons or applied to crop land

The general concern is the endocrine disrupting properties that resultfor wildlife and aquatic life when these hormones or conjugates are transported to ground and surface water.

Treatment of manure via anaerobic digestion or composting can decrease the amount of estrogens detected in manure

An excellent webcast for additional information related to the occurrence of antibiotics and hormones in water, and their fate, transport and best management practices (http://www.extension.org/pages/Antibiotics_and_Hormones:_Occurrence_in_Water,_Fate_and_Transport,_and_Best_Management_Practices).

Goals:Prevent/Reduce Organism Movement to Water &

Facilitated Organism Die-off

Channel Vegetation (AC) (322)

Conservation Cover (AC) (327)

Critical Area Planting (AC) (342)

Field Border (FT) (386)

Filter Strip (AC) (393)

Grassed Waterway (AC) (412)

Heavy Use Area Protection (AC) (561)

Pasture and Hay Planting (AC) (512)

Prescribed Grazing (AC) (528A)

Riparian Forest Buffer (AC) (391)

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (AC) (390)

Streambank and Shoreline Protection (FT) (580)

Vegetative Barriers (FT) (601)

Wetland Creation (AC) (658)

Mode of Action: Organism/Sediment

Trapping-Biological

Mode of Action: Organism/Sediment

Trapping-Physical

Mode of Action: Reduced Direct

Access and Subsequent Deposition

Mode of Action:

Structure/Management

Animal Trails and Walkways (AC) (575)

Fence (FT) (382)

Use Exclusion (AC) (472)

Watering Facility (NO.) (614)

Roof Runoff Management (NO.) (558)

Waste Storage Facility (NO.) (313)

Waste Utilization (AC) (633)

Closure of Waste Impoundments (NO) (360)

Composting Facility (NO.) (317)

Manure Transfer (NO) (634)

Waste Treatment Lagoon (NO.) (359)

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control (AC) (450)

Constructed Wetland (AC) (656)

Contour Buffer Strips (332)

Contour Farming (AC) (330)

Contour Stripcropping (AC) (585)

Controlled Drainage (AC) (335)

Deep Tillage (AC) (324)

Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (AC) (548)

Sediment Basin (NO.) (350)

Stripcropping (AC), Field (586)

Subsurface Drain (FT) (606)

Surface Drainage (FT), Field Ditch (607)

Surface Drainage (FT), Main or Lateral (608)

Terrace (FT) (600)

Water and Sediment Control Basin (NO.) (638)

Management Practices for Pathogens

All dairies are required to have a nutrient management plan regardless of size of operation

Community Anaerobic Digester:Fate of Bacteria

Partnership for a Sustainable Future

Qualco Energy:

Tulalip Tribes of NW Washington

Northwest Chinook Recovery

Snohomish-Skykomish Agricultural Alliance

Support environmental projects that maintain

agricultural river corridors.

Shellfish business

Fisheries

Culture

“ I have a responsibility to look out 7 to 10 generations”

Qualco Anaerobic Digester (AD)

• Renewable Energy Production– Methane to Electricity

• Waste Management– Decreased Odor

• Pathogen Reduction• Nutrient Management

– Nutrient transformation– Cycle nutrients back to farm

• Value Added Products– Composted solids– Struvite

So what about bio-security?

And

Can ADs Reduce the Load of Bacteria Applied to Land ?

Provide protection of surface water quality?!

Organism Selection– Generic E. coli

• Indicator organism• High numbers dependably present in bovine fecal waste• Lower thermotolerance

– Salmonella and Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP)

• Obligate pathogens• Important biosecurity agents• Common enough in dairy herds to have a good chance of finding

them (at least in pre-digestion samples), • Environmentally resistant to a lesser (Salmonella) or greater (MAP)

degree

– Enterococci• Dependably present in bovine fecal waste• Higher thermotolerance• Don’t replicate in the environment

Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis

Enterococcus faecium

Listeria spp.

Salmonella enterica

E. Coli

Campylobacter jejuni

Relative Ranking of Bacteria for Hardiness

Log Generic e-coli Bacteria

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7Lo

g G

ener

ic e

-col

i B

acte

ria

F

e

c

e

s

F

a

r

m

F

l

o

w

F

e

e

d

s

t

o

c

k

s

R

e

c

e

i

v

e

r

E

f

f

l

u

e

n

t

AD

S

o

l

i

d

s

S

e

p

L

i

q

u

i

d

C

a

l

f

B

a

r

n

C

o

m

p

o

s

t

B

e

d

d

i

n

g

32,359

105

77

Log Enterococcus Bacteria

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Log

Ent

ero

cocc

us B

acte

ria

F

e

c

e

s

F

a

r

m

F

l

o

w

F

e

e

d

s

t

o

c

k

s

R

e

c

e

i

v

e

r

E

f

f

l

u

e

n

t

AD

S

o

l

i

d

s

S

e

p

L

i

q

u

i

d

C

a

l

f

B

a

r

n

603

C

o

m

p

o

s

t

B

e

d

d

i

n

g

8511

50

Sampling Location

Campylobacter Listeria Mycobacterium paratuberculosis

Salmonella

On-farm Feces 56% (14/25) 12% (3/25) 84% (21/25) 44% (11/25)

Farm Flow 35% (9/26) 4% (1/26) 78% (21/27) 77% (20/26)

Bedding 0% (0/22) 0% (0/22) 9.5% (2/21) 27% (6/22)

Feedstocks 0% (0/4) 0% (0/4) 33% (0/6) 17% (1/6)*

Receiving Tank 28% (7/25) 0% (0/25) 63% (17/27) 89% (24/27)

Effluent after anaerobic digestion

28% (8/29) 7% (2/29) 71% (22/31) 90% (28/31)

AD Solids 0% (0/23) 9 % (2/23) 32% (8/25) 84% (21/25)

SepLiquid 7 % (3/43) 5 % (2/43) 54 % (24/44) 79% (35/44)

Compost 0% (0/20) 0% (0/20) 0% (0/19) 0% (0/20)

Calf Barn 50% (4/8) 0% (0/8) 33% (2/6) 50% (4/8)

Presence-absence of bacteria in pre- and post-AD materials

6,309,573

25,547

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

0 5 10 15 20 25

Feca

l Bact

eria, log/

100 g

m s

oil

Day After Manure Application

Fecal Bacteria on Soil After Manure Application

July 2009

Broadcast - Post

Broadcast - Pre

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

E. co

liBact

eria, log/

100 g

m s

oil

Days After Manure Application

E. coli Bacteria on Soil after Manure

Application - July 2009

Broadcast Post

Broadcast Pre

5,248,074

20,892

Take Home Message

As more manure is moved off-farm for human crop production, greater attention

needs to be given to insuring that the manure presents a low risk of contaminating food crops

Frequency of Foodborne Illness in the United States per year

• Total FBI 76 million

• Hospitalizations 325,000

• Deaths 5,000

Foodborne Pathogens & Produce

• Produce outbreaks have increased

• Most common pathogens:– E. coli O157:H7

– Norovirus

– Salmonella

Higher Risk Produce

• Root Crops & Leaf Crops where product touches the soil

• 88% of produce-related outbreaks (Anderberg, 2007)

– Lettuce & Leafy Greens– Tomatoes– Sprouts– Green Onions– Melons

The Silver Lining

• Low pathogen prevalence on most foods

• Produce– 1.6% of domestic produce harbors

pathogens

– 4.4% of imported produce harbors pathogens

Janet Anderberg, 2007

CDC, October 6, 2006

E. coli O157:H7 infection occurrence

Estimated each year in the US:

• 73,000 infections • 61 deaths • 3-5% with Hemolytic

Uremic Syndrome (HUS) die

Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on carrots and onions grown in

fields treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water

Mahbub Islam, Michael P. Doyle, Sharad C. Phatak, Patricia Millner, and Xiuping Jiang

Food Microbiology 22 (2005) 63-70

The Basic Question

• If you use contaminated manures or irrigation water, what is the risk E.Coli O157:H7 surviving on your crops?

Control

Poultry manure

Dairy manure compost

Alkaline stabilized dairy

manure

Contaminated irrigation water Contaminated irrigation water

Alkaline stabilized dairy

manure

Poultry manure

Dairy manure compost

Control

E. coli O157:H7 Inoculation

• 3 composts: 107 cfu/g

• Irrigation water: 105 cfu/ml

Application and planting

• Compost mixed in with soil from plots at a rate of 2 tons/acre– Mixture applied over rows

• Carrots and onions direct seeded next day

• Contaminated irrigation water hand sprayed 3 weeks after carrots and onions were seeded

Sampling

• ~Once/ week for 29 weeks

• 100 g soil from each plot near a plant – 1 inch deep from surface

• Randomly selected plant pulled (every three weeks)– Edible parts used for analysis

• All samples aseptically collected

Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in soil samples: carrots

□ No Compost

■ Poultry manure compost

▲ Dairy cattle manure compost

● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost

○ Contaminated irrigation water

Up to 196 d with dairy

and poultry manure

Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in soil samples: onions

□ No Compost

■ Poultry manure compost

▲ Dairy cattle manure compost

● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost

○ Contaminated irrigation water

E. coli O157:H7 survival in soil

• At least 154 d in all soil

• 196 d in soil where carrots were grown and poultry or dairy compost was applied

E. coli O157:H7 counts on carrots

□ No Compost

■ Poultry manure compost

▲ Dairy cattle manure compost

● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost

○ Contaminated irrigation water

168 d

E. coli O157:H7 counts on onions

□ No Compost

■ Poultry manure compost

▲ Dairy cattle manure compost

● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost

○ Contaminated irrigation water

74 d

E. coli O157:H7 survival on vegetables

• 168 d on carrots (harvested on d 126)

• 74 d on onions (harvested on d 140)

• Cell numbers decreased, but more rapidly on onions

Time between application and harvest

• USDA National Organic Program

• Minimum of 120 days

• E. coli survived 168 d on carrots

Take-Home Messages

• Untreated animal waste may be a source of pathogens

• Proper composting can reduce risk of transmitting pathogens via manure

• Absolute safety of compost or manure is impossible to demonstrate

• Good planning, monitoring, and recordkeeping is essential to demonstrate reasonable precautions made to avoid contamination

Joe Harrison

jhharrison@wsu.edu