COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA POULTRY LETTER

November 1998

In This Issue:

• Highlights of 5th National Poultry Waste Management Symposium - Springdale, Arkansas
• Calendar

5th National Poultry Waste Management Symposium - Springdale, Arkansas

This symposium was organized by a committee of volunteers from universities, government agencies and industry. Anyone who would like to serve on this committee in the future may contact Dr. Richard Reynnells, National Program Leader, Animal Production Systems, CSREES, USDA; telephone 202/401-1602; e-mail rreynnells@reeusda.gov. While many of us on the organizing committee have contributed to the success of these symposia, Dr. Reynnells has provided the organizational effort which has made this a reality.

This article attempts to summarize some of the material presented and discussed at this three day symposium which was attended by about 400 people. The tours were one of the most interesting parts of the program.

Political and Economic Issues

Needless to say poultry and egg producers, contract growers, and integrated companies did not intentionally set out to cause water pollution. Most growers and companies are trying hard to be good stewards of the environment. When you read stories which state or at least imply that the poultry and egg industries cause most water pollution in an area, keep in mind that many authors have their own agenda to promote. It may be that they are opposed to meat consumption, or want to promote organic food production or they may just be looking for a sensational story. The truth is that we need concentrated animal feeding operations to produce the large quantities of animal products needed to feed America. We also need to find and apply management methods or technologies which allow economical production of animal products without excessive impacts on surface and ground-water quality.

Michael Cook, USEPA discussed the historic successes in improved waste disposal and the challenges which remain. He said that despite progress in reducing water pollution, 36 percent of monitored rivers are rated as impaired and 8 percent are threatened. Thirty-nine percent of assessed lakes are impaired and another 9 percent are threatened. Thirty-eight percent of assessed estuaries are impaired and 4 percent are threatened. This points out the need for better control of waste and more effective management of nutrients applied to agricultural fields (both from animal waste and commercial fertilizers).

The recently released guidelines developed jointly by EPA and USDA for animal feeding operations (AFO's) were discussed. He urged the industry to seek voluntary solutions to waste disposal problems. An example of this type of effort is the National Poultry and Egg Environmental Dialog led by the National Broiler Council. This group is composed of industry, agency and university representatives. Several meetings have been held and nine working groups have been formed to address concerns.

An evening session was devoted to discussion of who might be economically responsible for solving waste problems. Contract growers pointed out that to make a profit they need to recover some value from the litter. If litter cannot be used as fertilizer on the farm it has be moved away at a cost to the grower and the grower would probably need to purchase nitrogen to fertilize his/her pasture. Under these conditions they indicated that growing poultry probably would not be as profitable under typical contracts offered in the industry today. However, a broiler integrator on the panel stated that integrators were willing to participate in solving pollution problems.

Nutrient Management

Nutrient management is considered to be the key to solving water quality problems particularly in problem watersheds. This subject was addressed by Phil Schroeder, from Virginia Tech. Broadly speaking, nutrient management refers to control of nutrients so that they do not get into runoff or ground-water. Animal wastes are a significant source of nutrients. To protect surface and ground-water, waste must be properly stored after removal from poultry houses and careful planning is required before waste is land applied. Land application rates should consider the nutrient content of the waste, the soil type and the nutrient requirements of the crop to be grown on the field. Early nutrient management plans often considered only nitrogen content of the waste and nitrogen requirement of the crop. It is clear now that phosphorus levels in waste and soils must also be considered. In some cases salt content of the waste and copper and zinc levels may also need to be considered.

In critical watersheds with high animal populations there may be insufficient land to safely apply all of the waste available. In this case the nutrients may need to be transported out of the watershed. Several successful technologies which might be useful to accomplish this economically were discussed at the Symposium. An associated critical issue is "who will pay for any changes in waste management which may be mandated."

Promising Technologies

Burning Litter for Energy

Burning litter for generation of electricity was discussed by Rupert Fraser, Managing Director, Fibrowatt, Ltd., England. This company has three successful commercial electric generating plants in Europe. The newest uses 500,000 tons of poultry litter per year to generate 38.5 MW of electricity. The ash (about 10 percent of the original weight) is sold as a fertilizer. These plants can meet all of our air pollution requirements. The major limitation of this technology in the US is economics. Our electricity is cheaper and the difference would need to be made up by tipping fees (fee charged for dumping a load of waste) charged to those disposing of the waste or by some other economic subsidy.

Composting as an Alternative

There are many technologies available which could reduce or totally negate the effects of concentrated animal feeding operations on water or air quality. Some of the technologies involve processing manure or litter so that the nutrients can be economically moved out of the watershed where the animals are located. The problem with most of these is that they are not economically feasible.

Results were presented of a study to determine the economic and technical feasibility of composting dairy waste in Erath County Texas. Composting and transportation of the waste out of the watershed would help in preventing excessive phosphorus loading in the Brazos River. The study showed that to make a composting operation economically feasible the tipping fees charged to dairymen would have to be excessively high.

In another paper Dr. Herb Brodie, University of Maryland, reported that composting is most likely to be economical if wastes from industrial sources can be combined with poultry waste. Industrial producers of organic waste currently pay significant tipping fees to dispose of this material. A composting operation which offers them a more cost effective alternative can collect tipping fees which can make the composting business economically feasible. The tour on the final day of the workshop took us to just such a composting operation (photo 1). The site was accepting several types of waste including large volumes of poultry mortality.

Phosphatase in Feed

Phosphorus reduction in manure or litter can be achieved by adding phosphatase enzyme to the feed so that the chickens can use more of the plant phosphorus. This technology was discussed by Peter Spring, Alltech, Inc. and Fraulene MacKnight, BASF. Both of these companies have enzymes available which they claim can be cost effective in reducing feed cost and total phosphorus level of commercial poultry feeds. Use of an enzyme to reduce phosphorus in the manure would require cooperation between the company milling the feed and the grower who ends up with the waste. This appears to be a technology that could be used immediately in areas with phosphorus loading problems.

HAP Corn

High available phosphorus (HAP) corn varieties are now available from seed companies. Some of this corn is already available and more will surely be grown in the future if there is a demand for it by the animal industry. Use of this corn to replace conventional corn in poultry feed could further reduce phosphorus in poultry manure. Again this approach requires cooperation between the feed mill and the poultry growing farms.

Reducing Phosphorus Solubility

Dr. Phillip Moore, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, reported on use of alum (aluminum sulfate) in litter or manure to reduce phosphorus solubility and phosphorus runoff when litter is land applied. Research in this area was discussed and also demonstrated on the production tour. Alum has successfully reduced phosphorus solubility and phosphorus runoff following soil application of alum treated litter.

Litter Treatments

An evening session included several speakers addressing commercial materials available for litter treatment. The most common types of litter treatments are chemical, microbial or enzyme-base products according to George Malone, University of Delaware, Poultry Specialist. Most litter treatments are used to control ammonia volatilization and/or to reduce litter pathogens in an attempt to improve performance. Other benefits or disadvantages may include reduced phosphorus solubility when the litter is land applied as a fertilizer. Reduced ammonia volatilization reduces the need for ventilation and may reduce fuel used for brooding. Another benefit can be improved bird performance and a reduction in litter beetle numbers. Tests of litter treatments to determine their usefulness should consider all of the potential benefits, material costs and application costs.

These treatments are usually applied when built-up litter programs are used. Most chemical litter treatments which have been tested are acids (sodium bisulfate, aluminum sulfate, phosphoric acid, etc.) which reduce litter pH so that ammonia is converted to ammonium sulfate, ammonium phosphate or other ammonium compounds and is not volatilized to ammonia gas.

Calendar

January 20-22, 1999, International Poultry Exhibition, Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta. For more information contact U.S. Poultry and Egg Association 770/493-9401.

February 9-10, 1999, Australian Poultry Science Symposium. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Contact D.J. Farrell, Queensland Poultry Research and Development Centre. Alexandra Hills, Queensland 4161, Australia. Fax: 61 7 3824 4316.

*February 22-26, 1999, PePa 75th Annual Convention, Palm Springs Hilton, Palm Springs, CA. For information call 916/441-0801.

*April 25-27, 1999, 48th Western Poultry Disease Conference, Landmark Hotel and Conference Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. For information contact Lina Layiktez, Conference & Events Services, 530/757-3331.

*May 17-19, 1999, National Egg Quality School, Ashville, NC. More details in future newsletters.

August 15-19, 1999, 12th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. Organized by the WPSA Working Group No. 2, Secretariat WPSA 12th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, c/o Wageningen Agricultural University, Animal Nutrition Group, Dr. Rene P. Kwakkel, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31 317 482468/ 484082; Fax: 31 317 484260.

*Programs approved for California Quality Assurance Program credit.