From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 26 June 2001 12:54 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Discussion Agenda Second Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear participants, The impacts of livestock production on the environment have to be taken very seriously because they can threaten not only the long-term productivity of agricultural and livestock activities but also the health and wellbeing of the population and the ecological equilibrium. To be sustainable, livestock production therefore has to pay great attention to the prevention or minimisation of its environmental impacts. As the major environmental impacts result from livestock excreta, special care has to be given to manure management. Good manure management means collecting, storing, transporting and utilising the manure. This poses a considerable challenge in terms of management, technology and costs to the livestock industry as a whole. Furthermore it implies that the livestock production has to collaborate with crop producers to recycle the manure as fertiliser on land. In our discussion we have the task to assess the importance of the environmental impacts, the available knowledge and technology for good manure handling, especially in intensive livestock production in developing countries and the measures that could and should be adopted by farmers and policy makers to guarantee the sustainability of livestock production. To kick off the discussion the paper formulates a number of hypothesis on critical aspects and key-questions that should be discussed. We suggest the participants to react to as many of the hypothesis and key-questions as possible (please note the number of the hypothesis or question with your remarks). At the end of the week we will summarise the discussion, highlight the key aspects and propose some conclusions. We hope to have an open and critical discussion and invite everybody to participate regularly and actively in the discussion. We thank you for openly sharing all your experience and for your critical remarks in the discussion. The moderators Harald Menzi Mauricio Rosales From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 26 June 2001 12:54 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Paper on Impacts and Manure and Nutrient Manage ment Second Session MINIMISING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION THROUGH GOOD MANURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Harald MENZI, Swiss College of Agriculture (SCA), CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland The following text gives a brief overview on possible environmental impacts of intensive livestock production (especially pigs) and the principles of good manure and nutrient management. Critical aspects are highlighted for discussion in a number of hypothesis and important information which should be gathered from the conference participants is formulated as key-questions. The key-questions mostly focus on actual situation and the needs assessed in the framework of the four projects currently implemented by LEAD in Thailand, China, Vietnam and Mexico (see the LEAD Virtual Centre for more information on those projects: LINK TO BE ANNOUNCED LATER) 1. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION? 1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Livestock excretes 70 to over 90% of the nitrogen (N), minerals (phosphorous P; potassium K, magnesium Mg, etc.) and heavy metals taken up in the feed. Livestock excreta, which will furthermore be called manure (solid and liquid manure), therefore contain a considerable amount of these substances. If these get into the water or accumulate in the soil, they can be a serious threat to the environment. The major environmental threats of intensive livestock production are: * EUTROPHICATION of surface water (deteriorating water quality, algae growth, damage to fish etc.) due to input of organic substance and nutrients if excreta or waste water from livestock production get into streams through discharged, run- off or overflow of lagoons. Surface water pollution threatens aquatic ecosystems and the quality of drinking water taken from streams. * LEACHING of nitrate to the ground water from manure storage facilities for liquid manure or from fields on which high doses of manure have been applied. Nitrate leaching is especially a threat for drinking water quality. * ACCUMULATION of nutrients and heavy metals in the soil if high doses of manure are applied. This can threaten soil fertility. * Spreading of DISEASES AND PATHOGENS harmful to human and animal health. * ODOUR, which can be a nuisance in populated areas. * VOLATILISATION OF AMMONIA to the air e.g. from animal houses, open manure storage and manure spreading. Ammonia causes N-deposition and eutrophication of sensible ecosystems * METHANE IS PRODUCED under anaerobic conditions in manure storage. Methane causes global warming. Agricultural production systems are only sustainable if these environmental impacts are kept to a minimum. This is only possible with good manure management which prevents any manure discharge or run-off into watercourses and excessive manure applications to land. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 1: To be sustainable, livestock production must be environmentally sound. This means that water and soil pollution must be kept to a minimum. HYPOTHESIS 2: Any discharge of manure or waste water to water courses must be prevented. KEY-QUESTION 1: Are the above mentioned risks experienced as real problems and under which circumstances ? What indicators could be used to assess the environmental impact of livestock production? ************************************************************* 1.2 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD MANURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Good manure and nutrient management as defined in the AWI projects, according to local technical and economic conditions means that: * No manure (solid or liquid) is discharged to water courses. * Manure is recycled in agriculture as fertiliser or feed. In fact, under the observed economic conditions, the biological treatment of manure (aerobic and anaerobic) to decrease it's nutrient content so it could match discharge standards is not affordable. On the contrary, recycling allows for valuing those nutrients. * Manure is stored in such a way that leaching and run-off or overflow losses are prevented. * Manure is stored long enough or treated in such a way that pathogens are eliminated. * Manure is dosed according to the N and P2O5 demand of the crops. For N, only about 30-70% (depending on manure type) of the total N content (Kjeldahl-N) can be counted as available for crops. * Manure and mineral fertiliser are only used in such doses that the total nutrient input does not surpass the crop nutrient demand (nutrient balance in equilibrium). * Heavy metal inputs in animal feed are restricted in such a way that the heavy metal dose in manure does not surpass the uptake in crops. Biodigestors are successfully used in our AWI project countries (mainly China and Vietnam) to produce methane at farm level (mainly for private use) and, in fewer cases at a larger scale (neighbourhoods, small villages). It can improve the odour and pathogen situation, but has little or no effect on the manure's nutrient load. Contents in macro and micro- nutrients, as well as heavy metals are unchanged after the biodigestion. Therefore, we believe it is an interesting segment of the manure processing chain that can produce substantial added value, but we do not include it in this introduction to manure and nutrient management. It is much easier to handle solid manure in an environmentally friendly way than liquid manure, because it is more concentrated and can be transported more efficiently. In many developing countries there is a market for solid manure, while liquid manure is usually not utilised. Liquid manure (including "waste water") is therefore the main environmental threat of intensive livestock production. Pig production is in most cases a much bigger threat than poultry production which mostly produces solid manure. In most countries, activities to reduce environmental impacts of manure management should therefore in first priority focus on liquid manure. The principles of good manure and nutrient management can only be met if there is enough land to spread the manure without risk of nutrient balance surplus or if the manure can be used as feed or exported from agriculture. For 100 fattening pig places, a crop area of 10-20 ha is needed. Consequently, large pig farms need very large surfaces to utilise their manure and the "carrying capacity" for livestock of a region is limited. Herbivores usually pose less problems for the nutrient balance than pig and poultry because the surface needed to produce their forage automatically limits the possible animal density. Even if manure is used on crops, it often poses a serious threat to the environment. This is for example the case if the total amount of nutrients used in manure and mineral fertiliser is considerably higher than the crop nutrient demand, if manure is utilised in such a way that emissions to water bodies are high or if the soil is harmed by the application machinery or by high heavy metal doses. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 3: All manure must be recycled in agriculture as fertiliser or feed. HYPOTHESIS 4: The amount of nutrients in manure and mineral fertiliser should not surpass the crop nutrient demand (nutrient balance in equilibrium). HYPOTHESIS 5: Heavy metal use in feed should be restricted to prevent heavy metal accumulation in soils on which manure is used. HYPOTHESIS 6: In most countries activities to reduce environmental impacts of manure management should in first priority focus on liquid manure. KEY-QUESTION 2: What are experiences with existing or new manure management practices, under which conditions are they successful and where have they failed? ************************************************************* 1.3 MAJOR RESTRICTIONS FOR MANURE USE AS FERTILISER ON CROPS Manure management, especially the dose and time of application must not only take into account the minimisation of negative effects to the environment but also the prevention of negative effects on the yield and the quality of the crops. It is well known that excessive manure doses can negatively influence crop quality (e.g. protein content, taste) and even crop yield (e.g. through lodging). Negative effects, especially on yield, are also possible if the nutrients applied in the manure are not sufficient or not available to the crop at the right time. As the utilisation of solid manure usually poses little problem, restrictions for manure use as fertiliser on crops must in first priority be analysed for liquid manure. According to the experience in the different AWI projects, the major factors limiting or preventing the use of liquid manure as fertiliser are: * There is no tradition and therefore no experience with using liquid manure on crops. * The technology for manure handling (storage, transport, spreading) are not known by farmers and to great extent have not yet been developed for the conditions in developing countries. * Farmers have seen or heard of cases where excessive manure discharge to land caused serious problems with crops. * Farmers fear that liquid manure could have a negative effect on crop quality and yield. They have no examples to contradict this fear. * Farmers have no recommendations and tools for the optimal use of liquid manure. * The handling of liquid manure is too complicated, work- intensive and dirty. * It is cheaper to buy mineral fertiliser than to use the corresponding amount of nutrients in the form of liquid manure with its high costs for storage, transport and spreading. * Crop farmers do not want to support rich large livestock farmers. Apart from policy guidelines, efforts to improve the manure management must focus on contradicting or elimination these restrictions. In most countries it will probably be more difficult to convince crop farmers than livestock farmers about the benefits of using liquid manure as fertiliser. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 7: Costs and lacking experience, recommendations and demonstrations of good manure management are the main factors hindering crop farmers to use liquid manure as fertiliser. HYPOTHESIS 8: At least for strongly diluted liquid manure it will be very difficult to be competitive with mineral fertiliser in terms of costs. HYPOTHESIS 9: In most countries it will probably be more difficult to convince crop farmers than livestock farmers about the benefits of using liquid manure as fertiliser. KEY-QUESTION 3: Under what conditions will crop farmers have more interest in using manure ? KEY-QUESTION 4: What policy influencing manure management is in practice in the various countries. What experience is available on its implementation? ************************************************************* 2. IMPLICATIONS OF GOOD MANURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FOR LIVESTOCK FARMS AND CROP FARMS USING MANURE 2.1 AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM The most important prerequisites for a manure and nutrient management respecting the environment are the awareness of all the stakeholders of he potential risks and their willingness to cope with the problem. Awareness building will therefore have to be the first step in any program aiming at an improved manure management. Under most circumstances the awareness building process has to be well established before specific policy measures have any chance of success. Once the awareness of the problem and the willingness to cope with it has been established, farmers will demand specific and reliable recommendations for measures that are applicable (technically and economically) and effective on their farms. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 10: The awareness about the problem of environmental impacts of livestock production has to be well established before specific policy measures have any chance of success. ************************************************************* 2.2 MANURE PRODUCTION AND MANURE QUALITY One of the most important handicaps of manure compared to mineral fertiliser is its variable and mostly quite unknown quantity and quality. To furnish such information is therefore an important challenge for extension services. Basically such information can be provided in the form of guide values that are simple to use or as a model calculating manure production and composition on the basis of livestock management, feeding, housing and storage system etc. An important message to farmers is that minimising the amount of nutrients and heavy metals in the livestock production cycle is an essential step to reduce environmental problems. As this requires them to limit the protein, mineral and heavy metal content of the feed to the level essential for the animal and to achieve a good feed conversion efficiency, they need reliable feeding recommendations based on sound data about animal requirements. For slurry or liquid manure, an important quality parameter is the dry matter content. Slurry and liquid manure from pig production are often strongly diluted by washing and flushing water from animal houses, by leaking drinking nipples and by rainwater getting into the lagoons or tanks. The consequence is a low nutrient content of the manure and a large quantity that has to be handled. Recommendations on how to reduce unnecessary water inputs are therefore also an important requirement. ************************************************************* KEY-QUESTION 5: What tools to estimate manure production and quality are available in Asian and Latin American countries? ************************************************************* 2.3 MANURE STORAGE AND TREATMENT To fulfil the principles of good manure and nutrient management there must be sufficient manure storage capacity (at least for 3-5 months for liquid manure). Thus it is possible to prevent manure use at times when the soil cannot absorb it or when the development stage of the crops does not allow its use. The storage facilities must be built in a way to prevent leaching losses and they must be big enough to prevent overflow during winter or rainy season. If there is no natural clay layer that prevents leaching, lagoons for liquid manure must therefore be lined with plastic or concrete. Manure treatment is often seen as an important option to reduce environmental impacts of manure management. Manure treatment can reduce the amount of organic substance, dry mater, nitrogen and pathogens in the manure and the emission of odour. Nevertheless, it must also be considered that: * Any treatment will bring additional costs. * Treatment can hardly solve a nutrient surplus problem, at least not at reasonable costs. * Treatment will only be successful if its efficient functioning can be guaranteed under on-farm conditions and if the capacity of the installation is sufficient for the amount of manure to be treated. It will be nearly impossible at reasonable costs to treat manure in such a way that it can be discharged to watercourses without risk of serious water pollution. For manure storage and treatment facilities, the economies of scale will clearly favour big farms. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 11: Manure treatment can not solve a nutrient surplus problem and it will be nearly impossible at reasonable costs to treat manure in such a way that it can be discharged to watercourses without risk of serious water pollution. KEY-QUESTION 6: What experiences with manure processing and treatment are available from the various countries? ************************************************************* 2.4 MANURE UTILISATION The main options of utilising manure instead of disposing or discharging it are the use as fertiliser on crop land or as feed for livestock or aquaculture (fish production etc.). From the ecological viewpoint, the use as feed is an efficient way of saving resources. Attention has to be given to the prevention of spreading diseases. In the case of aquaculture, the manure utilisation will have to be organised in a way that does not considerably increase water pollution. Using manure on cropland means that it has to be transported to the fields and evenly spread. For solid manure, this is already common practice and the necessary technology exists. For transporting the liquid manure from the store to the fields on which it is spread the following options exist: * Canals with sealed bottom and sides if the fields are sufficiently lower than the store. * Fixed installation of tubes or pipes (under or above ground) or temporary installation of tubes for distances up to about 2 km (without too much difference in altitude). * Tankers, if both the store and the fields are accessible. * Wheel-barrows, small carts or boats (for small farms only). The appropriate transportation technique will be strongly dependant on the volume (dilution) to be handled, the distance over which the manure has to be transported, the topography and the accessibility of the storage and the fields. For spreading liquid manure on the field the following techniques are possible: * Tankers with splash plate or band application (low emission systems). * Furrow irrigation. * Flexible poly-ethylene (PE) tubes with sprinklers. * High pressure rain-guns. * By hand. Which of these techniques is appropriate strongly depends on the structure of the farm, the size and shape of the fields, the crop and the topography. As observed in the AWI projects, a lot of the manure storage, transport and application technology used in developed countries will not be appropriate in developing countries due to technical restrictions (fields too small, accessibility etc.) or for economic reasons. The appropriate technology must be defined and in many cases developed taking into account national, regional and farm-specific circumstances. For manure transport, big farms will be at a disadvantage because they need a bigger radius of land for spreading the (liquid) manure. Transportation distance for liquid manure could therefore be one of the most important factors limiting the maximum size of pig farms. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 12: A lot of the manure storage, transport and application technology used in developed countries will not be appropriate in developing countries due to technical and economic restrictions. HYPOTHESIS 13: Transportation distance for liquid manure could be one of the most important factors limiting the maximum size of pig farms. KEY-QUESTION 7: What manure storage, transport and spreading technologies are available and applicable in developing countries? What are the most important fields where such technology must still be developed? KEY-QUESTION 8: What experience is available in Asian and Latin American countries with other forms of manure recycling than the use as fertiliser (e.g. use as feed for livestock or fish, energy production)? ************************************************************* 3. TOOLS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT A GOOD MANURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 3.1 DIFFERENCES IN NEEDS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS From the viewpoint of the farmers, there is an urgent need for reliable recommendations on manure use as fertiliser. As there is not enough relevant experience in this field in most countries, well-focused experiments should be established without delay. These experiments, as well as the establishment of demonstration farms or regions trying to implement the AWI- concept, will be an important step in convincing farmers of the feasibility of the proposed concept. For bigger farms and for the regional optimisation of manure management, tools will be needed which help farmers and farm advisors to assess nutrient balances, amount and composition of manure available, crop nutrient demand etc. Such tools (e.g. models or guide value tables) must be reliable and easy to use. They should be able to take into account important farm or region-specific production parameters. From the viewpoint of policy makers, a model is needed which can assess the nutrient balance and environmental impact situation at present, for different scenarios of future development and in the framework of future monitoring programs. For an optimal assessment of the situation it would probably be best to use the same nutrient flux model mentioned as a need for bigger farms and to combine it with GIS- technology for further analysis and visualisation of the results. Any other solution would bear a high risk of misunderstandings because of incongruent results of different models. Apart from the tools mentioned above, the success of the AWI strategy will decisively rely on appropriate policy measures. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 14: Reliable planning tools, demonstration experiments and farms and appropriate policy measures will be decisive for the success of an AWI-strategy. KEY-QUESTION 9: What tools for good manure and nutrient management are needed in AWI countries? What tools are already available? ************************************************************* 3.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A NUTRIENT FLUX MODEL Crop and livestock production systems can be very variable, depending on natural conditions (soil, water household, topography), farm structure and production technique (production intensity, type and composition of feed etc.). To provide reliable results for different scales of application or different sites, a nutrient flux model should theoretically be able to take into account all the factors that might have a significant influence on the results. In practice, the influencing factors are so numerous and often difficult to quantify, that they must be classified into the following groups in the process of designing a model: * Factors that can be reliably quantified at the farm level (e.g. breed, production, feed intake and composition, crop yield). * Factors which can not be quantified for individual farms, but for which reliable regional recommendations or statistics exist (e.g. nutrient demand of crops). * Factors for which only qualified expert assumptions are possible. * Factors that can not be reliably quantified. Factors in the first two categories must be integrated as variables that can be filled in by the user. For factors of the third category, region-specific expert assumptions must be integrated and factors of the last category must by omitted as long as no more reliable data is available. Furthermore, model makers must consider that the model should be appropriate for a wide range of user needs and backgrounds. Nutrient balance calculations basically compare nutrient inputs with nutrient exports from a farm or a region. Different levels of detail are possible. For example, inputs and exports can be assessed in detail based on production parameters or standard values can be used. The appropriate level usually depends on the availability of input data and the background of the user. The model should be flexible enough to account for this. ************************************************************* HYPOTHESIS 15: Different users (e.g. farmers and policy makers) have different requirements for a nutrient flux model. Nevertheless, it is advisable that one model is provided which fulfils the needs of different user groups. HYPOTHESIS 16: The model used in the AWI project should have the flexibility to use either farm or region specific input data on production technique or standard values compiled by national experts. HYPOTHESIS 17: In the framework of the AWI project, intensive livestock production (pigs and poultry should be treated in detail, while other livestock categories (e.g. cattle) should only be included with standard values. ************************************************************* 3.3 THE AWI NUTRIENT FLUX MODEL Various manure and nutrient management models exist but many of them focus either on nutrient fluxes or on amounts of manure to be handled. Furthermore, they do not usually offer the flexibility of being used by different users, for different applications and at different levels of detail. A special nutrient flux model was therefore developed for the AWI project. For pig and poultry production it allows either the use of regional standard values compiled by national experts or differentiated input data. For crop production, either crop nutrient demand according to official recommendations or the actual export based on yield and product composition can be utilised. The model can be easily adjusted to regional conditions and translated into different languages. At the moment draft versions of the model exist for Thailand and Jiangsu Province, China. Adapted versions will be developed for each AWI project country. The draft version for Jiangsu Province is available at the LEAD Virtual Centre for testing (LINK TO BE ANNOUNCED LATER). Feedback from testers is highly welcome (harald.menzi@shl.bfh.ch). From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 11:09 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Melvin Landers on Nutrient Manage ment Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Melvin Landers, agrimel@yahoo.com Melvin Landers of Integrated Agrisystems, Solutions for the growing World presents a treatment system developed in Brazil which can completely decompose manure. Even though the systems can also be used on large farms, Melvin Landers sees it especially as a solution for small farms. This system looks highly interesting but it would be valuable if we could get more detailed information on the cost (especially for small farms) and on experimental measurements performed with it (if possible using a mass balance approach). We would also appreciate if more information (drawings, etc) can be made available for the participants. Moderators As a result of the efforts of Dr.Raul Martins of Sao Paulo and his partner Dr. Jose Karam of Porto Alegre, to develop an organic hydroponic industry for poor farmers in Brazil, they developed a six chamber biodigester that uses both aerobic and anaerobic organisms in the various stages of the system to completely decompose manure into biogas, water, mineral salts and soluble humus. This new generation of digesters can be used to treat the manure from any size of operation, from 50 hens(cheaply) to 50,000 hogs or more. The resultant nutrient solution (Bio-fertilizer) has no ability to support microbial life(there are no Pathogens). It has a BOD of zero and a pH of 6.9 to 7.1. The soluble humus acts as a buffering agent to allow hydroponic plants(or any others) to thrive despite the neutral pH and as a chelating agent, regulating the release of nutrients to prevent deficiencies and toxicity. The ability of humus to hold onto nutrients would also reduce leaching. Full strength, the fertilizer can be applied before planting, as a side dressing or as a foliar spray. It can be used on pasture, row crops, orchards or produce with no of pollution or disease risk. The system works well with any manure as long as there is a 2:1 ratio of water to solids in the mixing tank. In small systems, using plastic barrels all of the same size, it takes 60 days to work. In large systems with properly sized chambers retention time is decreased somewhat. This technology has the potential to shift the advantage to small farms since it can yield both biogas and a non polluting fertilizer. Until production can be shifted to small producers the multiple phase total digestion system can also significantly decrease the risk from large operations as well. Although large systems are expensive to build, the environmental costs of not building, would be much greater. These systems should be discontinued as soon as possible, wherever possible. In situations where rural agriculture is no longer viable, nutrients can be used in urban hydroponic farms. But, this should not be seen as a desirable model where rural farms still exist. Although manure treated with this system no longer poses the same environmental threat that untreated manure does, it is still important to transport the nutrients, from large operations to the rural areas where they are needed. This can be accomplished with tank trucks or drums. The combined value of the biogas and fertilizer might lessen the economic burden of doing this. We will give drawings and needed information about our small plastic barrel system, free of charge, to aid agencies who are willing to pass it on to poor farmers. Large systems will have to be individually designed by Dr. Martins. Sincerely Melvin Landers General Manager Integrated Agrisystems Solutions for the growing World agrimel@yahoo.com From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 13:33 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT AWI HOMEPAGE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Participants, The Area Wide Integration (AWI) homepage is now available at the LEAD Virtual Research and Development Centre. You can find information on the concept, definition and rationale of AWI and key references in the subject. The beta version of the Nutrient Balance Calculation Model discussed in the previous paper is also available. Please feel free to download the program. Feedback from testers is highly welcome (harald.menzi@shl.bfh.ch). INSTRUCTIONS To reach the page please follow this link: http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm Click on: Research and Development (second button on the blue frame at your left hand side) Click on: AWI Area Wide Integration Label (second red frame on the screen) The articles, comments and contributions to the electronic conference will be available soon. Yours virtually Dr. Mauricio Rosales Manager, Virtual Research and Development Centre Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD) Animal Production and Health Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla Tel: (3906) 57056117 Fax: (3906) 57055749 Email: mauricio.rosales@fao.org From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 20:35 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Cheryl McCrindle to Manure Manag ement Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Prof C McCrindle, mccrindl@op1.up.ac.za Cheryl McCrindle from South Africa discusses the importance of farm size for environment impacts. He points out that per animal, the pollution potential can be as high on a small farm as on a big farm. To reduce environmental impacts he suggests that international agencies should work on global guidance documents (database etc.) to support the optimisation of resource and manure management. Moderator In reply to the introductory paper, Wolfgang Bayer raised the question "What is a smallholder". This is a question that is very relevant to social planning and management of effluent. It varies a great deal from country to country. It cannot be based on type of farming, number of animals, size of farm - the carrying capacity and monetary value of animals varies too much. I think a way to resolve it is to look at a definition of a "living wage" for a particular country. Small scale or part time farming is that which does not produce sufficient income for a "living wage" and must be supplemented from outside. Small scale farmers usually do not have the resources to pay for the environmental effects of their farming practices and this becomes the state's problem, whereas commercial undertakings can be forced to take up this responsibility. I disagree with the generalisation by several authors that more environmental damage is caused by effluent and manure from larger, commercial farming enterprises. Environmental problems caused should be calculated per head of stock/ poultry. One small scale farmer with 5 cattle, three goats, ten chickens and a pig is not going to have the impact on the environment of a dairy farm with 500 cows. However. One hundred small scale farmers with 5 cows each have that potential. The effects depend much more on the system of farming and the attention paid to resource management (overgrazing etc) as well as management of manure. Optimisation is the key - how much manure is optimal for a pasture for any given climate/ soil type/ humidity/ etc. We have the technological tools (satellites, mathematical modelling, GIS etc) for international agencies to give global guidelines that are accessible to all. In regard to management of manure I would suggest that we co-operate in getting a database of this nature, rather than deviating into ideological arguments that involve all sorts of side issues: North Vs South, rich Vs poor, commercial Vs subsistence, vegetarian Vs omnivorous, animal welfare, social issues etc. The FAO is in an ideal position to do this. Best wishes Cheryl McCrindle, South Africa From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 21:17 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Dam Van Tien to Nutrient Manageme nt Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dam Van Tien, tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dam Van Tien, Faculty of Animal Science, University of Agriculture and Forestry, Hue City, Vietnam gives some important general considerations on good manure management using examples from the Ho Chi Minh City region and suggests different ways in which feeding measures can help to reduce the problem. Dear AWI friends, I think I need add a few points, which may need for our better conference now and next week. Yes, first let say 'any way go to Roma" and "MINIMISING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION THROUGH GOOD MANURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT' is one of them which we need now. The information in the first paragraph below I share my point of view with Prof. Bob Orskov about manure market in Ho Chi Minh City and add a paradox view in Ninh Thuan province. 1) Each location has it's own solutions to overcome pollution from livestock activities and each change in crop production also leads to changes in other chains in the integrated system. The story mentioned by Bob Orskov last week when he visited HO Chi Minh City is a good example for a "new" way of moving manure in Cu Chi district of Ho Chi Minh city (Thank you Bob for your giving me a clue for a comment). It is true that after the Doi Moi policy of the Vietnamese government, coffee is becoming key crop and its production is growing very quickly in the country both in quantity and in quality. A larger coffee scale farm needs more fertilizer and thus leads to higher production costs, because in-organic fertilizer has a very high price compared to out-put products (current price in Vietnam). Thus, our farmer MUST use manure for coffee in order to reduce input cost. I think that they do this way because of their benefits rather than because they are aware of the pollution issue in the urban area. This means that this tendency is automatically occurring. However, I need to add another example that is occurring in Ninh Thuan province, a semi- arid area of the country. A middle man in this region established a "manure market" for poor farmer to have a job in the rangelands!!! collecting both fresh and dry dung as much as possible to increase their income (may be it is higher than when they do their main job of cultivation). Consequently, soils in this semi-arid zone are poorer and poorer. This is combined with overgrazing by ruminant animals makes serious problems for the rangeland eco-system. This paradox makes me think about ways we need to find in each region for "good manure and nutrition management". Reading the introductory paper, I think it is important to make the following considerations: * Each location needs it' own solution to manage manure which may engage it's traditional practise and current indigenous knowledge of farmers. * How do we find a key force to assess and control manure pollution problems in each location. Scientists? farmers? local government? or all of them? * FAO and NGOs and other donors could be a key force to make a strategy to overcome this problem. In the following messages I would like to add a few thing which may support our goal mentioned by the moderator, Dr. Harald Menzi 1) Ammonia is a normal gas in the nature, being fabricated from biological degradation of protein in soil organic matter, animal and plant wastes. It is an alkaline compound, which is lighter than air and soluble in water. In the balanced environment, nitrogen in animal manure has been used as organic fertilizer to maintain and improve soil fertility in order to produce more crops for human and animal consumption. However, the emission of this gas now is sharply increasing in some parts of the world where livestock production is recognized as a key factor to promote income of the livestock producers in intensive system. In the animal production sector, ammonia is counted for 50 % of the total such emission. It is probable that ammonia is one of the most harmful substances for human heath and environment as well. For example, the emitted ammonia when deposited from the atmosphere to the ground can lead to acid rain. In an indirect way, a high deposition of ammonia in soils causes leaching of potassium, magnesium and calcium and reduces their availability for the vegetation. Furthermore, ammonia and nitrogen oxides may be converted into nitric acid and thereby contribute to acidification of soil and water that lead to eco- system changing and pollution of ground and surface water as well. The negative effects of the gas from animal production systems have led to legislation in some countries, especially the EU but not yet in developing countries. So the question arises, how we control this problem. Reducing the protein content of the diet of pig and other monogastric animals in combination with supplementing essential amino acids in the case of large scale farms may reduce ammonia emission from excreta. A new feed will make feed neophobia of animal which leads to slow acceptance and low intake during the adaptation period (commonly at least 3 weeks!). It is questionable whether or not our less educated farmer can keep their patience to train their animals to adapt to new feeds. They might say "you said that duckweed is potential feed for my animal but they do not like to eat it! I am willing to hear solutions from friends to overcome this. Cheers Dam Van Tien The Faculty of Animal Science University of Agriculture and Forestry, Hue City, Vietnam From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 21:46 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Harinder Makkar on Nutrient Manag ement Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Harinder P.S. Makkar, H.P.S.Makkar@iaea.org Harinder P.S. Makkar and his colleagues describe an innovative and successful example of a whole system approach practiced in Colombia by CIPAV which aims at making maximum use of resources and minimising emissions to the environment. They point out that the integration of crop and livestock production can be very beneficial but that that to develop sustainable systems, sound quantitative data on various components of the integrated system is needed. Moderator Last week I was in Colombia and would like to share some of my experiences at the CIPAV's projects in areas around Cali and we also elaborate on the roles of the joint FAO/IAEA Division of the IAEA, Vienna at these sites and its other efforts on integration of crop and livestock components. These aspects embrace many of the points raised in previous contributions. The philosophy at the Project sites in Colombia is the minimum leakage of nutrients to the environment and production of food and feed without using synthetic chemicals, pesticides or herbicides, and the products being produced to get a certification of 'organically produced'. The farms have well integrated high- quality leguminous and non- leguminous fodder trees such as Gliricidia, Leucaena, Morus, Trichanthera and Alocasia (Moringa, a very high quality forage is being introduced now) which are being fed to not only ruminants but also to pigs together with sugarcane. The faeces from pigs are lead to biogas plants, which provide cooking gas for the family (big farms convert this form of energy to electricity). The farmers have learnt with experience not to transfer the faeces of ruminants to biogas plants, since these then needs to be cleaned at frequent intervals (faeces of ruminants being fibrous in nature). On the other hand, biogas plants based on pig faeces need not be cleaned during the entire life of the plastic biogas plant, which is 7 to 8 years. The faeces from ruminants is used for compost (including worm- composting) making for use as a fertilizer. The effluent from the biogas plant goes to a series of ponds, which are used for growing aquatic plants such as Salvinia, Lemna and Azolla in a sequence based on their capability to tolerate carbon and nitrogen loads. These protein-rich aquatic plants along with protein-rich tree foliage (Morus, Alocasia and Trichanthera) are feed to pigs - an excellent approach to convert manure to high quality feed. The effluent from the ponds is channelled to the fields for fertilizing crops such as coffee, sugarcane, fruits and vegetables. Every effort is made to reduce the nutrient spillage to the environment and to maintain the eco-equilibrium. These approaches seem to be sound but are empirical in nature. There is a scope for making the system more efficient. For example, reliable information is not available on the true protein digestibility of the unconventional feeds such as tree foliage and aquatic plants in monogastrics (here pigs) leading to their over or under use. IAEA-sponsored project is generating reliable quantitative data on this by using 15- N dilution technique (the only available technique for reliably generating this information). Similarly, other components of this integrated approach could be made more efficient by generating quantitative information on soil, plant and ruminant components, and manure management (in tropical countries a substantial loss of N from faeces could take place which must be prevented). In order to provide sound basis for the integration of crop and livestock, the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of the IAEA has embarked on projects: i) quantitation of nutrient (C, N, P and S) flows in soil- crop-livestock components including the manure management and release of nutrients from tanniniferous leaves and from faeces fed tanniniferous forages (tannins could have beneficial as well as adverse effects, depending on the crop and the environmental conditions, on nutrient release in soil) in soil http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/public/aphnl32.pdf and; ii) development of methodologies for accounting cost and benefits for each component using the 'holistic' approach of integrating livestock nutrition, reproduction and health, and the environmental components in peri-urban dairying settings which are with and without crop-livestock integration http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/public/aphnl33.pdf The message, which we would like to give at this stage, is that we agree with the approach of integration of crop and livestock components, as many previous contributions have highlighted, but to make these really "sound" and "sustainable" we must not forget to generate reliable and sound quantitative data on various components of the integrated system. Harinder Makkar Martyn Jeggo Oswin Perera Animal Production and Health Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, IAEA, Vienna, AUSTRIA Harinder P.S. Makkar MSc, PhD (Nott.), Habil. (Hohenheim) Animal Production and Health Section International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 100, Wagramerstr. 5 A-1400 Vienna AUSTRIA From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 23:32 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Helmut Doehler to Nutrient Manage ment Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Helmut Doehler, h.doehler@ktbl.de Helmut Doehler, a German expert also active in Eastern European countries and China points out, that unsuitable housing systems are often the cause for low quality manure and problems in the manure management. Moderator We should take into account that the problems with an inappropriate use of manures are often caused by poor housing systems and poor management of the houses. We can often find buildings which are definitely not adapted to climate conditions, resulting in an increase of diseases and hardly any chance for controlling diseases, poor performances, and poor manure qualities. An example: Modern pig houses in North China are designed to enable proper temperatures in the winter time. In summer in-house climate can hardly be controlled, farmers can't get rid of the heat in the houses. Therefore farmers use huge amounts of ground water for cooling the animals several times a day, which is in addition to cleaning water resulting in huge amounts of very thin animal manures, which never can be used as a fertiliser and which hardly can be used for an efficient biogas production. We should therefore start our considerations one step earlier in the animal production process. Congratulation to the organizers for this good approach and the perfect realisation. Helmut Doehler Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture Environment and Energy Bartningstrasse 49 D- 64289 DARMSTADT Tel.: 06151 7001-187 Fax: 06151 7001-123 h.doehler@ktbl.de h.doehler@gmx.de From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 23:32 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Herb Brodie to Nutrient Manageme nt Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Herb Brodie, hlbrodie@bluecrab.org Herbert Brodie from Maryland, USA puts points out that environmental pollution by industrialised livestock is a relatively recent problem. He postulates, that if manure use on land is the only economically viable solution, enough land and appropriate technology must be mandated and supported. He points out that combined treatment of manure and urban waste might often be beneficial and that it might be a better to keep livestock production in the regions growing feed crops and to export animal products instead of feed. Moderator Harald Menzi developed a very good summary of the situation of manure management with confined animal production. The problems described are not limited to developing countries. It must be remembered that the "industrialization" of animal production is a historically recent event even in developed regions. Environmentalism in response to manure problems is an even younger movement. In the USA the development of large confinement animal enterprises is about 40 years in the making. The environmental response started 10 years later and really didn't start to take hold until the 1980's and is still very much in flux. Effective regulation is varied across the country and ranges from ineffective to over restrictive. The needed technology for waste management is continually changing because of new regulations combined with changing economic conditions. Major problems occur when enterprises grow in animal capacity while the owners/managers maintain small farm mentality. This echoes the comments made by Win Tondear relative to pollution problems occurring mostly from middle sized farms. If one assumes that animal production cannot afford manure treatment technologies that remove the production unit from reliance on land then there must be a mandate that provides sufficient land and manure distribution infrastructure along with support programs to assure sanitary nutrient management. If government cannot develop and effectively oversee such mandates then an environmental problem will develop and worsen. In an earlier message I mentioned the problems with urban waste management and suggested that treatment could be combined with nearby animal manure treatment. The production of compost from urban organics which are often dry and carbon rich might be improved with the addition of wet manure. Likewise, anaerobic digestion of municipal sewage combined with liquid animal manure would be an affordable energy production process managed by the city and paid for by city inhabitants. The solids and nutrient removed can be utilized in reforestation and other cultural applications. Of course, if the city is not capable of caring for its own waste in a responsible manner how does one expect agriculture to be different. It may be easier to mandate no confined animal production in some regions and rely on food imports from those countries able to support environmentally sound production. So, rather than Brazil's export of Soya, perhaps the export should be pork or poultry. Then the animal manure has a shorter distance to move in order to replenish the organic matter taken from the Soya fields. Herb Brodie Professor Emeritus Biological Resources Engineering University of Maryland From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 23:32 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Andre Sorio to Nutrient Managemen t Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Andre Sorio, saer@uol.com.br Andre Sorio, agronomist an private consultant in Mato Grosso do Sul - Brazil shows two Brazilian examples of manure management on farms keeping monogastric animals as well as cattle/buffaloes. In the example in which poultry manure is used as feed for buffaloes he reports that the use of manure as feed will soon be prohibited in Brazil. Moderator Dear participants About the question of manure management, I can relate two interesting cases in which my company is involved: 1) Pig and cattle integration - In a farm with 1.000 pig females, the resulting manure is separated and the liquid part is spread on pastures of Brachiaria sp. The soils of central Brazil are poor in nutrients and organic matter. With rotational grazing (many paddocks) we obtain almost 3 Animals Units per hectare (3.000 pounds of live weight per hectare). The solid part of the manure is sold to be used in crop land. 2) Laying hens and buffalo integration - In a farm with 100.000 laying hens, part of the manure is used to fertilise the pasture soil (Brachiaria sp. and Digitaria sp.). This land is in arid region of Brazil (800 mm rain/year) and we obtain almost 2 Animals Units per hectare (2.000 pounds of live weight per hectare) also with rotational grazing management. The rest of the manure is fed to buffalos in the dry season (5-7 months/year), something like 1kg/animal/day. Now the supply of manure to animals will soon be prohibited in Brazil. So the manure in excess will be sold. Thanks Andre Sorio saer@uol.com.br From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 27 June 2001 23:32 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Horst Doelle to Nutrient Manageme nt Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Horst Doelle, doelle@ozemail.com.au Horst Doelle from Australia draws the attention to an integrated system practiced in the Philippines and Mexico in which effluent from biodigestion of slurry is used to grow algae, thus eliminating N, P and K in the remaining effluent. The algae are a valuable fish feed. There are more experiences among the participants on decontamination systems using a combination of biodigestion, sedimentation and use of aquatic plants to remove nutrients. We would like to hear more about these experiences. Moderators I like to answer to the remark that biodigestion does not solve pollution problem. This is not true and I like to draw the attention of Wim Tondeur to the excellent work on the Maya Farm in the Philippines as well as with pig manure in Mexico. The effluent, which is still rich on N,P,K is an excellent algal nutrient. Algae like Spirulina are scavengers of these elements and after its growth there is no N or P left in the effluent. The algae itself is very easy to harvest and is an excellent fish food and thus a further income to the farmer. As I said before, the technologies to treat manure efficiently are available and should only be taught to the farmers and obviously the advisers. There have been written many articles about it and surely success has been achieved. Horst Doelle doelle@ozemail.com.au From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 28 June 2001 16:20 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Sven G. Sommer to Manure Manageme nt Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sven Sommer, a Danish expert on emissions from livestock production and manure treatment who was also involved in the AWI project in Thailand raises the following opinions: * Manure recycling is necessary and can be beneficial to farmers. * the principle objective of the AWI may be to find out how to force/persuade the specialised livestock farmer to recycle manure. * that anaerobic treatment with biogas production should only be propagated as a solution if the biogas energy can be used efficiently and if this treatment contributes to reducing smell and improve the sanitation. * N availability in solid manure is a question with urgent need of more knowledge. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Sven G. Sommer, SvenG.Sommer@agrsci.dk I think most of us agree on that animal manure should be recycled and not wasted through discharging. The benefits are a more hygienic environment and low or no environmental problems related to livestock production. The problem is that throughout the world farmers are getting specialised and in dairy and pig production this specialisation is resulting in segregation between livestock production and plant production. In fact environmental regulation at is has been carried out in Denmark has enhanced this specialisation, because big farms can more easily live up to the regulations. In my opinion the AWI concept can only be implemented either through regulations (zonification or harmony rules regulating application of plant nutrients in an area), or if the farmers are convinced that they will profit from the concept. The farmer may benefit from higher prices of his product because: * consumers prefer environmental friendly products, * the recycling reduces diseases (foot and mouth disease) in the area and high price markets gets accessible * the value of manure is higher than treatment and management costs. In short I think one of the principle objective of the AWI may be to find out how to force/ persuade the specialised livestock farmer to recycle manure. Concerning anaerobic digestion with biogas production I am of the following opinion: The reasons why farmers are not building big biogas plants is probably that the cost of energy from power plants are lower than the cost of heat and electricity from a big biogas plant. I understand that in Vietnam the energy infrastructure may be weak in rural areas, therefore, the small methane production plants are providing energy that otherwise would be very expensive. In Denmark the government is paying 40% of the investment cost of a biogas plant on a farm. The precondition of the support is that the farmer has a need of the heat energy, because the energy budget otherwise would be very poor, because generated heat would be lost. I think one should be careful to propose biogas production as one of the solutions to manure surplus problems unless the biogas plant contributes to a reduction of smell, a controllable sanitation of manure and maybe a pathway of recycling industrial and household waste back to agriculture. The solid waste can be transported easily. Separation is therefore a solution in peri-urban areas where more manure plant nutrients are produced per hectare than needed by the crops. There is an urgent need of getting more information about the N-availability of the solid. Otherwise nitrogen may be mineralised-nitrified during periods with no crops and be a source of leaching. Best wishes Sven G. Sommer From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 28 June 2001 23:25 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Horst Doelle to Manure Managemen t Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Horst Doelle proposes that biogas digestion is an efficient and beneficial system which should be used as a strategic component in any manure management plan. We would like to hear from the experiences mentioned, Dr Preston, Jacky Foo, CIPAV, and others, on the use of the anaerobic digestion. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Horst Doelle doelle@ozemail.com.au There is absolutely no need whatsoever, that any animal farmer, whether big or small, pollutes the environment. We also have to give special attention to the dangers of resistant and dangerous pathogens. We have plenty of examples in the world, where animal manure is processes very successfully into biogas, thus removing nearly 80-90% of all pathogens and reducing the BOD by approx. 60% while N,P,K stays in the slurry and liquid effluent. The effluent can be further treated in shallow algal ponds growing algae, lemna, duckweed etc with the BOD reducing a further 30-40%. If the residue of this is channelled through a sand filter, the water can be fed back to the animal for drinking. The sludge is an excellent safe fertiliser, or can be further composted or even used for vermiculture to recycle and replenish the soil.. The biogas produced, approx. 1 m3 biogas per m3 volume of the digester is an extremely useful renewable energy source. It is not true, that biogas when utilised properly is polluting the air. Methane is only dangerous if emitted to the atmosphere (e.g. with surplus production - note by the moderator) its produced form, but not if used as cooking gas or as electricity generation. Small farms, as has been demonstrated in over 7 million cases in China and now also in Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, can make use of the biogas as cooking gas or even in restaurants saving the costs of electricity, kerosene or other non-renewable energy sources. Large farms can produce electricity from biogas as has been demonstrated in many countries, in particular on the Maya Farm in Philippines. Animal farms can thus be self-contained farms in regard to electricity usage. In cooler climates, biogas can raise the temperature for the proper boidigestion as has been shown in China. On the outskirts of Shanghai I visited a big farm of 3000 or more cows established for milk production for the children of Shanghai. ALL the manure from this farm is pumped through pipes into 4 x 400 m3 biogas plants run totally automatic and supplying a whole suburb of Shanghai with cooking gas, as the Chinese a number of years ago did not have the special electricity generators required for the conversion of biogas into electricity. Biogas digesters are now available from 6 m3 [family size] for only around US$ 20- 50 . The material can either be polyethylene, brick, concrete or steel. In Mexico, 75 m3 concrete biodigesters were built by community effort. It is all possible if emphasis is given to these technologies. Unfortunately genetic engineering dominated and still dominates biotechnology and thus these old, but significantly improved technologies are forgotten, although I read some encouraging reports yesterday and today. Since all these technologies are available, could you please tell me a bit more precisely what is the problem with farms ? The technology for safe reuse and sustainability of the environment is there, we got it and ready to use. In using shallow ponds for algal production, this is the best method to protein enriched animal feed. Please again, what is the problem ? The group around Dr.T.R.Preston in Vietnam and Cambodia have demonstrated that farmers are very willing to use these simple methods as it enriches their income. Mr.Jacky Foo has already indicated also that we had electronic conferences on integrated biosystems, where allow these issues have been dealt with The only way to achieve a safe environment, a healthy population is the use of biodigesters as far as manure is concerned. Never should we allow or teach to use manure straight onto the fields. It is dangerous and also a waste of natural resources. With kind regards Horst Doelle From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 28 June 2001 23:51 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Participants on General Aspects ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Several participants have sent short comments to previous contributions or pointed out interesting aspects which might go a little bit beyond the scope of the discussion agenda. * Miguel Velez warns about heavy metals in municipal waste. * Kurt Roos ask for quality control for sound data on manure management. * Thomas Jandl elaborates on the farm size with relation to pollution issue. * Wolfgang Bayer argues that manure pollution may be not linked to farm size but to animal density/concentration. * Josh Salans calls for close the loops inputs/outputs in food production. These contributions are summarised below Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message by Miguel Vélez [mvelez@zamorano.edu.hn] L. Brodie is right, except that care has to be taken with municipal waste which sometimes contains heavy metals and other contaminants. In Germany some farmers refuse to take that kind of waste because of the risk of their land becoming unsuitable for cropping. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message by Kurt Roos (Roos.Kurt@epamail.epa.gov) It is important that when research measurements etc. are reported that they include a farm description (animals, unit processes, manure handling method, scale etc.) measurement work should also include the experimental design, and protocols used. Data analysis should include appropriate statistical analysis relative to sample distribution and significance plus replication. These approaches are essential to support credibility of claims/findings. Work related to models needs to demonstrate validity, this is often a neglected but critical area. These are critical areas as I have managed the review of a multitude of "professionally reviewed" publications and am astounded by the lack of standards and integrity of much of the waste management work. In fact I have come to develop my own small monitoring and analytic approach to conduct credible comparative evaluations of commercial waste management practices. These are focused on nutrient and mass balances including water balance closures as well as pathogen and air emission work. Especially in such a conference it is important to have such a quality control. There have been enough conferences that perpetuate "myths and legends" about waste management systems and unit process performance. The moderators comments: We fully agree that a fruitful discussion about the potential of different manure treatment and management options is only possible if the efficiency of such systems can be assessed on the basis of reliable and comparable measurement results. Nevertheless, it is beyond the possibilities of such a conference to go into all the details necessary for such an assessment. We therefore ask participants to give references to measurement results (papers or web sites) whenever possible. Nevertheless, to get an overview of possible solutions that should be studied in more detail, we still encourage all participants to share their experience on successful systems they have seen even if they have no measurement results. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message by Thomas Jandl [tjandl@earthlink.net] In response to Prof. McCrindle's contribution, I have two problems. First, while it is obvious that the number of animals is the prime determinant to overall pollution, there is a connection as well to farm size. Small farmers will more often than not produce a variety of products and often livestock as well as crop production. They thus have a better possibility to rid themselves of their manure in a manner that does not impose on others too much -- spray it on their farms etc. A large hog farm that consists only of one big factory-style building has no such possibility, and must pay a significant amount of money to dispose off their manure properly. In poor countries with few regulations and inefficient enforcement regimes, this is a prime source of pollution. In the area I am most familiar with, SE Asia, I can tell you that virtually every farmer would like to raise more pigs, as this activity is associated with wealth, while rice farming is associated with subsistence. I am convinced that more intensive hog farms will increase the pollution problems, as the farmers will no longer have a balance between manure and land that needs the fertilizer from the livestock. The second problem I have is Prof. McCrindle's definition of smallholder. I will not agree that the typical farmer in the Mekong is to be considered a large-scale farmer just because the family income may be above poverty level (and even that is a debatable notion -- in monetary terms, farmers in Vietnam are dirt-poor, but accounting for consumption, they can be rather well of, as they grow most of their food and enjoy free housing). I think income is an extremely imperfect indicator especially when looking at the rural populations in countries where a large percentage of income is spent on food. I think in the end what is a smallholder and what not should be determined by comparing to the regional/national average. A US farmer with 10 cows and 10 acres of land would probably be considered a smallholder, while I would not be sure that the same could be said for a Cambodian farmer. Best Regards, Thomas Jandl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message from Wolfgang Bayer (wb.waters@link-goe.de) Several times manure markets were mentioned as something new. In many parts of the world manure is traded for centuries. In recent decades this was studied in west Africa where pastoralists are welcome - sometimes invited, a paid for - to camp their livestock on farmers' fields to deposit urine and manure. Apparently the same was true for migrating shepherds in Europe who kept their livestock on high pastures in summer and came down to the valleys in winter. Important factors in this manure trade are population density (in the absence of artificial fertilizer manure becomes more important as population densities increase), but also infrastructure (with modern roads, migrating with livestock on foot becomes more difficult), desired level of production (straw and stubbles allow only a moderate growth or maintenance, fast growth requires high energy and highly digestible feed), desired income etc. Intensive, modern agriculture tends to cut these links. Manure pollution may be not linked to smallholder/large farms but it is linked to animal density/concentration. An here large farms have a higher potential than small farms. If several hundred dairy cows concentrate on one spot to be milked (and maybe stay in a stable or kraal overnight to be fed) the amount of manure and urine will be larger than on small farms, if no proper precautions are made to avoid pollution. 4 or 5 cows can produce a mess in a small court yard, but it needs many small dairy farms very closed to each other to produce the same potential pollution than a large farm can produce. We had some experience of that in East Germany just after 1989. Another point of manure pollution not linked to large scale, intensive animal farms is pollution around water points e.g. in the Sahel. This is especially the case around shallow water points, where large numbers of animals come for a drink, where water is spilled and nitrate leaches into the aquifers. Whereas ruminants may even benefit from the extra nitrogen in their drinking water, humans will suffer from diarrhoea and generally local people are not aware of the link between manure around the water point and their health problems. Wolfgang Bayer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message by Josh Salans I have been reading all of the inputs from your members and without a miss the problem seems to be one of industrial agriculture versus local sustainable closed loop agriculture. Please do not follow the USDA recommendations as they will inevitably lead to corporate takeover of medium to large agri-business farms, and instead keep your agriculture local. Call out for your local Permaculture trained folks to help out. Permaculture sees all inputs and outputs as part of the whole system of farming. And the only way to farm co- generatively in this manner is to produce all forms of food; vegetables, fruits, local grasses for livestock, so as to have closed loops of inputs and outputs. We in the USA (who really don't know where and how our food supply is produced) need to wake up to the corporatization of our food supply, and understand the cycle of life that's necessary to adhere to when producing food. Thank you for the forum, Josh Salans CTC Solutions (Crystal Reports Training and Consulting Solutions in Sunnyvale CA - and Compost to Crop Solutions in Potter Valley CA) From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 00:05 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Contribution from Oliver and Sheppard on Manure Treatment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Oliver and Craig Sheppard describe a manure treatment system in which that manure is rapidly decomposed by the larvae of the black soldier fly. Thus the amount and volume of the manure is greatly reduced, odour and pathogen problems are minimised and the treatment process produces a high value product (fly larvae) which can be used as feed for livestock or fish. A little more extensive description of this apparently promising system to make best use of resources will be presented on the AWI web site. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message from Paul Oliver, XPOlivier@cs.com The larvae of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) have voracious appetites for all types of putrescent waste: 1) farm waste from plants, animals and birds; 2) food storage waste from silos, granaries, warehouses; 3) food preparation waste generated in the sorting, grading, peeling, cooking, canning, freezing, drying and packaging of food; 4) institutional, restaurant and domestic kitchen waste; 5) plate waste or table scraps; 6) sewage waste. Black soldier fly (BSF) larvae have large and powerful mouth parts enabling them to shred and devour waste as soon as it is made available to them. Complex organic compounds that are digested by these larvae long before they have had a chance to decompose thermophilically or anaerobically, thereby conserving energy within the waste and immediately eliminating smell. BSF larvae have very efficient digestive systems, and the residue they leave behind represents but a fraction of the original weight and volume of the waste. Food waste (in the United States) typically reduces by as much as 90% in weight and volume, along with a 15% to 30% yield of live larvae of a 44% dry matter content. Chicken waste and pig faeces reduce by as much as 75% in weight and volume along with a dramatic reduction in phosphorous, sometimes exceeding 50%. The larval dry matter consists of approximately 42% protein and 34% fat. The larvae can be fed right back to the animals or birds that generated the waste, and they are particularly attractive to many types of aquaculture that demand or prefer living food, such as bullfrogs, bass and crappie. BSF larvae have been very successfully fed to catfish and tilapia. The larval residue is dry, friable and odourless. It can be used as compost, or it can be ground up and fed to earthworms or red worms for a second round of bioconversion. After approximately two weeks of feeding, BSF larvae reach maturity at a size of about 25x6 mm and a weight of about 0.2 grams. They then set out in search of an ideal pupation site, sometimes travelling as much as 50 feet. It is this remarkable migratory behaviour that makes them so easy to harvest. If provided with a ramp (of an angle < 45 degrees) at the edge of the waste, the mature prepual larvae easily crawl out of the waste. Upon reaching the top of the ramp, they crawl through a longitudinal slit in a horizontal pipe. The larvae crawl long this horizontal pipe until they reach a vertical downspout, that discharges into a bucket or container The larvae are totally self-harvesting without any mechanical or human intervention. Nothing could be simpler or easier to manage. In tropical climates, virtually no entomological expertise is required beyond the initial seeding of the disposal unit. Wild populations of BSF females continually furnish eggs to sustain the process. Since the adult black soldier flies do not possess mouth parts and do not feed upon the waste, they are not associated in any way with the transmission of disease. Only egg-laying females visit the disposal unit, and if provided with suitable oviposition sites above the waste, they do not even come into contact with the waste. Two types of bioconversion units are currently in use. The first (called a domestic or batch unit) is simply a container with at least one side at a 45 degree angle or less. The second (called a commercial or continuous unit) is a suspended track that allows for the automatic removal of larval residue by means of a scraper. Both devices can be situated right under the animal, birds or even humans generating the waste. The former is ideal for the disposal of a relatively small quantity of waste, while the latter is ideal for the disposal of a relatively large quantity of waste, especially from confined animals or birds. Paul A. Olivier, Ph.D., Engineering, Separation and Recycling LLC USA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message from Craig Sheppard, sheppard@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu I would like to introduce a manure management system than can reduce the environmental damage sometimes resulting from large accumulations of manure. In this system manure is much reduced in bulk, nutrient content and moisture and a high quality animal feedstuff is produced. Less land is necessary to apply the manure residue at agronomic rates. This system requires relatively little capital and labor and should be useful to small as well as large animal production units. This system supports the needs of AWI by reducing the mass and moisture of the manure residue making it more economical to transport. Many of the nutrients lost from the manure are captured as high quality animal feed. This system is driven by the black soldier fly or Hermetia illucens (L.). This is a non-pest tropical/subtropical fly that can convert manure to 42% protein, 35% fat feedstuff. This has been fed to poultry, swine , several fish and live to frogs with good success. This local feedstuff production will reduce the need to import concentrates. One study found that chickens fed insect larvae as their protein source had a "more intensive taste" and may be more like the highly desirable local fowl mentioned in this conference. The H. illucens larvae are raised directly under the confined animals(or fowl) in a simple, shallow concrete basin (0.3-0.5 m), so no extra facility is needed. These larvae occur in a ~2 cm thick layer and consume the manure immediately. You really have to see these larvae in action to believe how dynamic this system is. This rapid consumption and aeration prevents the putrification and odor that often occurs and also dries the residue. Dense populations of these larvae eliminate house flies through competitive displacement. House fly control is the reason I began studying H. illucens.. The larvae require fresh manure for good growth. We tried 5 day old hen manure and got about half the biomass conversion that we saw with fresh manure. So right under the animals is the best place for them and no manure handling for the farmer! House fly studies in the literature indicate that bacteria and maggots are competitors. The maggots require fresh aerobic manure. There have been many other attempts to use various fly larvae to convert manure to useful feedstuffs. Most of these used the house fly. It is a good converter, but being a pest and disease vector, it requires a costly insectary to contain it. Also it must be harvested by floatation or some other mechanical method, adding more expense and labor. Hermetia illucens prepupae have the wonderful habit of crawling 20-30 meters or more to find a quiet pupation site. They are collected for use as feedstuff with a simple (passive) ramp and pipe system. At this life-stage they cannot feed. With an empty gut they are a neat package of protein and energy. Sixty tons can be collected from a large(100,000 hen) house in 5 months. These are 44% dry matter when fresh. These can be fed fresh or processed for transport. Simple sun drying works fine, and we have had them rendered into a protein meal and oil using the same process used to produce meat and bone meal, or poultry meal. While assimilating nutrients from the manure the H. illucens larvae reduce the manure bulk to about half that of same age unoccupied manure. The N content is about 20% less in the residue, so you get a total of about a 60% reduction in N. Phosphorous is about the same concentration in the residue, so you only get about 50% reduction P. These nutrients that the larvae has harvested in its biomass are now worth about the same as meat and bone meal or fish meal. Thus these nutrients can be economically transported great distances, unlike the relatively low value manure. We are still trying to get this in the hands of US producers. We have recently learned to culture this wild- type fly, which will make it practical for our fully confined animal housing. Hermetia illucens adults generally will not enter a closed building, but in open sided hen or swine housing the wild populations do a good job. We are getting good support lately for this novel idea and have more studies planned. Mr. Tran Tan Viet, Univ. of Agriculture and Forestry, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam has been developing systems to use H. illucens to manage swine, poultry and even human waste. Incidentally, the H. illucens used to be called the privy fly in the southern US and I have seen it, myself, eliminating feces and controlling house flies in that situation. Mr. Tran is also establishing a very large waste food handler using the H. illucens. This keeps the waste food out of the landfill where it can also cause ecological problems. I mention Mr. Trans's work in Vietnam to demonstrate that this system is practical and also in the hope that Mr. Tran will add to this discussion. Below are a couple of websites that give more information on using H. illucens for manure management. I wish these were more current, but I believe they will be helpful. Swine manure conversion rates to H. illucens prepupal feedstuff are better than indicated there. We found that with a simple passive drain system, swine manure was dry enough (about 70% moisture) that H. illucens could effect about a 15% conversion (d.m. basis) of manure into the high quality feedstuff. With hen manure we see about an 8% d.m. basis conversion to prepupae for feedstuff. In a recent catfish feeding trial H. illucens prepupae were use to replace all of the fish meal and a good deal of the soy. The websites for more information are: http://nespal.cpes.peachnet.edu/ Once at this site click on "Research", and then click on "Manure Management". Also; http://www.ads.uga.edu/annrpt/1995/95_311.htm This one has a good many references in the scientific literature that may be of interest. Yours for Better Manure Management, Craig Sheppard From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 00:10 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Message from the moderators-Manure Management ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear participants, Thank you for all the interesting contributions we have so far received in the manure management session. After getting interesting examples and opinions from many of you we would now ask you to focus more specifically on the hypothesis and key-questions formulated in the introductory paper. For the moment we would specially invite as many of you as possible to send us short contributions on the following questions: * Under what conditions will crop farmers have more interest in using liquid manure? * What manure storage, transport and spreading technologies are available and applicable in developing countries? * What are the most important fields where such technology must still be developed? * What tools for good manure and nutrient management are needed in your countries (developing countries especially)? What tools are already available? * What quality standards for manure should be achieved with manure treatment? The moderators From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 15:45 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Timothy Smith on Nutrient Manageme nt Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tim Smith recounts an experience of a dairy unit in India where dung pats (solids) are collected to be used as fertiliser while all the liquid waste (excreta, washing water etc.) is discharged to the nearby stream. This is quite comparable to the practice encountered on pig farms in different AWI project regions where the solids are mostly used while the liquid is hardly recognised as a usable product. We invite all participants to send us some short information on the following aspects on the situation in their country/region: * Is solid manure collected and used in a way that prevents serious environmental pollution ? * Is liquid manure/slurry collected, stored and used in a way that prevents serious environmental pollution ? * If liquid manure is not used, what are the major reasons ? * Are liquid wastes the main source of environmental impacts of livestock production ? Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Timothy.Smith [Timothy.Smith@btinternet.com] Recently I spent some time in a dairy unit in Northern India. Thirty cows, followers, oxen and bulls were kept in a stall- fed system on the bank of a river. About half of the feed (concentrate and straw) was bought in. Collectable dung pats are removed into the biogas plant, the waste then going predominately into vegetable gardens. All other waste, washing water etc., goes straight into the river, which then flows between two medium size towns. The unit is the only supplier of fresh milk in the area and has an expanding market. Almost certainly the dairy was located where it is to make use of the natural fall into the river. The managers would take some convincing that their contribution to pollution was significant compared to that likely to occur in the nearby urban areas (it has been suggested to them that the water course could be diverted through a level contour to 'irrigate' a forage garden). The mistakes made in planning this relatively small unit were made in ignorance and the institutions (agriculturists /extension and planning)/public health/river authorities) are probably not in place to help in/ensure rectifying it. It is also necessary to ensure that future units cannot make the same mistakes. Tim Smith From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 15:53 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Robert McCroskey on Nutient Manag ement Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert McCroskey is strongly against forcing/persuading intensive livestock farmers to find a suitable use for their manure. Instead, he suggests that a demand for manure from crop producers should be created. In the AWI project regions in Thailand and China a market exists for solid manure but not for liquid manure. Do We invite participants to inform us of experience in developing countries where a market/demand exists for liquid manure. We also invite participants to react to the issue how far the driving force for regulations on environmental impacts from livestock production can be the question what burden can be imposed on the livestock farmers. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Robert McCroskey, bobmc@uniserve.com I strongly disagree with Dr. Sven Sommer on the concept of forcing/persuading the intensive livestock farmer to find a suitable use of the manure. The farmer is already VERY BUSY in his/her specialized work, and is already at the mercy of certain uncontrollable factors such as weather, climate, feed price, etc.. Yes the concept of overall planning must be expanded on. I can think of one huge successful industrial park, where a producer of chlorine, a producer of PVC plastic and one of refrigerant and teflon are sitting side by side. The same planning and product streaming should be done in an agricultural production park. The planning and regulatory climate must be set up so that a demand is created for the manure in preference to manufactured fertilizer; a user of manure should be encouraged to set up beside or near the manure producer if possible, otherwise bulk handling of the materials is needed. If adequate demand is created for the manure, users of the manure will be coming to the farmer asking for it, instead of placing yet another regulatory burden on the farmers, but of course, the farmer must meet certain storage and containment requirements. Robert McCroskey Canadian Centre for Rabbit Production Development (NGO) Surrey, BC, Canada From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 16:00 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from John Niezen on Nutrient Managemen t Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Niezen from ILRI-IITA suggests that research should focus on possibilities to improve the efficiency of the nutrient cycle, especially on cropping systems which make optimal use of manure and on livestock rations that minimise environmental impacts and maximise crop performance. For the latter, the use of phytase and pure amino acids in pig and poultry feed is an example. * Could participants please inform us about other positive experiences concerning both cropping systems and rations. * Can we formulate specific research questions concerning cropping systems that make best use of manure ? Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: John Niezen, J.NIEZEN@CGIAR.ORG So far in this conference we have heard of the problems of nutrient transfer, overload or depletion depending on perspective. However the animal wastes have been considered a substance which cannot be altered. That is incorrect. Among the challenges for animal nutritionists and agronomists in the future are the following two areas: * Develop crops and cropping systems which best utilise animal manure * Develop feedstuffs from which the manure minimises environmental impact but maximise crop performance. Diet can have a marked effect on the chemical and physical composition of faeces, on the release of nutrients from faeces and on the partitioning of nutrients (especially N) between faeces and urine. This variation has to be explored and exploited so that the release of nutrients from animal waste matches the eco-agronomic requirements of the crop at the application site. Concurrently crops have differing nutrient requirements at differing times of their growth cycle, with variation between and within crop species. Research will require a holistic approach to tackle the issues. Animal manure has always been a resource and will become a more highly valued resource in the future, particularly if designed for the right conditions. Here in West Africa for example, manure is an essential resource for farmers striving to maintain their soil fertility for crop production. In this region, peri-urban livestock raising is in its infancy compared to many other regions. We have an evolving situation - more people, more livestock and more urbanization suggesting that more intensive urban livestock production is likely to increase. We have an opportunity - and a challenge - to apply the successes and learn from the mistakes in other parts of the World. Dr John Niezen ILRI - IITA c/o L.W. Lambourn & Co. Carolyn House 26 Dingwall Road, Croyden CR9 3EE England Email: J.Niezen@cgiar.org From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 29 June 2001 21:03 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Herb Brodie on Nutient Management Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Herb Brodie discusses some interesting aspects concerning the use of liquid manure on crops. He states that manure spreading will be easier on small than on big crop farms. For the transport he suggests that a pipeline system will be cheaper than tankers. To minimise the necessary storage volume he thinks that it is best if the liquid manure can be used on a range of different crops to limit the seasonal restrictions of sites available for manure use. He suggests that the manure distribution system should be run by a cooperative authority. We invite all participants to react to these interesting suggestions. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Herb Brodie, hlbrodie@bluecrab.org The size of the crop farm and the degree of mechanization has great impact on the potential use of liquid manure. Very small farms using only hand labor without additional resources may have great difficulty utilizing liquid manure while large farms with mechanized irrigation systems can easily accept liquid manure. Because liquid manure is a very dilute fertilizer source the farm must have a need for water and the ability to manage water as well as nutrients. In all cases it is preferred that the manure be treated through biological processes such as anaerobic digestion prior to distribution to farms to provide pathogen and odor control. Liquid manure is costly to transport using tanker wagons or trucks because of the water. A better solution is the development of pipeline systems for distribution to local crop fields. Pipelines eliminate the need for improved roads capable of sustaining the tanker weight. When anaerobic digesters are used for manure treatment, the energy collected can be used to operate the pumping systems for manure transport. There needs also to be a storage facility to allow for periods when cropland is unavailable for manure distribution. It would be advantageous to have a diversified crop base over a land area sufficient to accept the manure so as to minimize restrictions of the seasonal availability of manure utilization sites. Farmers need to be educated in the advantages of the manure in their cropping systems. This doesn't happen overnight and a prolonged program may be required using all of the typical extension demonstration techniques. Technical and financial assistance with development of on-farm manure distribution techniques will go far in helping develop practice. This type of distribution system requires operation and management by some cooperative authority. Such authority can be government based or local farmer based. It needs to be well planned and executed in order to be successful. Perhaps, government could develop manure utilization districts with guidelines of operation leaving actual development to local farmers. The success of any cooperative effort is most often in direct proportion to the collateral contributed by the individuals directly impacted. However, government needs to be able to assure that a cropland/animal ratio is maintained for appropriate nutrient utilization. Herb Brodie Professor Emeritus Biological Resources Engineering University of Maryland From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 01 July 2001 09:20 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Khieu Borin on Nutrient Managemen t Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Khieu Borin form Cambodia states the important fact that livestock producers will not or can not carry the costs for manure treatment unless they are forced to by legislation. He refers to a manure recycling system using biogas- digestion, duckweed and earth worms practiced in Colombia and Cambodia. The plastic biodigesters used in Cambodia are cheap and well suited for small farms. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Khieu Borin Forum [borin@forum.org.kh] As mentioned several times in the discussion, small and large animal farms both produce manure which, without proper management, will cause environmental pollution. However, as mentioned in the paper on manure management, this requires inputs which increase production costs. Unless the government policy related to manure management forces them, the large scale and urban intensive livestock producers, particularly in developing countries, are not really willing to pay for that cost because they need to have products with lower price to compete with others. On the other hand, small scale farmers who survive on their land, must think about the improvement of their land to further improve crop yield. In Cambodia, in the provinces where SPFS (FAO Special Programme for Food Security) is implemented, farmers mentioned one of the causes of low soil fertility is due to the lack of draught animals after the civil war. This means that they consider manure important for their land and crops. Although manure is already managed and used by small scale farmers, there is still room to improve and maximize the use of manure. As an example, the University of Tropical Agriculture (UTA) in one of its major areas of research and development is studying the recycling of manure through plastic biodigesters, Duckweed and earth worms. This system is also practiced in Colombia. The humus produced by the earth worms is an important source of income for families in Colombia. However, concerning the recycling of manure in plastic biodigesters we are further advanced at UTA Cambodia. The good thing about plastic biodigesters is their cheap price (about US$ 30 per unit). With a good care, it will last for 3-4 years under Cambodian climate. Manure after recycling becomes a liquid manure (effluent) because 2/3 of water is added in order to have good and quick digestion. The management of liquid manure of a family who owns 4-5 cows plus 4-6 fattening pigs is not a big issue. In most cases the manure is used for vegetable production and when it is in big volume, a compost pit is dug close to the effluent collector. This effluent is mixed with other ingredients such as rice hash, leaf, etc. Thus it becomes more solid, which facilitates the transport to the field. Farmers do not yet see the importance of pollution or environmental problems caused by animal production. Therefore, development workers, scientists, lecturers and policy makers should try to introduce manure management as a more productive way of production to the small scale farmers and at the same time pass on the message about the importance of the protection of the environment. Concerning large scale manure management I can make the following contribution: My previous experience working with the government pig farms, manure was collected before washing. Thus manure was easy to transport and less volume needs to be treated. This system again requires more labor inputs to collect manure from each pen. With best regards, Khieu Borin Team Leader, SPFS-Cambodia From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 01 July 2001 12:07 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Vélez and D oelle on Nutrient Management Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Miguel Vélez and Horst Doelle have reacted to the moderators questions about (liquid) manure handling technology. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message from Miguel Vélez [mvelez@zamorano.edu.hn] ......* What manure storage, transport and spreading technologies are available and applicable in developing countries?.... Rather few. Problems are that in the wet - dry tropics it has to be stored for the growing season. Furthermore the liquid manure tends to be very diluted because pigs and even cattle are sometimes sprayed with water to cool down (and because of large quantities of water used for cleaning the houses and leaking installations - Moderator). Thus the nutritional value is low. ....* What are the most important fields where such technology must still be developed?..... My suggestions: ways to reduce nitrogen losses during storage in tanks or lagoons ways to concentrate the manure and reduce transport costs. Membranes? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Message from Horst Doelle [doelle@ozemail.com.au] My answer to the question of liquid manure is, Yes there is a demand, PROVIDED we teach the farmer what to do with it. For example: Spirulina maxima is an excellent N,P.K scavenger and thus would grow very well in shallow ponds as has been shown by the group around Dra. Eugenia Olguin in Mexico. The algae itself can have a protein content of up to 72%, apart from all the health food components. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT MOST FARMERSDO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT. The group around Dr.Preston is using very successfully Lemna or duckweed, which is an excellent animal feed. Both can also be used to replace the artificial food for shrimp and other aquaculture farms. Thus, the liquid manure can be used to develop an excellent market, BUT WE HAVE TO TEACH THE PEOPLE HOW TO DO IT. Best regards Horst Doelle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 02 July 2001 09:05 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Herbert Brodie on Nutient Manageme nt Session ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Herb Brodie has furnished some additional information on the pipeline system for trasporting and spreading costs of the liquid that he proposed in his recent contribution. He states that cost vary considerably depending on conditions. He mentiones systems used by farmers in the the US and Canada which are several miles long which are combined with different spreading equipment. Nevertheless it must be mentioned that such systems are probably inadequate if the slurry of a large livestock farm has to be distributed to a greater number of small farms and on a multitude of rather tiny plots as is the case in the AWI project area in Thailand and partly China. In Thailand already the establishment of pipelines accross the land of several neighbors is considered problematic. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Herbert Brodie [mailto:hlbrodie@bluecrab.org] The costs associated with such a project are too dependent on local economic, topographic, political and other influences to give a number meaningful between regions. The distribution system would be somewhat similar in cost to a regional irrigation project. In the US and Canada the long distance (several miles) piping of liquid manure is practiced on individual farms and is constructed within the their capital resource. Cropland application is often through center pivot irrigation systems, some hose travel irrigators and some hose travel tractor mounted soil injection systems. These systems are intended for large fields and may not be suitable for small landholders. But that doesn't mean adaptations in both equipment and land could not occur. Herbert Brodie From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 02 July 2001 09:34 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Participants on General Aspects o f Nutrient Management ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The following text summarises different reactions to earlier contributions (some also from the introductory session): Richard Matthewman: comments on outputs from one farm used as inputs for another and refers to manure markets. Wolfgang Bayer: elaborates on manure markets and the linkage between size of operation and environmental impact. Kurt Roos: comments on the need to identify manure management technologies that are operational in the short term. Craig Sheppard: makes clarifications to the black soldier fly system for manure management. Liz Alderson Elizabeth: provides an example of Area Wide Integration. Zoe Acosta: comments on the need to take urgent decisions to stop the rapid deterioration of ecosystems and to go back to sustainable production systems. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Richard Matthewman, [qualisol@freeuk.com] I fully agree with Bob McCroskey, that 'multi-layered production systems' have much merit, in which outputs from one farm complement production on another (neighbouring) farm, rather than trying to force/encourage farmers to use their own outputs/manure. This was discussed with farmers (women) in Andra Pradesh in India. A woman was throwing away washings and urine from her dairy shed, because she didn't need them (at that time/season). The same thing was mentioned by Tim Smith. The creation of year-round markets (e.g. out of season crops/vegetables?) for manure/urine would ensure maximum trapping of nutrients in a particular system. Richard Matthewman Research Co-ordinator Qualitative Solutions Canterbury CT1 2RB, Kent, UK Moderators comment: Richard Matthewman points out an importantidea of the concept of are-wide integration: If for one reason or another, livestock excreta can not be used on the farm of the producer, it is of eminent importance to use it on an other farm (as near as possible) who has a need for it. This aim holds irrespective of the size of the farms. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Wolfgang Bayer (WB.WATERS@LINK-GOE.de) Several times manure markets were mentioned as something new. In many parts of the world manure is traded for centuries. In recent decades this was studied in west Africa where pastoralists are welcome - sometimes invited or paid for - to camp their livestock on farmers' fields to deposit urine and manure. Apparently the same was true for migrating shepherds in Europe who kept their livestock on high pastures in summer and came down to the valleys in winter. Important factors in this manure trade are population density (in the absence of artificial fertilizer manure becomes more important as population densities increase), but also infrastructure (with modern roads, migrating with livestock on foot becomes more difficult), desired level of production (straw and stubbles allow only a moderate growth or maintenance, fast growth requires high energy and highly digestible feed), desired income etc. Intensive, modern agriculture tends to cut these links. Manure pollution may be not linked to smallholder/large farms but it is linked to animal density/concentration. If several hundred dairy cows concentrate on one spot to be milked (and maybe stay in a stable or kraal overnight to be fed) the amount of manure and urine and, If no proper precautions are made, the environmental pollution will be larger than on small farms. 4 or 5 cows can produce a mess in a small court yard, but it needs many small dairy farms very closed to each other to produce the same potential pollution than a large farm can produce. We had some experience of that in East Germany just after 1989. Another point of manure pollution not linked to large scale, intensive animal farms is pollution around water points e.g. in the Sahel. This is especially the case around shallow water points, where large numbers of animals come for a drink, where water is spilled and nitrate leaches into the aquifers. Whereas ruminants may even benefit from the extra nitrogen in their drinking water, humans will suffer from diarrhoea and generally local people are not aware of the link between manure around the water point and their health problems. Wolfgang Bayer Goettingen, Germany ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Kurt Roos (Roos.Kurt@epamail.epa.gov) It is important to identify/rank appropriate waste management technologies (processes) that are operational at intermediate to commercial scales. For example the soldier fly treatment process was first presented some 25 years ago. Over this time it has not been used at any significant scale. Dung beetles do the same thing for pasture grazed animals and are a natural occurrence. Kurt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Craig Sheppard [sheppard@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu] I would like to comment on the moderators introductory comments about black soldier fly. This may appear to be a fine point but it is important to fully understand this robust novel system and how it differs from most others. The larvae do not DECOMPOSE the manure, rather, they DIGEST the manure. This produces much less losses than bacterial decomposition and the larvae can be used as high quality feedstuff, rather than being lost into the air. Regards, Craig Sheppard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Liz Alderson Elizabeth.[alderson@btinternet.com] In agreement with Dr Rangnekar, in support of bio-gas production and in reply to A.J.Nell's request for examples relevant to AWI of market-orientated intensive livestock production and the environmental and socio-economic impact, AMUL, India's largest food products marketing organisation (with a throughput capacity of 6 million litres/day from almost 2 million small producers )is a good example. It has dramatically increased rural small-scale milk production and processing to cater for increasing urban demand, through rural dairy co-operatives organised by mainly land-less women cattle owners within an agrarian, male dominated, economy. Benefits of the increased income, which has resulted in social development through the empowerment of women, include the construction of biogas plants and latrines which is promoted as an environmentally friendly method of disposing of/utilising the manure (cattle and human!) with the concomitant improvement in sanitation and health of rural households. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Zoe Acosta states that we have to take urgent decisions to stop the rapid deterioration of ecosystems and to find back to sustainable production systems. Such solutions must take into account all three aspects of sustainability: social, ecological and economic. An project looking for sustainable livestock production systems must be based on an analysis of the socio economic situation. Education and awareness building activities have to go hand in hand with the development of appropriate technology. Moderators From Zoe Acosta [zoeacosta@yahoo.com] Se conoce que los ecosistemas tanto naturales como artificiales destinados al desarrollo ganadero en muchas partes del mundo, se han deteriorado debido en gran medida, al uso inadecuado de los recursos bióticos y abióticos disponibles así como, por el empleo de técnicas y tecnologías que han surgido como vía para obtener mayores producciones que permitan el incremento acelerado de productos necesarios para satisfacer la elevada demanda de alimentos destinados al consumo humano. Todo ello ha derivado el desencadenamiento de procesos naturales que nos conducen hoy a la necesidad de tomar decisiones enérgicas encaminadas a frenar tales procesos, en aras de recuperar los escenarios de trabajo y obtener producciones aceptables utilizando métodos sostenibles. A nuestro juicio, la obtención de resultados satisfactorios se debe proyectar sobre la base del desarrollo armónico de tres aspectos fundamentales:la sociedad, la naturaleza y la economía; empleando para ello la amplia gama de conocimientos y experiencias acumuladas por el hombre; siendo precisamente el hombre, el elemento que determina el éxito de toda política que se decida, por cuanto es el que directamente la lleva a la práctica. Por ello consideramos, que todo proyecto que se inicie para un desarrollo sostenible de la ganadería debe partir del conocimiento preciso de la problemática socio-económica que enfrentan los hombres que se dedican directamente a la actividad y una vez caracterizada la misma, se debe trabajar en primer lugar, en la solución de los principales problemas detectados, con vistas a elevar la calidad de vida. Dentro de ello se incluye, la puesta en práctica de Programas de Educación y Capacitación que eleven la conciencia ambiental de la comunidad. Paralelemente se debe trazar, acorde a cada caso en especial, la estratégia a seguir en cuanto a la explotación sostenible de los recursos disponibles y proponer las tecnologías necesarias para la producción deseada; sobre la base de un estudio bien profundo, de los principales elementos del entorno a menejar. Se recomienda para un espacio dado, el empleo de sistemas de producciones múltiples, los cuales han emostrado sus bondades económicas. MSc. Zoe Griselda Acosta Gutiérrez Investigadora, CIMAC-CITMA From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 02 July 2001 14:34 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Contribution from Orskov on Manure Treatment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bob Orskov mentions an important point in the discussion about manure: We should stop to talk about waste and see the animal excreta as an valuable resource, provided that we handle it properly. Do all participants agree with this and what obstacles do they see in convincing livestock and crop farmers in their countries about this. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Bob Orskov [b.orskov@shannon.mluri.sari.ac.uk] I agree that animals can be fed also to yield a type of manure which provides the best resource further downstream. I wish we could stop using the term waste and change it to resource. Waste occur only if our resource management is faulty. In Indonesia goat faeces has often a very high value. The reason is that the goat are fed mainly on tree leaves high in protein but also high in tannins. In fact the protein in the feed is often excessive for the microbial and animal need. Due to the tannins however the excess N is excreted in the faeces in the form of a tannin complex. Thus, the N is slowly released . Here the so-called antinutritive factors are used to advantage in so far that the N is not excreted in the urine. I am sure we can find many more such examples. let us stop talking about waste let us talk about resources E R Orskov, Aberdeen From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 02 July 2001 14:35 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Comments from Wim Tondeur on Manure Treatment S ession ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wim Tondeur reports on the production and manure handling system used at the technical training Institute near Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He shows that proper manure handling already starts with pen design and animal rations. He also reports on the quality standards that have to be achieved in Vietnam for the effluent discharged to the streams. Moderators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Wim Tondeur [wim@hcm.vnn.vn] I like to comment on the introductory paper of this week and the message of the moderators of Friday 29. First I fully agree with most of the points mentioned in the introductory paper and some people have given good comments as well. I like to introduce our situation at our practical training centre, what we did, do and will do better in this field. The first step in the manure/mineral management is to start with an animal, that has a digestive system for an optimum digestion of nutrients. Animal-breeds with a low feed- conversion ratio are the best of course. In this field improved breeds do much better than the local, indigenous breeds. Related to this the animal must be free of pathogens affecting a good digestion of nutrients (like E.coli, Salmonella, Treponema, Campylobacter bacteria, Eimeria and Entamoeba protozoa, round and tape-worms, Rota and Corona virus). On the other hand Probiotics can have a positive influence on the digestion of the different nutrients. The next step is to have feed with an optimum balanced ratio. Even the use of certain enzymes (like phytase) will give a more efficient digestion of nutrients in the alimentary canal. Also several participants mentioned the possibility in the use of synthetic amino-acids for a better utilisation of nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrient minerals. However it is very difficult for an individual pig farmer to make use of these options, unless when he has his own feed-mill and mixing facilities. It is up to the local feed-industry to put these improved products in the local market. The third step is the collection of fresh manure in the pig houses/pens. In our situation we are able to collect between 20 to 25% of the fresh faeces from the pigpens, sow crates. This is very well possible on slatted floors, however on full floor systems most of the fresh faeces is trampled by the animals quickly after defecation. In house construction we recommend the installation of (plastic, iron, cement) slats very much. Other big advantages are: less water is needed for the daily rinsing of the pens and animals (less slurry). And also the hygienic condition of the animals environment is much better. I think in some cases it might be possible to collect more than 50% of all the fresh faeces produced in a pig farm. The selling of the fresh faeces (with or without drying) at our farm is not a problem at all. A coffee-farmer collects it in bags (pays about 40 US cents per bag) and uses it at his farm in combination with composting of plant material and poultry manure, before applying it as a fertiliser. Step number four in the transport of the leftovers of the faeces and water (urine, leakage of the drinking system, some water of the spray/drip cooling and the water of rinsing the pens, animals) to the bio-digestion system. It will be clear: the more water the more slurry and the more effluent. Also for a proper functioning of the biogester it is important to reduce the amount of water, especially when you have collected already a big portion of the organic matter (the fresh faeces). Another problem we faced in this field is the rainwater and the groundwater entering the manure canals for the transport of slurry. Therefore the manure channels should be made in a good condition and not allowing additional water to enter. Step number five can be the biodigester. Many participants stressed the importance of the process of biodigestion. From our monitoring of our biodigesters we see a reduction in BOD (biological oxygen demand) and the COD (chemical oxygen demand). However the amount of minerals is not sufficiently reduced (only by sedimentation). When there is a surplus of methane gas formed, it will escape into the open air and contribute to the global warming. In our case we have a lot of biogas formed and use it for the incinerator to burn organic material and dead animals at our farm. Further on we have plans to use the gas for brooding of young piglets and chickens at our farm. Even we like to use biogas for electricity supply via a generator. Step number six can the separation of solid particles by "seaving" the effluen