Farm Manure to Energy Initiative
Request for Information
Manure to Energy Technology Vendors
Submitted to:
Kristen Hughes Evans, Director
Sustainable Chesapeake
3607 E. Marshall St.
Richmond, VA 23223
Submitted by:
Agrilab Technologies, LLP (AGT)
Joshua Nelson, Director
Brian Jerose, Technical Services
P.O. Box 8
Pawlet, Vermont 05761
(802) 325-2203 Office
Email: agrilabtech@aol.com
www.agrilabtech.com
March 2012
1
A. BASIC INFORMATION (Company name, contact information, name of technology and
description of technology)
Agrilab Technologies, LLP (AGT)
Joshua Nelson, Director
Brian Jerose, Technical Services
P.O. Box 8
Pawlet, Vermont 05761
(802) 325-2203 Office
Email: agrilabtech@aol.com
www.agrilabtech.com
Description- Heat Capture and Transfer from Aerobic Composting
Alternate Description – Composting and Thermal Energy Systems
AGT specializes in thermal energy capture and transfer from the aerobic composting process. The
technology is used to stabilize and manage fresh manures and their nutrients, biomass and organic
waste residuals which otherwise might pose an environmental risks in the forms of leachate, odors and
methane gas if placed in a landfill. The heat capture and transfer process allows users to capture the
compost’s thermal energy (heat). In the aerobic process, heat is generated by rapid microbial activity.
We use negative aeration pulling hot moist air from the compost, into ductwork and across series of
high-performance efficient heat exchangers (Isobars®), a portion of which are welded into a water jacket
and able to heat water. We are able to sustain temperatures of 110-120F or higher from properly
managed compost feedstocks. Captured heat can be used to reduce dependence on fossil and
conventional grid-based energy sources.
Resulting compost has 40 to 60% less volume, can be field applied more economically , reducing risk of
NPK nutrient leaching into water tables and help control excess nutrient loads. The finished compost
reduces dependence on synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides with can rapidly leach into water
tables.
1. Is the technology commercially available now? If not, when is it expected to be
commercially available?
Yes, the technology is commercially available. The technology in its earlier form was demonstrated for
greenhouse heating by Acrolab Ltd. (Joseph Ouellette, President) in Windsor, Ontario and was
commercially available in 1999. The technology was included in the 2004 application for a USDA
Conservation Innovation Grant for the Magnan farm project in Sheldon, VT with 2005 construction and
system start-up in January 2006 as the first United States commercial-scale project. Agrilab
Technologies, LLP (AGT) was established in Vermont and now makes the technology commercially
available in the US.
2
2. Has the technology been previously deployed or demonstrated on a farm? If yes:
a. At what scale was it operated and what is its capacity? (please note that we are
interested in technologies that propose to operate at the farm as well as the
community scale).
Aerobic, in-vessel or aerated composting, heat capture and transfer can be deployed on a small or large
scale. Isobar heat capture and transfer systems are currently available in three sizes, small medium and
large. The smallest currently available system (20’ Isobar® accommodates 1 ton (2 cubic yards) of
compostable feedstock, day. Our largest system was designed to manage 500 cubic yards every two
weeks. We can address small or large scale compost management needs or customize to site demands.
More tonnage and volume equals more thermal energy (heat) potential.
The technology can be utilized to manage any organic, compostable feedstock including but not limited
to, animal manures, food waste, yard waste, food processing residuals, slaughter house waste, various
paper products ranging from old corrugated cardboard to short fiber paper residuals. The technology is
suitable for use in a wide range of applications ranging from small through large farm use and urban
municipal locations.
The technology was first deployed and tested in the United States at Diamond Hills Custom Heifers in
the town of Sheldon, VT in 2006. The original facility and installation was designed to accommodate
4000 cubic yards (CY) annually. A second system was installed and is currently coming on line in NY. The
Sunset View Farm system was designed to accommodate 500 yards every two weeks or about 10,000 CY
annually.
At the end of January 2012 a third medium size Isobar® heat exchange system was delivered to a dairy
farm and cheese making facility in Northeast VT. This farm maintains 40 Ayrshire dairy cows and its new
manure handling system is scheduled to be fully operational in spring 2012. Our system is being used in
conjunction with a small-scale anaerobic digester, for whey and liquids management. The integrated
“Green Machine” incorporates a greenhouse and living filtration system for water purification. The
Isobar™ system will be a core component of the facility heating and maintenance of suitable
temperature for the anaerobic liquids management.
A fourth Isobar® composting and thermal energy system has recently secured funding for its use at the
University of New Hampshire Burley-Demerit organic dairy farm. The project is still in the planning
phase with construction targeted for 2012. The intent of the deployed system at this farm is in part to
demonstrate and monitor performance for other regional dairy farms and mesh with the farm’s
research goals of tracking flows of energy, nutrients, carbon and other measures of sustainability. Its
scale is at minimum to handle the farm-based manure but may grow to also include community-sourced
food residuals.
b. What type of manure did it treat?
Manure types range from well-bedded pack manure, calf-hutch sawdust-bedded manure, scraped
barnyard manure, and separated manure solids. The manure sources are typically solid manures with
some semi-solid manure that can be incorporated if the feedstock moisture content permits. Our two
large installations are on dairy calf and heifer raising facilities who custom feed and manage livestock for
3
large regional commercial dairy operations. The manure feedstocks being managed are from calf
hutches, pens, and separated manure solids generated from bred heifers 500-1000 lbs. Each of these
facilities manages an average of 2000 head ranging in age from young calves through mature heifers.
c. How much manure did it treat? How much manure is needed to maintain year round
operations?
Our largest existing system is designed to manage approximately 500 yards every two weeks. The
smallest system requires approximately 1 ton per day of feedstock, 15 tons of material every two weeks.
These systems can be loaded on a batch or continuous-flow basis. Above that minimum threshold we
can manage almost any volume of manure or compostable feedstock generated from a variety of
sources. Systems are built to scale. Size is based on volumes of material to be managed and seasonal
variations. Isobar® system size is based on facility needs and heating requirements of current or
proposed operation. Currently we manufacture three size heat exchangers based on the volume of
manure generated and managed daily.
d. Were any environmental permits required/obtained? If yes, please list the types of permits.
No. The only permits required were for farm building construction and new projects would only need to
comply with similar farm building requirements by state/local laws. New liquid storage lagoons, tanks
or basins are not required. In-vessel manure management maximizes nutrient and leachate control.
The nutrient management plan of the existing Magnan state Medium Farm Operation (MFO) permit and
the existing Sunset View Farm CAFO permit does document the volumes and methods of manure that
are handled and land applied after composting. No new permits were required as a result of their
compost and thermal energy system implementation.
e. If the technology produced energy or heat, how much did it produce?
Specifically:
i.
What was the total annual wattage capacity and/or BTUs produced?
The Magnan system produces an estimated 1, 100,000,000 (1.1 billion) BTUs annually. During
higher energy demand periods of winter and more intensive compost loading/management the
system produces in excess of 5 million BTU/day or over 200,000 BTU/hour.
Thermal energy (heat) yield is a function of the characteristics and volume of material being
managed at any given time. Well-managed compost feedstock will yield from 1000 to 2000
BTU/Ton/ hour and is influenced by the duration and interval of aeration.
a. The aerated compost pad floors are built to scale based on need of the farm or facility
application. The compost pad floor is typically divided into four zones, the oldest zone
emptied at between 60-90 days based on loading schedule. Fresh feedstock to be
composted is stockpiled on a “pad” so when the zone is re-loaded, there is enough
manure and bedding to fill the entire zone and cover air channels. Material holding time
4
can vary from as little as 45 days to 120 days. As each zone of the floor has reached the
optimal holding period, that material is removed and the zone is reloaded. Holding time
has a direct correlation to BTU yield as explained below.
b. Air is drawn from each zone individually and is controlled by a timer. This facilitates lets
the microbes to re-charge, avoiding over aeration and slowing down microbial activity.
c. System monitoring documented capture and transfer of an average of 1000 BTU of
compost energy, per ton of feedstock, per hour. During aerobic composting, properly
blended feedstock will generate the most heat in the range of 140-165F during the first
60 day period. Thereafter the amount of available energy decreases gradually through
the 120 day holding cycle. Diamond Hills Custom Heifers, compost was left in the
composting bays for an average of 120 days, fall through late spring to avoid material
handling in their northern region. Therefore, the material had an extended holding
period during which available BTUs decreased over a longer holding time. ReoTemp
Data Loggers are used to record one air channel duct, per floor zone to track and record
compost material activity at the Sunset View Farm composting site.
d. Compost Feedstock held for shorter periods on the compost floor (45-60 days) yield
higher energy output per ton managed. Data gathered from tracking and monitoring of
the compost system indicates as much as 2000 BTU/Ton/hour is available. Therefore the
shorter the holding period, the higher the available energy from all zones.
e. Total average annual energy yield is 1.1 Billion BTUs.
ii.
How was the energy/heat captured or used?
Explanation of Heat Capture & Transfer Process:
AGT’s patented Isobar® technology for capture and transfer of heat from aerobic
composting uses “negative” aeration to pull heated vapor down and from the compost
feedstock, channeling it to the Isobar® heat exchange array. Well managed compost
maintains an average temperature of 150-165F during the first 30-60 day holding period.
Isobars® are two phase heat exchangers made out of high grade stainless steel tubing which
are then charged with a working liquid. The Isobars® are made from 2.5”-3.0’ diameter
stainless steel. The Isobar® array can vary in length. Existing and planned units are 16’- 42’ in
length. The Isobars® in groups of 6-12 per unit are housed within a HDPE shell (see photos at
www.agrilabtech.com). As the hot, moist vapor is drawn into the very end of the Isobar®
chamber, it comes in contact with the high-efficiency heat exchangers. As the hot moist air
makes contact with the Isobar® the entire surface area of the Isobar® tube is heated to
almost the same temperature of the air entering the chamber. The opposite end of the
Isobar® array chamber (from where air enters) holds a “Pre-heater” tank. The Isobars are
welded into and run through the “pre-heater” tank. The Isobar® transfers the heat to the
water within the jacket. This brings the water temperature up. We use 110-120F as a
conservative target for water heating. Pre-heater tanks range from 100-800 gallons based
on size of the system. Hot water is then circulated to a larger insulated holding reservoir
5
where it is held until needed or immediately to the point of use. When needed a zone valve
opens and the hot water is circulated.
Heat Use Applications:
Compost thermal energy can be used in a wide array of applications where there is a direct
need for, or application for use of captured thermal energy in the range of 110F to 120F (on
average). In the case of agricultural operations these applications are diverse.
Both installations have been on dairy calf and heifer operations of which there are
approximately 1500 in the US. Animal populations range from 500 to as many as 10,000 head.
These CAFO operations have significant energy needs where heat is required to heat large
volumes of water for ration preparation, pail sanitizing, calf hutch cleaning, equipment washing
and space heating.
Diamond Hill Custom Heifers–
This farm heats a young calf barn through a radiant loop heated floor and pre-heats water used for
above tasks and chores. Compost generated is both used on farm and sold as additional farm revenue.
Sunset View Farm (SSVF), Schagticoke, NY
SSVF use an average of 10,000 gallons hot water daily to care for approximately 2000 dairy heifers of
mixed ages; “wet” calves through mature heifers ready to calve. The farm has historically depended on
propane, diesel oil and electricity to meet annual heating needs. The compost, heat capture and transfer
technology has reduced dependence and expenses for grid and fossil based energy.
Additional Applications of Compost-Derived Thermal Energy:
In addition to use of the gleaned heat on dairy calf grow out facilities, there are numerous other
applications for the heat use on agricultural applications. A few of these are described below:
a. Poultry and swine operations both generate manure streams which are potentially high in
odor and are highly leachable when field applied fresh (raw/ non-composted form). Most
operations are still primarily dependent on traditional energy resources such as propane,
natural gas, diesel and electricity to maintain required heat temperatures in these facilities.
Compost heat energy can be utilized to reduce dependence on the above mentioned energy
sources. Hot water can be used to heat buildings and facilities in several ways;
i.
Placement of heat exchangers in “Make Up” air ductwork;
ii.
Placement of radiant loop heating coils in the floors or ground below these
facilities.
iii.
Hot water can also be utilized in layer operations to pre-heat water used for egg
washing and sanitization purposes.
b. Greenhouse operations and farms with access to compostable feedstock can implement invessel or controlled aerobic composting and use heat recovery to meet greenhouse heating
needs, offsetting dependence on conventional fuel sources. The heat energy is ideal for
certain aquaculture, hydroponic or vermiculture applications.
6
c. Food processors and slaughterhouse facilities generate significant amounts of offal and
residuals which are high in nitrogen and available energy. Bulked up with carbon based
material it can be aerobically managed producing high quality compost. The heat gleaned
can be used to both heat facilities and meet a portion of the hot water needs related to
wash down and sanitization.
d. Equestrian facilities can better manage used stall bedding and waste feed by aerobic
composting. This is high carbon, ideal feedstock for composting. Initiation of composting on
equestrian facilities can help protect immediate water resources, reduce manure
management and reduce annual energy expenses while producing a valuable resource.
e. Cow calf operations or beef feedlots, seasonally managing cows in barns or in a controlled
feedlot area can use the heat yield from composted manure to heat offices, shops, water
and residences.
f.
Moisture reduction of compost is a valuable application. By reducing the moisture content
(MC) from eg: 40-45% down to 30-35%, the finished material becomes more “friable” or
crumbly. This allows easier handling of finished material which can then be screened,
bagged or moved more effectively. We are in the planning phase, working with one large
compost producer in MD who wants to use heat from composting for energy efficient
material drying. We have developed plans for a drying floor through which gleaned heat
will be circulated through radiant coils, combined with positive aeration to facilitate rapid
drying of finished compost in a greenhouse type structure. This technology will allow him to
process more regional organic waste into compost which will be exported for retail
distribution and sale.
g. Commercial or municipal composting sites, with active compost with thermal energy
available to heat buildings, greenhouses, dry compost products, heat water for vehicle and
equipment washing or other hot water demands.
3. Is it operable by a farmer or best operated by a trained professional?
The systems can be operated by the farmer, owner, or compost manager. They are easy to
operate and have no dangerous mechanical components which pose risk or hazard to the
operator. The only moving components are the blowers and damper mechanisms which are
individually housed.
a. If the farmer can operate the equipment, what tasks and time would be required on a daily, monthly
and annual basis?
i.
Daily: 10 minutes on average checking damper mechanisms, fans, air zone and water
temperatures. Digital data logger recording monitors are placed on each zone to guide
system aeration speed/timing and help track energy yield.
ii. Monthly: Unloading and reloading of floor zones, placement of new wood chip on top of aeration
channels, required after inspection and possible cleaning of aeration channel.
7
iii.
Annually: Manual or high pressure wash out of aerated floor channels. Checking and
inspection of damper valves, adjusting and cleaning as needed. General system inspection,
routine cleaning, inspection and replacement of any mechanisms. Isobars themselves should
never leak the “working fluid” (refrigerant). Components of the Isobar array and chamber
are all fabricated from corrosion proof materials.
Once installed, which is a very straightforward process, AGT systems are easy to manage. The heat
exchangers themselves have no moving parts and the systems are fabricated from corrosion
resistant materials; stainless steel, HDPE and aluminum. The only moving parts directly related to
operation of the AGT Isobar® systems are the blowers which pull the air from the composting pads,
damper controls which regulate air passage from the floor, electric timers to control the fan and
dampers and the zone valves for water circulation.
C. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
2. How much does the technology cost? Specifically, what is the:
AGT Isobar® technology can be implemented for small, medium and large scale applications. The
price range of our Isobar® systems range from $ 25,000-$82,000. Compost building, plumbing,
site work and electrical are separate and depend on the variables of existing infrastructure, site
and labor constraints, and other management goals.
a. Total cost:
There are several factors which can affect the total cost of a system installation. A few of these
scenarios are provided below;
i.
Will a new composting pad and building be required for compost feedstock management? If
so, typically we need to determine the characteristics and volume of materials to be
managed and processed on a 2-4 week cycle for each batch to be loaded. The volumes to be
managed will dictate the pad size required. On new construction we have construction
estimates as follows; $ 8/sq. ft. for aerated concrete floors, $ 5/sq. ft. for structures. (These
costs do not include labor and regional differences in concrete and other materials).
Alternate methods of continuous feedstock loading, longer composting periods and storage
for curing, further processing, etc., influence the extent and scale of facilities to efficiently
handle feedstocks and provide adequate water quality protection.
ii.
Is an existing composting operation currently using bunkers or windrows using an Aerated
Windrow System (AWS) or Aerated Static Piles (ASP)? AWS is typically positive aeration in
on-farm composting settings whereas municipal composting systems have often used
negative aeration (Rynk, et al, 1993). If AWS is in place with positive aeration, is feasible to
cover aeration pipes with wood chips to maintain porosity at the base of the windrow, and
reverse air direction to pull and capture the heat generated. Windrow covers can be
sufficient in some settings, will provide needed moisture control, and may avoid the need
for building construction.
iv.
Several large farms and poultry operations we have spoken with have manure/litter storage
buildings within which we can pour a new aerated floor for compost management.
Attention is required to formulate a composting mixture (recipe) with adequate carbon,
moisture content and porosity (to facilitate movement of oxygen and heated vapor).
8
v.
We know it is feasible to capture the hot moisture laden air being generated by “Rotary
Drum” systems already in use for manure management. It is a very simple process to interconnect rotary drums and Isobar® systems for energy capture and re-utilization. Rotary
drums and other in-vessel composting systems with a vapor exhaust point can direct this
source of thermal energy over the Isobar® heat exchangers and capture renewable thermal
energy for on-site demands.
b. Annualized capital equipment costs: cost and operating life
We calculate a Return on Investment (ROI) scenario based on a specific farm’s organic waste
volume, sources of biomass, application of energy captured to offset grid and fossil fuel use, the 40%
reduction in fresh manure handling (farm to field), reduced fertilizer purchases, revenue from compost
sale, etc. A few ROI’s for farms we are working with, are attached as addendums.
AGT places a five year warranty on the Isobar® systems themselves. Useful life is estimated at
twenty years. With proper care and maintenance, there is no reason systems will not remain functional
and viable in excess of twenty years.
c. Operation costs (annual): Magnan figures are approximately $1200/year using 60 hours @ $20/hour
for the Isobar® system.
The operation costs for the entire composting and thermal energy system are highly variable for all sites,
depending on their site layout, efficiency of material handling methods and ability to sell and/or land
apply the finished compost. The Magnan site saved an estimated $19,000 in annual operating costs
(labor and equipment) versus its previous practice of land applying raw manure. It also generated a new
$15,000/year in revenues from compost sales.
d. Maintenance cost (annual): $600 per year for maintenance of the Isobar® system components using a
6-year maintenance history at this farm.
For the entire composting and thermal energy system, maintenance is estimated at $2000. This figure is
derived from maintenance on tractors and other farm equipment. The cost is pro-rated for time in
compost handling as equipment is used for multiple purposes on the farm. The cost represents a small
savings in annual maintenance costs versus the farm’s previous practice of land applying raw manure.
e. Cost per ton of manure processed: For the isolated Isobar® system the cost per ton of manure
processed is $3.90 using a 10-year timeframe and $2.40 using a 20-year timeframe. The net savings
using energy savings minus the above combined capital, operation and maintenance costs is $1.70/ton
using a 10-year timeframe and $3.20/ton using a 20-year timeframe. This net does not project an
increase in the current heating oil cost of $3.50/gallon. If heating oil costs do increase, the net savings
will be even greater. Total cost per ton of manure processed will be affected by the needs for new or
expanded composting equipment or infrastructure at the site.
3. What are the saleable products?
Most farms seeking to balance their nutrient cycling and maximize farm generated resources
will initially choose to use compost on their farms to reduce expenditures related to fertilizer purchase.
As they increase microbial activity in their soils. As soil organic content increases to a suitable level,
9
farms may sell excess compost or continue to use it based on their land base needs and fertilization
requirements.
Farms and confinement operations with limited land base are most likely generating more
nutrient than can be managed by direct field application. If these operations have use of heat to reduce
energy costs, compost produced becomes a saleable farm product. The compost can be marketed in
several capacities ranging from bulk sale, to bagging and distribution.
Farms with excess “compost energy” (exceeding farm/facility use), have opportunity to increase
or diversify farm operations through establishing greenhouses, aquaculture or other specialized
applications. Farms with excess energy and available land base have the opportunity to lease pad space
for greenhouse or other activity where heat value can be negotiated and sold to manager of a
greenhouse operation at eg: 50% of prevailing local energy cost.
a. If heat/energy is a co-product, how much is produced per year and what is the cost per unit of
electricity and/or heat produced?
The Magnan Farm site produces an estimated 1.1 Billion BTUs annually. Using the 10-year and 20-year
cost projection scenarios the cost per million BTU generated is $7.09 and $4.36 respectively. This
scenario attempts to isolate the utilization of the Isobar® system from all the other integrated costs of
manure and compost handling.
b. If co-products suitable as a fertilizer are produced, please describe, including:
The estimated amount of total and plant-available N-P-K content.
The N-P-K of finished compost typically falls in a range of 1-1-1- to 2-2-2. It is important to note
that a certain amount of the N-P-K is bound up for slow release from the compost. The microbial
and micronutrient value compost adds to soil is extremely valuable. Especially, if being added to
nutrient deficient soil. If applied at a rate of 15-20 tons per acre for 1-2 years, soil health will be
dramatically increased, increasing plant population density, increasing C02 capture from the
atmosphere.
The estimated market value.
Many factors affect finished compost market value. Compost Prices are influenced by several
factors ranging from type of initial feedstock used, quality of finished material, whether it is
screened, sold bulk, bagged for retail, etc.
When preparing a Return on Investment model for a farm we assess the size of the farm, how
much fertilizer and compost they can or do use, factoring what is available for retail sale. Based
on the overall balance available, if excess, is it most effectively sold in bulk, sold wholesale to an
established “bagger” for distribution at retail, etc. Being very conservative on finished material
value, we typically start at $ 15/ton value and work upwards based on the above variables. As
the cost of synthetic fertilizers increases, farm based use of compost can help reduce fertilizer
expenditures.
Dairy and livestock operations using finished compost as bedding can realize additional
economic benefits over purchase of wood shavings or other materials. Sufficient moisture
control and product quality must be achieved to maintain good herd health.
10
c. Are there other, residual co-products that need market development and/or disposal?
The only residual material, which can be recycled or managed through existing farm infrastructure, is
the condensate coming out of the Isobar® array, generated from the vapor to condensate phase change
during the heat exchange process. During the first few weeks of composting it can be irrigated back onto
fresh composting material. After compost begins to mature, we recommend sending condensate to
either a holding lagoon for field application or direct application to cropland. The condensate does not
need market development.
4. Would the technology be expected to generate environmental credits (ex. carbon, renewable energy,
and nutrient)? If so, please describe, including the number of credits and estimated market value.
Carbon credits will be applicable as protocol models for farms adopting aerobic composting become
more defined. Protocols for composting operations presently do not meet the “Gold Standard” for
carbon credit brokers and verifiers. The range and variability of composting methods and feedstock
characteristics makes the development of appropriate protocols more complicated and will take longer
for their completion. The carbon offset firm Native Energy has advised AGT on the potential of credits
when using this technology and associated manure and biomass handling practices.
The technology is categorized as a “biomass” combined heat and power technology under section 1603
of the federal tax codes. Program 1603 has expired and whether it will be re-established is to be
determined.
Compost production and utilization uses less lifecycle energy than application of synthetic fertilizers but
is highly variable between farms. Reduction in “grid” based energy sources such as propane, natural gas,
diesel and electricity can be measured by tracking receipts for volumes used. Reduction in the use of
each of the above energy sources have a value which can be quantified measured to determine CO2
reduction, potentially qualifying for a future carbon credit.
5. Has a business model for the technology been demonstrated and/or written? If yes, is it available for
review?
In addition to the existing systems, in place and operational, we have several “pro-forma” models
developed for farms of various sizes. These range from a 60 cow Jersey Dairy to 200+ head Holstein
operations. We have models in place showing heat yield and pad sizes for equine operations as well.
We have not done any business models or Pro-forma ROI scenarios for poultry operations but are
capable of preparing them if given base data such as energy use, manure handling and related farm
expenses.
6. What sources of financing are currently available? What sources of financing are needed?
Our systems qualify for several financing and cost sharing programs managed by NRCS, USDA (REAP) and
related State based programs addressing best management practices, nutrient management and
renewable energy. In New York this is through the New York State Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA). We also have lease and other types of financing available for Isobar® system acquisition by
farms and potential end-users.
11
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1. What is the ultimate fate (i.e. mass balance) of the manure nutrients?
The manure nutrients are largely conserved in the finished compost product. Phosphorus (P) content
does not change in the mass balance. Nitrogen (N) is conserved through the composting process by
incorporation into the microbes that decompose the feedstocks in organic forms of N. Providing that
sufficient carbon (C) is in the compost mixture, there is a substantial reduction in the loss of ammonia-N
to volatilization versus common manure handling practices of lagoon storage, land application or
stacking of raw manure. These common practices often result in losses of 50-90% of N from the point of
livestock or poultry excretion to the utilization by the crop. (Jokela, et al., 2004).
Composting methods that reduce the intensity of aeration and/or windrow turning can also conserve N,
as well as avoiding high pH (Harrison, 2003). The combination of higher C content and manure/compost
handling practices resulted in finished compost from the Magnan project having a higher N content that
most dairy manure based composts surveyed in VT and NY (Magnan and Jerose, 2007).
The compost resulting from manure and nutrient management can be used locally to displace use of
synthetic fertilizers and reduce application of fresh/raw manure which has the potential to leach into
waterways.
2. Does the technology facilitate transport of nutrients out of high-density manure/poultry litter
production areas? If so, please explain.
Once nutrients present in the feedstock organic matter have been composted and stabilized it will be
approximately 40% less in volume. Once farms have determined volumes necessary for their needs, the
balance can be exported out of the immediate region. This can be done through a range of management
options ranging from sale of material to commercial compost producers, who bag and sell to the retail
trade, or, mass transport of finished compost via rail car to regions which can benefit from use of the
material. We know commercial composters already working regionally who are expanding their product
lines and market distribution. We have also explored the use of rail freight to move finished material
out of the region and could work with a demonstration site depending on their farm and site
circumstances.
3. What data on air emissions are available? Specifically, what are the emissions of criteria air pollutants
and hazardous air pollutants (collected using EPA-approved methodology) per ton of manure processed
or per energy unit?
The University of New Hampshire, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, UNH College
of Life Sciences and Agriculture has collected emissions data from the Magnan farm’s composting
project using the Isobar® System. In August 2009 a team gathered samples using a Gas Data GFM416
Biogas Analyser (Gas Data Limited, Coventry, U.K.). The collected data was used to guide research
project methods at the UNH organic dairy farm and not for reporting to EPA or other entities. The
results were favorable in the absence of methane and low ammonia levels.
Agrilab Technologies is interested to conduct these tests with a local partner and qualified evaluator. Air
emissions data collection using EPA-approved methodologies could be performed at a demonstration
site and other regional farms. It would be important to know the differences in emissions for the wide
12
range of manure characteristics, handling methods and composting practices that are present and could
be implemented on regional sites.
There are no hazardous air pollutants generated from the aerobic composting process. Methane is
estimated at less .5 of 1%. Ammonia (NH3) can be released during the process if adequate carbon is not
present in the blend to capture it. This can be managed by increasing available carbon in the mix.
4. Is there an established market for any nutrient-rich co-product that could result in documentation of
export out of high-density animal production regions? If yes, please describe.
There is a well-established bagged compost, soil amendment and fertilizer market using chain stores and
local hardware/garden supply outlets. This varies by region both within the watershed and adjacent
regions of the Atlantic coast, Midwest and Northeast. A new compost producer can collaborate with
existing sales and distribution networks and/or develop a local bulk market for serving gardeners,
landscapers, commercial growers, construction sites and erosion control needs. Existing commercial
compost producers would have information on their compost sales. They will also have documentation
of incoming feedstocks they are currently managing. This approach can be flexible in d
5. Are there other characteristics of the technology or product(s) that would result in reduced N and P
loading to surface waters? If yes, please describe:
Use of compost is important both as a means to transport excess nutrients around or out of the
impacted watersheds but also as a soil amendment to improve local soil conditions in terms of biology
and soil physical structure. Converting raw manures, poultry litter, food residuals, and other biomass to
compost can stabilize N, and convert organic matter into a more manageable form with reduced or no
odors. Mature compost with reduced moisture content is easier to load into trucks, containers and bags
and also weighs less for trucking and hauling efficiency. This can make nutrient export from the
watershed more cost-effective, with pelletizing as the most efficient form to transport.
Agricultural fields within a nutrient-impaired watershed near suburban residential areas in some regions
are actually nutrient deficient to meet agronomic plant growth recommendations due to objections
about manure odors. Nutrients in mature composts may be applied to this category of crop land to
build soil physical structure and fertility without causing an odor nuisance to neighbors. This can assist
some farm operations and land managers to improve yields in these soils, reduce imported fertilizer use
and reduce manure application costs.
Improved soil physical structure leads to enhanced infiltration of precipitation and retention of soluble
nutrients, decreasing the loss of sediment and nutrients from the farm or other point of runoff. These
watershed benefits may not be realized by the economic measures of an individual farm producer but
have positive hydrological and water quality impacts for residents and users of the watershed (Magdoff
and van Es, 2000).
E. OTHER INFORMATION
Is there any other information you wish to share with us about the technology and its potential?
The technology can be summarized as a highly efficient capture of renewable thermal energy when
combined with effective composting practices. There are multiple historical and recent attempts to
13
utilize the heat from the compost process. The Isobar® Composting and Thermal Energy System is the
most advanced integration of high-efficiency heat transfer with a range of practical compost handling
methods. A basic explanation of low-tech composting and heat recovery methods can be seen at
www.compostpower.org .
There are other biomass and renewable energy systems that are advanced for their energy
sustainability. The Isobar® Composting and Thermal Energy System is capable of achieving a renewable
thermal energy output and generating a highly beneficial compost co-product, which ultimately builds
the soil and returns carbon to agricultural fields and other application sites within or beyond the
watershed. Many other biomass systems generate more short-term thermal output but have a coproduct of ash. Ash can have a few soil amendment benefits but does not return like compost the
carbon, fiber, and nutrients that improve soil biology and soil physical structure.
Agrilab Technologies is interested to collaborate with partners in the Chesapeake watershed as well as
those on existing and funded projects in the northeast. Our system planned for the University of New
Hampshire provides a unique setting and team of researchers to compliment on-farm demonstration
sites that would utilize the composting and thermal energy systems. The UNH research goals are
summarized below.
Future Research Topics and Opportunities for Collaboration with University of New Hampshire
The unique nature of the organic dairy farm facility supports regional and national collaborations. A
distinctive hallmark is that scientists from traditionally non-agricultural disciplines are attracted to this
diverse center of inquiry, fostering creative and broadly multidisciplinary approaches. Concerns about
water quality, trace gas emissions and climate impacts, energy requirements and supply, land use
change, landscape ecology, and wildlife management can all be addressed in relation to the operation of
an organic dairy of size and setting typical for the region. Our goal is to build partnerships with
interdisciplinary researchers and educators leading to discoveries that will stimulate new opportunities
in farming, food production, and land use.
Investigators interested in proposing projects should contact the Coordinator of Farm Development and
Research, John Aber, john.aber@unh.edu 603-862-3045, Professor, Department of Natural Resources
and the Environment, UNH College of Life Sciences and Agriculture.
Areas of Interest for Future Collaborations







Animal Health in Organic Systems
Animal Nutrition in Organic Systems
Integrated Pasture/Dairy Systems
Trace gas balances
Carbon balances and footprint
Nitrogen fixation in pastures
Groundwater Impacts and Water Quality
Link is at http://colsa.unh.edu/aes/odrf and follow “Research” tab
14
References Cited:
Harrison, Ellen and Jean Bonhotal, 2003. The Quality of NYS Agricultural Composts; Final Report
of the Compost Marketing and Labeling Project. Funded by New York State Energy Research
Development Authority (NYSERDA) and completed by the Cornell Waste Management Institute (CWMI),
Ithaca, NY.
Jokela, William et al., 2004. “Vermont Nutrient Management Planning Manual.” University of
Vermont Extension, Burlington, VT.
Madgoff, Fred and Harold van Es, 2000. Building Soils for Better Crops, 2nd edition. Sustainable
Agriculture Publications, SARE. Burlington, VT.
Magnan, Terrance and Brian Jerose, 2007, “Vermont Alternative Manure Management Report –
Integrating Composting Technologies, and Livestock Bedding and Compost Utilization Practices.” Final
report to Vermont Alternative Manure Management Program for Diamond Hill Custom Heifers project,
Enosburg Falls, VT.
Rynk, et al, 1993. The On-Farm Composting Handbook. NRAES, Ithaca, NY.
15