Whole-Farm Nutrient Budgeting: A
Nutritional Approach to Manure Management
Wendy Powers
Assistant Professor, Livestock Waste Management
Department of Animal Science
Iowa State University
H.H. (Jack) Van Horn
Professor, Dairy Nutrition and Management
Department of Dairy and Poultry Sciences
University of Florida
Environmental accountability requires that livestock producers
formulate a nutrient management plan, or budget which includes number of animals to be
produced, estimated nutrient excretion, nutrients recovered and applied for fertilizer
(based on manure analyses), and a plan to export nutrients off-farm if there is excess
manure nutrient production relative to on-farm crop production needs. Without any one of
these components, a budget can not be achieved. Proposed budgets for example operations
are available (Van Horn et al., 1996). Based on manure makeup and the overall management
program, a producer can make the necessary alterations to achieve a properly balanced
operation.
Input-Output Relationships
In a nutrient management scheme, a key point available to
manipulate the budget is at the manure source. By minimizing manure quantity and nutrients
excreted, especially in relation to animal food product produced, manure may be more
easily managed through reduction of storage needs and acreage required for nutrient
utilization. Manure production is influenced by the diet consumed, thus nutritional
strategies to optimize manure production should be employed.
Digestibility is considered to be the percentage of the dry matter or
particular nutrient in the diet that the animal could absorb from its digestive tract and
have available to use for maintaining life and producing offspring, body weight gain,
milk, eggs, wool, etc. By definition, apparent digestibility is considered to be the
difference between amounts fed and amounts recovered in feces. Previous nutrition research
has given us good estimates of apparent digestibilities of ingredients that can be
combined to estimate total ration digestibilities. Farmers, often with help from a
consulting nutritionist, formulate rations of known digestibility for animals based on
performance expected from those animals.
Knowing digestibility and, hence, indigestibility of the ration dry
matter and organic matter permits us to estimate the amounts of dry matter and organic
matter excreted, components that determine manure volume. Digested carbon-containing
compounds are the energy components of the diet that are either oxidized and the carbon
exhaled as carbon dioxide or they are used for the synthesis of animal products. Carbon
losses, other than losses in manure and respired carbon dioxide, do occur in ruminants
primarily as methane. Very few carbon-containing compounds are excreted through the urine.
Urine is the avenue of excretion for several metabolic end products, most importantly,
with respect to nutrient management, urea or uric acid from protein degradation or from
dietary nonprotein N sources. Urine is the major excretion pathway for readily available
fertilizer-N (urea or uric acid), K, and Na. Excreted P, Ca, and slower-released N from
undigested protein primarily are in feces (Morse et al., 1992; Tomlinson et al., 1996).
If animals are consuming dietary nutrients at maintenance levels, e.g.,
N, P, and K, they will excrete, on-average over time, the same amount of N, P, and K they
consumed. Maintenance needs and equivalent excretions for those nutrients will be
accounted for by turnover, without net gain or loss, of nutrients in current body
contents. When animals are accumulating N, P, and K in body weight gain, offspring, or
milk or eggs produced, the amount of those nutrients excreted in manure (feces plus urine)
differ from what is fed by the amounts in products produced. Excreted amounts of nutrients
are diluted in the indigestible residue of organic and mineral matter in manure and
variable amounts of water excreted in urine and feces. Nutrition-based models also allow
for production level consideration. Higher producing animals require greater feed intake
to support greater production thereby excreting more manure as a percent of bodyweight.
Thus, nutrition-based data coupled with good estimates of the nutrient content in food
products leaving the farm permit accurate estimation of total nutrient excretions in feces
plus urine by difference (Patterson and Lorenz, 1996; Tomlinson et al., 1996; Watts et
al., 1994).
Nutrition-based models predict the amounts of nutrients in fresh manure
excretions more accurately than collections from animal pens because of the dynamic state
of manure after excretion. For example, 40 to 75% of the excreted N will be in urea or
uric acid in the urine component and urease enzyme, that is of bacterial origin and is
nearly ubiquitous in the environment, converts urea and uric acid N to ammonia which can
be lost to the atmosphere. Also, anaerobic digestion that begins in the large intestine of
animals before feces are voided, continues after excretion if environmental conditions
permit. Or a shift to oxidative fermentation may take place, e.g. composting. Either way,
volume reduction takes place as carbon compounds are emitted to the atmosphere, primarily
carbon dioxide and methane and to lesser extent other odorous volatiles. Additionally,
physical separations may take place in animal pens. For example, urine or urine plus added
water may drain away from feces residues thus making solids collected from animal pens
different from original excretion. While nutrient losses during collection and storage are
significant, many operations do not have the opportunity to influence the magnitude of
loss that occurs. However, measures of excreted and collected amounts are both important
because differences give estimates of losses that occurred after excretion.
There is little difference expected on a dry matter basis between
species when animals consume diets of similar nutrient composition and digestibility.
Water content of collected manure usually is the biggest variable affecting wet-weight
composition and total volume. Expressing manure nutrient composition on a DM basis reduces
variation. The DM composition of manure in animal pens will change as diet and performance
criteria are varied and, especially, as water evaporates. Additionally, manure changes in
composition after excretion as a result of ammonia volatilization and volume reduction due
to carbon dioxide and methane losses.
Predicted N concentrations (DM basis) in residual manure are lowest for
dairy cattle compared with similar N concentrations expected in manure from other species
consuming more digestible, higher-concentrate rations. Estimated P concentration is lowest
for dairy cows and highest for laying hens with the ratio of N:P ranging from 1.28 to 2.47
(Table 1). These ratios illustrate that manures usually are P-rich relative to N because
N:P ratios recommended in plant fertilizers usually are much wider, e.g., 9:1. Note that
calculated ratios in freshly excreted manure range from 3.4 (hens) to 6.1 for broilers and
hogs. These ratios, although still P-rich, are much closer to plant needs and point out
that if N volatilization losses could be eliminated or greatly reduced and/or P excretion
reduced, manures would be much closer to a complete fertilizer. If it becomes possible to
reduce dietary P and still meet minimum animal requirements and to reduce N
volatilization, production of manures with N:P ratios of 8:1 or greater like needed in
plant fertilizers could result.
Dietary Manipulation of Manure Production
By optimally balancing the diet offered, manure production and
composition can be altered. Offering a diet that most nearly meets the animals' needs
without providing excess nutrients is the key to reducing manure nutrient concentrations.
The major advantage of showing that manure nutrient production is a function of ration and
performance is that it is easy to visualize the importance of ration management to
minimize excretions. Van Horn et al. (1994, 1996) provide example budgets for dairy and
beef operations. Book values for feedstuff, pasture, and product compositions were used in
each example. Improvement of feedstuff digestibility and/or productivity in the example
budgets would have resulted in reduced manure nutrient excretion relative to animal food
products produced. Improvement in feed digestibility can occur as a result of feed
processing such as grinding or ammoniation.
Supplementation of limiting amino acids, thereby permitting reduction
of total dietary protein, would reduce excretion of N, especially urinary N. Development
of protein systems which estimate ruminal and lower digestive tract needs individually are
useful in more accurately predicting the protein needs of cattle thus reducing total
protein intake. Selection of feedstuffs with highly digestible protein thereby improving
protein utilization, such a high-oil corn, offer promise as well.
Because manures become more and more P-rich as more N volatilizes,
ration management to minimize dietary P concentrations will become especially important.
Utilization of phytase enzyme sources in poultry and swine rations makes organic P
available to those animals and permits reduction of dietary P. Hopefully, it will become
even more cost effective in the future. Phytase enzyme is inherent in ruminant rations
because ruminal microorganisms provide it so dietary addition is not necessary. However,
surveys indicate (e.g., Shaver and Howard, 1995; Watts et al., 1994) that dairy and beef
producers usually feed more dietary P than animals require and, thus, excretions can be
reduced by dietary reduction. By combining improved digestibility and optimal dietary
nutrient content, nutrient and volume reduction, reductions in storage capacity and
acreage for crop growth can be realized, resulting in reduced capital investment costs.
Conclusions
Consideration of nutritional management in nutrient management
practices allows a producer to tailor the nutrient budget to more accurately reflect the
operation's management practices. Wide variation in manure production may occur as a
result of nutritional strategies.
References
Morse, D., H.H. Head, C.J. Wilcox, H.H. Van Horn, C.D.
Hissem, and B.J. Harris, Jr.
1992. Effects of concentration of dietary phosphorus on amount and route of excretion. J.
Dairy Sci. 75:3039-3049.
Patterson, P.H., and E.S. Lorenz. 1996. Manure nutrient production from commercial
White Leghorn hens. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 5:260-268.
Shaver, R. and W.T. Howard. 1995. Are we feeding too much phosphorus? Hoard's Dairyman
140(10 Apr):280.
Tomlinson, A.P., W.J. Powers, H.H. Van Horn,
R.A. Nordstedt, and C.J. Wilcox. 1996.
Dietary protein effects on nitrogen excretion and manure characteristics of lactating
cows. Trans. of the ASAE. 39(4):1441-1448.
Van Horn, H.H., G.L. Newton, and W.E.
Kunkle. 1996. Ruminant nutrition from an
environmental perspective: factors affecting whole-farm nutrient balance. J.
Anim. Sci.
74:3082-3102.
Van Horn, H.H., A.C. Wilkie, W.J. Powers, and
R.A. Nordstedt. 1994. Components of dairy
manure management systems. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2008-2030.
Watts, P.J., E.A. Gardner, R.W. Tucker, and
K.D. Casey. 1994. Mass-balance approach to
design nutrient management systems at cattle feedlots. Proc. Great Plains
Anim. Waste
Conf. on Confined Anim. Prod. And Water Quality. Balancing Animal Prod. & the
Environment. GPAC Publ. No. 151. P 27. Great Plains Agric. Council, Fort Collins, CO.
Table 1. Manure and N production estimates based on ration and
products produced.
|
Dairy |
Beef |
Hens |
Broilers |
Turkeys |
Hogs |
Herd or Flock Information |
Units |
Animals/Day |
Animals/Grow-Out |
Animals/day or Animals/grow-out |
No. |
1 |
1 |
1,000 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Average DMI/d or grow-out |
lb |
48.0 |
21.0 |
194.0 |
8.40 |
51.88 |
711 |
Average Diet N% |
% |
2.72 |
1.92 |
2.624 |
3.36 |
2.64 |
26.4 |
Milk yield or egg yield/d = |
lb |
60 |
|
105 |
|
|
|
Milk or egg N% |
% |
0.496 |
|
1.664 |
|
|
|
Avg net body weight gain/d or grow out |
lb |
0.20 |
3.10 |
1.85 |
4.80 |
23.80 |
254 |
Avg N% of weight gain |
% |
1.20 |
1.60 |
2.20 |
2.60 |
2.10 |
2.32 |
Avg diet DM digestibility |
% |
65 |
80 |
82 |
83 |
83 |
83 |
Ratio: Feed DM:product |
Ratio |
0.80 |
6.77 |
2.93 |
1.75 |
2.18 |
2.80 |
Daily or grow out balances:
Nitrogen: |
|
Input:lb. DMIxN/DMI = |
lb |
1.306 |
0.403 |
5.091 |
0.282 |
1.370 |
18.8 |
Export:lb. milk or eggs x N%= |
lb |
0.298 |
|
1.747 |
|
|
|
lb.gain x N/gain = |
lb |
0.002 |
0.050 |
0.041 |
0.125 |
0.500 |
5.89 |
Difference(manure estimate) = |
lb |
1.006 |
0.354 |
3.303 |
0.157 |
0.870 |
12.9 |
Yearly manure N = |
lb |
367 |
129 |
1,205 |
0.157 |
0.870 |
12.9 |
Output(feces): = lb DMI-(digestibility x
DMI) |
lb |
16.8 |
4.2 |
34.9 |
1.4 |
8.8 |
120.9 |
Output(urine): |
lb |
2.4 |
1.1 |
9.7 |
0.4 |
2.6 |
35.6 |
Total DM output = feces+urine = |
lb |
19.2 |
5.3 |
44.6 |
1.8 |
11.4 |
156.4 |
Manure DM/yr or grow-out |
lb |
7,008 |
1,916 |
16,286 |
1.85 |
11.41 |
156.4 |
Estimated DM% of fresh manure |
% |
14 |
16 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
16 |
Yearly manure(wet) = |
lb |
50,057 |
11,977 |
81,432 |
9.2 |
57 |
978 |
N lb. excreted/yr. or per grow-out |
lb |
367 |
129 |
1,205 |
0.157 |
0.870 |
12.878 |
Excreted N recovered(40%) |
lb |
147 |
52 |
482 |
0.063 |
0.348 |
5.151 |
Manure N% of DM(excreted) |
% |
5.24 |
6.74 |
7.40 |
8.52 |
7.62 |
8.23 |
N% of DM if 40% of N recovered,
20% Dm reduction |
% |
2.62 |
3.37 |
3.70 |
4.26 |
3.81 |
4.12 |
N : P in recovered manure |
Ratio |
2.25 |
2.27 |
1.28 |
2.44 |
1.79 |
2.47 |
To
Top |