12/02/2010

1

ManureManure management, management, hygienichygienic conditions and conditions and

greenhousegreenhouse gasgas emissionsemissions in in dairydairy farmsfarms usingusing

recycledrecycled manuremanure solidssolids as as beddingbedding for for cowscows

Paolo Ferrari

Research Centre on Animal Production

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20092

Contents

1. Intro

2. Objective

3. Methods

4. Results

5. Conclusions

12/02/2010

2

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20093

Intro

• Why Recycled Separated Manure Solids (RSMS) as bedding for dairy cows?

– Avalability (increased number of dairy farms in Emilia Romagna equipped with mechanical separator to treat liquid manure)

– Low cost (fluctuation of cost and availability of bedding for dairy cows)

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20094

Intro

• Treatments for manure solids:

– mechanical separation

– digestion and mechanical separation

– mechanical separation and drum composting

– mechanical separation and windrow composting

– chemical additives (e.g. chlorine, hydrated lime)

12/02/2010

3

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20095

Intro

Composted and dried manure solids, with more than 60% dry matter and no orfew coliforms, may be used as free stall bedding in conjunction withstringent mastitis control measures without increasing incidence of coliformmastitis (Allen et al. 1980)

Zehner et al. (1986) compared various bedding materials and demonstrated thateven clean, damp bedding may support bacterial growth; they also suggestedthat high bacterial counts under barn conditions are influenced by factors morecomplex than type of bedding used. High moisture levels of organic beddingmaterials result in rapid growth of environmental bacteria in the beddingcontributing to high populations of bacteria on teat ends.

When bedding materials become mixed with manure and urine, rapid growth ofenvironmental mastitis pathogens starts because of available nutrients (Novàket al. 2004).

Schrade et al. (2006) found that bedding material of compost and recycledmanure solids is comparable with straw mattresses from the point of view ofcubicle maintenance, animal welfare and hygiene.

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20096

Intro

Cornell Waste Management Institute (2008)

– bacterial levels and properties of the bedding didn't show an effect on the incidence of mastitits at the farms

– continued use of manure solids could be increasing somatic cell count more than other bedding even though no conclusion could be done

– savings were found between 0,22 and 5,73 $ per t of milk produced digestion and mechanical separation

– properly managed manure solids can provide economic benefit without compromising herd health

12/02/2010

4

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20097

Objective

• The study is aimed to evaluate the hygienic feasibility and economic viability of using manure solids as bedding for dairy cows

• More generally it is aimed to:– reduce production costs of dairy farms

– prevent health and welfare problems for dairy cows

– preserve milk quality

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20098

Methods

• 12 dairy farms with different lying areas and manure management:

– cubicles bedded with RSMS

– cubicles bedded with 2 kg . cow-1 . d-1 or more of straw

– cubicles bedded with less than 1 kg . cow-1 . d-1 of straw or wood shavings

– cubicles not bedded

– sloped bedded floor with 2.4-3 kg . cow-1 . d-1 of straw

12/02/2010

5

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 20099

Methods

Farm Lying area Type of bedding Bedding use

kg cow-1d-1

Type of flooring

Manure removal system

1 Cubicles RSMS 9.0 Solid Flushing

2 Cubicles RSMS 9.0 Solid Scrapers

3 Cubicles RSMS 9.0 Solid Flushing

4 Cubicles Chopped straw 2.0 Solid Flushing

5 Cubicles - mattresses Wood shavings 0.7 Slatted Flushing

6 Cubicles Wood shavings 0.4 Slatted Storage pit

7 Cubicles - mattresses - 0.0 Slatted Storage pit

8 Cubicles Straw 3.3 Solid Scrapers

9 Cubicles Straw 0.9 Solid Scrapers

10 Cubicles Straw 2.3 Solid Scrapers

11 Sloped bedded floor Straw 3.0 Solid Scraper

12 Sloped bedded floor Chopped straw 2.4 Solid Scraper

Technical parameters of lying areas, bedding use, type of flooring in passages and manure handling systems in twelve reference cowsheds

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200910

Methods

All 12 cowsheds:

• Dirtiness score (DS)

• Locomotion score (LS)

• Somatic cell count (SCC)• Investments in structures, equipment and machines for manure management• Bedding use, labor needs and working times of machines and equipment for bedding and manure handling

12/02/2010

6

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200911

Methods

DS was used to analyse five anatomical parts of cows' body. For each part it varies from 0 to 2.The the total score for each cow ranges from 0 to 10. The number of total scores to be collected in each farm are more than 50% of the milking cows in the herd (Houdoy, 1992).

LS is a qualitative index of cows' ability to walk normally (Berry, 1997); it is visually scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where a score 1 reflects a cow that walks normally and a score of 5 reflects a cow that is three-legged lame.

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200912

Methods

4 cowsheds using RSMS:� Dry matter, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH4) of manure solids in the cubicles � Emission factors (NH3, N2O, CO2, CH4) of cubicles measured through the “static chamber method” (Brewer et al., 1999; Denmers et al, 1998; Hornig et al, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2001)

12/02/2010

7

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200913

Results

gggFarm Lying area Bedding use

kg cow-1d-1DS

Mean±±±±SDLS

Mean±±±±SDSCC 1

Mean±±±±SD

1 Cubicles 9.0 3.46±1.08 1.36±0.76 328±65

2 Cubicles 9.0 3.59±0.74 1.30±0.54 319±68

3 Cubicles 9.0 2.70±0.93 1.36±0.75 327±112

4 Cubicles 2.0 1.83±0.51 1.17±0.48 333±133

5 Cubicles -mattresses

0.7 2.46±0.53 1.41 ±0.79 248±85

6 Cubicles 0.4 4.77±0.76 1.45±0.74 143±89

7 Cubicles -mattresses

0.0 4.81±0.76 1.68±0.80 515±177

8 Cubicles 3.3 1.41±0.33 1.15±0.41 147±44

9 Cubicles 0.9 2.14±0.68 1.25±0.55 136±29

10 Cubicles 2.3 1.88±0.52 1.16±0.44 190±76

11 Sloped bedded floor 3.0 5.32±0.88 1.18±0.45 489±125

12 Sloped bedded floor 2.4 4.77±0.98 1.41±0.83 359±189

Dirtiness scores (DS), locomotion scores (LS) and bulk milk somatic cells count (SCC) in the surveyed reference cowsheds

1) Nr. . ml-1 . 1000

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200914

Results

ggg

1) Nr. . ml-1 . 1000

Dirtiness scores (DS), locomotion scores (LS) and bulk milk somatic cells count (SCC) in cowsheds with cubicles in lying area

Nr. farms

Lying area DSMean±SD

LSMean±SD

SCC 1Mean±SD

3 Cubicles bedded withmanure solids

3.38B±1.01 1.35B±0.72 323B±72

3 Cubicles bedded withmore than 2 kg cow-1 d-1

1.68D±0.50 1.16C±0.44 231C±126

3 Cubicles bedded withless than 1 kg cow-1 d-1

2.72C±1.12 1.35B±0.69 185D±92

1 Cubicles not bedded 4.81A±0.77 1.68A±0.80 514A±177

1) Nr. . ml-1 . 1000A, B, C, D) P < 0.01

12/02/2010

8

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200915

Results

Dirtiness score

higher in freestalls with RSMS than in fresstalls with straw or wood shaving

lower in freestalls with RSMS than freestalls without bedding and in stable with sloped bedded floor

Locomotion score

higher in freestalls with RSMS than in freestalls with cubicles with 2 kg cow-1d-1 or more of straw

lower in freestalls with RSMS than in non bedded cubicles

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200916

Results

Bulk milk Somatic Cell Count

higher in freestalls with RSMS than in freestalls with straw or wood shavings

lower in freestalls with RSMS than freestalls without bedding and in stable with sloped bedded floor

12/02/2010

9

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200917

Results

ggg

NH3mg/m2·h

N2Omg/m2·h

CO2mg/m2·h

CH4mg/m2·h

Measuresn.

Cubicles with RSMS 2.4 15.4 11314 50 80

Sloped bedded floor 66.6 4.6 16748 1035 33

Deep straw bedding 55.8 9.6 30090 3715 27

Emission factors of different laying areas

RSMS in the cubicles:

DM 43.6% (SD 5.46)TKN 2.23 % of DM (SD 0.41)NH4 1.17% of DM (SD 2.42)

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200918

Conclusions

• Acceptable hygienic conditions of cows in freestalls bedded with RSMS

• Moderate economic advantage

• High capital spending for mechanical separator and additional treatments

12/02/2010

10

Livestock housing for the future – 22-23 October 200919

Conclusions

Thank you for your attention