Nutrient Reduction in Manure through Livestock Nutritional Management

1
Nutrient Reduction in Manure through Livestock
Nutritional Management
2
Balancing Animal Performance and Manure Management
3
Manure Management

• N and P are the two nutrients of greatest concern
  when dealing with manure.
• N and P can be managed and utilized as fertilizer
  for crop production.

4
Nutrient Management

• Nitrogen
• Protein
• UIP
• DIP
• NPN
• Amino acids
• Phosphorus
• grains -- high
• forages -- low
• dicalcium phosphate

5
Ruminant Animals
6
Yearly excretion estimates of various nutrients
by 1400 lb Holstein cows
Fraction Total for year Milk
21750 lbs DMI 14462 lbs Raw manure
(feces urine) 47475 lbs Total N (low
NRC) 223 lbs Total N (high NRC)
260 lbs P (.40 P RDM) 40
lbs P (.45 P RDM) 46 lbs P (.60
P RDM) 69 lbs K (.8 K RDM)
88 lbs K (1.2 K RDM) 146
lbs Similar trends Ca, Mg, Na, Cl UIP and DIP
minimums met NRC 1989
7
Composition of Fresh Manure

• N 9.4 lb actual N/ton wet manure
• P 1.9 lb actual P/ton wet manure
• K 3.7 lb actual K/ton wet manure
• Total solids 12.8
• Composition will change with scraping and loading
  moisture content and volatilization of N

8
MWPS - 18

• 1,000 lb Market Animal
• 60 lb/day manure
• .34 lb/day N (154 g)
• .11 lb/day P (50 g)

9
Nitrogen Losses

• 100 Nitrogen Excreted
• 50 to 60 Volatilization
• 15 to 20 Runoff, soil
• 20 to 30 Removed

10
Nitrogen Losses

• 154 g N/d x .25
• 38.5g N/hd/d removed from pens

11
Predictable Equations

• P and N excretions by cows vary
• P or N intake
• Factors
• P or N intake
• Dry Matter Intake (DMI)
• Milk yield
• Morse et al.

12
NRC 1996 Phosphorus

• Maintenance (Pm) Requirement
• 16 mg P/kg BW
• Retained (Pg) Phosphorus
• 3.9 g/100 g protein gain

13
NRC 1984 Phosphorus

• .028 (Wkg) .039 ? protein gain (g/d)
• Maintenance Requirement Reduced
• 43 (1984 1996)

14
P Requirements
Animal (lbs) Daily P requirement
(gms) 150 7.7 300 11.4 900 20.9 14
00 (dry) 18.2 1400 (late dry) 25.4 1400
(35 lbs milk) 46.7 1400 (70 lbs
milk) 75.3 1400 (100 lbs milk) 100
15
Dairy NRC recommendations

• .35 P RDM is enough for optimum performance
• Levels of .6 or higher not uncommon

16
1996 NRC Phosphorus RequirementsTypical Yearling
(800 lb)
0.22 of diet DM or 22.6 g/d P Intake
17
Typical Feedlot Diets
.30 to .35 P on diet DM
18
Practical Considerations

• Corn-based diets will run .25 to .35 P
• The need for supplemental P is low

19
Steer Performance as Influenced by P
P P Intake,g/d ADG, lb/d DMI, lb/d
Feed/Gain 0.14 15.9 3.87 25.0
6.49 0.19 19.7 3.57 22.8 6.37 0.24
27.6 3.77 25.2 6.71 0.29 32.1
3.85 24.4 6.33 0.34 36.4 3.38
23.6 7.04 SE .74 .20 .73
Erickson et al, 1998 Nebraska
20
Phase Feeding

• Opportunities to lower N and P intakes during the
  latter stages of the finishing period.
  Consequently, this will lower N and P output
• Allows nutritionists to more effectively optimize
  performance w/o overfeeding.

21
Yearlings (Trial 1 Nebraska 1998)

• CP () UIP () P
  ()
• CTL 13.6 4.48 .34
• Fin 1 11.2 3.67 .24
• Fin 2 11.9 3.67 .24
• Fin 3 11.5 3.67 .22

22
Performance Yearlings

• Item Control Balanced
  SE
• Initial Wt. 652 660 2.8
• Final Wt. 1249 1249 9.8
• DMI 26.2 25.0 .2
• ADG 4.06 4.01 .06
• F/G 6.45 6.21

Erickson, et al 1998
23
Phosphorus Balance (lbs/hd)
Item Control Balanced
135 d/period for both yearlings and calves
treatments
24
Management Practices to Improve N P Retention

• IMPLANTS?

25
Effect of TBA E2 onNitrogen Retention of Steers
Treatment LW (lb) N Retention (g/d)
Period (days) CTL TBA E2 CTL
TBA E2 -14 777 774 19.3 23.2
7 821 834 21.6 43.6 28 876 906 21.0 52.
1 49 902 972 19.6 57.0
70 953 1043 18.5 36.5
Lobley et al, 1985 Br. J. Nutr. 54681-694.
26
Phosphorus Balance
Item CTL IMP P Intake, g/d 26.14 27.19 Pm,
g/d 6.89 6.99 Carcass Protein Gain,
g/d 114 207 WB Protein Gain, g/d 142 259 Pg,
g/d 5.54 10.10 P Excreted, g/d 20.6 17.09 P
Calculated (.68) g/d 18.3 25.1 P Excess,
g/d 7.8 2.09
27
Swine Management
28
Nitrogen

• Pigs require amino acids, not protein
• Use synthetic amino acids

29
Protein vs Amino Acid Req
30
Synthetic Lysine

• Replace 100 lbs of SBM with 3 lbs synthetic
  lysine and 97 lbs of corn
• Save 3.96/ton
• Corn _at_1.70/bu SBM _at_ 205/ton
• Save 1.32/pig
• Reduce N excretion by 22
• Reduce odor from ammonia

31
Split-Sex Feeding

• Gilts eat less feed and put on more lean tissue
• Feed gilts higher AA lt 80 lbs
• Save 1.40/pig
• Reduce N excretion by 5

32
Phase Feeding

• By feeding more diets, you decrease the amount of
  time you are over-and under-feeding AA.
• By using 5 Grower-Finisher diets instead of 2,
  save 1.60/pig
• Decrease N excretion by 5-8

33
Genotypical Feeding

• Pig will only perform to genetic capability.
• Increasing protein/AA levels to a genetically
  average pig will NOT increase muscle.
• Match genetics to nutrition
• Reduce N excretion odor
• Save

34
Antibiotics

• Some preliminary data shows that certain
  antibiotics may be nitrogen sparing.
• Potentially less N excretion and ammonia
  production

35
Balance on Available Amino Acids

• When using something besides a corn-SBM diet
• Add less N to the diet
• Reduce N excretion and ammonia production

36
Reducing Sulfur Excretion

• Amino acids
• methionine
• cysteine
• Minerals
• copper sulfate
• ferrous sulfate

37
Dietary Modifications

• Reduced protein from 13 to 8 and added synthetic
  AA to meet requirement
• Replaced copper sulfate with copper oxide
• Replaced ferrous sulfate with ferric chloride

38
Results

• Reduced N in manure by 45
• Reduced volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by 61
• Reduced sulfur compounds in air by 63

39
Adding 5 Cellulose to Diet

• Reduced pH from 7.8 to 6.4
• Reduced ammonia emissions by 68
• Reduced sulfur volatile organic compounds by 12

40

• While these may not all be practical at the
  present, it does demonstrate that we can affect
  nutrient excretions by how we feed the pig.

41
Phosphorus (P)

• Only 30 of P in grain is available
• Rest is in phytate form and is unavailable

42
Add Phytases

• Phytases are enzymes that make phytate P more
  available
• Reduce P excretion by 30
• Add less dicalcium phosphate
• Economicwash when compare to dical price
• Some reports of slight savings

43
Cost of P Excretion

• It takes 3 times more land to spread hog manure
  on when you base the recommendation on P instead
  of N
• Potential BIG cost in the future

44
Low Phytate Corn

• Gene Jockeys and plant breeders have developed
  corn varieties with very low levels of phytate P.
• Commercially available in a year or two

45
Distillers Dried Grains from SD MN

• Research on DDG from SD MN ethanol plants shows
  that P is 60 more available from their products
• Tremendous opportunity for gestating sows and
  finishing pigs
• Low in lysine

46
Balance on Available P

• Do when using other feedstuffs than corn and
  soybean meal
• Add less inorganic P (cheaper)
• Less P excretion

47
Improving Feed Efficiency

• Anything that improves feed efficiency will
  decrease feed in the dust or the amount of feed
  ending up in the manure, thereby reducing the
  nutrient load in the manure and the substrate for
  odor production.

48
Improving Feed Efficiency

• Fat additions (1 most economical)
• Proper feeder adjustment
• Pelleted diets
• Wet/dry feeders
• Growth promotants
• Covers on drop-spouts

49
Conclusions

• Environmental issues will continue to be
  important in the livestock industry.
• By utilizing certain nutrition schemes and
  management tools we can theoretically lower our
  inputs and outputs of N and P.
• We all need to do our job in protecting the
  environment.