|
|
|
Spotlight.....By Howard Person |
May, 2000 |
Making choices among odor-control technologies that are appropriate for a specific livestock operation is challenging, to say the least. One of the critical questions is: "What difference does it make?". The OFFSET Model—recent research developed by the University of Minnesota—addresses this question.
There are two components to the odor-control process:
- collecting measurements of odor emissions from various components of livestock operations
adapting an odor dispersion model, calibrated and validated for predicting the distance that odors will travel under a variety of weather conditions — the validation work must be done under actual field conditions.
Based upon hourly weather data, the OFFSET Model makes it possible to predict how frequently detectable odors will occur at various distances from the odor-producing component 16 directions around the facility.
A scaled plot can then be used in choosing a new facility site. This model also makes it possible to look at a variety of odor-control technologies and observe what impact they have upon how far odors will travel. This helps address the question: "What difference does it make?".
Michigan State University is currently adapting the University of Minnesota’s OFFSET Model using Michigan’s climate. Presently, we have data collected from nine locations around the state.
Michigan’s Right-to-Farm program is currently considering the OFFSET Model to be part of the Generally Accepted Agricultural Practices for Site Selection and Odor Control for New and Expanded Livestock Operations (GAAMPS) and will be reviewed annually.
Currently available odor emissions data is relatively broad ranging and I view the OFFSET Model as an important development that will require continuous growth and adjustment. However, there will still be an ongoing need to develop data for both current and new technologies.
Spring storms have reminded us that lightning is a risk we need to manage. On May 11, 2000, CBS The Early Show had a segment on lightning and their web site had good tips from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Howard Doss
FARM SAFETY & HEALTH WEEK
September 17-23, 2000
Safety and Health Week information will be posted on the "nsc.org" web site later this year. It includes injury and fatality data, public service announcements, and other information that can be used for local awareness of National Farm Safety & Health Week.
Howard Doss
FARM SAFETY QUESTION OF FACT
Do young and older farm workers have more fatal farm work accidents?
Fact:
Septic Systems and Surface Water Quality
Watersheds across the country are being assessed to determine the "Total Mass Daily Loading" (TMDL) of pollutants potentially entering the water. This is a program mandated by the Federal Government to help watershed managers understand the quantity of pollutants entering waterways, the source of these pollutants, the management or engineering changes needed to reduce these discharges and the overall ability of the watercourse to handle a certain level of pollutants. Typical parameters of concern are pathogenic organisms, nutrients, organic matter and sediment. There are a number of sources of these pollutants including livestock operations, agricultural land and onsite wastewater disposal systems.
Stream sampling can identify the pollutants of concern, but reducing the discharge of a given pollutant requires understanding its major source or sources.
Whether or not septic systems in a given area are major sources of pollutant discharge depends upon the site conditions and the overall condition of the septic systems. Site conditions which might suggest that septic systems be considered in the TMDL process are slowly permeable soils that might lead to surfacing of septic tank effluent from clogged up soil absorption systems and sites with shallow ground water that may discharge to nearby surface waters. In these settings there may be insufficient unsaturated soil between the bottom of soil absorption system trenches and shallow ground water to provide adequate treatment. Sometimes old septic systems are intentionally connected to tile drainage systems, causing almost direct discharge of pollutants to surface waters.
Septic systems can be a source of coliform bacteria, nutrients and oxygen robbing organic matter. In general, organic matter from septic systems will be filtered out in the soil unless there is direct discharge. In some settings, it may be difficult to determine whether coliform bacteria and nutrients come from septic systems, livestock operations, or wildlife.
Determining whether a specific septic system is likely a problem may involve a fairly detailed evaluation of the site and system. Consistent surfacing of effluent will be obvious during the growing season by the color and rate of growth of vegetation, spongy soil conditions or, in extreme cases, dead vegetation, blackened soil surfaces and odor. Systems that are contributing pollutants to shallow ground water or tile systems will be less obvious. Soil borings can be used to determine how close the ground water is to bottom of trenches. A minimum of two feet is necessary for adequate treatment for removal of coliform bacteria. (The state and most counties require four feet of unsaturated soil.)
Determining whether systems are connected to tile lines may require actually sampling of tile flow and testing for the presence of coliform organisms, nutrients, and/or chloride. Dye testing may also be used to identify direct connections.
If you or colleagues you work with are involved in TMDL projects and would like further assistance in identifying septic system effects, please feel free to contact me (loudon@msue.msu.edu) or Patricia Miller (mille906@pilot.msu.edu) for additional information.
Ted Loudon
The design handbook MWPS-29 Dry Grain Aeration Systems Design Handbook, has been recently revised by the Midwest Plan Service.
This design handbook is intended for a technically oriented audience interested in learning about the art and science of aeration system design. It provides guidelines for selecting, sizing, locating and evaluating grain aeration systems, and it presents design examples of commonly used systems. It does not include design information for moving air through wet grain to hold it safely until it is dried, or for cooling hot grain coming from a dryer. Chapters include:
The handbook will be of most interest to grain equipment dealers and designers. However, it could also be useful for grain producers and Extension staff who want to better understand the art and science of aeration system design.
The book sells for $20.00 and is available from Nancy Aitcheson, Plan Service Secretary, Agricultural Engineering Department, Farrall Hall, MSU, East Lansing, 48824, 517-353-3297. A no-cost office copy is also available from Nancy.
Roger Brook
IRRIGATED CROP
INFORMATION ON THE WEB
From North Dakota State University
Water Spouts, April, 2000
Like many universities, NDSU Extension has put many of their publications on their website:
If you have access to the web, check out this site for not only publications dealing with irrigation but crop production in general:
In addition to these publications, you can access publications from other universities on irrigation as well as other water topics such as drainage and septic systems by going to this website:
This list was compiled last year and some of the links may be broken, however, I checked several publication web addresses at random and only one was not available. By using these links you should be well on your way to finding the answer to your irrigation questions or satisfy your curiosity.
Ted Loudon
Please note that our plans have increased their prices. You may obtain a copy by mail or via the web. NRAES has also raised prices on the following publications:
| NRAES-1 | $14.00 |
| NRAES-5 | $9.00 |
| NRAES-25 | $7.00 |
| NRAES-38 | $38.00 |
| NRAES-51 | $8.00 |
| NRAES-52 | $8.00 |
| NRAES-54 | $25.00 |
Prices will go into effect at once. If you have any questions please contact the Plan Service Secretary, Nancy Aitcheson at: aitches1@pilot.msu.edu
Milking parlor throughput figures are available from different sources for use in the parlor selection process. But these figures should be used as only a guide in the parlor selection process. Numerous factors other than parlor type, size and mechanization—operator skill and routine, milk production level, cleanliness of cows— affect the throughputs that will actually be realized! In addition, with small dairies, actual milking time is a smaller part of the total chore time than in larger dairies. Thus,
investment in a larger parlor and mechanization to improve capacities results in less improvement in labor efficiency.
Seems to me that the real question in parlor selection is: "What are all the attributes that I as a dairy farmer would want from a new milking parlor?". Of course, good throughput is desired. But a parlor should provide an environment that promotes quality milking, operator satisfaction, cow friendliness and consistency as well. For a moment, forget all the bells and whistles and all the throughput claims and comparisons and attempt to choose a milking parlor that embodies all the characteristics deemed to be important. Of course, the selection must offer a promise of completing the milking chore in the allotted time. But, the selection criteria must go beyond throughput. The parlor must have an overall performance potential that encompasses the full list of attributes. Then, once a choice is made, proceed to do all things possible—training workers in proper milking routine, adopting practices that foster worker self-esteem, managing the housing system so clean cows enter the parlor—to maximize performance and achieve the potential of the installed equipment and the expression of all the characteristics thought to be important.
In a later newsletter, we will revisit the subject of rotary parlors in the context of the above considerations. For example, rotary parlors negatively impact the pre-milking udder preparation routine.
Bill Bickert
Agricultural Engineering
Extension Faculty
Nancy Aitcheson -
Plan Service Secretary, Co-Editor
William Bickert - Extension Agricultural Engineer, Co-Editor