On the Move

MOVING DOWN THE MANURE PIPELINE

A less common but effective way to move manure from Point A to Point B is an underground pipeline.

by Abby Bauer, Managing Editor

When a window of opportunity opens to empty out a farm’s manure storage, the yard is suddenly filled with a buzz of activity. Soon, filled tankers will head down the country roads to move manure out to the fields.

To alleviate road traffic, the expense of hauling, and compaction in the fields, dragline application has grown in popularity. These durable hoses are spread across fields, delivering nutrients to the soil in fields that are within a reasonable distance to the farm.

Another similar but more permanent option is the use of underground pipes to haul manure out to a field, where it can then be applied. During a Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community webinar, Glen Arnold, an associate professor and field specialist for Ohio State University Extension, talked about using pipelines to transport manure.

“Livestock farms continue to grow,” Arnold said. “When more animals are in one spot, you end up with more manure.” For this reason, farms may find value in a more permanent way to move nutrients.

Find the right location

When considering where to install pipelines, Arnold said to locate them where they would provide the most benefit. This could be a hard-to-access field, one that might not be far from the farm but requires several miles of transport down the road to reach it. A pipeline could also be beneficial for moving manure to a satellite pond or a manure processor.

The pipe needs to have both the size (diameter) and strength (pounds per square inch) to handle the volume and pressure needed to move manure through it. Additionally, Arnold said to anticipate the farm’s future needs and design the system with enough capacity so that it can keep up with the manure pumpers and remains useful for years to come.

“If you are going to take the time and investment to put in a subsurface manure pipe in, build for the future of your farm,” he advised.

He said the volume that moves through larger pipes is substantial. While an 8-inch pipe can handle 1,600 gallons per minute, a 10-inch one can move 3,000 gallons per minute. A

Glen Arnold A permanent underground pipeline can help farms reduce traffic on roadways and transport manure to hard-to-reach fields.

12-inch pipe has the capacity for 4,700 gallons per minute, and a 14-inch pipe could handle 6,000 gallons per minute.

Pipelines should be placed below the frost line, Arnold said, so a backhoe or trencher will be needed for installation. Any fixed pipes need to be blown out after each use to keep sand from settling in there, he added.

A real-world example

For David Cunningham, the farm manager for Bridgewater Dairy in northwestern Ohio, his experience with underground manure pipelines has been positive. Their 5,000-cow dairy has close to 6,000 acres of cropland where they apply manure using variable rate technology. A stretch of pipeline is used to carry some manure away from the farm, and Cunningham predicts they will add a longer, larger pipeline in the future.

Prior to joining the Bridgewater Dairy team, Cunningham worked as a crop manager at an Iowa livestock farm that ran 10,000 acres. That operation installed about 9 miles of pipeline to transport manure, a move that benefited the farm in several ways.

“The cost savings were huge, that is what motivated the farm,” Cunningham explained. “Being able to get the trucks off the roadways is huge. We eliminated the truck traffic through the tourist towns that surrounded the farm and also eliminated a lot of the smell,” he added.

To install this length of pipeline, they had to bore under highways, railroads, and state and county roads. “You will encounter a lot of governing agencies in this adventure. Be prepared to deal with all of them,” Cunningham advised. He noted that they had an engineering firm design the projects to help meet the specifications for every group. “It’s very important to follow the rules,” he noted.

When they installed the pipeline, Cunningham said they were hoping to pay it off in two or three years. With hauling costs cut dramatically, the investment was paid off in just 1.5 years. “That was a pretty big deal for us,” he noted.

Relationships are important when moving manure, and Cunningham said they try to stay on a first name basis with folks, from neighbors to town commissioners. “Go above and beyond what is necessary to communicate with these folks, so when you do have an issue or a need, you know these people and they know how important it is to you to do the right thing. Have those lines of communication open,” he said.

The pros and cons

Positives for livestock producers using underground manure pipelines include less potential mess around the farm, which makes neighbors happier. Arnold said it also leads to less road travel and potential road damage, which local townships appreciate. Still further, there is reduced liability with fewer trucks on the road.

A pipeline also offers benefits for applicators. It makes set up faster, as less hose must be unrolled. They are also running fewer tankers on the road, which may save on driver and truck costs. Again, reduced liability is a benefit, along with less labor needs.

One concern about this system is the fact that farms may outgrow it and try to push more volume than it is designed to handle. Another con would be a farm losing access to ground where the pipe was placed. In that vein, farms must get permission to cross ditches and streams to put the pipeline in, which may be a challenge in some locations.

And of course, installation comes with a cost. While variable, Arnold shared one estimate of $158,400 per mile for a 10-inch pipe, if not crossing any roads or streams. Arnold said farms may consider more in-season manure application, such as sidedressing corn or application between cuttings, to help make this investment pay.

“There are a lot of pros and cons to a fixed manure transport system,” Arnold said. “But we know that costs to transport manure will likely increase, and liability costs will continue to rise.”

He continued, “As livestock farms grow in size, they will have to travel greater distances for feed sources. That means our need to travel greater distances with manure will also grow.”

If considering a permanent manure pipeline, Arnold said to plan the system for the farm’s future the best you can. Also be sure to include the buried line in your emergency spill plan. ■

Sampling for success

Timing and frequency can be the difference between collecting a high-quality, representative sample or just putting soil in a bag.

by Scott Fleming

Pulling a quality soil sample is rule number one of soil analysis. The most accurate laboratory in the world cannot accurately evaluate anything without a quality, representative sample. Planning and timing rules call for soil sampling every four years, but many other considerations exist that affect this ideal sample.

Nutrient management planning is a prevalent director of soil sampling schemes and plays into every sampling strategy. Crop rotation and input prices tend to direct both the sampling plan and even the decision to sample in many cases. What likely seems to be an uncomplicated subject can quickly become overwhelming, but learning more about key factors affecting soil sampling and analysis can help prepare operators to make the best decision for future fertility success.

Representative samples

Between almost two decades of soil sampling experience and directing a sampling crew for most of that time, I’ve had the opportunity to glean the good and the bad across all types of soil sampling. One of the most common things we hear is, “The soil is always there; why can’t you sample it now?” While it is always possible to put soil in a sample bag, it is not always possible to pull a high-quality, representative soil sample.

Most often, such snipes are made when it comes to sampling following primary tillage. The soil is indeed present, but tillage has destroyed the soil’s structure. It’s no longer a homogeneous, stable substance. Instead, it has a series of peaks and valleys that are full of air. The easiest means to introduce error into a soil sample is through inconsistent sampling depth. And as you’ve probably gathered through this story, it is nearly impossible to have a consistent sample depth in an environment like that after tillage.

The second most common reason a field must be bypassed for sampling is because of manure application. The reasons for this are more apparent than those surrounding tillage. Manure is applied as a fertility source; therefore, application of manure could substantially change the soil analysis value.

The manure application method also plays a significant role in the decision to sample. While not ideal, soil sampling may still be an option following a light application of poultry litter. However, soil sampling is generally out of the equation following a dragline application of liquid dairy manure. Not only is there a large amount of fertility that may contribute to inconsistencies, but the application method of injected manure also includes tillage.

While it is recommended to take soil samples every four years, more frequent sampling allows for better management decisions.

Is it fall, y’all?

Pulling soil samples following harvest in the fall has long been considered the

only “acceptable” timing. While this timing may appear to be the standard for soil sampling, it is certainly not the only window of time to pull a soil sample.

My colleagues and I have evaluated data and written a hearty handful of articles on this subject. A quick internet search will yield more than one article on this heavily debated topic. Research has shown that seasonal variation between spring soil sampling and fall soil sampling does not exist at a level that will warrant significant management decision changes.

Identifying a soil sampling program that will fit into your operation is far more valuable than always pulling samples in the fall. This may include sampling in July following wheat harvest or after third crop alfalfa to spread out the fall harvest rush. This may even include sampling corn after planting to develop and incorporate timely lime recommendations prior to reseeding. My overarching response to the common question of timing is, “It is more important to pull a good soil sample than to insist it must be pulled in the fall.”

A small price to pay

The majority of fertility management decisions are based on soil test results. But on the balance sheet, soil sampling is a fairly small number compared to most crop inputs. Few other, if any, inputs cost less than a bushel of corn per year. Who wouldn’t give up a bushel of corn to ensure they are making the right soil fertility management decisions?

The price aspect of sampling could also be viewed from the savings side. Think back to the old 1980’s soil sampling literature with the tagline, “Soil sampling doesn’t cost, it pays!” While much has changed since then, they weren’t wrong. One ton of potash will likely run around $900 this fall.

In most areas, a 2.5-acre grid soil sampling package that includes variable rate technology (VRT) recommendations is under $10 per acre. Soil sampling will pay for itself if just 25 pounds of fertilizer savings is identified over the life of the soil sample — which in many cases is four years! My bets are placed.

Aim for more often

Conventional wisdom says the minimum soil sampling requirements are one sample per five acres every four years. There is nothing on a farm or ranch that is ever done at the minimum level. No cattleman does just enough to get by. No producer plants a crop and walks away. Yet, many of my encounters in the field are with operators who are trying to do less than the bare minimum when it comes to soil sampling. The margins are too tight and the decisions are far too important to employ such a delinquent strategy.

My argument typically revolves around the ideal that temporal and spatial frequency should be increased well beyond the minimums required in a nutrient management plan. The benefits of additional sampling are nearly endless. More data for management decisions, greater flexibility, and a better program fit are just a few advantages. But by far, the greatest may be improved compliance.

With increased spatial frequency of soil sampling, the chances of not having enough samples for nutrient management plan compliance are eliminated. By pulling soil samples more frequently, there is no fear of having another strike against you during a compliance review if the sampler doesn’t stay ahead of the plow or the manure applicator is there earlier than expected. You simply regroup and ensure you get the samples pulled next year — with less stress for all parties involved.

In the end, confidence plays a key role in the strategy built around soil sampling and analysis for nutrient management. The scheme, frequency, and timing comes down to how much information the end user needs in order to make decisions for regulatory, financial, and management success. In times like these, when nutrient applications are highly regulated and input and commodity prices will make or break a farm business, the more you know can offer confidence in decisions for years to come. 

The author is a nutrient management specialist and sampling director at Rock River Laboratory in Watertown, Wis.