Solid manure from
cattle and poultry facilities may require additional storage before fields are
available for land application. Composting and stockpiling are two methods of
storage and management available to store and treat solid manure. These
handling methods can impact nutrient losses and manure characteristics, and as
a result the fertility they can provide and their transport and application
properties.
Let’s start with the
basics, what is stockpiling? If you look up stockpile, you’ll find that it
means to gradually accumulate something, in our case manure. A more specific
definition for our purpose here is, stockpiling is a passive management of
solid manure where the material is placed into a storage, which may be either
inside a stacking shed or outside and exposed to the elements, where it remains
until it is either land applied or moved. In either case, the important points
to stockpiling are (1) this is a passive management system, once the manure is
stacked it is left alone and not disturbed, and (2) as a result the pile will
become anaerobic. It is only passive in the fact that we, the farmer or manager,
won’t perform regular activities to alter the pile, but within the pile
microbial activity will still be occurring. Despite this, stockpiling is
essentially a storage technique, though some natural treatment may occur as a
result.
Figure 1. A stockpile of manure.
In contrast,
composting is an active management and treatment technique, that encourages
aerobic conditions to accelerate the breakdown of organic matter within the
manure. This produces higher temperatures within the pile that encourages
faster microbial activity and can also reduce the viability of pathogens,
bacteria, and seeds within the composted material. The important parts here are
that composting is (1) an active management process for treatment of the manure
and (2) the process is aerobic.
The difference in
aerobic and anaerobic may seem small, but there are some important distinctions
between the two that result in vast differences in the two processes. In
anaerobic conditions, breakdown of organic matter releases only very small
amounts of energy and makes compounds like methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia,
hydrogen sulfide, and many partially degraded organics (volatile fatty acids,
alcohols, phenols). This means that while the pile may heat up a little, since
there is little energy released, temperature increases tend to be small and
breakdown tends to be slow. Also, the compounds we make tend to be ones that we
can smell. Aerobic reactions tend to release larger amounts of energy; these
exothermic reactions will cause the pile to warm up and accelerate biological
activity and growth. In this situation we will still make carbon dioxide and
ammonia but won’t make those other compounds.
What these differences
mean to us is that we will have different amounts of break down occurring when
we compost or stockpile manures. The amount of difference this makes is very dependent
on the initial manure properties, with manures with high amounts of carbon in
them (such as bedded manures) typically exhibiting a bigger difference. For
example, studies of composting bedded cattle manure have suggested that a mass
loss of 40-70% (water plus dry matter) can be achieved, while cattle manures
from earthen feedlots typically range in the 15-25% range. A study on earthen
lot cattle manure showed that composting the manure resulted in a 50% reduction
in organic carbon while stockpiling the manure reduced organic carbon by 40%.
However, composting reduced nitrogen mass in the manure by 40% while
stockpiling only reduced nitrogen mass by 14%. This occurs because the warmer
composting temperature can increase ammonia volatilization, while for the
stockpile typically a crust develops that can reduce ammonia loss. Because of
numbers like these, stockpiling has historically been the preferred storage
technique, but for more carbon rich manure or situations where manure is hauled
long distances this may not always be the case.
More recently
additional topics related to manure stockpiling have come to the forefront.
While poultry manures tend to have sufficient potassium in them to support crop
production, certain management approaches can leave their potassium content
lower than expected. Potassium is very water soluble and stockpiles exposed to
the elements, such as rainfall can have the potassium within them leached into
the soil below. While this poses minimal risk for water quality it is an
important consideration for using stockpiled manure as a fertilizer source.
Good stockpiling shaping, taller rather than wider, and with sloped surface to
encourage rainwater shedding rather than water moving through the pile can help
maintain potassium content. Additionally, stacking sheds can help keep
rainwater off the manure and help hold potassium in the manure. Similar results
have been found for nitrogen, with covered or roofed stockpiles only losing
5-15% of the nitrogen in the pile, while outside piles losing 15-25% of their
nitrogen.
These nitrogen losses
also have implications for crop production. In general, most of the nitrogen
lost is from the ammonium fraction, which is first year plant available. Manures
that have been stockpiled in ways that have minimized nitrogen loss from the
pile (covered or roofed stockpiles) tend to result in a greater fraction of the
excreted nitrogen making it both to the field and ultimately into the crop
through uptake and utilization.
In summary,
stockpiling remains a viable manure management strategy to help get the most
fertilizer value from solid manures. However, opportunities to improve
management due exist with covered and roofed storages potentially providing
mechanisms to help hold onto nitrogen within the manure and minimize potassium
loss during storage.
