This community model demonstrates potential for partnerships between rural communities and livestock farmers to resolve common organic waste issues utilizing local resources.  The pilot project redirected IC&I and domestic organic (10 metric tonnes) from a small rural community to a livestock farm with 500 metric tonnes of chicken and 
hog manure.  These organic were processed through a windrow composting operation to assess possible economic, sustainability and environmental opportunities.  The discussion includes the animation process; waste assessments; establishing source separation and collection regimes; site requirements and permitting; windrow composting methods and management; problems and solutions; costs; uses of the finished compost; field trial results, market opportunities and potential adaptation in other rural communities.
 
 

BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT AND LITERATURE REVIEW.

Atlantic Canada Provinces produce about 2.4 million tonnes of manure annually.  King’s County Nova Scotia annual manure production is about 250,000 tonnes (Honey, personal communication, 1999). Factors such as variable soils, uneven topography and high annual precipitation, may lead to ground and surface water contamination from land application of raw manure.  High annual precipitation concomitant with manure application on well-drained sandy soils such as the Kingsport series may result in contamination of ground water due to the transport of NO3-N and bacteria through the root zone.  On imperfectly drained soils such as the Queens series, high annual precipitation, coupled with rolling topography, may result in NO3-N, P and bacterial contamination of rivers and streams.  Annapolis Valley has 37% of the useable farmland and 44% of Animal Units in Nova Scotia.  Similar regions are found to be susceptible to this type of eutrophication and degradation of the water resources (Sharpley et al., 1994). 

In the village of Canning in the Annapolis Valley, 25% of wells surveyed during the 1970s showed ground water NO3-N levels in excess of 10 mg L-1 (Thomas, 1974).  The value of land and housing in the area dropped and people resorted to drinking bottled water.  A survey of King’s County, Nova Scotia (Moerman and Briggins, 1994) indicated Canning had not changed appreciably; 29% of the wells had NO3-N concentrations in excess of the water quality guidelines of 10 mg l-1.  Of the 237 randomly selected households in County King in their study, 13% exceeded the NO3-N guidelines, 9% had coliform bacteria numbers beyond 10 counts per 100 mL.  In most cases, wells where NO3-N and coliform bacterial levels were high were improperly constructed.  Although problems with well water contamination in Canning are not directly linked to livestock enterprises, they illustrate how fragile are ground water resources

Landfills in the Province Nova Scotia Canada now prohibit organic materials.  Second and third generation landfills are efficient and effectively engineered structures at a significant cost to those who develop them.  The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME, set a 50% reduction guideline for amount of solid waste going to landfill by the year 2000.  These conditions pertaining to Nova Scotia has resulted in municipalities looking at other options besides landfills.  One of the most environmentally friendly options is Source-Separation of waste to provide organic materials for composting.  A cost efficient and effective method is open windrow composting of a similar modified approach (Cline, et al, 1998).  It has been estimated the 30-45% organic of the total waste stream could be composted.
 

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

In the fall of 1996 and through the winter of 1997, several farmers, a community animator, and a Master Composter discussed the possibility of a composting project to utilize livestock manure and food waste from a local community.  As discussions progressed, another local farmer was contacted and agreed to volunteer the use of his farm.  It is a swine breeding and chicken broiler operation with their cropland rented to a local grower.  A nearby community, The Village of Canning, was identified as a potential community known for its progressive nature.  The local animator made initial contacts with village councilors and business leaders to see if there was an interest and willingness to be involved in the project.  After the farmer and the community were committed to the project, a grant request was submitted to the Resource Recovery Board Fund Inc.  In the spring, approval was received for seed money as a private public partnership project.

The application process for a Nova Scotia Department of Environment industrial composting permit was initiated and in the fall of 1997 it was approved.  During the permitting process, preparations were started with the farmer and the community to begin the collection and composting in September.  A concrete staging pad was constructed; the access road improved; site plans and mapping prepared; farm wells tested; the secondary and curing areas identified and developed; and training of the farmer and his employee were undertaken and completed.  Concurrent to those efforts waste assessments of Canning bed and breakfasts, food stores, and restaurants were conducted.  Owners and staff were trained to do source separation, a collection route was defined, collection carts distributed to the participating businesses and a collector was hired.  September of 1997, the composting of livestock manure began.  In mid October, community food waste collection began and compostable collection bags were incorporated into the composting process.   The degradable plastic bags were used to control odor, liquids and keep freezing of material from sticking to the carts.  The carts became only a holding medium..

 During this period additional funding was provided by Kings CED Agency, King’s County Council and Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing.  Agriculture Agri-Foods Canada was contacted to explore their possible role and involvement in the project.  Tentative plans were made with AAFC to conduct field trials with the finished compost developed by the project; to help identify funding sources and to jointly write proposals to secure additional funds for the project.

In the winter of 1997-98, local schools and other businesses were added to the project.  A funding request was submitted to the Canadian Rural Partnership Initiative to fund the field trials and expansion of the composting project.  In early spring of 1998, the project received tentative approval and the expansion of the On Farm composting began.  During that period, the first finished compost was spread and turned into several crop fields for spring planting.  Other finished compost was sold and / or bartered to other farmers.  In all 160 metric tonnes was utilized in the spring.  The field trials were started in April of 1998.  In June, collection was expanded to include residences in and around the Village of Canning on the existing collection route.  This was achieved by volunteer recruitment through local school newsletters to students’ parent(s) in June and again in September.  Flyers were delivered to the homes in Canning.  This effort was followed up with personal contacts and training with each volunteer resident over the summer and into the fall.  Thirty residents in Canning area volunteered for the program. 

 The pilot was curtailed in January of 1999 due to lack of additional funds.  The collection process was discontinued.  The existing windrows of compost blends in process continued to be managed through winter in anticipation of a second year of field trials.  The project participants were evaluated and a report produced; a 1998 field trial report was produced; a manual to replicate the model was produced; and a final report produced and submitted March 31, 1999.

 A second year field trial was conducted during 1999 growing season with finished compost from the original project with a new grant from Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing.  The 1999 trial is completed and was seriously affected by the drought.  The Wheat crop could not be harvested and the trial was down graded to a forage analysis.  Those results are still  under examination and will be available by March 2000.  Plans do a third year study on the current trial location will look at the residual effects from the previous two years of applied finished compost, raw manure and commercial fertilizer.  A new set of field trial plots will be located and conducted, possibly at the Agriculture Agri-Foods Canada Kentville Research Station, using the remaining finished compost from year one along with new blends of Mink and other organic materials. 

OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT.

     The composting feed stocks were 200 tonnes of hog manure, 330 tonnes of chicken manure and 13 tonnes of source separated food waste from the Village of Canning.  The composting occurred on a single family farm owned by John and Jill Gerrit.  Open, static, turned windrow composting process was the method of composting.  The equipment used a 3.5 tonne capacity manure spreader and a medium sized tractor with a half tonne bucket to construct and manage the windrow composting operation.  The upgrade of infrastructure was construction of a concrete composting and liquid collection pad at the initial composting local behind the barns.  A liquid portable pump to transfer leache and rain water into existing holding tanks was installed at the concrete pad close to the improvement of the access road to the initial site and creation near the pad and tanks.  A ditching system for runoff collection around the secondary composting and curing site was constructed.  Specialized temperature probes and moisture meters were used for data collection and monitoring.  Other tools and supplies (shovels, rakes, weight scales and identification stakes) were used for in project management. 
 

Photo 1: Initial compost construction stage

 The initial construction process required some planning and preparation.  The collection schedule needed to interface with the farmers work schedule and the existing waste collection schedule of the community.  The result was a scheduled composting of community organic with manure after the farmer’s morning work break at 9:00 AM.  The local collector was required to have collected organic materials at the farm by 8:30.  The other logistic was to schedule the turning and management of farm organic that did not include community organic to occur with his broiler chicken 5 to 7 week growing cycle.  Part of this feedstock was needed in the initial composting area. It was transported and stored on the initial composting pad area.  The remaining chicken manure and bedding was directly composted at the second stage area.  The swine breeding operation is continuous and their organic were utilized as needed.  This manure was stored next to the first stage area along with the chicken manure on the concrete area. 

According to the agreed schedule community organic were transported to the farm and emptied into the middle section of the manure spreader.  The organic are checked for plastic materials, bottles, can, etc.  Temperatures and moisture reading were taken and recorded, collection sheets with weights, number of degradable plastic bags used and cart used were recorded for statistical analysis.  The spreader was then moved to the cement pad.  The feed stocks of hog/straw and/or chicken/shavings were loaded into the spreader using the tractor with a 1/2 tonne bucket loader.  The manure were placed equally (2 buckets each) at the front, the rear and on top of the food organic.  The spreader was then moved and positioned on the cement pad either to begin a new windrow section or to add the second or third layer.  The materials were spread onto the pad making a layer that has only manure on the top when finished.  After the mixed organic were in place, using rakes and shovels, exposed food waste was cleaned up and buried into the windrow.  Any additional plastic, bottles, etc. were removed as well and placed in garbage bags.  Each week a new layer was added following the same procedure, until 3 layers were completed.  (photo 2)
 
 

Depending on the amount of layering and weeks involved, the initial windrow in process was moved to the secondary composting area.  The compost in process was placed back into the spreader.  Once to the secondary area, materials were again flailed into a windrow section.  The windrows were constructed 12’ high, 15’ wide and of varying length.  The reloading, transporting and reconstruction repeated until all of the compost in process was off the initial pad.  Each windrow section was staked and identified with a color code and sequential number for input blend identification, record keeping and management.  Any uncovered food waste was collected and buried into the windrow.  Non organic were collected and bagged for residual disposal. 

 Windrow combinations constructed without any food waste did not go through the layering process.  The manure were taken the composting area from their sources and constructed into windrows.  However; hog and chicken may be blended together or constructed separately.  They were also identified with sequential numbers and colored stakes.
 
 

     Windrows were generally turned 3 to 4 times depending on average high sustained temperatures and the down side of the heat cycle average low temperature in the lower Mesophile operating range.  Each windrow section had to achieve required sustained temperatures over 130 F to meet Nova Scotia Department Of Environment guidelines.  Then windrow(s) had to achieve sustained periods of heat in the lower phase of Mesophile activity before a windrow section were moved to a third area for curing.  A windrow achieving those criteria was loaded into the manure spreader, transported to the designated area and flailed into a circular cone shape 15-18’ high and 20’ diameter.  Windrows constructed from like feedstock blends were combined to conserve space.  They stayed in the curing process until temperatures are ambient and several other tests were passed.  Curing was 1 to 2 months.  They were turned if temperatures persisted at 5 to 10 degrees F above ambient temperatures or if there was excess moisture.

ADAPTATION.

     Since the inception of this pilot program we have introduced it to other farm operations in the Annapolis Valley.  We find the model is flexible and can be low cost, medium or high cost depending on a farmer’s objective(s).

     A horse farmer who operated a topsoil operation was in composting.  He began composting horse manure from his farm and several adjacent horse farms near Middleton, Nova Scotia.  Manure was composted with yard waste and food waste from local businesses.  Finished compost is combined with substrate soils and sold as substitute product for native topsoil.

     Another example is a local chicken hatchery and broiler operation outside Berwick, NS in the Annapolis Valley.  They have neighboring farms with broiler chicken and mink livestock operations.  Within a reasonable distance, there are hog, beef and food processing plants plus they are situated near Berwick with access to their yard, leaf, and food processing plants’ waste.

     The Berwick area composting operation is a variation of our pilot program.  They use a manure spreader, a tractor with a bucket to construct and manage the composting operation, a shredder and truck(s) for collection. The drop off and preparation area is a modified utility building previously used for equipment and general storage.  This building is only required during extreme weather conditions or other unusual circumstances.  The regular composting site is located on a five and half acre field consisting of semi-loamy, rocky and clay soil.  The land has 10 to 20 percent decline the length of the field.  There is an access road running parallel to the length of the field.  A steel reinforced concrete composting pad 50 by 60 feet and 8 inches thick with sloping to direct runoff to the collection pond were constructed as the primary composting area.  The collection pond on the lower end of the pad retains run off from rain and occasionally excess moisture from the windrows.  It was constructed with a clay liner to trap runoff from absorbing into the soil.  The clay lined ditching system was built for runoff collection at the secondary composting and curing site.  It was constructed on the lower slop of the secondary and curing area.  The ditch channel funnels runoff and rain water into the collection pond. The next addition will be a drain pipe and clay runoff ditch from the pond to a fabricated wetland that will organically process the water.  The access road is asphalt to the edge of the field and then is gravel.  The gravel section was upgraded with a #2 stone.  In addition to a new dual testing well, the farmer has three other wells.  All wells were pre tested as well as neighbor wells on property next to the farm  They provide a scheduled collection service using degradable plastic bags to the Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) sector.  This 3,000 tonne capacity facility and collection service has been operational since mid July 1999.

Another farm in now in the permiting and design phase for a 10,000 tonne facility with a collection service.  The farm was a dairy, beef, fruit and cereal crop operation until this past year.  The dairy operation was phased out in 1999 and those buildings renovated and used in the composting operation.

RESULTS.

1998 field trial results.

     This project program produced designer composts made by composting hog manure, poultry manure with Industrial, Commercial & Institutional organic into various blends (Hog only, Hog and IC&I, Chicken only, Chicken and IC&I, etc.).  In the 1998 field trial these blends were compared at various rates of application with raw hog manure, raw chicken manure, 34-0-0 commercial fertilizer and control plots with no applications.  Barley was the test crop.

     “Generally, the inclusion of Industrial, Commercial & Institutional wastes when composted with hog and chicken manure did not appear to influence plant uptake of nutrients or soil chemical parameters.  Under the conditions of this experiment, and at the rates of addition used, composts produced with hog and chicken manure appeared to supply, equally as well as fertilizer or raw manure, sufficient nutrients for crop production.  However, it should also be noted, that the grain yield potential was severely limited by the drought.  Excess quantities of soil NO3-N occurred at the highest rates of addition of compost.  Thus, compost applied in excess can be deleterious to soil and water quality.”  The report tables indicate organic matter by weight was around 26% for the compost blends, good pH levels and had retained nutrients in the soil at the end of the harvest (Bush, et al, 1999).

Evaluation of community participation.

     Overall the community of Canning and the farmer rated the project high and wanted it continued; felt the joint effort was a positive relationship; a positive learning experience about source separation and many were continuing to use the new techniques (Cline et al, 1999).

Other pilot program results.
   Total cost to construct, turn and manage windrows was $5.50 per tonne.
   Total cost to collect the Village of Canning organic was $141.25 per tonne.
   Total Canning organic collected and composted were 13 metric tonnes. 

The lowest collection per week was 270 pounds and the highest was 1,102 pounds.

  Total organic composted were 543 tonnes in 35 separate windrow sections.
  Less than 1% non-organic material was removed from Canning businesses organic material.
  Total finished compost returned to crop fields, for sale or barter was 292 tonnes.
  Average shrinkage factor for completed windrows was 57%; a low of 42% & a high of 63%.
  No odors, vector (fly infestations, animals, birds), leachate or water runoff problems.
  Compostable plastic bags performed as expected but not always in specified time frames. 

This was due to the nature of our open windrow composting management.

IMPLICATIONS.

     This project has commercial potential as well as environmental potential not only in the rural areas of Canada, but beyond.  Each potential has its own more specific possibilities.  The commercial benefits are cost savings and revenue opportunities.  This model provides possible added success to the 50% solid waste reduction and offers the environment a potential answer to waste management in rural communities and agriculture sector at a low operational cost. 

Commercial value to farmers and Communities.

     One commercial value is the replacement and/or reduced use of commercial fertilizers with finished compost use.  A second value is the porosity of finished compost that holds nutrients and moisture in soils.  Third, the lasting and sustained value of finished compost organic matter means spreading to fields every second or third year. A side effect of fewer spreads reduces soil compaction.  These opportunities are either direct or indirect cost savings.

     These opportunities exclude other cost factors of using compost instead of either commercial fertilizers or raw manure.  Commercial fertilizer costs $200 plus per tonne while the same acre of composted is 5 tonnes on average for $28.80.  Raw spread of manure needs to occur each year while the 26% organic material by weight in compost is in the soil for two to three years depending on crops. (Cline et al, 1999).   A similar study in Australia there are increased crop yields of 10 to 25% were recorded for Onions, Carrots, and Potatoes.  Carry over effects where also demonstrated by 10 to 15% increases in Potato and Carrot yields when these crops were planted into previous demonstration and trial areas without further compost applications (Paulin and Reid, 1999).

     Another opportunity for farmers is a new source of revenue.  The income stream(s) is generated from fees for composting community organic and sale of the finished compost product. 

    Nova Farms either sold or bartered finished compost to other local farmers.  Revenue from local farmers’ is 90 tonnes at $20 per tonne for a total of $1,800.  The cost to produce 190 tonnes of finished compost at $5.50 per tonne or $1,045.  Collection costs were $1,833.  The tipping fee is $75 per tonne for 13 tonnes and an additional revenue of $975.  Local gardeners and specialty crop organic farmers pay $50 a tonne for another 100 tonnes or $5,000.  Gross revenues are $7,775. Operating expenses are $2,878.  Net income is $4,897.

Opportunities for environment and sustainability.

     The added life to soils, lowed use of chemical fertilizers lowered use of water, and reduced raw manure spreading to soil speak well to sustainability.  Environmentally, there is less water pollution by manure runoff, less use of chemical fertilizers in crop production resulting from increased retention of nutrients plus access to nutrients fixed and held in the finished compost (Binion, 1999; Paulin and Reid, 1999).   “The positive effects of organic matter on soil water storage and movement were reviewed by (Khaleel et al, 1981; Chromec and Magdoff, 1984) found that at tensions between 1 and 8 kPa, soil treated with a non composted mix retained significantly more water than soil amended with the composted mix.   Moisture content differences between the treatments decreased but remained significant the next year.” (Paulin and Reid, 1999).   “Compost amendment resulted in a significant increase in leaching of salts (Avnimelech and Kochva, 1992).  This may have been the result of an increase in hydraulic conductivity.  (Sarah et al, 1995) found the addition of town organic materials for composting produced significant increases in water retention at field capacity, amount of plant available water in the soil and amount of water holding pores.

CONCLUSION.

Given the quantity of food waste, other organic waste and raw manure production on the planet, composting is one alternative to protect and conserve water and air.  It is practical and can be done in a cost efficient and effective manner with economic value.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

Thanks to Vernon Rodd with AAFC at the Nappan Research Station for assistance in providing research and literature resources and direction.  Much gratitude to AAFC, NSDAM, CRPI; King’s County Council and King’s Community Economic Development Agency for in kind and direct funding and resources to allow this model to be developed.  Then there are all those folks on the various Internet conferences who provided inputs and direction; local farmers who were willing to give us their sense of composting and the barriers as well as the benefits and other hard working people we sub-contracted for services and equipment.  John and Jill Gerrit for letting us use their farm for our project and the many others that helped or worked with the project.  We appreciated the donations of compostable plastic bags from Technicoat Ltd., Otto Industries for the collection carts, Reotemp for their temperature and moisture meter equipment.  Last but not least, Janet McClain for her evaluation and analysis with the pilot project.

REFERENCES.

Avnimelech, Y and Kochva, M. 1992.  The use of compost as a soil amendment.  Acta Horticulturae, 302: 217-25.

Bush, R., Cline, J., Gordon, R., MacLeod, J., and Rodd V., 1998.  On Farming Composting in Nova Scotia Combining Poultry And Swine Waste with I C I Sector Food Waste.  On Farm 1998 Field Trial Report. Unpublished.  AAFC Nappan Research Farm.

Chromec, F.W. and Magdoff, F. 1984.  Alternative methods for using organic materials: composting vs. adding directly to soil.  Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 19: 6, 697-711.

Cline, J., McClain, J., and Rodd, V., 1999.  Final Report For The On-Farm Composting Project Rural Nova Scotia..  Amaranth Co-operative Enterprises Ltd and Amaranth Associates.

Gangbazo, G., Pesant, A.R., Barnett, G.M., Charuest, J. P., and Cluis, D. 1995.  Water contamination by ammonium nitrogen following the spreading of hog manure and mineral fertilizers.  Journal of Environmental. Quality. 24: 420-425.

Honey, L., 1999.  Phone and Email Communication.

Khaleel, R., Reddy, K.R., Overcash, M.R. 1981.  Changes in soil physical properties due to organic waste applications: a review.  Journal of Environmental Quality, 10: 133-41.

Moerman, D. and Briggins, D. 1994,  Nova Scotia Farm Well Water Quality Assurance Study. Final Report. 71 pp.

Paulin, R., and Reid, A., 1999. Soil Amendments To Improve Vegetable Production On Sandy Soils.  Horticultural Research And Development  Corporation With Agriculture Western Australia. Project  VG97079. February.

Sharpley, A.N., Chapra, R., Wedepohl, R., Sims, J.T., Daniel, T.C., and Reddy, K.R. 1994. Managing agricultural phosphorus for protection of surface waters: Issues and options. J. Environmental Quality. 23: 437-451.

Smith, K.A., and Chambers, B.J. 1993. Utilizing the nitrogen content of organic manure on farms- problems and practical solutions. Soil Use and Management. 9: 105-112.

Stephens, E.R., 1971. Identification of odors from cattle feedlots. California Agriculture. 25: 10-11.

Thomas, B.L. 1974. Nitrate contamination in the groundwater of the Annapolis-Cornwallis Valley N.S. MSc Thesis, University of Waterloo. pp. 175.

Thomas, E.D. 1996. All about odors. In: Animal Agriculture and the Environment. Proceedings from the Animal Agriculture and the Environment North American Conference. Rochester, New York, December 11-13, 1996. pp. 214-219.