Manure Digester Not the Answer In Washington

Subject: Manure Digester Not the Answer In Washington Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:56 pm

Are we attempting to reinvent the wheel. Recently the Dairy Institute attempted to claim that a new manure digester would assist in the need of disposing with manure.

Turns out that in Washington they have already explored the manure digester and this is their experience.

http://www.ksagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2826:manure-digester-not-all-that-washington-dairy-expected-&catid=36:national-ag-news&Itemid=56

New member Number of posts : 5 Registration date : 2009-11-04

Reporter

Let me help you with your reporting. I think you missed some details in the two stories you commented on.

“Are we attempting to reinvent the wheel. Recently the Dairy Institute attempted to claim that a new manure digester would assist in the need of disposing with manure.”

The Dairy Institute digester is not new, it is in the 5^th year of operation. The story pointed out several of the positive benefits of that the Institute has seen from this manure handling technology. The story also pointed out that this digester cannot be considered a profit center.

“Turns out that in Washington they have already explored the manure digester and this is their experience.”

The entire focus of the story on the DeRuyter digester was the rate that the utility is willing to pay Dan for the electricity he generates. The regulators established what Pacific Power was required to pay for 1 megawatt of power and his digester has turned out to be more efficient than predicted. Now the utility does not want to buy the additional power at the same rate (which by the way is 25% higher than paid in SD). Nationwide, politicians are encouraging the use of digesters on dairy farms, dairymen are embracing the technology, only to have regulators and bureaucrats put up economic roadblocks.

The story did point out some of the other benefits of handling manure with anaerobic digestion including comments from the neighbors about the reduced odor.

Power Poster Number of posts : 262 Registration date : 2008-09-21

I will help with the reporting too.
A manure digester is described by it's critics as a "trojan horse" that creates as many problems as it seems to solve.
#1 the volume of manure remains the same as before it is digested.
#2 they are considered maginally effective and still continue to emit odors, pathogens and greenhouse gasses from both animal waste and sewage sludge. The emmissions include nitrogen, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and ammonia.

Power Poster Number of posts : 262 Registration date : 2008-09-21

#3 they are described as "incapable of making any chemical contaminants in the waste go away" The methane burns at too low a temp to destroy pathogens and the digester continually emits ammonia unless there is also an ammonia stripping component.
#4 they are so expensive to purchase that most places cannot afford them unless they are subsidized by the taxpayer.
#5 manure digesters have a life expectancy of 10 years, nowhere near enough time to make them financially viable.
#6 manure lagoons are still necessary, with all their attendant problems.
#7 they can malfunction, and we know they can overflow.

Subject: Did CGGCE Miss the Point. Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:31 pm

CGGCE did you miss the point of Reporters short article? I think so. The point they are trying to make is that a manure digester is not the cure all the Institute or you make it to be. More to the point is that you make it sound as if this manure digester will solve all problems. Are you suggesting that the digester eliminates all odor, flies, disease, noise and all of the other negative attributes inherent in CAFO's.

I note that you did not argue that all future CAFO's will have to purchase a manure digester. Why not? As you indicated, almost the entire article is talking about money. Now I believe in capitalism and the free market system, but I am also a fiscal conservative.

You have not addressed the issue raised in numerous articles about Mr. Milner. Between two states we have million of gallons of manure. The shareholders do not want to pay for the clean-up of this mess. I do not see you raising your hand to pay for the mess? Does that mean the taxpayers have to pay for the mess? Where did the profit go? Why as a taxpayer should I allow these get rich quick schemes to destroy the family farms, reek havoc with the environment and contribute to the spread of disease?

Perhaps reasonable setbacks are a better solution. I am hoping to find a solution to the issue, but to pretend that this is the end of the problem is a gross misrepresentation to the public. In fact, it is a bold face lie.

To that my friend I end by saying, "I think it is only appropriate that politicians who are supporting CAFO's are wading in the manure created by the large dairy industry."

For those politicians who do not believe that you have found how to eliminate manure. Thank goodness for a few good bureaucrats who still believe that manure stinks.