A better solution for manure

Optimism might seem out of place after the Waterkeeper Alliance's bitter loss in a recent lawsuit to hold Perdue Farms and its grower Alan Hudson responsible for polluting waterways with poultry manure. But it's possible to at least be hopeful of solutions, perhaps within the current decade, to this widespread bay pollution.

Reasons for hope were less likely when the lawsuit was filed three years ago. Witness a survey recently presented by University of Maryland ag scientist Kenneth Staver. He looked for progress between 1999 and 2010 in reducing polluting phosphorus on Eastern Shore farm fields fertilized with poultry manure.

Despite a decade of efforts to tackle the problem — some real, some smoke and mirrors — all Mr. Staver could find was that the excessive levels of phosphorus were getting worse at a slower rate.

He found that many of the fields in the Pocomoke River sub-watershed of Green Run could grow crops for years to decades without adding any more phosphorus to fertilize them.

And that's the rub with manure, one of several reasons why it's a lousy fertilizer in a watershed awash in too many nutrients from sources ranging from farms and human sewage to lawns and pets and the dirty air that falls everywhere.

When a farmer puts enough manure down to give crops the nitrogen they need to deliver a profitable yield, he automatically puts down more phosphorus than they need. That's just the way manure is.

And despite improvements to federal and state clean water requirements governing agriculture, the industry still has major exemptions and a serious lack of accountability.

Thus, it's no surprise that in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, animal manures, predominantly from poultry and dairy, produce more than a third of the phosphorus entering the bay — the sewage from 17 million humans, in comparison is less than a fifth.

The Waterkeepers' lawsuit is over — a federal judge ruled decisively that they failed to prove their case — but the problem remains. So where might we find hope?

Look to Pennsylvania, said Ann Swanson, director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which represents legislatures of bay watershed states.

She recently toured a laying hen complex near Gettysburg, where an adjacent gasification plant turns 240 tons a day of manure into 35 tons of ash that is a highly valued fertilizer and feed additive.

The plant also sends 3.2 megawatts of power to the poultry complex and the electrical grid. Profit comes from selling energy, selling ash and state credits for reducing nutrients and greenhouse gases. Nothing goes on the land or in the bay.

Nothing is perfect, but the facility, operated by Maryland-based EnergyWorks, comes close to an environmental-agricultural trifecta: renewable energy, farm profitability and cleaner water.

Turning manure into energy capitalizes on the dilemma facing today's poultry and dairy industry. Their concentration of so many animals into small regions like Pennsylvania's Lancaster County, or Delaware's Sussex county, makes it hard to appropriately use all of the manure on fields (hauling it far is expensive).

This same concentration is good, though, when constructing a facility to collect and burn manure.

Maryland recently announced plans to build what will be the largest manure to energy facility in the watershed — a 10 megawatt power plant that can handle more than 100,000 tons of chicken litter. That is close to 15 percent of all the litter produced on the Delmarva Peninsula.

The state will buy all of the energy for 15 years, at a price not much higher than the current cost of conventional energy, said Steve Carpenter, CEO and president of Green Planet Power, the Auburn, Calif., company chosen to build the plant.

Across the watershed, a number of smaller, on-farm processes to turn manure into fuel or energy are being evaluated.

The technologies are there. What is not there is the supply of manure. Not that there isn't plenty; but in Maryland and other states, laws currently allow farmers to spread it as if water quality didn't matter.

Legal and cheap. Who wouldn't use it?

Forthcoming state guidelines and regulations on phosphorus in farms soils are in the works and may change how farmers use manure over several years.

"I think it will put most of the soils on large sections of the Lower Shore in a high phosphorus category that will make it hard to spread much manure," said Steve Schwalb, Perdue's vice president of environmental sustainability.

One can only hope he is correct. "There has to be a way for us to continue doing what we're doing here and have clean water," Mr. Schwalb said.

Tom Horton covered the bay for 33 years for The Baltimore Sun and is the author of six books about the Chesapeake. This article is distributed by the Bay Journal News Service.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
    Related Content
    • Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules
      Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules

      Please allow me to correct some of the points letter writer Bernard Helinski recently made regarding ships' ballast water polluting the Chesapeake Bay ("Ship ballast a major source of pollution," Jan. 7).

    • Phosphorus rules, finally

      As we have chided Gov. Martin O'Malley more than once on this page for dragging his feet on regulations intended to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorus pouring into the Chesapeake Bay from farms, it's only fair to herald his decision to move forward with the rules. That he chose to...

    • A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management
      A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management

      From the time I graduated from college and returned to the farm, I have been dealing with government regulations, environmental extremists and animal rights activists.

    • Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?
      Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?

      Gov. Martin O'Malley's green agenda really is green ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 14). Green as the goose waste that pours directly into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, mostly during the waterfowl season. And, it's primarily fed by Mr. O'Malley's very own cover...

    • O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door
      O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door

      On behalf of 36,000 Maryland Farm Bureau families, I have to disagree with your editorial on the issue of the new phosphorus rules ("Phosphorus rules, finally," Nov. 18). Gov. Martin O'Malley did not get it right. In fact, this is effectively just one last tax increase he is trying to force...

    • Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay
      Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay

      While I understand the concern about accumulated nutrient buildup in the sediment upstream of the Conowingo Dam posing a hazard to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as an engineer I do not see what the operation of the dam's power station has anything to do with it ("Maryland can enforce dam...

    • Dam cleanup too costly
      Dam cleanup too costly

      Regarding the recent commentary about the Conowingo Dam ("Maryland can enforce dam cleanup," Nov. 19), Bob Irvin is correct for the most part. However, let's keep in mind that the Conowingo is a man-made obstruction to sediment, leaves and tree logs that Mother Nature really intended to go to...

    • Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules
      Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules

      In what will be seen as one of soon-to-be ex-Gov. Martin O'Malley's parting shots to the incoming Hogan administration, Mr. O'Malley is pushing through new regulations controlling how farmers fertilize their land ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 15). Never mind the fact...

    Comments
    Loading