Scientifically advanced woody media for improved water quality from livestock woodchip heavy-use areas

  • Laura Christianson
  • David DeVallance
  • Joshua Faulkner
  • Thomas Basden
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Livestock Waste Management and Resource Recovery

Abstract

Overwintering cattle on pastures in many areas can damage the pasture and lead to impaired water quality. During these times, use of a woodchip heavy-use area (HUA) presents advantages such as a soft, supportive, and dry foot surface for animals and protection of the pasture and pasture soils. However, woodchip HUAs can also be a centralized source of high nutrient loads due to their drainage outflows. A column study was conducted to assess the nutrient load reduction potential of: 1) six types of wood media (including torrefied wood media and biochar) that could be used in a woodchip HUA versus a gravel control, and 2) providing a 48 h retention time within the wood media to enhance nitrogen removal through denitrification. The woody media provided significant liquid waste volume reduction compared to the gravel in simulated events (53%–61% vs. 39% reductions, respectively), and there may be additional liquid storage capacity in the woodchips not utilized during these rapid events. Substantial total nitrogen removal by the wood treatments (mean removal efficiencies >50%) was observed across the simulated events, although nitrate leaching also occurred. Nitrate removal was enhanced during the 48 h retention test which showed removal was governed by availability of labile carbon (i.e., fresh woodchips exhibited >70% nitrate removal). The retention test also indicated biochar mixtures provided some of the best total phosphorus removal, but the greatest benefits across all parameters was provided by the Mixed Hardwood treatment.

Keywords

Overwinter Heavy-use area Nutrient pollution Torrefied Woodchip 

References

  1. 1.
    Faulkner J W, Miller J L, Basden T J, DeVallance D B. Woodchip heavy-use area effluent quality, quantity, and hydrologic design considerations. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2015, 31(5): 783–790Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinten A J, Donnelly S, Ball B C, Crawford C E, Ritchie R M, Parker J P. A field trial to evaluate the pollution potential to ground and surface waters from woodchip corrals for overwintering livestock outdoors. Soil Use and Management, 2006, 22(1): 82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDonald A T, McDonald A D, Kay D, Watkins J. Characteristics and significance of liquid effluent from woodchip corrals in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 2008, 87(4): 582–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson D R, Chadwick D R, Crookes M, Sagoo E, Smith K A. Impact of hydrology and effluent quality on the management of woodchip pads for overwintering cattle. II. Effluent analysis and nutrient balance. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2013, 151(02): 279–286Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Augustenborg C A, Carton O T, Schulte R P, Suffet I H. Response of silage yield to land application of out-wintering pad effluent in Ireland. Agricultural Water Management, 2008, 95(4): 367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bourgeouis J P, Doet J. Torrefied wood from temperate and tropical species. Advantages and prospects. In: Egnens A E H, editor. Bioenergy 84. London:% Elsevier Applied Science, 1985, 153–159Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourgois J, Guyonnet R. Characterization and analysis of torrefied wood. Wood Science and Technology, 1988, 22(2): 143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fonseca F F, Luengo C A, Beaton P, Suarez J A. Efficiency test for bench unit torrefaction and characterization of torrefied biomass. In: Overend R P, Chonet E, eds. BIOMASS: A Growth Opportunity in Green Energy and Value-Added Products, Proceedings of the 4th Biomass Conference of the Americas. Oakland, California, USA: Pergamon, 1999, 3Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lipinsky E, Arcate J, Reed T. Enhanced wood fuels via torrefaction. Fuel Chemistry Preprints, 2002, 47(1): 3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nimlos M N, Brooking E, Looker M J, Evans R J. Biomass torrefaction studies with a molecular beam mass spectrometer. Paper-American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry, 2003, 48 (2): 590–591Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergman P C, Kiel J H. Torrefaction for Biomass Upgrading. The Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), 2005, Publication No. ECN-RX-05–180, 6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prins M J, Ptasinski K J, Janssen F J. Torrefaction of wood. Part 1. Weight loss kinetic. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2006, 77(1): 28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bridgeman T G, Jones J M, Shield I, Williams P T. Torrefaction of reed canary grass, wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion properties. Fuel, 2008, 87(6): 844–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell D, Elder T. Torrefaction? What’s that? In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering: Fueling the Future. Auburn, Alabama: Council on Forest Engineering, 2010, 7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antal M J, Gronli M. The art, science, and technology of charcoal production. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2003, 42 (8): 1619–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bourgois J, Bartholin M C, Guyonnet R. Thermal treatment of wood: analysis of the obtained product. Wood Science and Technology, 1989, 23(4): 303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergman P C. Combined Torrefaction and Pelletisation. The Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), 2005, Publication No. ECN-C-05–073. 29Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li H, Liu X, Legros R, Bi X T, Lim C J, Sokhansanj S. Pelletization of torrefied sawdust and properties of torrefied pellets. Applied Energy, 2012, 93(0): 680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen W, Hsu H, Lu K, Lee W, Lin T. Thermal pretreatment of wood (Lauan) block by torrefaction and its influence on the properties of biomass. Energy, 2011, 36(5): 3012–3021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stelte W, Holm J K, Sanadi A R, Barsberg S, Ahrenfeldt J, Henriksen U B. A study of bonding and failure mechanisms in fuel pellets from different biomass resources. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35(2): 910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schipper L A, Robertson WD, Gold A J, Jaynes D B, Cameron S C. Denitrifying bioreactors–An approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters. Ecological Engineering, 2010, 36(11): 1532–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christianson L, Helmers M, Bhandari A. A practice-oriented review of woodchip bioreactors for subsurface agricultural drainage. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2012, 28(6): 861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruane E M, Murphy P N, Healy M G, French P, Rodgers M. Onfarm treatment of dairy soiled water using aerobic woodchip filters. Water Research, 2011, 45(20): 6668–6676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    US DOC. Technical Paper No. 40: Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years. 1961. Available online at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PF_documents/TechnicalPaper_No40.pdf (Accessed June 3, 2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jaynes D B, Moorman T B, Parkin T B, Kaspar T C. Simulating woodchip bioreactor performance using a dual-porosity model. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2016, 45(3): 830–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cameron S G, Schipper L A. Hydraulic properties, hydraulic efficiency and nitrate removal of organic carbon media for use in denitrification beds. Ecological Engineering, 2012, 41(0): 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robertson WD. Nitrate removal rates in woodchip media of varying age. Ecological Engineering, 2010, 36(11): 1581–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cameron S G, Schipper L A. Nitrate removal and hydraulic performance of organic carbon for use in denitrification beds. Ecological Engineering, 2010, 36(11): 1588–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Healy M G, Barrett M, Lanigan G, João Serrenho A, Ibrahim T, Thornton S, Rolfe S, Huang W, Fenton O. Optimizing nitrate removal and evaluating pollution swapping trade-offs from laboratory denitrification bioreactors. Ecological Engineering, 2015, 74(0): 290–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Healy M G, Ibrahim T G, Lanigan G J, João Serrenho A, Fenton O. Nitrate removal rate, efficiency and pollution swapping potential of different organic carbon media in laboratory denitrification bioreactors. Ecological Engineering, 2012, 40(0): 198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sharrer K, Christianson L E, Lepine C, Summerfelt S T. Modeling and mitigation of denitrification “woodchip” bioreactor phosphorus releases during treatment of aquaculture wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 2016, 93(0): 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hua G, Salo M W, Schmit C G, Hay C H. Nitrate and phosphate removal from agricultural subsurface drainage using laboratory woodchip bioreactors and recycled steel byproduct filters. Water Research, 2016, 102(0): 180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lepine C, Christianson L, Sharrer K, Summerfelt S. Optimizing hydraulic retention times in denitrifying woodchip bioreactors treating recirculating aquaculture system wastewater. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2016, 45(3): 813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Christianson
    • 1
  • David DeVallance
    • 2
  • Joshua Faulkner
    • 3
  • Thomas Basden
    • 4
  1. 1.Crop SciencesUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Wood Science and TechnologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  3. 3.University of Vermont Extension, UVM Center for Sustainable AgricultureBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.West Virginia University ExtensionWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations