DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrologic Modeling of Runoff from a Livestock Manure Windrow Composting Site with a Fly Ash Pad Surface and Vegetative Filter Strip Buffers David F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrologic Modeling of Runoff from a Livestock Manure Windrow Composting Site with a Fly Ash Pad Surface and Vegetative Filter Strip Buffers David F Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications 2010 Hydrologic modeling of runoff from a livestock manure windrow composting site with a fly ash pad surface and vegetative filter strip buffers David F. Webber Iowa State University Steven K. Mickelson Iowa State University, [email protected] Larry W. Wulf Iowa State University Thomas L. Richard Pennsylvania State University Heekwon Ahn United States Department of Agriculture Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ abe_eng_pubs/231. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hydrologic modeling of runoff from a livestock manure windrow composting site with a fly ash pad surface and vegetative filter strip buffers Abstract Windrow composting of livestock manure materials provides a strategy for converting organic wastes into a recyclable soil fertility product that is less hazardous to the environment. Although outdoor windrow composting can produce runoff that is detrimental to surface water quality, vegetative filter strip (VFS) buffers were reported to significantly reduce runoff nda contaminants from a windrow composting research site. To estimate the efficacy of VFS buffers and other best management practices on runoff from future windrow composting facilities, a computer hydrologic model may provide a valuable tool for predicting runoff losses from these proposed sites. This research evaluated a windrow composting/vegetative filter strip buffer (WCVFS) hydrologic model for estimating runoff ov lume losses from a livestock manure-based windrow composting site with a fly ash omposc ting pad surface and VFS buffers. Runoff nda physical attribute data from six rainfall events during 2002 to 2004 at a central Iowa windrow composting research site were used in the WCVFS model evaluation. Three rainfall events were designated as “wet” composting period events (2002 and 2003 seasons), and three were designated as “dry” composting period events (2004 season). Runoff ad ta were comprised of average observed runoff ov lumes from three compost windrow area:VFS buffer area ratio treatments that included 1:1, 1:0.5 (large and small VFS buffer areas, respectively), and a 1:0 (no buffer) control. The WCVFS model performance was good to very good for the 2003 wet composting period model validation rainfall event with no significant differences among 1:1, 1:0.5, and 1:0 ratio treatments for simulated versus observed runoff ov lumes. In contrast, WCVFS model performance was unsatisfactory for the 2004 dry composting period validation event with significantly higher simulated runoff ov lume from the 1:0.5 ratio treatment versus observed runoff ov lumes. There were no significant differences for the 1:1 and 1:0 treatments. The WCVFS model effectively estimated 1:1, 1:0.5, and 1:0 treatment runoff ov lumes from the earlier wet composting period and 1:1 and 1:0 treatment runoff ov lumes from the later dry composting period rainfall events. However, the soils data-derived VFS buffer runoff nda infiltration functions in the WCVFS model flow routing component may not have sufficiently accounted for some short-term hydrologic changes in VFS buffer soil and fly ash ap d surfaces. This could have resulted in overestimation of dry composting period simulated runoff ov lume from the smaller 1:0.5 ratio VFS buffer area treatment. Consequently, the use of other alternatives to soils data-derived VFS buffer runoff nda infiltration functions should be evaluated in future WCVFS model simulation trials to potentially improve runoff ov lume prediction accuracy. Keywords fly ash, yh drologic modeling, livestock manure window composting, surface runoff, vegetative filter strip (VFS) buffers, water resources Disciplines Agriculture | Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Comments This article is from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65, no. 4 (July/August 2010): 252–260, doi:10.2489/jswc.65.4.252 This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/231 Rights Works produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The onc tent of this document is not copyrighted. This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/231 a major source of water pollution in surface waters in the United States (Parry 1998). One doi:10.2489/jswc.65.4.252 strategy that has been demonstrated to mini- mize adverse effects of livestock manure on the environment is windrow composting. Windrow composting consists of plac- Hydrologic modeling of runoff from a ing manure and other raw materials in long narrow piles or windrows, which are agi- livestock manure windrow composting site tated or turned on a regular basis (Rynk et al. 1992). Studies have shown that composted with a fly ash pad surface and vegetative manure was less hazardous to the environ- ment (Eghball and Power 1999; Vervoort et al. filter strip buffers 1998) and that much of the mineral nitrogen was converted to more stable organic forms D.F. Webber, S.K. Mickelson, L.W. Wulf, T.L. Richard, and H.K. Ahn (Rynk et al. 1992). However, one of the dis- advantages of windrow composting is nutrient Abstract: Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Windrow composting of livestock manure materials provides a strategy for con- loss during the composting process, which Journal of Soil and Water Conservation verting organic wastes into a recyclable soil fertility product that is less hazardous to the can occur through leaching, runoff, and vola- environment. Although outdoor windrow composting can produce runoff that is detrimental tilization (Christensen 1983, 1984; Richard to surface water quality, vegetative filter strip (VFS) buffers were reported to significantly and Chadsey 1994; Eghball et al. 1997; Tiquia reduce runoff and contaminants from a windrow composting research site. To estimate the et al. 2000; Michel et al. 2004; Parkinson et al. efficacy of VFS buffers and other best management practices on runoff from future windrow 2004; Peigne and Girardin 2004). composting facilities, a computer hydrologic model may provide a valuable tool for predict- Windrow composting sites can pro- ing runoff losses from these proposed sites. This research evaluated a windrow composting/ duce runoff that includes nutrients such as vegetative filter strip buffer (WCVFS) hydrologic model for estimating runoff volume losses nitrate-nitrogen, which move through the from a livestock manure-based windrow composting site with a fly ash composting pad sur- soil and into streams as subsurface flow or face and VFS buffers. Runoff and physical attribute data from six rainfall events during 2002 leach down to the groundwater (Tiquia et al. to 2004 at a central Iowa windrow composting research site were used in the WCVFS model 2002; Garrison et al. 2001). Consequently, evaluation. Three rainfall events were designated as “wet” composting period events (2002 a composting pad surface material with bar- 65(4):252-260 and 2003 seasons), and three were designated as “dry” composting period events (2004 sea- rier properties to reduce infiltration may be son). Runoff data were comprised of average observed runoff volumes from three compost effective in mitigating contaminant transport windrow area:VFS buffer area ratio treatments that included 1:1, 1:0.5 (large and small VFS into the soil strata and redirecting runoff flow buffer areas, respectively), and a 1:0 (no buffer) control. The WCVFS model performance to a detention basin or vegetative treatment was good to very good for the 2003 wet composting period model validation rainfall event area like a vegetative filter strip (VFS) buffer. www.swcs.org with no significant differences among 1:1, 1:0.5, and 1:0 ratio treatments for simulated versus Richard (1996) suggested that compost- observed runoff volumes. In contrast, WCVFS model performance was unsatisfactory for ing pad surface materials—including gravel, the 2004 dry composting period validation event with significantly higher simulated runoff asphalt, or concrete—may be appropriate for volume from the 1:0.5 ratio treatment versus observed runoff volumes. There were no sig- some windrow composting facilities. Sikora nificant differences for the 1:1 and 1:0 treatments. The WCVFS model effectively estimated and Francis (2000) reported that lime and fly 1:1, 1:0.5, and 1:0 treatment runoff volumes from the earlier wet composting period and ash materials produced a hardened, nearly 1:1 and 1:0 treatment runoff volumes from the later dry composting period rainfall events. impervious surface layer for windrow com- However, the soils data-derived VFS buffer runoff and infiltration functions in the WCVFS posting sites. model flow routing component may not have sufficiently accounted for some short-term Fly ash is a byproduct derived from hydrologic changes in VFS buffer soil and fly ash pad surfaces. This could have resulted in combustion of bituminous coal at power overestimation of dry composting period simulated runoff volume from the smaller 1:0.5 ratio VFS buffer area treatment. Consequently, the use of other alternatives to soils data- David F. Webber is a postdoctoral research asso- derived VFS buffer runoff and infiltration functions should be evaluated in future WCVFS ciate, and Steven K. Mickelson is a professor in model simulation trials to potentially improve runoff volume prediction accuracy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Processing (Composting) Facility Guidance and Checklists for Tier II and Tier III Processing Facilities
    Processing (Composting) Facility Guidance and Checklists for Tier II and Tier III Processing Facilities State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality July 2013 Printed on recycled paper, DEQ June 2013, PID 9170, CA 87067. Costs associated with this publication are available from the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in accordance with Section 60-202, Idaho Code. Processing Facility Guidance and Checklists Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Composting Process................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Windrow Composting ...................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Aerated Static Piles ........................................................................................................... 2 2.3 In-Vessel Composting ...................................................................................................... 3 3 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................................ 3 3.1 Idaho’s Solid Waste Management Rules and Facility Classifications ............................. 4 Below Regulatory Concern ...................................................................................................... 4 Tier I Composting Facility ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review on the Current Composting Practices and the Potential Of
    1051 A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 61, 2017 The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.aidic.it/cet Guest Editors: Petar S Varbanov, Rongxin Su, Hon Loong Lam, Xia Liu, Jiří J Klemeš Copyright © 2017, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. ISBN 978-88-95608-51-8; ISSN 2283-9216 DOI: 10.3303/CET1761173 Review on the Current Composting Practices and the Potential of Improvement using Two-Stage Composting Li Yee Lima, Cassendra Phun Chien Bonga, Chew Tin Leea,*, Jiří Jaromír Klemešb, c a Mohamad Roji Sarmidi , Jeng Shiun Lim aFaculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. bSustainable Process Integration Laboratory – SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, - VUT Brno, Tachnická 2896/2, 616 00 Brno, Czech Republic. cInnovation Centre in Agritechnology for Advanced Bioprocessing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. [email protected] Composting is one of the applicable technologies to recycle organic waste into a value-added product. It allows the transformation and stabilisation of the organic waste into bio-fertiliser that can be applied to land and crops safely. The composting systems come in different modes but the three commonly used are windrow, aerated static pile and in-vessel composting. The three practices vary in cost, manpower, energy, greenhouse gases emission and composting time. It is well-known that among the three, windrow is the least expensive but most time consuming where in-vessel offers short composting period but at the high expense of energy and cost. Composting is conventionally carried out by either one of the methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Assessment of Food Waste Management Using Two Composting Techniques
    sustainability Article Environmental Impact Assessment of Food Waste Management Using Two Composting Techniques Aisha Al-Rumaihi 1, Gordon McKay 1, Hamish R. Mackey 1 and Tareq Al-Ansari 1,2,* 1 Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha P.O. Box 34110, Qatar; [email protected] (A.A.-R.); [email protected] (C.M.); [email protected] (H.R.M.) 2 Division of Engineering Management and Decision Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha P.O. Box 34110, Qatar * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 December 2019; Accepted: 27 January 2020; Published: 20 February 2020 Abstract: Food waste is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and therefore global warming. As such, the management of food waste can play a fundamental role in the reduction of preventable emissions associated with food waste. In this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to evaluate and compare the environmental impact associated with two composting techniques for treating food waste using SimaPro software; windrow composting and the hybrid anaerobic digestion (AD) method. The study, based on a 1 tonne of food waste as a functional unit for a case study in the State of Qatar, concludes that anaerobic digestion combined composting presents a smaller environmental burden than windrow composting. The majority of the emissions generated are due to the use of fossil fuels during transportation, which correspond to approximately 60% of the total impact, followed by the impact of composting with 40% of the impact especially in terms of global warming potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Composting and Water Quality L
    Agricultural Composting and Water Quality L. Brewer, N. Andrews, D. Sullivan, and W. Gehr EM 9053 • June 2013 omposting, a controlled process for stabilization of organic matter, can turn waste into a valuable soil amendment. Creating compost from waste materials Cprovides an opportunity to return nutrients and organic matter to the soil, a proven practice for soil quality enhancement. Compost can improve crop growth and provide environmental benefits by improving soil tilth and its capacity to absorb and hold water and plant nutrients. A properly managed composting process can destroy weed seeds, plant pathogens, and human pathogens. This publication is designed to assist farmers in conducting efficient, cost-effective, on-farm composting that presents reduced risk to surface and groundwater quality. It was written for operators of small to medium-size on-farm composting enterprises who handle about 100 to 5,000 tons of raw organic material per year. Most on-farm com- posting enterprises are now required to operate under some form of permit. The type of permit, and the details specified in it, vary depending upon the situation. Before you begin composting, understand the regula- tions that apply to your activities. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) revised its com- posting regulations in 2009. This publication is intended to assist University State © Oregon Dan Sullivan, by Photo farmers who are regu- Compost can improve soil quality and plant growth. Sunflowers in compost-amended soil (right) vs. no compost (left). lated by DEQ rules to Linda Brewer, Nick Andrews, Dan Sullivan, all of Oregon State University; and Will Gehr, Organic Recycling Systems, Portland, OR.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing
    Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing. Cat. No.: En14-83/2013E ISBN: 978-1-100-21707-9 Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services of Canada (PWGSC). For more information, please contact PWGSC at 613-996-6886 or at [email protected]. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment, 2013 Aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Document technique sur la gestion des matières organiques municipales Preface Solid waste management is unquestionably an essential service that local governments provide their citizens. They have an important responsibility to make decisions regarding collection services, disposal infrastructure, waste diversion and recycling programs that are cost-effective and respond to their communities’ needs. Even in communities with long-established programs and infrastructure, the management of waste continues to evolve and require informed decisions that take into consideration a complex set of environmental, social, technological, and financial factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Air Windrow Composting
    Breaking it down Open Air Windrow Composting Freephone Helpline 0808 100 2040 zerowastescotland.org.uk Overview Open Air Windrow Composting (OAW) uses naturally occurring microbes which feed on organic material (garden waste) and require oxygen. By feeding on the garden waste, the microbes break down the material and turn it into compost. Garden waste is often collected by Councils through kerbside collections (sometimes for part of the year only, between March & November) or at recycling centres. OAW is not suitable for food waste. This is because the process needed to deal with food waste has to be performed in an enclosed vessel and not in the open air. The Animal By-products regulations control this and were brought in to protect animal and human health. As a result any food waste, even vegetable scrapings from households, cannot be put through OAW. What goes in? Garden waste Organic garden waste materials such as twigs, leaves, grass clippings and prunings are suitable for OAW. Larger items such as branches, tree stumps etc. are too large to fully break down in OAW and should be shredded or cut into smaller pieces first. What happens? Material is delivered, sorted to remove incorrect materials (contamination) and shredded. The shredded materials are piled into long rows known as windrows, in the open air. Naturally occurring microbes feed on the materials. This creates heat and windrows will often give off steam. Rows are regularly turned to make sure there is enough oxygen for the microbes to work. At the end of the process, usually 12-16 weeks, the compost is checked to make sure it meets the necessary quality standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection and Composting Economics for Open Windrow Operations
    Collection and Composting Economics for Open Windrow Operations Carla Castagnero AgRecycle, Inc. NERC April 2014 Why Understanding The Economics of Composting Is Essential • Approximately 87% of all composting operations in the U.S., that do not receive government subsidies fail after 5 years. EPA 2012 • Composting is the only type of recycling that creates a new virgin product and it is the success of this product in the market that will allow composting to become sustainable. • The beneficial results of well made compost are irrefutable. • Diverting organic waste from landfills is a worthwhile endeavor, but doing so without any intention of making finished products out of the materials makes organic diversion just another exercise in good citizenry with a limited and finite future. Begin with the end in mind • The details of this presentation are based on the premise that every compost facility has the purpose of making a marketable product - whether the level of product is of a coarse nature to fill an erosion deterrent sleeve, for brownfield reclamation use, the backyard gardener, or the golf course superintendent • Grinding leaves and letting them sit in a pile to decompose is not making compost. • The materials in this presentation address open air windrow composting systems. • Under cover, in vessel, and in building systems are not part of this economic modeling. • Bio-solids composting operations are not included. Cost Accounting • The imprecisions and deviations among feedstocks that are an inherent part of composting operations
    [Show full text]
  • Potential of Producing Compost from Source-Separated Municipal Organic Waste (A Case Study in Shiraz, Iran)
    sustainability Article Potential of Producing Compost from Source-Separated Municipal Organic Waste (A Case Study in Shiraz, Iran) Haniyeh Jalalipour 1,* , Neematollah Jaafarzadeh 2, Gert Morscheck 1, Satyanarayana Narra 1,3 and Michael Nelles 1,3 1 Department of Waste and Resource Management, Rostock University, 18051 Rostock, Germany; [email protected] (G.M.); [email protected] (S.N.); [email protected] (M.N.) 2 Toxicology Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran; [email protected] 3 The German Centre for Biomass Research, 04347 Leipzig, Germany * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 September 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 20 November 2020 Abstract: Developing countries face serious environmental, social and economic challenges in managing different types of organic waste. Proper treatment strategies should be adopted by solid waste management systems in order to address these concerns. Among all of the treatment options for organic waste, composting is the most approved method as an effective strategy to divert solid waste from landfills. This experimental research aimed to examine the potential of producing compost from source-separated municipal organic waste in Shiraz, Iran. Market waste (fruits and vegetables) and garden waste (plant residues) were used as the raw input materials. They were subjected to the windrow pile composting method in an open site area. The process was monitored against several physical, chemical and biological parameters. In-situ measurements (temperature and moisture content) were carried out on a daily basis. Sampling and lab analyses were conducted over the period of the biological treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Turned Windrow Composting Sizing Your Composting Pad
    Turned Windrow Composting Sizing Your Composting Pad Planning a windrow composting operation is a multistep process, which involves careful thought and consid- 5. Calculating the Number of Windrows on the eration. The following guide has been created as part Active Pad of a set of resources to help composters in Vermont 6. Determining Active Pad Work Space Needs effectively plan, develop, and manage local composting 7. Calculating Active Pad Footprint operations. The focus of this resource is to support you 8. Calculating Curing and Storage Area in determining the size of your windrow composting site. 9. Calculating Feedstock Storage Operations composting food scraps (source-separated 10. Calculating Receiving and Blending Area organics or SSO) in Vermont are the main focus of this 11. Additional Infrastructure to Consider guide, although most of the guide will apply to com- 12. Calculating Total Site Footprint posters of farm wastes and other materials as well. Each phase is explained along with the necessary cal- The guide will walk you through the following calcula- culations and an example. Cumulatively, these steps tions and considerations: will help you determine the total footprint required for your windrow composting activities. You will likely need 1. Gathering Basic Information for Sizing a Windrow to adjust the dimensions of specific features within the Composting Facility site, based on realities of the plot you are dealing with. If 2. Two Approaches to Identifying Target Scale you are familiar with using spreadsheet software such as 3. Determining Total Volume of Feedstock on Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets, these tools can Active Composting Pad be very helpful in setting up a template calcula- 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Composting Manure and Sludge
    E-479 06-08 Composting Manure and Sludge John M. Sweeten and Brent W. Auvermann* omposting is a controlled, isms typically do not tolerate such Cmicrobial process that converts high temperatures; as a result, the biodegradable, organic materials temperature of an anaerobic pile will into a stable, humus-like product. usually be 130 degrees F or less. The The microorganisms that do most of end products, or metabolites, of anaer- the work are thermophilic microbes obes include organic fatty acids, (bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi), aldehydes, alcohols, hydrogen which thrive in relatively high sulfide, and many other compounds temperatures (greater than 131 responsible for obnoxious odors. degrees F). This publication addresses only Composting is generally done under aerobic, thermophilic composting. aerobic conditions, in which atmos- pheric oxygen is present at 5 percent Advantages and Disadvantages or more by volume. (At sea level, Composting is an important treat- oxygen is normally present in air at ment process for many organic about 20 percent by volume.) wastes and residues, including Aerobic decomposition converts animal manure, municipal and biodegradable organic matter in industrial sludge, and solid or semi- manure or sludge to oxidized end solid crop residues. products, prima- I Anaerobic (very low rily carbon Major Advantages of Composting oxygen) conditions dioxide (CO2) occur in a compost and water. The • It produces a biochemically pile when excess mois- thermophilic stable product that has low odor and ture, fine particle size, good physical properties, and it or compaction reduce temperature range, from 131 attracts few flies. the flow of oxygen into • It significantly reduces the the pile.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Waste Treatment – Organic Waste Composting
    BIOLOGICAL WASTE TREATMENT – ORGANIC WASTE COMPOSTING APPLICATION - Recovery of useful organic and inorganic substances from the biodegradable waste fraction for OBJECTIVE the generation of a usable humus by biological processes and in conjunction therewith - a significant reduction of biodegradable waste that otherwise would have to be landfilled or become subject of other forms of waste treatment or - the reduction of the reaction potential of organic rich waste or of the residues from biological treatment processes such as anaerobic digestion (see factsheet on “Anaerobic digestion”) OUTLINE ON APPLICATION FRAMEWORK PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE FOR WASTE TYPES Glass Light-weight packaging Biowaste X Paper / paperboard X1 Mixed household waste Bulky waste Lamps Textiles Electrical and electronic waste Scrap metal Waste wood X2 C&D waste Waste oil Old paint & lacquer Waste tyres Hazardous waste Kitchen and food residues, green waste, waste and residues from forestry, agricul- Branch specific waste X ture including manure and from wood, crop and/or food processing Other waste material X any source separated biodegradable material with non-hazardous content SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION Pre-treatment of the input material: The input material should come from a separate collection, it has to be examined for components which may re- lease hazardous substances (e.g. batteries) and must be freed from them and other disturbing materials such as large foils. Large components usually contained in forest residues, pruning and garden waste must be chopped. Options for the utilisation of the generated output: The compost is particularly suited for agricultural applications, the use in gardening and landscaping, for fruit and special cultures, re-cultivation works and home gardening.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking It Down In-Vessel Composting
    Breaking it down In-Vessel Composting Freephone Helpline 0808 100 2040 zerowastescotland.org.uk Overview In-vessel composting (IVC) uses naturally occurring microbes which feed on organic material and require oxygen. The microbes break down organic material such as garden waste and food waste and turn it into compost. There are several differences between IVC and open air windrow composting: 1. IVC can accept food waste as well as garden waste. The higher temperatures reached in IVCs kills potentially harmful bacteria found in meat or other food waste which may have come in contact with meat. 2. IVC takes place in a sealed unit rather than in the open. This means materials can reach and consistently maintain high temperatures for the required minimum period of time and keeps the material away from outside influences such as weather and wildlife. Garden waste Organic garden waste materials such as twigs, leaves, grass clippings and prunings are suitable for IVC. Larger items such as branches, tree stumps etc. are too large to fully break down and should be shredded or cut into smaller pieces first. Food waste: The types of food waste which can be put through IVC include: bones, cooked and uncooked food, meat and vegetable peelings. There are strict guidelines under the Animal By- Products Regulations for processing food waste. What happens? Material is delivered, sorted to remove incorrect materials (contamination) and shredded. The material is put inside an enclosed chamber and air is forced through it, which increases the temperature. The material quickly reaches a high temperature to kill any potential harmful bacteria.
    [Show full text]