This document summarizes a presentation about using wood chip pads as a new livestock manure management system. It discusses how wood chip pads can reduce soil and water impacts from winter cattle feeding by absorbing runoff. Monitoring of a wood chip pad in Ohio found that 24% of rainfall became runoff, lower than other surfaces. Nutrients in runoff were also reduced, with 90-95% of nitrogen and phosphorus bound in the wood chips. The document considers different wood chip types and mixtures that may further improve runoff water quality and quantity management.

1. Wood Chip Pad Winter Feeding Area as a New
Livestock Manure Management System
2015 Waste to Worth Conference
Seattle, Washington
April 2, 2015
Tom Basden (WVU Extension)
Joshua Faulkner (UVM Extension)
David DeVallance (WVU Wood Science)

2. Introduction
 Soil and water effects from feeding cattle
on pastures during the winter dormant
period.
 Wood Chip Heavy Use Area, design,
costs and monitoring.
 Evaluating Optimal Biomass Media:
Species, thermally modified chips, and
mixtures.

3. Mid-Atlantic Cattle Production
 PA, MD, VA, WV, and DE. The five state
have aproximatly 1.1 million beef brood
cows and if you include dairy that number
is 1.6 million cows.
 Beef pasture management scheme of
summer grazing and importation of hay
into the pasture for winter feeding is
common in eastern USA.

4. What is a Wintering Site?
 An area where cattle are fed during the
winter months, sites include
 A feeding area; stored hay and
concentrates
 A sheltered area; windbreaks, calf hutches
 A water source; winterized pasture
systems

5. Typical Winter Feeding Site in
WV

8. Long Term Pasture Studies in Coshocton,
Ohio Experimental Watershed
Owens, Edwards and Van Keuren
 Compared 3 management systems on a micro
watershed: 1. from 1974 to 1986 continuous
pasture winter feeding of hay, 2. 1987 to 1989
grazing only during summer and 3. 1990 to 1994,
hay harvest only, no cattle in the pasture
 60 % of sediment losses occurred during dormant
period (Feeding Periods)
 Months of Greatest Losses during March – June,
April had almost 40% of annual losses
 Soils saturated, surface thawed and churned from
cattle

9. Runoff reduced as cattle were removed from the pasture during the winter period

11. Fig. 2 Yearly percentage cover for the continuous winter feeding area (WS 129).
Lloyd B. Owens , Martin J. Shipitalo
Runoff quality evaluations of continuous and rotational over-wintering systems for beef cows
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 129, Issue 4, 2009, 482 - 490
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.003

12. Woodchip Heavy-Use Area
Separation Geotextile

13. Advantages
• Local materials (where available)
• Environmental…
• Cost…
• Improved animal performance and welfare
(French et al., 2004)
Woodchip
Pad
Slat barn w/
outdoor
access
Straw
bedding
Slat barn
Feed intake
(lb DM/day)
23.99 23.32 21.58 20.9
Live weight
gain (lb/day)
3.06 2.93 2.43 2.23
Carcass gain
(lb/day)
1.70 1.68 1.41 1.41

14. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: Subgrade

15. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: Drainage

16. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: Outlet

17. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: Doser

18. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: Distribution

19. Woodchip Winter Feeding Pad: In Operation
Anecdotal observations…

20. Cost and Size Comparison
• Does not include liquid handling system or on-farm labor
Recommended Stocking Density (ft^2/cow)
*Off-pad feeding
Woodchip
(WV)
Woodchip
(UK)
Roofed
feeding barn
(NRCS-WV)
Concrete
Barnyard
Gravel
Barnyard
163 171 983 463 209
Woodchip* Concrete/Gravel Earthen
110 60-75 500-800
Construction Costs ($/cow)

21. Monitoring Study in Ohio Co. WV
• May 20, 2011 – April 17, 2013
• On-site temperature and precipitation
• Pressure transducer mounted in effluent
collection tank for continuous flow monitoring
• WQ sampling
• 12 storm events
• TKN
• NO3-N
• PO4-P
• TP

22. Monitoring Results: Nutrients
 Total Loads in Effluent
 TKN: 16,874 g
 NO3-N: <9 g
 PO4-P: 630 g
 TP: 892 g
N Mean Min Max Std. Dev.
TKN (mg/L) 15 117.1 62.6 153.5 25.2
NO3-N (mg/L) 16 <0.065 <0.065 0.6 -
PO4-P (mg/L) 16 4.4 1.9 8.2 2.0
Total P (mg/L) 16 6.2 2.6 12.9 3.0
“90-95% N and P bound in manure held
in woodchips” (French and Hickey, 2003)

23. Monitoring Results: Hydrology
• Runoff Response:
• Comparison to other surfaces:
*(NRCS, 2006)
24%
Monitoring Period Runoff as % of Rainfall
Winter periods 37%
Non-winter periods 17%
Entire monitoring period 24%

24. Monitoring Results: Hydrology
Woodchip substrate absorbent while allowing for evaporation
1” storm

25. Nutrient Cycling
• Field application of soiled woodchips
• Un-composted vs. composted vs. synthetic N
• Grass yield equal from
• Soiled woodchip applied @ 143 lb N/ac
• Composted woodchip at same rate
• Synthetic N @ 54 lb/ac
• Size of woodchip
• 5-10 cm – no degradation
(Photo: AHDB, 2011)

26. Nutrient Cycling
(AHDB, 2011)
18 t/ac 11 t/ac 4.5 t/ac

27. Disadvantages
 Annual requirement for bedding material (similar
to bedded housing)
 Solid waste (spent woodchips) management
requirements
 Effluent management
 Prolonged freezing?
 Sourcing woodchips?
(Photo: AHDB, 2011)

28. Chip characteristics matter….

29. Our most recent project is investigating how wood chip
types influences chip pad runoff water quality and quantity
Suitability of Wood and Thermally Modified Wood Chips
• White Oak
• Mixed Hardwoods
• Mixtures
– White Oak +
Torrefied Wood
– White Oak +
Torrefied Wood +
Biochar
Lab Column Studies
Field Studies

30. • Biochar Applications
– For combustion
– As an absorbent
– Soil amendment
– Catalyst development
Slow pyrolysis (carbonization) of wood is used to produce
solid charcoal or char (i.e., biochar)
Wood Thermal Treatment: Pyrolysis
Thermal decomposition of
biomass in the absence of
atmospheric oxygen

31. Laboratory column studies: 3 rain events & a 48 hr. hold
Suitability of Wood and Thermally Modified Wood Chips

32. In the 3 rain events, the biomass filters performed better
than the gravel controls
Suitability of Wood and Thermally Modified Wood Chips

33. Suitability of Wood and Thermally Modified Wood Chips
In the 48 hour hold, thermal modification did not appear to
improve TN or P reduction

34. Field Site: Construction
The field site consists of three separated pads with mixed
hardwoods in pad 1 and white oak in pad 2 and 3
1
1
3
2
2
Mixed HW
White Oak

35. Field Site: Construction & Sampling Boxes
Twelve inches of gravel was covered by twelve inches of
wood chips and three sampling boxes were installed
Mixed HW
White Oak
Gravel

36. Field Site: Flow Monitoring: Tipping Buckets
Jess Cummins

37. What Next for Wood Chip Heavy Use Areas
• Request interim Practice Standard from WV NRCS
• Will allow additional pads to be established and evaluated
• Continue evaluations of wood chip treatments in
sampling boxes and WO and MH Paddocks on WVU
Dairy facility
• Evaluation of forestry equipment to produce large
size uniform wood chips, fist size is optimum for the
lower chip layer.

38. Acknowledgements
• Farmer-Cooperator, Paul Seidewitz
• John Miller, WVU Extension
(Retired)
• West Virginia Conservation Agency
• WVU Animal Science Farm
• WVU Faculty Senate Grant
Program
• Jess Cummins, Dr. John Zondlo,
Dan Hovanec, Toby Grapner, WVU
Joshua Faulkner
Joshua.Faulkner@uvm.edu
Tom Basden
Tom.Basden@mail.wvu.edu
David DeVallance
David.DeVallance@mail.wvu.edu