IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2550-d756458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pecan ( Carya illinoinensis ) and Dairy Waste Stream Utilization: Properties and Economics of On-Farm Windrow Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Emily F. Creegan

    (Plant and Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Robert Flynn

    (Extension Plant Sciences, NMSU Agricultural Science Center, Artesia, NM 88210, USA)

  • Greg Torell

    (Agricultural Economics & Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Catherine E. Brewer

    (Chemical and Materials Engineering, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Dawn VanLeeuwen

    (Economics, Applied Statistics & International Business, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Ram N. Acharya

    (Agricultural Economics & Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Richard J. Heerema

    (Extension Plant Sciences, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA)

  • Murali Darapuneni

    (Plant and Environmental Sciences and Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center, New Mexico State University (NMSU), Tucumcari, NM 88401, USA)

Abstract

Improper management of organic waste can lead to unnecessary carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and groundwater contamination. In this study, organic waste materials from two of New Mexico’s (U.S.A.) top agricultural industries, pecan ( Carya illinoinensis ) and dairy cattle dairy manure, were used to evaluate the feasibility of an on-farm compost program. Pecan woody residues (P) served as the primary carbon source; regional cattle dairy manure (M) served as the primary nitrogen source. Additional (A) inputs from a compost consulting company (PM/A) and green waste from community landscaping and on-farm harvested legumes (PMG/A) were employed, both of which required additional labor and material inputs. Finished composts were analyzed for selected macro, secondary and micronutrients, pH, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), total carbon (TC) and organic matter (OM) content, bulk density (b d ), and microbial biomass. The PM alone treatment showed similar or significantly higher amounts of macro, secondary and micronutrients compared to the PM/A and PMG/A treatments. Total microbial biomass and total salinity were highest for the PM treatment. The total cost of the PM treatment was around 1/6 of the cost of the lowest-cost addition compost production scheme, indicating that simpler, lower-input production methods may be more advantageous for on-farm compost program development.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily F. Creegan & Robert Flynn & Greg Torell & Catherine E. Brewer & Dawn VanLeeuwen & Ram N. Acharya & Richard J. Heerema & Murali Darapuneni, 2022. "Pecan ( Carya illinoinensis ) and Dairy Waste Stream Utilization: Properties and Economics of On-Farm Windrow Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2550-:d:756458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2550/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2550/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lattz, Dale & Schnitkey, Gary, 2019. "Machinery Cost Estimates for 2019," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 9(144), August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swanson, Krista & Schnitkey, Gary & Paulson, Nick & Zulauf, Carl & Coppess, Jonathan, 2020. "Cost Management: Tillage Operations," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 10(151), August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2550-:d:756458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.