GOOD HANDLING PRACTICES ON THE FARM ENABLE RECYCLING OF AGRICULTURAL FORAGE FILMS, BUT AT WHAT COST? Natalie Starr

Transcription

1 GOOD HANDLING PRACTICES ON THE FARM ENABLE RECYCLING OF AGRICULTURAL FORAGE FILMS, BUT AT WHAT COST? Natalie Starr DSM Environmental Services Inc., Ascutney, Vermont Glenn Rogers University of Vermont Extension, St. Albans, Vermont Abstract: Agricultural forage film waste is generated in large quantities in farming regions in the northeast. In Vermont, over one million lbs. of waste silage wrap, silage bags and bunker silo covers are generated annually and amounts are increasing. Vermont developed pilot recycling collections of the films to determine barriers to recycling, estimate costs, on-farm problems, market acceptance and alternative methods of recycling. Material was collected via drop-off and on-farm collection programs then processed and baled at central facilities. Test bales were sent to different markets to determine feasibility of implementing permanent collection programs. To be successful, material must be clean and dry, condensed, and markets must be arranged before a recycling program is implemented. Community and regional support for a recycling program should be investigated. Keywords: Agricultural plastic recycling, agricultural film disposal, ag plastics. Introduction Vermont, like many dairy farming states in cold regions, has dramatically increased their usage of agricultural forage films in the past five years. While figures are not available on the growth in use, the University of Vermont Extension Service surveyed annual agfilm use in 1995 and estimated that Vermont dairy farms alone were using approximately 1,185,800 lbs. of agricultural film annually. 1 This figure translated to an estimated per cow generation rate in 1995 of 7.55 lbs. per year for the estimated 157,000 dairy cows in the state. Disposal of these agricultural films can be a problem for farmers. The same survey indicated approximately 50% of farmers burn or bury some film on the farm. Vermont solid waste districts in several counties, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and the University of Vermont Extension Service were interested in both investigating recycling opportunities and encouraging proper disposal methods through implementing agfilm collection pilots. Collection pilots were implemented in the summers of 1996 and University of Vermont Extension Service. Agricultural Plastics Recycling Survey. Summary Report. September i

2 Description Of Pilot Recycling Collections Two Vermont solid waste districts and UVM Extension decided to collect agfilm for recycling because they wanted to know if recycling was a feasible solution to the growing disposal problem. The Addison County Solid Waste Management District (ACSWMD) conducted two agfilm collections, a drop-off event and an on-site farm collection, in the summer of The Lamoille Region Solid Waste Management District (LRSWMD) implemented collections in the spring in both 1996 and Three different types of agricultural forage films were collected at the events, Hay sleeves/silage bags (known as "Ag bags"), bunker silo covers, and silage wrap. The collection and processing methods used in each pilot collection are shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1 TYPES AND DESCRIPTION OF COLLECTION AND PROCESSING METHODS USED FOR AGFILM COLLECTION PILOTS SPONSOR COLLECTION METHOD PROCESSING METHOD ACSWMD (1996) One day drop-off at Middlebury College parking lot On-site manual feed horizontal baler ACSWMD (1996) One day on-farm collection using 18 cubic yard compacting waste collection truck. Film delivered to Middlebury College's baler. Manual feed horizontal baler LRSWMD (1996) One day drop-of at private rural recycling processing facility On-site, conveyer feed horizontal baler LRSWMD and UVM Extension (1997) Month long drop-off program at rural transfer station through prescheduled appointments with farmers. Material collected in roll-offs and delivered to processing facility. Conveyor feed horizontal baler Results Of Pilot Collection Activity During the 1996 collection pilots, workers unrolled and inspected every piece of film brought in by farmers prior to accepting it for recycling. This resulted in a large amount of material handling time. At the on-farm collection, film also had to be inspected before it was accepted for recycling and loaded into the packer truck. Figure 1 and Tables 2 and 3 show the amount of material brought to the collections, by farmer, and the amuont of material accepted and rejected for recycling in The results for 1997 are separated out because the inspection method was not as rigid. All the material colleted in 1997 was rejected for recycling. Contamination levels were not measured scientifically at the collections but observations were recorded and rated. At the 1996 LRSWMD collection, almost an entire load of silage wrap was discarded due to moisture, dirt and baling twine contamination and about 50% of a second load was 2

3 discarded due to moisture and dirt contamination. Outdoor storage and wet weather prior to the collection contributed to this high discard rate. Clearly, indoor storage of the material led to its recyclability. Nearly 100% of one load which was stored indoors was accepted. At the 1997 LRSWMD collection, 100% of one load was accepted due to their careful handling and storage methods which included hanging the material to dry. At the ACSWMD on-site farm collection, the rejection rate was unusually high as one participating farm had a large quantity of wet and muddy material that he had stored outdoors. TABLE 2 QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF MATERIAL ACCEPTED AND REJECTED AT COLLECTION EVENTS Accepted Rejected % Rejected Total (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) ACSWMD DROP-OFF Bunker Silo Cover % 1,380 Silage Wrap % 260 Silage bags/ag Bags % 590 Subtotal: % 2230 ACSWMD ON-SITE FARM Bunker Silo Covers 1,050 2,850 73% 3,900 LSWMD DROP-OFF All materials (1) % 4,600 TOTALS: 4,660 6,074 57% 10,730 LRSWMD DROP-OFF (1997) All materials (1) % (1) Rejection data by material was not collected. The majority of the material collected was silage wraps. TABLE 3 TOTAL QUANTITIES, BY TYPE OF MATERIAL, ACCEPTED FOR RECYCLING IN 1996 LRSWMD Drop-off ACSWMD On-site ACSWMD Drop-off TOTAL MATERIAL Silage wrap Bunker silo covers Silage bags/ag bags 1, , Total Material (Lbs.): Handling And Storage Methods Part of the reason for conducting the on-site collection as part of the pilot was to observe storage and handling methods on the farm. In general, the material that was stored under cover, on an 3

4 impervious surface and rolled up was the easiest to handle and was relatively free of contamination. Several conclusions were reached from observations made of storage and handling practices on the farm and from discussions with farmers who brought clean and dry film to the collections. Farmers need education about the benefits of proper disposal. Based on the storage and handling practices observed, and comments from farmers, many farmers may be unwilling to commit the necessary labor and storage space to keep the material clean and dry for recycling. Farmers need education about how to prepare the material for recycling. The high rejection rate of material observed during the pilots indicates that farmers must make a greater effort to keep the material clean and dry if the material is going to be recycled. There are clear advantages to keeping material clean and dry to ease handling labor whether for disposal or recycling. Handling wet and dirty film material is very difficult and time consuming whether one is handling it for recycling or disposal. Good storage and handling practices can result in clean and dry material. Farmers who produced clean and dry material made recommendations that worked for them. 1) For bunker silo covers: Roll back the material neatly, then cut it off immediately and either A) spread it out to dry, and put it away in dry storage or; B) dry it out another day, then roll it up neatly and put it in dry storage. 2) For silage wrap: Remove the wrap all at once and shake out excessive moisture, dirt and silage, then hang the wrap to dry in a warm, dry indoor location for hours before storing indoors. Consolidation Methods All material collected was baled prior to market. At one location, a small horizontal baler (Excelll EX60) was used where material had to be hand fed into the hopper. The baler was stored inside but there was not enough space to unload material inside the building. At the other locations, a conveyor was used to feed a horizontal baler which both helped to limit processing time. Based on the two densification methods used, the following conclusion can be reached. A feed conveyor can reduce labor costs in baling film. Feeding film into a baler by hand is very labor intensive and can be dangerous. A feed conveyor can reduce time and works well for silage wraps and reduces exposure to moving parts. However, large pieces of plastic film are harder to feed using a conveyor and may need to be cut prior to feeding. 4

5 Markets And Quality Control Market research indicated that the material needed to be free of both moisture and dirt, however some markets were more concerned about moisture than dirt and others were more concerned about dirt. Since all the markets contacted were untested, the collection team attempted to reject material that was either wet or dirty. During the 1996 pilot project it was agreed that all material brought in would be unrolled, inspected both on the front and back, and accepted only if it was relatively free of moisture, dirt and silage. In addition, one person was assigned to material inspection for the duration of the collection to ensure consistency in the inspection process. From the market research, three markets were chosen for the 1996 test bales based on the following factors: A) proximately to Vermont; B) end use in the Northeast or in the United States; C) willingness to accept test bales and, D) willingness to provide detailed information on the test bales. For the 1997 test bales, the private contractor handled the material and selected the market. Results were received from the 1996 test markets via a completed survey and 1997 test markets in writing. Results indicated: Limited markets exist for agfilm. Two of the three markets in 1996 ultimately were willing to accept the material for recycling. The best paying market had washing and drying capabilities. However, the other market demonstrated that mixing of the lower quality agfilm with other film made it possible to market the agfilm without washing and drying. In 1997, both markets rejected the material claiming it was too dirty. At current market prices, the market price received for agfilm is not sufficient to cover the collection, baling and transport costs. The prices offered in 1996 for the material that was accepted was only /lb. One of the markets stated they thought this could rise to about.06. Even at,06/lb. for a 15,000 lb. shipment, assuming shipping is free, the program would not pay for itself due to the large cost of labor for handling and baling the material. In 1997, both markets said the material had to be cleaned up substantially for them to accept it in the future. Conclusions Based on the collection and marketing experience in Vermont, some general conclusions can be made. First, the message that farmers should handle material so that it can be kept clean and dry for recycling, if markets improve, or for disposal, would be appropriate in regions where farmers are charged by weight for disposal. Clean, dry material is much lighter and easier to handle and thus brings a lower disposal cost, and greater opportunities for recycling. The resulting care in the material also reduces volume and allows more agfilm to be stored in the same amount of space. Second, although limited markets exist for agfilm and market prices are low, some communities may want to support agfilm recycling to ensure farms properly manage these materials, particularly in 5

6 regions where on-site disposal through burning and burying is prevalent. However, before communities pursue collection, they must investigate regional markets and obtain clear specifications for the material from those markets. Finally, agricultural forage film is dirty by nature, as its primary function is to protect feed from the elements of moisture, dirt and air and the resulting spoilage of the feed. As a result, contamination issues will continue to be the biggest challenge to recycling agfilms. 6