Evaluation of Effectiveness and Cost-Benefits of Woolen Roadside Reclamation Products

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Evaluation of Effectiveness and Cost-Benefits of Woolen Roadside Reclamation Products"

Gwendoline Wilkerson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Evaluation of Effectiveness and Cost-Benefits of Woolen Roadside Reclamation Products Rob Ament, Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University Monica Pokorny and Stuart Jennings, KC Harvey Environmental 1

2 Project Scope Objective Develop and test the effectiveness of viable woolen erosion control and vegetation establishment materials for roadside applications. 2

3 Background Domestic product vs coconut coir Wool can store up to 400% of its weight in water (Upton 2003) Source: Growstone Products, 3

4 Background Sheep wool contains up to 17% nitrogen Wool is a protein and it s chemical composition is fairly consistent (D Arcy 1990): 4

5 Background Woolen fabrics demonstrate a plant growth response from wool compared to coconut fibers (Herfort 2010) 5

6 Background Current use of waste wool: Pelletized wool fertilizer Mulch matt -100% wool ECBs Wool-sheep manure fertilizer 6

7 Specific Objectives Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications Field Tests: Evaluate woolen products for plant establishment Lab Tests: Evaluate key geotextile material characteristics of woolen products Conduct analyses of field data and cost-benefit analyses of woolen reclamation products 7

8 Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications Product and Manufacturer Produced Abroad Existing U.S. Product New Use or Product Development BioWool 400, wool matting, Cirtex Industries, New Zealand Biomac Woolmulch, Maccaferri, New Zealand TerraMat Wool, GeoTech Systems Ltd, New Zealand EcoWool Mulch Mats, Advance Landscape Systems, New Zealand X X X X Wool Mulch Mat, Terra Lana, New Zealand Twool, Twool Twine, England Thermafleece, Eden Renewable Innovations, England Woolch, Grazeland Farm, Minnesota, U.S. Blow-in Wool Insulation, Brookside Woolen Mill, MT Wet Felted Wool Batts, Sugar Loaf Wool Mill, MT Needle Felted Wool Batts, Brookside Woolen Mill, MT Carded Wool Batting, Sugar Loaf Wool Mill and Thirteen Mile Lamb and Wool Company, MT X X X X X X X X Noils, Montana Wool Lab, MT Loom Salvage, Faribault Woolen Mill, MN Washed/Scoured Wool, Brookside Woolen Mill, MT Wool / Straw ECB, Ramy Turf Products, Mankato, MN X X X X 8

9 Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications 9

10 Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications 10

and 136 g/m 2 carded wool batting (left), but had

11 Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications Seedlings are able to penetrate the 68 g/m 2 and 136 g/m 2 carded wool batting (left), but had difficulty penetrating the 203 g/m 2 and 271 g/m 2 carded wool batting (right). 11

12 Identify and develop wool products for roadside applications Wool Silt Fence 3 products Wool ECB carded wool batts, needle punch bats Wool / Compost Rolled ECB 5 products, different wool/straw weights 12

13 Field Trials Silt Fence Along US Highway 12 near Martinsdale, MT 13

14 Field Trials Silt Fence Along US Highway 12 near Martinsdale, MT 14

15 Field Trials Silt Fence Stitched Felted Wool PolyMesh Felted Wool 15

16 Field Trials Silt Fence 16

17 Field Trials Silt Fence 17

18 Field Trials Silt Fence 18

19 Field Trials Wool ECB & Compost 19

20 Field Trials Wool ECB & Compost 11 Treatments ; 11 Replications 1. Carded wool batts 4 oz/m 2-13 Mile Wool Lamb Mills 2. Carded wool batts 2 oz/m 2-13 Mile Wool Lamb Mills 3. Needle punched wool batts, single layer one pass - Brookside Woolen Mill 4. Needle punched wool batts, ½ layer four passes - Brookside Woolen Mill 5. Glacier Gold and cut wool compost; 40:1 - Brookside Woolen Mill 6. Control Standard coconut/straw ECB 7. Control Glacier Gold compost 8. Control Broadcast seed only 9. Control no treatments or seeding % wool ECB :40 wool:straw ECB 20

21 Field Trials Wool ECB & Compost 21

22 Field Trials Observations / Analysis Test 1 - ECBs. Did plant canopy cover differ between wool and control ECB treatments? Test 2 - Compost. Did wool added into the compost mix affect plant cover? 22

23 Field Trials Observations / Analysis Seeded grasses are establishing 1 st year Compost/wool had reduced weed and increased desirable plant cover Wool ECBs had decreased weed cover, increased cover by some desirable plant species 2nd year Needle punch wool felts itself Wool rolled ECBs established greatest seeded grass cover 23

24 Field Trials Wool ECB & Compost 24

25 Field Trials Wool ECB & Compost 25

26 Field Trials Rolled ECB Wool-Straw ECB Manufactured by Ramy Turf Products, 26 LLC

27 Field Trials TRANSCEND: TEST SLOPE APPLICATIONS 27

28 Field Trials Rolled ECB 6 Treatments; 10 Replications 5 m x 1.5 m ECB 2:1 slope 1. Control seed mix only Wool ECB 3. 70:30 Wool:Straw ECB 4. 50:50 Wool:Straw ECB 5. 30:70 Wool:Straw ECB 6. Standard Coir-Straw ECB 28

29 Field Trials Rolled ECB 29

30 Field Trials Observations Analysis Was plant canopy cover by weed species higher or lower on control plots than on treatment plots? Was plant canopy cover by desirable species higher or lower on control plots than on treatment plots? 30

31 Field Trials Observations / Analysis 1 st year No significant difference between weed cover on the treatments compared to the control Desirable plants had a higher mean percent cover on treatments (6.4%) versus control (2.9%) plots. 2nd year Seeded grasses are establishing Need to run statistics to determine treatments with highest desired species cover. 30% and 50% wool EBC seemed to degrade wool 31

32 Field Trials Rolled ECB 32

33 Field Trials Rolled ECB 33

34 Lab Tests Mass of fiber matrix and netting (pounds/yard 2 ) Tensile strength (pounds of force/foot 2 ; ASTM D4595) C Factor (Measured Shear loss of 0.5 of soil) (pounds of force/foot 2; ASTM D6459): ability of the blanket to protect the soil resource Min. Shear Strength Unvegetated Condition (pounds of force/foot 2 ; ASTM 6460): strength to withstand surface flow forces. 34

35 Cost Analysis Closest wool markets: Billings & Salt Lake City Greasy wool, low quality: $0.64/lb Estimated unmarketed MT waste wool: ~1 M lbs/year greasy wool = 500,000 lbs clean wool Clean, cut, shredded wool: : $4/lb 8 oz. Wool/sq. Yd. = 206 acres Wool ECB (using 1 million pounds of MT waste wool) 35

36 Thanks Phil Johnson, Montana Department of Transportation MDT Technical Advisory Team Stuart Jennings, KC Harvey Environmental, LLC Mirjam Barrueto, Statistician Questions? 36

erosion control HasTec KGW 400 advantages: usage: For surface protection and greening of slopes in landscaping and traffic route engineering.

erosion control HasTec KGW 400 advantages: usage: For surface protection and greening of slopes in landscaping and traffic route engineering. HasTec KGW 400 For surface protection and greening of slopes in landscaping and traffic route engineering. Surface covered with HasTec KGW 400. Fixing with nails of wood or steel (suggestion: 2-4 pieces