HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002418.tiff 2. cet oY9c
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 ��
Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, Fax(970)304-6498 9 p\
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION x_
Application Fee Paid Receipt# Date ��
Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date [�
Application Reviewed by: ✓l
((ACI
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature)
///
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: NW'/ Sec 1, T6N, R65W of the 6r°
P.M., Weld County, CO
PARCEL NUMBER: 080301000056 (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D. Information or obtained at the
Assessor's Office.
4_°,— 6 c I /I-y., PL
Section 1,T6N, R 65W-Total Acreage 136.6 Zone District A Overlay Zone_
Property Address(if available)23016 WCR74,•EATON,CO 80651
Proposed Use EXPANSION OF EXISTING FEEDLOT TO 11,260 HD ,
SURFA6E FEE(PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
Name: JOHN JOHNSON Address:23016 WCR 74
City/State/Zip: EATON, CO 80651 Home Telephone: 970-454-1043 Business Telephone
Name: Address:
City/State/Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(if different than abovel
Name: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC(Sharyn Frazer)
Address:2057 Alpine Sky Drive City/State/Zip: Berthoud, CO 80513
Home Telephone: 970-532-0439 Business Telephone: 303-877-7747
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY
Case# UA54- I Y-�i7/
Floodplain: 0 Yes 0 No Geologic Hazard: 0 Yes 0 No
I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
f`
l
_.1 Rev: 1-27-97 Signature: Owner rAuthorizedAaent
EXHIBIT
2000-2418 1
August 11, 2000
Julie Chester, Lead Planner
Weld County Planning Department
1551 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Julie,
I have contracted with AgPro Environmental Services, LLC, to process all work
related to a Use by Special Review application filed at Weld County. Tom Haren,
Eric Dunker and Sharyn Frazer are authorized to represent JF Cattle throughout
this process.
Sincerer
John Johns , Owner
JF Cattle
AePro Environmental Services, LLC
Agreement for Services
Client: -r. CArR-C (D . Contact: 1 o& ,-r-,v3oN
Project Name: De-LA ['z, &5L Contact Phone: C?%O 4S ' /04 3 6f)
(Project Address: 2.-3 IL Luc P- 7-A CA—rem, � b11 &)
Billing Address: SAME
(If Different from Pryeot Address)
Scope of Work: We-L-b Co bS 2. Ili pi,ct t c t P p� 7_/ G)r.rds�I-
/1CPIACc35 MFINU�C fl NVoa5.4Nce Dc-4-N 4 & r�o S
u A tJL1' (� NFix-5 /�") 4 6.00,71- _F-63-5 row /nc&°Oev
Estimate: 4 c 1 #j- b oc r _
This Agreement outlines AgPro Environmental Services' estimated costs based on experience with similar
projects of similar nature. Client is responsible for payment for all actual labor costs; reimbursement for direct
expenses and subcontracted expenses plus 15%. Invoices will be submitted to the contact at the address above
on the 1°r and 15th of each month and is due net 15 days. Payments not received within 15 days are subject to
1.5% per month finance charges. Payment not received within 30 days will result in termination of work until
accounts are made current. AgPro Environmental Services will use reasonable care to comply with applicable
laws in effect at the time the services are performed hereunder, which to the best of their knowledge, information,
and belief, apply to their respective obligations under this agreement. All disputes, claims, and demands not
resolved by the parties shall be subject to arbitration in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the
American Arbitration Association. AgPro Environmental Services or Client may terminate contract with five days
written notice. The liability of AgPro Environmental Services, its agents, employees, and subcontractors, for
Client's claims of loss or damages shall not exceed the aggregate under this agreement.
Client (Authorization to Pr ocee AgPro Environm al Services, L C
Signature: ture:
Date: Date: l 17 /nom
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW QUESTIONAIRE
The following questions are to be answered and submitted as part of the USR application. If a question does not
pertain to your use, please respond with "not applicable', with an explanation as to why the question is not
applicable.
1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property.
The existing and proposed use of this property includes a feedlot facility for feeding dairy heifers. Related
activities include feeding dairy heifers and farming. Supporting infrastructure includes buildings and corrals for
livestock husbandry, equipment storage, maintenance facilities,waste management control structures and
primary residence for the owner. This proposal is for 11, 240 cattle and up to 20 horses, new corral areas and
additional stormwater containment.
2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
The use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive plan through the preservation, enhancement and
growth of agriculture. A feedlot has existed at the site since approximately 1973. This facility is located on prime
farmland when irrigated. The facility supports commercial and industrial uses directly related to or dependent
upon agriculture. Efforts to preserve productive agriculture land include the maintenance, enhancement and
growth of a viable, profitable, agricultural business. The proposed site is not located within a flood hazard zone,
a geologic hazard zone or airport overlay zone. The property use is necessary in Weld County to preserve the
agricultural economic base historically attributed to the area. The proposed use provides approximately six
agriculture jobs for Weld County residents. Typically, feedlot and dairy operations contribute 2.5 times their
gross sales into the local economy.
3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the
zone district in which it is located.
This proposal meets the intent of the agricultural zone district where the site is located. A livestock confinement
operation exceeding four(4) animal units is permitted in the A(Agricultural)zone district as a Use-by-Special
Review. Public health safety and welfare are protected through adherence to applicable county, state and
federal regulations and requirements.
4. What type of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Agricultural uses surround this site. Uses consist of farming, cattle grazing, and hay production. A large feedlot
is in existence directly north of the subject property. Also, a USR for automobile repair exists directly east of
subject property. This proposal is compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses and the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. There are three(3) residential homes located within 500 feet of the proposed USR
boundary.
5. Describe, in detail, the following:
a. How many people will use this site?
Approximately six(6) employees, the owners and owners'family, sales representatives and supply delivery
people.
b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site?
Approximately six(6) employees will work on site.
c. What are the hours of operation?
The facility will continue to operate 24 hours per day as it does presently. Equipment operations, trucks,
farming activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies will occur primarily during daylight
hours.
d. What type and how many structures will be erected (built)on this site?
Most structures are currently in place. Additional corral areas, and one (1)stormwater retention pond will be
constructed.
e. What type and how many animals, if any,will be on this site?
11,240 head of cattle and up to 20 horses.
f. What kind (type, size,weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often?
Typical vehicles accessing this site include feed and hay delivery trucks and semi-tractors and trailers,
employee and owner vehicles, animal product vendors, and ag-related equipment. Operating equipment
includes typical farming equipment, tractors, loaders and attachments.
Semi-Tractor Livestock Trucks 8-10/wk
Semi-Tractor Commodity Truck 10/wk
Commodity Farm Trucks 5/wk
Hay Trucks, Semi-Tractors daily during hay season
Silage—daily during silage cutting season
Rendering Truck—when needed.
g. Who will provide fire protection to the site?
Galeton Fire District
h. What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation)
A domestic well services the house and public water issued by North Weld County Water District services the
feedlot.
What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed).
Existing septic system.
j. If storage or warehousing is proposed,what type of items will be stored?
Storage and warehousing are not proposed as the primary use of this site. Feedstuffs, livestock bedding,
manure, equipment parts and supplies typical of farming activities are stored on site.
6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping shall be separately submitted as a
landscape plan map as part of the application submittal.
No additional landscaping is currently planned except as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan.
7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs.
Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable regulations such as the Colorado Confined Animal
Feeding Control Regulations to manage solid manure and stormwater runoff until all relative material is
adequately removed. Should the facility be permanently discontinued for use as a feedlot, it would be marketed
under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its greatest and best use.
8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site.
Storm water drainage is handled by an existing retention pond and one(1) new retention pond,which will be
maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water
from these ponds is used to irrigate farm ground. Specific details regarding storm water management are
outlined in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan.
9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to
begin.
The additional construction proposed are several corral areas and a new retention pond to the south of the
existing facilities. Construction of the new corrals is anticipated to begin in 2000 and completed as finances
allow.
10. Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site.
Most of the manure produced at the facility is land applied to crops immediately after being removed from pen
surfaces. Storm water and process wastewater will be stored in wastewater retention structures designed to
meet State CAFO regulations. No hazardous material storage is proposed for this site. Stormwater and
wastewater will be periodically land applied at agronomic rates. Details of the manure management system are
outlined in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan. Debris and refuse are collected and removed by BFI
trash service.
Management Plan
For
Nuisance Control
A Supplement to the
Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan
For
JF Cattle
23016 WCR 74
Eaton, Colorado 80651
Developed in accordance with
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared By
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
6508 WCR 5
Erie, Colorado 80516
JF Cattle
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Introduction
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented
to identify methods JF Cattle will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in
confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices generally
acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance
management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically
outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This plan is
a proactive measure to assist integration into local communities as required by Weld County
Zoning Ordinance, Section 47—Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. These management
and control practices, to their best and practical extent, will be used by JF Cattle.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
John Johnson
JF Cattle
23016 WCR 74
Eaton„ CO 80651
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below.
John Johnson Owner
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at:
Part of the S2 NE4/S2 NW4 & Part of L2-3&4 of Section 1, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
2
JF Cattle
AgPro Environmental Services,LLC
Air Quality
Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is affected primarily by the
relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at
dairies are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not
inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two
paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that JF
Cattle will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a
balance between proper dust and odor control. Additional reference information on odor and
dust control is attached in section"References"as guidance to the feedyard manager.
Dust
Intensive management of the pen surface usually controls dust from pen surfaces by routine
cleaning of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface management is twofold; to keep
pens dry and to reduce pest habitat. The best management systems for dust control involve
moisture management. Management methods JF Cattle shall use to control dust are:
1. Pen density
Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animal's wet
manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates in
new portions of the facility will be managed to minimize dust.
2. Regular manure removal
JF Cattle will continue to conduct regular manure removal. Typically manure removal
and pen maintenance will be conducted several times per year as necessary.
3. Sprinkler systems
Sprinkler systems, timed appropriately, are an effective method for keeping pen surfaces
moist. JF Cattle is not planning a sprinkler dust control system for this facility.
4. Water Trucks
Should nuisance dust conditions arise; water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems
may be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust
conditions.
3
JF Cattle
AgPro Environmental Services,LLC
Odor
Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is
excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms living
everywhere in soil, water and the manure. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the
conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not
dangerous to health in the quantities customarily detected around animal feeding operations and
fields where manure is spread for fertilizer.
JF Cattle will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor control:
1. Establish good pen drainage
Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. JF Cattle will conduct routine pen
cleaning to reduce standing water and remove wet manure.
2. Regular manure removal
Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The feedlot will conduct routine
pen cleaning several times per year as necessary.
3. Reduce standing water
Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper
pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the feedlot to reduce standing
water.
The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and
Wastewater Management Plan for JF Cattle. No chemical additives or treatments of the
stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor
efficancy, if any, of these products.
4. Land application timing
Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. JF Cattle will consider
weather conditions and prevailing wing direction to minimize odors from land
application.
If Weld County Health Department determines nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, JF
Cattle may increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously outline
such as pen cleaning, surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance conditions
continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, JF Cattle will install
physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize
nuisance conditions from dust and odors.
4
JF Cattle
AgPro Environmental Services,LLC
Pest Control
Insects and Rodents
Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to excellent food supply and 2) foster
habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices JF Cattle will use to manage insects and
rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then reduce the available food supply.
JF Cattle will control flies by:
1. Regular manure removal
Manure management removes both food sources and habitat
2. Reduce standing water
Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects
3. Minimize fly habitat
Standing water, weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for
reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical.
4. Weeds and grass management
Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding
areas.
5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to
a minimum.
6. Biological treatments
Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay
their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction.
7. Baits and chemical treatments
Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of
defense for insect control. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. However,
they are very effective.
Rodent control at JF Cattle is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the
operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and
maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective
control methods and will be used as necessary.
In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pest such as
flies and rodents persist, JF Cattle will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and
management practices outlines previously. If further action is necessary, JF Cattle will increase
5
JF Cattle
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays and baits and Rodendicide for pest
control.
References
These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and JF Cattle for
making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most
modern management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the
livestock feeding industry.
6
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 6508 Weld Count!,Rd 5, F ou CO 40m16
'r_ ...1 _ ...
23016 Weld County Rd 74
Eaton, CO 80615
. . . . . . . . .
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
Prepared by:
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
July 6, 2000
Your "Pro-Ag"Environmental Professionals
JF Cattle
07.06.2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
OBJECTIVE 3
MANAGEMENT 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3
FACILITY DESCRIPTION 3
Figure 1- Topographical Map 4
Figure 2 - Site Map (Current Conditions) 5
Figure 3 - Site Map (Proposed Conditions) 6
ANIMAL OUTPUTS 7
ANIMAL UNITS 7
ANIMAL OUTPUTS 7
SOLID MANURE COLLECTION 7
STORM WATER COLLECTION 8
25 year, 24-hour Storm 8
Ground Water Protection 8
PROCESS WASTEWATER 8
LAND APPLICATION 8
BENEFICIAL USE OF MANURE AND/OR STORM WATER 8
EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF LAND APPLICATION SITES 9
LAND APPLICATION OF PROCESS WASTE WATER 9
AGRONOMIC DETERMINATION 10
RECORD KEEPING 11
LIMITATIONS 11
APPENDIX A 12
APPENDIX B 13
APPENDIX C 14
APPENDIX D 15
APPENDIX E 16
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPna Environmental Services, LLC
Management Plan 2
JF Cattle
07.06.2000
Introduction
Objective
This Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan has been developed to comply with Colorado's
Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, 5 CCR 1002-81. It is designed to
prevent discharge of manure or process wastewater to waters of the state. Should this plan be
ineffective in preventing discharges, or if operational changes occur that will affect potential
discharges, this plan shall be modified to reflect appropriate changes to ensure discharge
potential is minimized. JF Cattle will keep records associated with this plan for a minimum of
three years.
Management
JF Cattle is a family operation, owned and operated by John Johnson. Contacts should be made
to:
John Johnson
JF Cattle
23016 Weld County Rd 74
Eaton, CO 80615
(970) 454-1043
Legal Description
JF Cattle is located in the Northwest '/ of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th
Principle Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. A U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute map of the
site is Figure 1 on page 4.
Facility Description
JF Cattle is located on approximately 136 acres of land east of Eaton, Colorado. It is on the
southeast corner of the intersection of WCR 74 and 47. Feedlot construction is typical for
Colorado feedlots; concrete feed bunk lines, cattle movement alleys, feed storage facilities and
other ancillary facilities. JF Cattle currently feeds approximately 2,500 head of dairy heifers.
Irrigated farm ground surrounds the facility. A site map of current conditions is Figure 2 on
page 5.
JF Cattle plans to expand the feedlot by adding pens to the south. JF Cattle expects the final
maximum cattle on site to be 11,240 head. With horses, the grand total will be 11,260 animals.
A site map of proposed conditions is Figure 3 on page 6.
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Management Plan 3
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
Animal Outputs
Animal Units
Tables I and 2 below outline the feedlot animals for current and proposed conditions on site with
the appropriate animal unit equivalency.
Table 1 -Animal Units—Current Conditions
ANIMAL TYPE TYPICAL WT. NO. OF HEAD EQUIVALENCY ANIMAL
(LBS.) FACTOR UNITS
Springer Heifers 1,000 250 1.0 250
Heifers 750 600 1.0 600
Young Heifers 500 825 0.5 413
Calves 200 825 0.5 413
Totals 2,500 1,676
Table 2-Animal Units—Proposed Conditions
ANIMAL TYPE TYPICAL WT. NO. OF READ EQUIVALENCY ANIMAL
(LBS.) FACTOR UNITS
Springer Heifers 1,000 2,810 1.0 2,810
Heifers 750 2,810 1.0 2,810
Young Heifers 500 2,810 0.5 1,405
Calves 200 2,810 0.5 1,405
Totals 11,240 8,430
Animal Outputs
Total animal outputs for JF Cattle were calculated based on the total animal units for 'Proposed
Conditions'and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Waste Management
Handbook. Total annual manure production "as excreted" is approximately 87,570 tons at
approximately 88% moisture. Manure quantity "as hauled"assuming 46% moisture equals
19,460 tons. A manure production table is located in Appendix A.
Solid Manure Collection
JF Cattle cleans corrals annually and stockpiles manure on site (see Figure 3 — Site Map
(Proposed Conditions)). Solid manure and is taken off site by others for utilization on their
farms. JF Cattle will keep records of how much manure is taken off site.
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 7
Management Plan
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
Storm water Collection
JF Cattle protects surface water by containing storm water and process wastewater on the
facility. One pond currently exists, and as the feedlot is expanded, additional stormwater
collection and storage facilities will be constructed as shown in Figure 3 — Site Map (Proposed
Conditions). Stormwater and containment structures are not located within a mapped 100-year
floodplain. A 100-year floodplain map is located in Appendix B.
25 year, 24-hour Storm
The 25-year, 24-hour storm event for JF Cattle is 3.0 inches. This event produces 1.98 inches of
runoff for a total of 4.0 acre-feet of stormwater for the current layout. After the feedlot is
expanded the drainage area will be 57 acres and the total runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm
will be 9.4 acre-feet. The amount of rain falling directly on the ponds will be 1.0 acre-feet,
making the total required storage capacity, after expansion, 10.4 acre-feet. JF Cattle will have
15.2 acre-feet of storage capacity when the additional pond is complete. 25-year, 24-hour storm
event and pond volume calculations are in Appendix A.
Ground Water Protection
The stormwater containment ponds are designed to only contain stormwater. The current pond
meets the state's requirement for seepage for stormwater ponds of% inch per day. The new
pond will also be lined with low permeability material to meet the state CAFO standard for
seepage of/ inch per day. The quality of material used and the placement will be supervised
and certified by a Colorado registered professional engineer.
Process Wastewater
JF Cattle does not produce process wastewater. JF Cattle utilizes heated tanks to provide
drinking water. Therefore, flow-through water is not needed.
Land Application
Beneficial Use of Manure and/or Storm water
Livestock manure and effluents are rich in plant available nutrients which can be valuable assets
to crop producers. However, they can also be a source of both groundwater and surface water
contamination if handled improperly. Livestock manure contains significant quantities of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, and smaller amounts of nutrients such as calcium,
Manganese, Magnesium, Zinc, Copper and Sulfur. Manure that is properly applied to cropland
increases soil fertility, improves soil physical properties, and saves fertilizer costs. Liquid
effluents are composed primarily of water and have less impact on soil physical properties, but
they also contain nutrients and other constituents that must be managed properly.
The primary constituents of animal waste that may cause water quality problems include
pathogenic organisms, nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus, salts, heavy metals and organic solids.
Nitrate (NO3) is the most common ground water pollutant from fields that receive excessive rates
of manure. Sound management practices such as this Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plan are essential to maximize the agronomic and economic benefits of manure while reducing
the risk of adverse environmental consequences.
Manure & Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 8
Management Plan
JF Cattle
07.06.2000
Evaluation and Treatment of Land Application Sites
Land application site for JF Cattle consists of approximately 80 acres immediately adjacent and
to the south of the feedlot. The field slopes southeast from 1-2%. Soil types in the land
application area consist primarily of Otero sandy loam with a small amount of Shingle loam. A
NRCS Soil Survey map with soil descriptions is located in Appendix C. Tail water facilities will
be utilized along the irrigation ditch on the east side of the field whenever stormwater is applied.
Land Application of Process Wastewater
The existing and proposed ponds are designed to take advantage of the area's high evaporation
rate and therefore, minimize land application requirements. Two tables were generated to
estimate the amount of stormwater necessary to pump in order to keep the ponds at a level that
allows capacity for a 25-year, 24-hour storm. These tables are located in Appendix A. The
tables account for the following:
• Average precipitation data for Nunn, CO
• Average lake evaporation for Greeley, CO
• Constant evaporation area with the ponds approximately one-half full
• Monthly pumping amounts to keep the ponds at a manageable level
The tables show that for current conditions and average weather conditions, 2.2 acre-feet of
stormwater pumping are required annually. After expansion and during average weather
conditions, 3.0 acre-feet of stormwater pumping are required annually. The acreage available for
land application is adjacent to the facility and easily accessible. JF Cattle will utilize "Tier Two"
criteria from the state CAFO regulations for applying stormwater.
Table 3 below is generated to estimate the land required to assimilate the nitrogen from 3.0 acre-
feet of storm water/process wastewater. The table utilizes values from CSU's Bulletin No.
568A, Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization. Table 3 shows that JF Cattle requires
approximately 17 acres of corn to assimilate the nitrogen from 3.0 acre-feet of stormwater.
Table 3- Land Requirements for Average Years' Process Wastewater Application
Maximum pumping requirement( 3.0 A.F.), gallons 977,486
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 3,910 'Total-N= 4 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 1,955 'NH3-N=
Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 2 lbs/1,000 gal
q 1,955 Organic-N= 2 lbs/1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs. 1,466
Organic-Nitrogen available 1st year, lbs. 1,075 25% Equilibrium Flooi Irrigation mineralization i loss
Nitrogen available to plants(PAN) 1st r., lbs. 55% rate Pororganio-N
2,541
Soil Organic Matter, % 1 5
Residual NO3 in soil, ppm 5 Corn Corn Silage
Expected Yield(grain, Bu/acre; silage,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension
N req. w/listed O.M. & residual soil N, lb./acre 168 151 Bulletin#538
Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation 15.1 16.9
'Taken from Table 4 of CSU's Bulletin No. 568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
Calculations were also made to estimate the land required to assimilate nutrients contained in a
•
25-year, 24-hour storm event. Table 4 below is utilized to estimate the land required to
assimilate the nitrogen contained in stormwater from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The table utilizes
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Management Plan 9
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
values from CSU's Bulletin No. 568A, Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization.
Table 4 shows that JF Cattle requires approximately 51 acres of corn to assimilate the nitrogen
contained in stormwater from a 25-year, 24-hour storm.
Note that both Table 3 and 4 utilize an "Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N" of 55
percent. This takes into account the accumulation of organic nitrogen over three years.
Table 4-Land Requirements for 25-year,24-hour Storm
Maximum pumping requirement( 10.4 A.F.), gallons 3,390,249
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 13,561 *Total-N= 4 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 6,780 *NH3-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal
Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 6,780 Organic-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs. 5,085 25% Flood Irrigation loss
Organic-Nitrogen available 1st year, lbs. 3,729 55% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N
Nitrogen available to plants(PAN) 1st yr., lbs. 8,815
Soil Organic Matter, % 1.5
Residual NO3 in soil, ppm 5 Corn Corn Silage
Expected Yield(grain, Bu/acre; silage, tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension
N req. w/listed O.M. &residual soil N, lb./acre 168 151 Bulletin#538
Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation 52.4 58.5
*Taken from Table 4 of CSU's Bulletin No. 568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
Agronomic Determination
Agronomic rate is the rate at which plants will utilize nutrients while limiting the amount of
nutrients that are lost via percolation through the soil or runoff. JF Cattle will perform
agronomic calculations for each field before process wastewater is applied. Agronomic
calculations take into account:
• Crop to be grown
• Realistic yield goal
• Total nitrogen required to meet yield goal
• Residual soil nitrate
• Soil organic matter
• Nitrogen content in irrigation water
• Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop; and
• Plant available nitrogen (PAN) in the process wastewater
Forms for performing agronomic calculations are in Appendix D. One agronomic calculation
sheet should be used for each field on which process wastewater is to be applied. In addition,
reference material from Colorado State Cooperative Extension is included in Appendix E. This
reference material is to assist JF Cattle making decisions pertaining to application of process
wastewater.
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 10
Management Plan
JF Cattle
07.06.2000
Record Keeping
JF Cattle will keep records per Table 5 (forms are in Appendix D):
Table 5- Record Keeping Forms
ITEM FORM USED FREQUENCY OF RECORDING
Rainfall Precipitation Log Each event,or more frequently during intense or long-lasting storms
Manure Removal Manure/Compost Daily during removal
Removal Log
Land Application Process Wastewater Several times per day during application of process wastewater
of Process Application Log
Wastewater
Pond Inspection Retention Basin Monthly
Inspection Form
Limitations
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC has no control over the services or information furnished
by others. This Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan was prepared, based on, and
developed in accordance with, generally accepted environmental consulting practices. This plan
was prepared for the exclusive use of JF Cattle and specific application to the subject property.
The opinions provided herein are made based on AgPro Environmental Services' experience and
qualifications, and represent AgPro Environmental Services' best judgment as experienced and
qualified professionals familiar with the agriculture industry. AgPro Environmental Services,
LLC makes no warranty, expressed or implied.
Manure & Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 11
Management Plan
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
APPENDIX A
• Pond Volume and 25-year, 24-hour storm calculations
• Manure Production Table
• Water Balance Calculation Table (Current Conditions)
• Water Balance Calculation Table (Proposed Conditions)
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 12
Management Plan
JF Cattle
25-year, 24-hour Storm Event
and Pond Capacity Calculations
25-year, 24-hour event
Current Expanded
Applicable Storm Event for Location,inches Feedlot Area Feedlot Area
SCS Runoff Curve Number 3.00 3.00
90 90
(90 for unsurfaced lots)
(97 for surfaced lots)
Surface Area of Drainage Basins,acres 24
57
(Separate different drainage areas)
(Include pens, alleys,mill areas, working areas. etc)
Inches of Runoff using SCS Runoff Curve Factor
.4
Minimum Retention Capacity Required, Acre-Ft. 1.98 1.94
4.0 9.4
Cubic-Ft. 172,498 409,682
Surface Area of Retention Structures,Acres
Additional Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 1.4 4.1
0.4 1.0
Additional Volume Required,ft3 15,772 44,730
Total Retention Structure Volume Required, Acre-Ft.
Total Retention Structure Volume Required, ft3 4.3 1 188,270 454,411
4.6 1 15.2
Total Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 5.2
Lagoon
Capacities Main Pond(Existing) Proposed Additional Pond
Surface Area @ Incremental Surface Area Incremental
Depth (ft) depth (ft2) Volume(ft3) @ depth (ft2) Volume(ft3)
0 17,635 54,755
1 22,707 20,171 61,850 58,303
2 27,953 25,330 69,100 65,475
3 33,374 30,664 76,504 72,802
4 38,968 36,171 84,060 80,282
5 44,737 41,853 91,773 87,917
6 50,680 47,709 99,638 95,706
7 56,797 53,739 107,658 103,648
8 63,088 59,943 115,830 111,744
9
10
Total Volume,fe 315,578 675,876
Total Volume,A.F. 7.24 15.52
Vol.w/2'Freeboard,ita 201,897 460,484
Vol.w/2'Freeboard,A.F. 4.63 10.6
JF Cattle
Manure Production and Associated Nutrients
MRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium
Animal Type Number of Hid Wt./hd.lbs. Total Wt.,lbs. (%) (lbs./d/1000#) (R°/d/1000# (Ibs. tl/ (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./tl/
1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#)
Heifers 2,810 1,200 3,372,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 6.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24
Heifers 2,810 1,000 2,810,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 6.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24
Heifers 2,810 500 1,405,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20
Calves 2,810 200 562,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20
Totals 11,240 8,149,000
Total Daily Production 479,836 7,702 56,745 49,948 2,507 877 1,877
Total Annual Production 175,139,994 2,811,307 20,711,976 18,230,929 914,880 320,003 685,134
Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 87,570
Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 19,460
JF Cattle
Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(Current Conditions) init.Volume
•
Process Water Generated,GPO= - Pond Surface Area,ftl= 63,088 Evaporation Area,ft2= 33,374 0
Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H20 Net Change Amt.Pumped Vol. In Lagoon Annual Pumped
Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)'*' (Acres``, (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft.)
Jan 0.36 5.0% 25 0.08 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.01) (0.01)
Feb 0.26 5.0% 25 0,06 1,58 0.77 0.10 - (0.04)
Mar 0.91 5,0% 25 0.20 2.48 0.77 0.16 - 0.05 0.05
Apr 1.30 8.0% 25 0.37 4.05 0.77 0.26 - 0.11 0.16
May 2.35 17.0% 25 1.12 5.40 0.77 0.34 - 0.77 0.6 0.33
Jun 2.11 16.0% 25 0.96 6.53 0.77 0.42 - 0.54 0.6 0.27 2.00
Jul 1.93 15.0% 25 0.84 6.75 0.77 0.43 - 0.41 0.4 0.28
Aug 1.39 12.0% 25 0.52 6.08 0.77 0.39 - 0.13 0.1 0.31
Sep 1.05 15.0% 25 0.45 4.50 0.77 0.29 - 0.17 0.2 0.27
Oct 0.85 11.0% 25 0.30 3.15 0.77 0.20 - 0.10 0.1 0.27
Nov 0.56 5.0% 25 0.13 1.80 0.77 0.11 - 0.01 0.28
Dec 0.22 5.0% 25 0.05 1.35 0.77 0,09 - (0.04) 0.24
Jan 0.36 5.0% 25 0.08 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.01) 0.24
Feb 0.26 5.0% 25 0.06 1.58 0.77 0.10 - (0.04) 0.20
Mar 0.91 5.0% 25 0.20 2.48 0.77 0.16 - 0.05 0,24
Apr 1.30 8.0% 25 0.37 4.05 0.77 0,26 - 0.11 0.1 0.26
May 2.35 17.0% 25 1.12 5.40 0.77 0.34 - 0.77 0.7 0.33
Jun 2.11 16.0% 25 0.96 6.53 0.77 0.42 - 0.54 0.6 0.27 2.20
Jul 1.93 15.0% 25 0.84 6.75 0.77 0,43 - 0.41 0.4 0.27
Aug 1.39 12.0% 25 0.52 6.08 0.77 0.39 - 0.13 0.1 0,30
Sep 1.05 15.0% 25 0.45 4.50 0.77 0.29 - 0.17 0.2 0.27
Oct 0.85 11.0% 25 0.30 3.15 0.77 0.20 - 0.10 0.1 0.27
Nov 0.56 5.0% 25 0.13 1.80 0.77 0.11 - 0.01 0.28
Dec 0.22 5.0% 25 0.05 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.04) 0.24
Jan 0.36 5.0% 25 0.08 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.01) 0 0.23
Feb 0.26 5.0% 25 0.06 1.58 0.77 0.10 - (0.04) 0 0.19
Mar 0.91 5.0% 25 0.20 2.48 0.77 0.16 - 0.05 0 0,24
Apr 1.30 8.0% 25 0.37 4.05 0.77 0.26 - 0.11 0.1 0.25
/lay 2.35 17.0% 25 1.12 5.40 0.77 0.34 - 0.77 0,7 0.32
Jun 2.11 16.0% 25 0.96 6.53 0.77 0.42 - 0.54 0.6 0.27 2.20
Jul 1.93 15.0% 25 0.84 6.75 0.77 0.43 - 0.41 0.4 0.27
Aug 1.39 12.0% 25 0.52 6.08 0.77 0.39 - 0.13 0.1 0.30
Sep 1.05 15.0% 25 0.45 4.50 0.77 0.29 - 0.17 0.2 0.27
Oct 0.85 11.0% 25 0.30 3.15 0.77 0.20 - 0.10 0.1 0.26
Nov 0.56 5,0% 25 0.13 1.80 0.77 0.11 - 0.01 0 0,27
Dec 0.22 5.0% 25 0.05 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.04) 0 0.24
Jan 0.36 5.0% 25 0.08 1.35 0,77 0.09 - (0.01) 0 0,23
Feb 0.26 5.0% 25 0.06 1.58 0.77 0.10 - (0.04) 0 0.19
Mar 0.91 5.0% 25 0.20 2.48 0.77 0.16 - 0.05 0 0.23
Apr 1.30 8.0% 25 0.37 4.05 0.77 0.26 - 0.11 0.1 0.25
May 2.35 17.0% 25 1.12 5.40 0.77 0.34 - 0.77 0.7 0.32
Jun 2.11 16.0% 25 0.96 6.53 0.77 0.42 - 0.54 0.6 0.26 2.20
Jul 1.93 15.0% 25 0.84 6.75 0.77 0,43 - 0.41 0.4 0.27
Aug 1.39 12.0% 25 0.52 6.08 0.77 0.39 - 0.13 0.1 0.29
Sep 1.05 15.0% 25 0.45 4.50 0.77 0.29 - 0.17 0.2 0.26
Oct 0.85 11.0% 25 0.30 3.15 017 0.20 - 0.10 0.1 0.26
Nov 0.56 5.0% 25 0.13 1.80 0.77 0.11 - 0.01 0 0.27
Dec 0.22 5.0% 25 0.05 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.04) 0 0.23
Jan 0.36 5.0% 25 0.08 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.01) 0 0.23
Feb 0.26 5.0% 25 0.06 1.58 0.77 0.10 - (0.04) 0 0.18
Mar 0.91 5.0% 25 0.20 2.48 0.77 0.16 - 0.05 0 0.23
Apr 1.30 8,0% 25 0.37 4.05 0.77 0.26 - 0.11 0.1 0.25
May 2.35 17.0% 25 1.12 5.40 0.77 0,34 - 0.77 0,7 0.32
Jun 2.11 16.0% 25 0.96 6.53 0.77 0.42 - 0.54 0.6 0.26 2,20
Jul 1.93 15.0% 25 0.84 6.75 0.77 0.43 - 0.41 0.4 0.26
Aug 1.39 12.0% 25 0.52 6.08 0.77 0.39 - 0.13 0.1 0.29
Sep 1.05 15.0% 25 0.45 4.50 0.77 0.29 - 0.17 0.2 0,26
':t 0.85 11.0% 25 a30 3.15 0,77 a20 - 0,10 0.1 0,25
iv 0.56 5.0% 25 0.13 1.80 0.77 0.11 - 0.01 0 0.26
Dec 0.22 5.0% 25 0.05 1.35 0.77 0.09 - (0.04) 0 0.23
Maximum Volume Pumped= 2.2 Average Volume En Pond= 0.25 Maximum Volume in Pond= 0.33
•Precipitaion for Nunn,CO **SOS.National Engineenng Handbook 'nEvaporation for Greeley,CO,NRCS
JF Cattle
Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(Proposed Conditions) Init.Volume
Process Water Generated,GPO= - Pond Surface Area,ft 2= 178,918 Evaporation Area,ft2= 109,878 0
Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H20 Net Change Amt.Pumped Vol.In Lagoon Annual Pumped
Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-FL) _(Acre-Ft.) _ (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft.)
Jan 0.36 5.0% 57 0.21 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.08) (0.08)
Feb 0.26 5.0% 57 0.15 1.58 2.52 0.33 - (0.18)
Mar 0.91 5.0% 57 0.53 2.48 2.52 0.52 - 0.01 0.01
Apr 1.30 8.0% 57 0.94 4.05 2.52 0.85 - 0.09 0.09
May 2.35 17.0% 57 2.70 5.40 2.52 1.14 - 1.57 1.66
Jun 2.11 16.0% 57 2.33 6.53 2.52 1.37 - 0.95 2.61
Jul 1.93 15.0% 57 2.04 6.75 2.52 1.42 - 0.62 3.23
Aug 1.39 12.0% 57 1.27 6.08 2.52 1.28 - (0.01) 3.22
Sep 1.05 15.0% 57 1.11 4.50 2.52 0.95 - 0.16 3.38
Oct 0.85 11.0% 57 0.74 3.15 2.52 0.66 - 0.07 3.46
Nov 0.56 5.0% 57 0.32 1.80 2.52 0.38 - (0.05) 3.40
Dec 0.22 5.0% 57 0.13 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.16) 3.25
Jan 0.36 5.0% 57 0.21 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.08) 317
Feb 0.26 5.0% 57 0.15 1.58 2.52 0.33 - (0.18) 2.99
Mar 0.91 5.0% 57 0.53 2.48 2.52 0.52 - 0.01 3.00
Apr 1.30 8.0% 57 0.94 4.05 2.52 0.85 - 0.09 3.08
May 2.35 17.0% 57 2.70 5.40 2.52 1.14 - 1.57 4.65
Jun 2.11 16.0% 57 2.33 6.53 2.52 1.37 - 0.95 0.8 4.80 1.70
Jul 1.93 15.0% 57 2.04 6.75 2.52 1.42 - 0.62 0.6 4.82
Aug 1.39 12.0% 57 1.27 6.08 2.52 1.28 - (0.01) 4.81
Sep 1.05 15.0% 57 1.11 4.50 2.52 0.95 - 0.16 0.3 4.67
Oct 0.85 11.0% 57 0.74 3.15 2.52 0.66 - 0.07 474
Nov 0.56 5.0% 57 0.32 1.80 2.52 0.38 - (0.05) 4.69
Dec 0.22 5.0% 57 0.13 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.16) 4.53
Jan 0.36 5.0% 57 0.21 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.08) 0 4.46
Feb 0.26 5.0% 57 0.15 1.58 2.52 0.33 - (0.18) 0 4.28
Mar 0.91 5.0% 57 0.53 2.48 2.52 0.52 - 0.01 0 4.28
Apr 1.30 8.0% 57 0.94 4.05 2.52 0.85 - 0.09 0 4.37
'ay 2.35 17.0% 57 2.70 5.40 2.52 1.14 - 1.57 1.2 4.74
...in 2.11 16.0% 57 2.33 6.53 2.52 1.37 - 0.95 0.9 4.79 3.00
Jul 1.93 15.0% 57 2.04 6.75 2.52 1.42 - 0.62 0.6 4.81
Aug 1.39 12.0% 57 1.27 6.08 2.52 1.28 - (0.01) 0 4.80
Sep 1.05 15.0% 57 1.11 4.50 2.52 0.95 - 0.16 0.3 4.66
Oct 0.85 11.0% 57 0.74 3.15 2.52 0.66 - 0.07 0 4.73
Nov 0.56 5.0% 57 0.32 1.80 2.52 0.38 - (0.05) 0 4.68
Dec 0.22 5.0% 57 0.13 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.16) 0 4.52
Jan 0.36 5.0% 57 0.21 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.08) 0 4.45
Feb 0.26 5.0% 57 0.15 1.58 2.52 0.33 - (0.18) 0 4.27
Mar 0.91 5.0% 57 0.53 2.48 2.52 0.52 - 0.01 0 4.27
Apr 1.30 8.0% 57 0.94 4.05 2.52 0.85 - 0.09 0 4.36
May 2.35 17.0% 57 2.70 5.40 2.52 1.14 - 1.57 1.2 4.73
Jun 2.11 16.0% 57 2.33 6.53 2.52 1.37 - 0.95 0.9 4.78 3.00
Jul 1.93 15.0% 57 2.04 6.75 2.52 1.42 - 0.62 0.6 480
Aug 1.39 12.0% 57 1.27 6.08 2.52 1.28 - (0.01) 0 4.79
Sep 1.05 15.0% 57 1.11 4.50 2.52 0.95 - 0.16 0.3 4.65
Oct 0.85 11.0% 57 0.74 3.15 2.52 0.66 - 0.07 0 4.72
Nov 0.56 5.0% 57 0.32 1.80 2.52 0.38 - (0.05) 0 4.67
Dec 0.22 5.0% 57 0.13 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.16) 0 4.51
Jan 0.36 5.0% 57 0.21 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.08) 0 4.44
Feb 0.26 5.0% 57 0.15 1.58 2.52 0.33 - (0.18) 0 4.26
Mar 0.91 5.0% 57 0.53 2.48 2.52 0.52 - 0.01 0 4.26
Apr 1.30 8.0% 57 0.94 4.05 2.52 0.85 - 0.09 0 4.35
May 2.35 17.0% 57 2.70 5.40 2.52 1.14 - 1.57 1.2 4.72
Jun 2.11 16.0% 57 2.33 6.53 2.52 1.37 - 0.95 0.9 4.77 3.00
Jul 1.93 15.0% 57 2.04 6.75 2.52 1.42 - 0.62 0.6 4.79
Aug 1.39 12.0% 57 1.27 6.08 2.52 1.28 - (0.01) 0 4.78
$ep 1.05 15.0% 57 1.11 4.50 2.52 0.95 - 0.16 0.3 4.64
0.85 11.0% 57 0.74 3.15 2.52 0.66 - 0.07 0 4.71
...,v 0.56 5.0% 57 0.32 1.80 2.52 0.38 - (0.05) 0 4.66
Dec 0.22 5.0% 57 0.13 1.35 2.52 0.28 - (0.16) 0 4.50
Maximum Volume Pumped= 3.0 Average Volume in Pond= 3.99 Maximum Volume in Pond= 4.82
'Precipitaion for Nunn,CO "8CS,National Engineering Handbook ***Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NRCS
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
APPENDIX D
• Agronomic Determination Sheets
• Precipitation Log
• Solid Manure Removal Log
• Stormwater Application Log
• Retention Basin Inspection Report
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 15
Management Plan
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jun-00
Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Process Wastewater Application
Reference material needed:Soil test data,process wastewater test data and CSU Bulletin Na 568,1
1. Field Information:
Crop Crop year Number of Acres
Soil name/texture Previous crop
2. Nitrogen Need:
N (lb./acre)
a) Expected yield (avg. of last 5 yrs. +5%) (bu/acre,ton/acre,etc.)
b)Nitrogen recommendations from Tables 7a-7e in CSU Bulletin No.568A
(or use one of the following formulas for corn or corn silage)
Corn:N-rate =35 +[1.2 x yield goal(Oa/acre)]-[8 x ppm soil NO3-NJ-[0.14 x yield goal x%O.MJ.
Corn Silage:N-rate =35 +[7.5 x yield goal(tons/acre)]-[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[0.85 x yield goal x 0/12/vl.J
c) Special nitrogen need above recommendations
d) Total nitrogen need
3. Nitrogen Credits:
N (lb./acre)
a) Residual soil nitrate credit* (3.6 lb. N per ppm NO3-N (1 ft. sample))
b) Irrigation water credit(2.7 lb. N pr acre-foot x ppm NO3-N)
c) Organic matter credit* (30 lbs. N per% O.M.)
d) Previous legume crop(see Table 11 in CSU Bulletin No. 568A)
e) Other:
f) Total nitrogen credit
*If not included in 2b above. Do not use N credits twice, i.e. from Tables 7a-7e and here.
4. Recommended Nitrogen Application Rate:
Nitrogen
a) Total nitrogen need minus Total nitrogen credit(lb./acre)
b) Expected Ammonium-N volatilization n/a
c)NH4-N available from process water lb./1000 gal
d) Expected mineralization rate for Organic-N
e) Organic-N available from process water lb./1000 gal
f) Total available N (/-c x (J-b)] + [dx e)) lb./1000 gal
g) Recommended manure application rate (a -fJ 1000 gal/acre
5. Post-Growing Season Follow-Up
Actual crop yield (bu/acre, ton/acre,etc.)Total irrigation water applied inches/acre
or Acre-feet/acre
Supplemental fertilizers applied: lbs. N/acre
Total process water applied 1000 gal/acre
Prepared by: Date:
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Jun-00
Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Solid Manure Application
Reference material needed'Sail test data,manure test data and CSU Bulletin Na 568/4
1. Field Information:
Crop Crop year Number of Acres
Soil name/texture Previous crop
2. Nitrogen Need:
N (Ib./acre)
a) Expected yield (avg.of last 5 yrs.+5%) (bu/acre,ton/acre,etc.)
b)Nitrogen recommendations from Tables 7a-7e in CSU Bulletin No.568A
(or use one of the following formulas for corn or corn silage)
Corn:N-rate =35+ [1.2 x yield goal(btdacre)]-[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[01 a x yield goal x%O.M].
Corn Silage:N-rate =35 -[7.5 x yield goal(tons/acre)]-[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[0.85 x yield goal x%O M]
c) Special nitrogen need above recommendations
d) Total nitrogen need
3. Nitrogen Credits:
N (lb./acre)
a) Residual soil nitrate credit* (3.6 lb. N per ppm NO3-N (1 ft. sample))
b) Irrigation water credit(2.7 lb. N pr acre-foot x ppm NO3-N)
c)Organic matter credit* (30 lbs. N per% O.M.)
d) Previous legume crop (see Table 11 in CSU Bulletin No. 568A)
e) Other:
0 Total nitrogen credit
*If not included in 2b above. Do not use N credits twice, i.e. from Tables 7a-7e and here.
4. Recommended Nitrogen Application Rate:
Nitrogen
a) Total nitrogen need minus Total nitrogen credit(lb./acre)
b) Expected Ammonium-N volatilization oho
c)NH4-N available from solid manure lb./ton
d) Expected mineralization rate for Organic-N Va
e) Organic-N available from solid manure lb./ton
f) Total available N ([c x (1-b}] + [dx e]) lb./ton
g) Recommended manure application rate (a +. ton/acre
5. Post-Growing Season Follow-Up
Actual crop yield (bu/acre,ton/acre,etc.)Total irrigation water applied inches/acre
or Acre-feet/acre
Supplemental fertilizers applied: lbs. N/acre
Total solid manure applied tons/acre
Prepared by: Date:
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Jun-00
PRECIPITATION LOG
(Record precipitation after each event&frequently during events if rainfall is intense or for long duration.)
Facility Name: Year:
Rain Gauge Location:
Date Time Time Elapsed Beg. Reading End Reading Total Rainfall
•
Comments:
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jun-00
MANURE and/or COMPOST REMOVAL LOG
ito track manure and/or compost removed from facility by others)
Facility Name: Year:
Date # Of loads Average tare-weight Total weight Total weight Person
hauled of loads hauled (lbs.) hauled (lbs.) hauled (tons) hauling
Comments:
AgPro Environmental Services, _..C Jun-00
PROCESS WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG
(Record manure application data several times per day when applying process wastewater.)
Facility Name: Year:
Field I.D.: Crop:
Water Changed
GPM reached Initials of
Time Meter Gallons Pressure water
Date Time Elapsed Reading Pumped being @ Pump end of setting? Person
pumped rows. (YM) Pumping
(Y/N)
•
Calculation:
(1) Total Gallons Pumped:
(2) Total Acres in Field:
(3) Gallons per Acre Pumped: [Line 1 =Line 2]
(4) Plant Available Nitrogen in Effluent: lb./1000 gal [Line 4ffrom Agronomic
Rate Determination Sheet- Process Wastewater Application]
(5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre[(Line 4 *Line 3) ;1000]
AgPro Environmental Services, . Jun-00
Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form
(Inspect ponds/lagoons monthly)
Facility Name: Pond Name:
Person Performing Inspection: Date:
Item T Yes /No Follow-Up Date Follow-Up Initials
Needed? Y/N Completed
2 feet freeboard existing?
25-year/24-hour capacity available?
Visible bank erosion?
Visible seepage on sides or base?
Rodent burrows or holes?
Trees, stumps or roots on dike?
Inlet clear and erosion free?
Sludge/Solids accumulation present?
Other:
Other:
Other:
Comments:
AgPro Environmental Services, L.C Jun-00
SOLID MANURE APPLICATION LOG
(Record manure application data every day when applying solid manure.)
Facility Name: Year:
Field I.D.: Crop:
#Of loads Average tare-weight Total pounds Total tons Tons per
Date Initials of
hauled of loads hauled(lbs.) hauled hauled acre applied Person
Applying
Calculation:
(1) Total Tons Applied:
(2) Total Acres in Field:
(3) Tons per Acre Applied: [Line 1 =Line 2]
(4) Plant Available Nitrogen in Solid Manure: lb./ton[Line 4ffrom Agronomic
Rate Determination Sheet—Solid Manure Application]
(5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre [Line 4 *Line 3]
JF Cattle 07.06.2000
APPENDIX E
• Colorado State Cooperative Extension Bulletins
Manure& Process Wastewater AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 16
Management Plan
Best Management Practices
For Manure Utilization
Bulletin 588A
Co��` vado
Universinv
Extension
-. Best Management Practices for
Manure Utilization
Livestock manure and effluents are rich in plant available nutrients which
can oe valuable assets to crop producers. Ho,ever, they also can be a source of
both, ground and surface water contamination f handled improperly. Livestock
manure contains significant quantities of td, E. and K, and smaller amounts of
nutrients such as Ca, Mg, Mn, Zn, Cu, and S. 'inure that is properly applied to
crooLand increases soil fertility, improves sci. Physical properties, and saves
fertilizer costs. Liquid effluents are composes primarily of water and have less This publication is intended to
moat: on soil physical properties, but they aso contain nutrients and other provide general recommendations
constituents that must be managed property. and BMPs to assist in the sound
The primary constituents of animal waste that may cause water quality management of animal waste as
propiems include pathogenic organisms, ni,a_r, ammonia, phosphorous, salts, a nutrient source for crops. These
neavv metals, and organic solids. Nitrate (NO is the most common ground BMPs are necessarily general, as
:hater pollutant from fields that receive excess.:e rates of manure. Grouno water they cover operations utilizing
monitoring has shown that NO, contamination can be a problem in the vicinity manure from a variety of feeding
of confined livestock feeding operations. Runc- from feedlots or manured fields
operations. This aocumenr is not
Can asp degrade the quality of surface water.
In Colorado, state law prohibits any direct discharge of manure or animal intended to establish guidance to
wastewater to either surface or around water. Concentrated swine operations are meet any specific regulatory
__subjected to air and water quality provisions _hat among other things, require program in Colorado governing
n approved nutrient management plan as a component of the operating permit. the application of animal waste
These nutrient management plans are used to Document that confined feeding and is not a substitute for cam-
operations apply wastes at agronomic rates an:c in a manner which does not pliance with local, state or
adversely impact air or water quality. The Colorado Confined Animal Feeding reaerci regulations. Table values
Operations Control Regulation mandates that Producers who confine and feed an for manure cnaractenzarion given
average of 1000 or more "animal units" for a: :east 45 days per year ensure that in roe document are for planning
no water quality impacts occur by collecting arro properly disoosina of animal purposes in lieu of aocumented
manures, as well as stormwater runoff. Smaller feeding operations that directly site specific values.
discharge into state waters or are located in n_.drologically sensitive areas may
also fall under this regulation. Animal feedinc operations are directed to employ
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect state waters.
Nutrient Management Planning
Sound management practices are essentia: to maximize the agronomic and
economic benefits of manure while reducing 're risk of adverse environmental
consequences. Livestock producers do not intentionally put water quality at risk.
The problems that occur are usually a result of inattention due to the need to
focus limited management time on herd health and production. Virtually every
regulatory and voluntary manure management approach now calls for producers
to develop a Nutrient Management Plan. This p.an documents approximately
how much manure is produced and how it will de managed. At the core of these
plans is the concept that manure will be epode: at "agronomic rates" to crop
'ds.
Table 1. Animal unit equivalency factors for Colorado. The agronomic rate is a nut ent application rate
based upon a field-specific estimate of crop needs and
Livestock Type Animal Unit CAFO an accounting of all N and P available to that crop prior
Equivalency Threshold to manure (and/or fertilizer) application. Implicit
Factor Number within the agronomic rate concept is an application
Slaughter and Feed Cattle 1.0 1,000 rate that does not lead to unacceptable nutrient losses.
Horses 1.0 1,000 The agronomic rate is not something that can be
Mature Dairy Cattle 1.4 750 r' directly obtained from a textbook or tables. Rather, it
Swine (>55 lbs.) ; 0.2 5,000 must be evaluated for each farm and field. Knowledge
Sheep 0.2 5,000 x of manure or effluent nutrient content and residual soil
Turkeys 0.02 50,000 nutrients is critical to determining how much can be
Chickens (broiler or layer) 0 01 100,000
��, safely applied so that the agronomic rate is not ex-
For young stock, less than 50% of adult weight, reduucethe above ceeded. While producers were encouraged in the past to
factors by one-half k fertilize for maximum crop yields, now they must also
consider the environmental risk of nutrient losses in
determining how much manure to apply. By knowing
the relationship between manure nutrient content, residual soil nutrients, and
crop needs, wise decisions can be made such as where to spread manure, how
much to spread, and on which nutrient to base the application rate.
Long-range planning is fundamental to optimizing manure benefits while
minimizing environmental concerns. The basic elements of a nutrient manage-
ment plan are:
1. Estimates of manure and waste water production on the farm
2. Farm maps which identify manure stockpiles and lagoons, potential applica-
tion sites and sensitive resource areas
3. Cropping information and rotation sequence
Soil, plant. water, and manure analyses
5. Realistic crop yield expectations
5. Determination of crop nutrient needs
Determination of available nutrient credits
5. Recommended manure rates, timing, and application metnods
9. Plans for operation and maintenance of manure storage and utilization.
Documentation of any manure to be sold, given away, or used for purposes
other than as a soil amendment.
If animal feed rations are modified to reduce nutrient content or volume of
the waste as part of the management strategy, this also should be documented
as part of the waste management plan. Advances have been made in recent
years in feed formulation for reducing N and P excretion without reducing rate
of gain. The "ideal protein concept" is a feeding method for monogastrics in
which crude protein levels are reduced and amino acids are supplemented in
order to reduce N excretion. For reduction of phosphorus excretion, adding
phytase to the diet has been shown to increase P availability to hogs and
chickens. Most of the research on nutritional approaches to reducing manure
nutrient excretion has been done on monogastrics, but research is in progress
on cattle feeding methods for this purpose.
2
Nutrient management plans are no longer just a good idea: they are
essential for documenting proper stewardship and regulatory compliance. This
publication is designed to help producers develop their own nutrient manage-
ment plans in a relatively simple format. However, technical assistance is also
available to producers from their local Certified Crop Adviser (CCA), Cooperative
Extension agent or USDA NRCS conservationist.
Manure Handling and Storage
Livestock feedlots, manure stockpiles, runoff storage ponds, and treatment
lagoons represent potential point sources of ground water contamination.
Research has shown that active feedlots develop a compacted manure/soil Layer,
which acts as a seal to prevent leaching. When cleaning pens, it is very impor-
tant to avoid disturbing this seal. Workers need to be trained to correctly use
manure loading machinery to maintain a manure pack on the surface.
In addition to maintaining the integrity of the "hard pan" under feedlot
pens, it is critical to create and maintain a smooth pen surface that facilitates
proper drainage and runoff collection. Pens should be designed with a 3 percent
to 5 percent slope for optimum drainage. Low spots and rough surfaces should
be filled and smoothed during pen cleaning.
Abandoned feedlots have a Large potential to cause NO. leaching as the
surface seal cracks and deteriorates. For this reason, pens need to be thoroughly
cleaned and scraped down to bare earth prior to abandonment. Revegetation of
the old pens is also important to help absorb excess soil nutrients and prevent
-'rosion.
Manure stockpiles should be located a safe distance away (at least 150 ft.)
from any water supply and above the 100-year flood plain unless flood proofing
measures are provided. Grass filter strips or sediment basins can be used to
reduce solids and nutrients in runoff. For Land with a slope of greater than
1 percent, plant a strip of a dense, sod-forming grass such as smooth brome or
pubescent wheatgrass at least 20 to 50 feet wide around the downhill side of
any feedlot or manure stockpile to filter potential contaminants in runoff water.
More precise filter strip seeding recommendations may be obtained from the
local USDA-NRCS office.
Liquid Effluent and Runoff Collection and Storage
Storm water and wastewater runoff from feedlots can Liquid waste holding structure
contain high concentrations of nutrients, salts, pathogens, and —
oxygen-demanding organic matter. Preventing storm water from
passing across the feedlot surface by installing terraces or diver-
sion channels above the feedlot is a BMP that can significantlyr- %'
reduce the volume of wastewater. Decreasing the active tot area
can also help reduce the contaminants moved by storm water. _
The criteria for waste water treatment lagoons and holding
ponds is stricter than for runoff containment ponds. Runoff •
l d
containment ponds are necessary for large feeding operations to 3
bold excess wastewater until it can be lane applied or evaporated.
se should be constructed on fine-textured soils (such as silty
clays, clay loams, cr clay) with a lining of soil compacted to a
3
inimum thickness of 12 inches witn an additional 18-30 inches of soil cover
above the compacted soil. On coarse textured or sandy soils it may be necessar.
_o import bentonite clay or use synthetic liners or concrete. Seepage is reauirec
to be less than 0.25 inch/day if the pond contains runoff only. However, if the
:and stores process wastewater, the seepage requirement is 0.03 inch/day. Nev.
-aiding facilities must be designed to contain the runoff from a 25-year, 24-
-,our storm event and should be located above the 100-year flood plain and at
.east 150 feet down gradient from any well. Do not site storage ponds or
:-eatment lagoons in areas with a high water table (within 10 ft. of the bottom
cf the pond). The local USDA-NRCS office can provide help with pond or lagoon
cesign.
Manure Treatment
There are numerous options for treating or processing manure such as
composting, solid separation, aeration, anaerobic digestion, and constructed
r.ettands. A growing numoer of producers have become interested in manure
_-eatment systems as a way to reduce volume and odor and enhance the value
and acceptance of manure. Careful evaluation of the economic
{`aFfairr feasibility of a manure treatment system and discussion with a
professional engineer is recommended before implementing a ne..
�,�w� treatment system.
` \\4 Composting is a biological process in which microorganisms
{ t � convert organic materials, such as manure. into a soil-like mate-
, = rial. During composting, some N is lost from the manure as NH.
Lam , _ gas. Most of the remaining N is tied up within stable organic
compounds which will become slowly available to plants after soil
application. Composted manure has less odor and is easier to hau.
and store tnan raw manure oecause the vowme and weight can cs
_ reduced by as much as 50 percent.
'
'mot Solid separation is a viable treatment for wastewater from
Clearing pens milking pariors or hog operations. Settling basins or vibrating
screens are used to remove solids from the wastewater resulting in reduced odor
arc less lagoon loading. This treatment requires an investment in equipment
arc maintenance, but improves the ease of handling the wastewater.
Aeration of wastewater storage ponds increases the oxygen level in waste-
-.rater and reduces odors. Aeration can be achieved through mechanical means
or through gas exchange with the air in large, shallow ponds. The disadvantages
of aeration include high energy costs for mechanical aeration and additional
maintenance expense.
Anaerobic digestion is another treatment option in which manure is
digested to produce energy for farm use or possibly for sale to a local power
company. This treatment can require a large start-up investment and high
maintenance, but significantly reduces manure odors because the treatment
vessel is enaosed to capture gases. Maintenance costs can be offset by the use
of the energy produced by the combustion of the gases.
Constructed wetlands can be a useful manure treatment option because of
Wien nutrient use of wetland plants and the oenitrification process which
=rarsforms nitrate into gaseous nitrogen forms. The disadvantages include
4
construction costs, the need for soli° separation prior to wetland treatment. and
the nee° to manage the wastewater discnargec from the wetland.
Developing a Nutrient Management Plan [NMP[
Worksheets to help develop a nutrient management plan can be found near
the enc of this publication. They are provided as a starting place to help
producers establish sound manure management. Developing a plan is just the
beginning. Implementation of the plan and follow up are required to best
manacle your operation.
NMP Section 1. Nutrient and land inventory
Producers should start by calculating an estimate of total annual manure
production at their operation so
that they can determine how much
cropland is needed for tong term Table 2. Solid manure production by livestock calculated on a wet weight
basis at the time of land application.
application. There are several ways
to develop this information; one Animal Type Manure Production Manure Moisture
methoc is described in the steps
below. Another method is to Content
actuary weigh the manure removed (lb./day/1000 tbs. of animal) (°i at time of spreading)
during :en cleaning. If your lanc Dairy
base is inadequate to safely utilize Lactating Cow 18.5 46
the total nutrients produced, Dry Cow 17.6 46
arrangements should be made to Heifer 16.9 46
iply the manure off-site. Beef
Steps for determining nutrient Feeder, yearling (750-1100 lb.)
inventory from manure production High forage diet 10.1 32
nclud=: High energy diet 8.7 32
1. Determine the average weight 450-750 lb. 11.2 32
anc number of livestock kept Cow 10.7 32
annually at the facility. Veal 2.8 46
2. Determine annual manure Swine
production on a per animal Nursing/nursery pig (0-40 lbs.) 21.6 51
basis. (Tables 2 and 3 give Grower (40-220 lbs.) 12.9 51
estimates on an AU basis.) Replacement gilt 6.7 51
3. Multiply average annual manure Sow (gestating) 5.1 51
production times average Sow (lactating) 12.2 51
number of animals to get total Boar 3.9 51
manure production. Poultry
4. Use manure analysis or Table 4 Layer 25.2 40
to estimate nutrient content of Pullet 19.0 40
manure. Broiler 33.3 40
5. Multiply total manure production Turkey 18.2 40
by nutrient content per unit of Horse 14.1 22
manure to determine annual Sheep 14.5 31
nutrient production. These values are adapted from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook or
represent data from Colorado sampling. Manure production and moisture will vary with animal
age, feed radon, breed and handling.
5
Table 3. Liquid swine manure production on a wet Total au manure c tr ents from the various sources
weight basis.* on your farm to get an estimate of farm total nutrient
production (Worksheet ? is provided at the end of this
document as a tempiate for these records). This figure
Swine Type Manure Production
(gal/day/1000 tbs. of animal) will be compared to estimated crop utilization figures
Nursing/nursery pig (0-40 lbs.) 12.8 on Worksheet 3.
Grower (40-220 lbs.) 7.5 Estimating the vo.ume of liquid swine manure
Replacement gilt 4.0 produced at Large confined feeding facilities is con-
Sow (gestating) 3.3 founded by tne addition of fresh water to the system for
Sow (lactating) 7.2 flushing waste from tne animal housing units. Docu-
Boar 2.5 mented, operation-specific numbers or Table 3 can be
used to estimate the volume of swine manure produc-
t humo=rs do not include wash water or storm water that may
oe added to holding facilities. - tion on a liquid basis. To estimate total liquid waste
water available for land application, add the volume of
fresh water used for fiushing purposes to the calculated
manure volume. This snould give you total wastewater
volume (exciuoina runoff) before any evaoora:on or digestion occurs. Evapora-
tion figures for C iorado are available from iota: USDA-NRCS offices.
Calculation 1. Estimation of total annual nutrient production from a solid manure handling system.
Example la: Beef Feedlot Manure
Example Feedlot has 2500 head on average year-round. The cattle come in weighing 500 lbs. each and leave
weighing 1200 lbs. each. They are fed a grain diet.
Step 1: Calculate average animal weight
(500 + 1200)/2 = 850 lbs./head
Step 2: Obtain table value for manure production (Table 2)
8.7 lb/day/1000 lbs. of animal (feeder, high energy diet)
Step 3: Calculate total annual manure production for operation
Multiply table value by average animal weight divided h.
8.7 lb/day/1000 lbs. of animal x 850 lbs. = 7.' /anima(
Multiply by the number of days on feed/ve--
7.4 lbs. manure/day x 365 days Los. manure/year/animal
Multiply by the number of -,.
2,700 lbs. manure ,:;u head = 6,750,000 lbs. manure/year.
Convert lbs. to ..riding by 2000.
6,750,000 manure /year = 3375 tons manure /year
2000 lbs./ton
Step 4: Obtain manure analysis (Table 4):
23 lb. N /ton
24 lb. P205 /ton
Step 5: Calculate total annual nutrient production:
23 Lb. N /ton x 3375 tons/yr. = 77,625 lb. N/yr.
24 Lb. P205 /ton x 3375 tons/yr. = 81,000 lb. P205/yr
n
0
Calculation lb. Estimation of nutrient production from a liquid manure handling system.
Example lb: Swine Liquid Waste
Example feeding operation has 5000 head on average year-round. The pigs come in weighing 50 tbs. each and leave
weighing 250 lbs. each. They are fed a grain diet.
Step 1: Calculate average animal weight
(50 + 250)/2 = 150 lbs./head
Step 2: Obtain table value for liquid waste production (Table 3)
7.5 gal/day/1000 tbs. of animal
Step 3: Calculate total annual manure production for the operation
Multiply table value by average animal weight divided by 1000.
7.5 gal/day/1000 tbs. of animal x 150 lbs. = 1.125 gat manure/day/animal
Multiply by the number of days on feed/year.
1.125 gat manure/day x 365 days/year = 410 gal manure/year/animal
Multiply by the number of head fed/year.
410 gat manure/year x 5000 pigs = 2,050,000 gat manure/year.
Convert to 1000 aal by dividing ay 1000
2,050,000 aa: manure/year = 2,050 thousand gal manure/year
1000 gal
Step 4: Obtain liquid manure analysis (Table 4):
36 lb. N/1000 gal
27 lb. P205/1000 gal
Step 5: Calculate total annual nutrient production:
36 Lb. N /1000 gal x 2,050 thousand gat/year = 73,800 tb. N/yr.
27 lb. P705/1000 gat x 2,050 thousand gat/year = 55,350 lb. P2O5/yr
Step 6: Adjust for N loss as ammonia from system (Table 5)
73,800 lb. N/yr. x 50% volatilization
= 36,900 lb. N/yr.
Determining land Needs for Long Term Manure Utilization
One of the first steps in developing a long term nutrient management plan
is to determine if adequate lanc is available for utilization of the manure and
effluent produced. If the land base is determined to be inadequate, arrange-
ments must be made to reduce manure production or find alternatives to over-
application. To estimate the minimum land base required, you need to know the
annual manure production of your facility and have a manure sample analyzed
for total N, P, and K. Then calculate the best estimate of annual. nutrient
removal on a per acre basis. For this calculation, use conservative estimates of
annual crop nutrient removal arc assume that all N and P in the manure is crop
available unless you are using 'uguid effluents with known N volatilization rates.
Total manure production divided by acceptable application rates (tons or gallons
per acre) will give an estimate of the land base needed for safe manure utiliza-
tion (Calculation 2). This is not the same calculation as is used for determining
e agronomic rate of application for a specific field ror a specific year.
Total N in manure is used to
Table 4. Approximate nutrient composition of various types of animal•
manure at time of land application.* calculate an estimate of safe long
term solid manure appucation
Type of manure Moisture Total N NH4-N' P205 K20 rate because all of the applied N
Content that is not lost to teaching or
% lb./ton volatilization will eventually
Solid handling systems become available to the crop.
Swine 82 10 6 9 8 Liquid wastes such as swine
effluent can have a Large toss
Beef 32 23 7 24 41
Dairy Cattle 46 13 5 16 34 component due to ammonia
Sheep 31 29 5 26 38 volatilization. Lono term planning
Chickens Without titter 55 33 26 48 34 for effluent applications should
With titter 25 56 36 45 34 include conservative volatilization
Turkeys Without litter 78 27 17 20 17 estimates to allow for uncertainty
With litter 71 20 13 16 13 and lower than expected crop
Horses Without bedding 22 19 4 14 36 nutrient uptake (See Table 5).
----lb/i,000 gal Phosphorus Based Manure Planning
oh,Liquid Handling Systems" While manure applications in
Swine Liquid pit 96 36 26 27 22 Colorado are most often based on
Single-stage anaerobic 99 7 6 2 7 op N needs, in certain situa-
tions it is more appropriate to
Two-stage anaerobic 99 4 3 2 7
base manure rates on crop P -
Beef Lagoon' 99 4 2 9 5
Dairy Cattle Liquid pit 92 24 12 18 29 requirement and manure Pcon-
tent. Phosphorus is known to
Lagoon' 99 4 2 4 10
Poultry Liquid pit 87 80 64 36 96 cause surface water eegradation,
even at very low concentrations.
Ammon- - an vary significantly across time and systems. Numbers given are for
When P from runoff Loses only; manure analysis is needed to accurately determine ammonia Le Sets lakes
and streams, it acceirctes the
cation conversion factor: Lb/1.000 gal x 27.15 = Lb./acre inch. growth of algae and otner aquatic
includes runoff water.
* These values are derived from the USDA Agriculturar Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992 '.seeds. As these plan.; flourish,
ana are modified with data collected from Colorado feeding operations wnen possible. Oxygen and light become limiting
Nutrient composition of manure will vary with age. breed, feed rations, and manure handling. to the survival of more desirable
species and the natural food
chain is disrupted. Excessive
manure applications to cropland have been shown to result in P movement to
water and subsequent degradation.
Manure management plans should consider P loading when runoff from a
fieic is likely to enter sensitive water bodies. In addition, if the soil test shows
that extractable P is in the "high" or "very high" range and P movement is
likely, manure should be applied at rates based on crop P removal. For planning
purposes, all of the P in the manure should be considered crop available in
these cases. The consequence of P based management for a producer 's that
more land is required to safely utilize the manure.
Site Assessment
The final aspect of the land and resource inventory is an assessment of the
manure storage and utilization sites. Site maps of the farm and feeding opera-
tion are an important part of any nutrient management plan. Obtain aerial maps
8
from your Local NRCS office or develop your own maps if necessary. Identify
manure storage facilities, fields receiving manure. and any wells, surface water
or shallow around water. These maps can help you identify sensitive resource
areas such as surface water bodies that might receive runoff from your farm.
Appropriate BMPs sucn as buffer areas, set backs, reduced application rates, or
application timing limitations may be identified as a part of these maps.
To determine the pollution potential at your site, the following questions
need to be considered:
Manure ana wasteirater storage site evaluation
1. Is the soil texture coarse (sandy with tow amounts of
clay)?
2. Is the depth to ground water less than 50 feet in the Table 5. Approximate nitrogen lost as ammonia
vicinity of manure storage? during handling and storage.
3. Have recent well water analyses indicated that local
ground water N03 levels are increasing? System Estimated NH4-N Loss
the horizontal cistance of the feedlot to surface water ----'7
4. ;
bodies (creeks, corps, drainage ditcne;, etc.) or :•:eitheacs Solid
ess than 150 fee,: Daily scrape and haul. 15-35
L5. Does runoff from the feedlot surface Leave your property? Manure pack 20-40
5. Does seepage fro- runoff storage ponos exceed .25 in/ Open lot 40-60
day? Liquid
7. Does seepage from lagoons exceed .03 in/day? Lagoon 70-80
8. Is manure stored within the 100 year flood plain? Anaerobic pit 15-30
9. Do runoff storage ponds lack the capacity to handle runoff Above-ground storage 10-30
volumes from a 23 year, 24-hour storm?
Source: MWPS-18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook
Manure utilization sire evaluation
1. Do you lack sufficient land to use all of the nutrients in
manure proouceo on your farm?
2. Do any fields receiving manure have greater than a I9,.
slope and little surface residue? Calculation 2. Determining land base for long-
3. Do any fields have a history of more tnan 5 consecutive term manure disposal based on crop N needs.*
years of manure application? Example: Feedlot applies manure to corn har-
4. Is excess water from irrigation or precipitation available
vested for grain. Average yield is 175 bu/acre.
for runoff or teaching? Using estimated N removal from Table 6 and
5. Is manure applied at rates greater than the agronomic Calculation la data:
rate? 1) Crop nutrient removal (from Table 6):
6. Is there surface water or a welt immediately downhill from 175 bu corn/acre x 56 lb./bu = 9,800 lb.
any field which receives manure? grain/acre on harvest dried basis.
7. Has it been more than one year since you soil sampled to 9,800 lb. grain/acre x 1.6% N in dry harvested
determine nutrient levels in fields where manure will be
applied?
grain = 158 lb. N removed/acre
2) Land needs (from Calculation la):
If the answer to any one of these questions is yes, or if 77,625 lb. N from manure production / 158 lb.
you are unsure about the answer, manure storage or apptica- N removed /acre = 491 acre minimum land
tion at your site may degrade water quality. The local USDA- base
NRCS office can help you answer questions you are unsure
bout. Your nutrient management plan should address any *This calculation does not determine the agronomic rate of
problem areas identified in the questions above. Manure rates application because it assumes no volatilization, teaching
may need to be adjusted downward and all appropriate BMPs or other N losses or credits.
9
employed where water resources
Table 6. Nutrient content of the harvested part of selected Colorado crops. are at risk. Additionally, it may be
Crop Dry weight Typical yield* N P helpful to periodically test wells
content in content in near livestock operations and
harvested harvested manured fields for NO: and
material material bacterial contamination to
lb./bu unit/A % determine if management prac-
(harvest dry weight basis)" tices are sufficiently protecting
Grain crops water quality.
Barley 48 80 bu. 1.8 0.34
2 tons straw 0.8 0.11 NMP Section 2. Determination
Corn 56 165 bu. 1.6 0.28 of Agronomic Rates for Crop
3.5 tons stover 1.1 0.20 Production
Oats 32 60 bu. 2.0 0.34 Determine agronomic rate of
1.5 tons straw 0.6 0.16 manure or effluent application for
Rye 56 30 bu. 2.1 0.26 each field by assessing crop
1.5 tons straw 0.5 0.12 nutrient needs, available nutrient
Sorghum (dryland) 56 60 bu. 1.7 0.36 credits, and nutrients in the
3 tons stover 1.1 0.15 manure. Worksheet 2 at the end
Wheat (dryland) 60 40 bu. 2.1 0.62 of this document is provided as a
1.5 tons straw 0.7 0.07 template for this portion of your
Oil crops nutrient management plan. Fitt
Canota 50 35 bu. 3.6 0.79 out one copy of Worksheet 2 for
3 tons straw 4.5 0.43 each field. An explanation of each
Soybeans 60 35 bu. 6.3 0.64 section is provided below.
2 tons stover 1.5 0.22 field Information
Sunflower (dryland) 25 1,100 lb. 3.6 1.71 Each field has specific
2 tons stover 1.5 0.18 nutrient requirements tnat wil.
Forage crops vary from year to year. Begin your
Alfalfa 4 tons 2.3 0.22 determination of agronomic rates
Big bluestem 3 tons 1.0 0.85 by filling out 1 copy of Worksheet
Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.5 0.22 2 for each field that receives
Bromegrass 3 tons 1.9 0.21 manure. Note the soil texture or
Alfalfa-grass 4 tons 1.5 0.27 soil name of each field. Sandy
Little bluestem 3 tons 1.1 0.85 soils may require special consider-
Orchardgrass 4 tons 1.5 0.20 ation to avoid nutrient leaching.
Red clover 3 tons 2.0 0.22 Clay soils may be more prone to
Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.4 0.18 runoff. These considerations are
Ryegrass 4 tons 1.7 0.27 important in a sound nutrient
Switchgrass 3 tons 1.2 0.10 management plan. Previous crop
Tall fescue 4 tons 2.0 0.20 grown is important because you
Timothy 3 tons 1.2 0.22 may need to add more nutrients
Wheatgrass (dryland) 1 ton 1.4 0.27 to help with residue breakdown or
Adapted from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. less nutrients due to N-fixation,
* Typical yields are for irrigated production unless noted otherwise. depending on the rotation
Nutrient contents are on a harvest dried basis and do not need to be corrected for moisture sequence. Manure applications
content except for silage and haylage. from the previous vear can also
lb. P x 2.3 =lb. Pi0_ -
10
supply significant amounts of
nutrients in the current year due Table 6. Nutrient content of the harvested part of selected Colorado
to the mineralization process. To crops. (continued)
complete your records, attach the Crop Dry matter Typical yield* N P
most recent soil and manure content in content in
analysis reports to the field harvested harvested
information sheet. material material
°/4 tons/acre 0/0
Soil,Manure, Water and Plant Sampling (harvest dry weight basis)*'
and Analysis
A current soil test is needed Silage crops
for each field receiving manure or Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.8 0.33
effluent to determine residual soil Corn silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.1 0.25
NO3, extractable P and soil Forage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.4 0.19
organic matter content. Soil Oat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry 1.6 0.28
sampling for agronomic rate Sorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.4 0.16
determination should occur once Sugar crops
a year. More frequent sampling Sugar beets 20 0.2 0.03
may be needed to track N utilize.- Turf grass
tion and movement in the soil Bluegrass 2 2.9 0.43
profile. Shallow soil samples (I Bentgrass 2 3.1 0.41
foot or less) are needed to Vegetable crops
evaluate crop P, K and other Bell peppers 9 0.4 0.12
nutrient needs. Deeper rootzone Beans, dry 1 3.1 0.45
oil samples (generally 4 to 6 ft. Cabbage 20 0.3 0.04
deep) should be collected after Carrots 13 0.2 0.04
crop harvest and prior to any Celery 27 0.2 0.09
manure or effluent application to Cucumbers 10 0.2 0.07
evaluate residual soil NO3. Soil Lettuce (heads) 14 0.2 0.08
sampling below the active Onions 18 0.3 0.06
rootzone (>6 ft. for most annual Peas 2 3.7 0.40
crops, >10 ft. for hay crops) may Potatoes 14 0.3 0.06
be needed occasionally to docu- Snap beans 3 0.9 0.26
ment that nutrients are not Sweet corn 6 0.9 0.24
leaving the crop rootzone. To get Adapted from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
a good, representative soil * Typical yields are for irrigated production unless noted otherwise.
Sample, it is recommended that a ** Nutrient contents are on a harvest dried basis and do not need to be corrected for moisture
content except for silage and haylage.
minimum of 1 soil core per 10
acres or at least 10 cores on
fields 40 acres or smaller be collected to form the composite sample for each
depth increment. Samples should be thoroughly mixed and either air-dried or
delivered to the lab immediately.
In situations where effluent or manure is applied in the fall after crop
harvest, NH in the animal waste may not be converted to NO3 prior to spring
soil sampling. Additionally, fields with long manure histories may also have a
significant amount of NH, in the rootzone due to increased mineralization rates.
13 is available to crops and should be credited as part of the N budget in these
particular situations.
11
Manu-e is an extremely variable
• Table 7a. Suggested nitrogen application rates for irrigated corn material ,:rather in solid or liquid form.
grain (175 bu/A), based on soil NO3-N and organic matter content. A representative manure sample is
NO3-N (ppm)* Soil Organic Matter (%) critical ra a reliable analysis. A mini-
Soil 0 - 1.0 1,1 - 2.0 >2.0 mum or sx sub-samples should be
---Fertilizer rate (lb. N/A)--- taken and mixed together for analysis.
0 - 6 210 185 165 When same:+ng a solid manure stock-
7 - 12 160 135 115 pile, remove the crust, and use a bucket
13 - 18 110 85 65 auger or a snarpshooter (a narrow
19 - 24 60 35 15 shovel) to core into the pile as deeply
>24 10 0 0 as possible. Walk around the pile, and
take samples from all sides. Deliver the
' Average concentration of NO3-N (ppm) in 0 to 2 ft soil layer. sample to Lne lab immediately or if
Add or subtract 1 lb. N/A for every bushel above or below 175 bu/A. immediate celivery is not possible,
This table uses the formula:
N rate = 35 + [1.2 x yield goal (bu/A)] - [8 x ppm soil N0,N] - [0.14 x yield goal x freeze the sample in a freezer-type
°ioo.tn.l. heavy-duty mastic bag. Manure samples
should be analyzed by a reputable
laboratory for moisture content, total
N, NH and total P at the minimum.
Table 7b. Suggested nitrogen application rates for irrigated corn Metals, ..r'—::nutrients and E.C. are also
silage (30 tons/A), based on soil NO3-N and organic matter content. recommence: analytes.
When sampling a liquid manure or
Soil NO3-N (ppm)* Soil Organic Matter (%) wastewater, there are several ways of
0 - 1.0 1.1 - 2.0 >2.0 sampling. You can sample from the
--Fertilizer rate (lb. N/A)-- lagoon direc.ty with a water grab
0 - 6 - 225 200 185 sampler (be sure to walk or boat around
7 - 12 170 145 125 the lagoon and get a minimum of six
13 - 18 125 100 75 samples .ou can sample from a
19 - 24 75 50 30 valve inserted in the irrigation line or
>24 25 0 0 from cups °:aced in the field where the
* Average concentration of NO3-N (ppm) in 0 to 2 ft soil layer. effluent 'uCigated onto the land. Store
Add or subtract 6 lb. N/A for every ton above or below 30 ton/A. the sample a plastic jar in a cooler or
This table uses the formula: freezer and deliver to the lab immedi-
N rate= 35 + [7.5 x yield goal (tons/A)] - [8 x ppm soil NQ,-N] - [0.85 x yield goal x ately,
oP.M.].
irrigation water should be ana-
lyzed for NC. credit, especially when
shallow around water is pumped for
irrigation. These lab reports, along with a current manure analysis, should be
attacned to your nutrient management plan. When °.ant tissue tests are used to
determine in-season fertilizer needs, they should asp accompany the plan. See
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension EEEs- Sheet 0.520 for informa-
tion on analytical laboratories.
Crop Nutrient Need
Plant nutrient need depends upon the crop, crowing conditions. and actual
yield. 'Inc crop rotation will determine nutrient needs and nutrient carryover
from the previous crop. In some cases, such as a tnree year stand of alfalfa,
nutrent applications are based on more than one year of production. Table 6
12
inc':a:es approximate N and P content of dry narvested crops. This information
car :e used to estimate actual crop nutrient removal. Due to inherent ineffi-
cier:'es in plant uptake, fertilization rates often include an additional amount
to c:—pensate for these losses. Tables 7 and 8 contain current Colorado State
Uni':e-sity fertilization suggestions for selected Colorado crops; information on
othe- crops can be obtained from your local Cooperative Extension office.
Realistic Yield Expectations
The expected crop yield is the basis for determining how much N and P
fert't'zer :;ill be needed. Generally, the higher tne yield expectation the higher
the nutrient requirement. Over-estimating potential crop yield will result in over
apo::etion of fertilizer or manure. For this reason, producers are encouraged to
base yield expectations on a docu-
mented 5 year field average plus an
addit'onal 5 percent for above Table 7c. Suggested nitrogen application rates for irrigated sorghum
aver_e growing conditions. Each grain (80 bu/A), based on soil nitrate and organic matter content.
field snoulc have a yield history and
expectation. Soil NO3-N (ppm)* Soil Organic Matter 10
Determining Total Nutrient Needs 1 - 1.0 1.1 - z.o >2.0
Cron nutrient needs are deter- ---Fertilizer rate (lb. N/A)---
mine: using your yield expectations 0 - 3 75 45 25
and table values for fertilizer rates or 4 - 6 50 15 0
crop nutrient removal values. Most 7 - 9 25 0 0
• soil laboratories will also give >9 0 0 0
fertilizer recommendations with soil *Average concentration of NO3-N (ppm) in 0 to 2 ft soil layer.
test results. Be sure you understand Add or subtract 12.5 lb. N/A for every 10 bushels above or below 80 bu/A.
the Lab's fertilizer recommendation This table uses the formula:
phi, spphv to be sure it is Compat- N rate- [1.25 x yield goal(bu/A)] - [8 x ppm soil NO N] - [0.30 x 100.M.].
•
ible v th tne production and envi-
ronmental goals of your operation.
:n some cases, fertilizer appli-
catic rates will need to be adjusted Table 7d. Suggested nitrogen application rates for irrigated sorghum
above or below the standard table silage (30 tons/A), based on soil nitrate and organic matter content.
values. Examples of these situations Soil NO3-N (ppm_)* Soil Organic Matter %
woulc be 1) where high amounts of 0 - 1.0 1.1 - 2.0 >2.0
crop residue remain, increasing N
--fertilizer rate (lb. N/A)--
need by up to 30 lb./acre, 2) where a 0 - 6 230 200 180
starter fertilizer is needed due to 7 - 12_ r= 190 160 '140
cool soils, 3) where alfalfa is to be =`s
13 - 18 150 120 100
maintained for more than 3 years, 19 - 24 110 80 60
and L i when manure has been 25 - 30 70 40 20
applied in the previous year. Other 31 - 36 30 0 0
situations may exist that justify >36 0 0 0
manure rate adjustments. If so,
document these adjustments on your * Average concentration of NO3-N (ppm) in 0 to 2 ft soil layer.
-`utrie^.t management plan. Add or subtract 9 lb. N/A for every ton above or below 30 ton/A.
This table uses the formula:
N rate- [9 x yield goal (tons/A)] - [8 x ppm soil NO,--N] - [30 x yield goal x %0.M.]
13
Available N and P in Manure
Table 7e. Suggested nitrogen application The total amount of N in manure is not plant availab.e n the
rates for irrigated grasses (4 tons/acre), first year after application due to the slow release of N tiec Jo in
based on soil nitrate content. organic forms. Organic N becomes available to plants when soil
microorganisms Decompose organic compounds such as proteins,
Soil NO3-N' Fertilizer Rate
(ppm) (lb N/A) and the N releasec is converted to NH_. This process. Known as
0 - 6 185 mineralization, occurs over a period of several years after manure
7 - 12 160 application. The amount.mineratized in the first year cepencs
13 - 18 135 upon manure source, soil temperature, moisture, aria hand:ir._. In
19 - 24 110 general, anvwnere from 15 percent to 55 percent of the organic N
25 - 30 85 in manure oecomes available to the crop in the first year after
>30 0 application depending upon climate and management factors.
Nitrogen availability can be estimated as a fraction of the total N
' Concentration of NO.-N (ppm) in the top foot of soil. content of manure or as a fraction of the organic N content.
Add or subtract 40 lb. N/A for every ton/acre above or Organic N is usually determined by subtracting the NH anc NO
below 4 tons/A. from the total N content of the manure. This approacn 's more
Use the same N rates for grass-legume mixtures
containing less than 25% legumes. accurate when fellable NH content and NH. volatitizator. r.urnoers
are available.
Mineralization of N from applied manure will continue to
provide nutrients to the soil system for
several years after application. This
Table 8. Suggested broadcast P application rates (lbs. Pz05/acre).' additional N must be accounted or in the
nutrient management plan if manure will
NaHCO3 P be applied again to the same field within
------(ppm) three years. Mineralization crecit for the
-
0 - 6 7 - 14 15 - 22 >22 second and third years after application
lbs. P205/acre should be based upon a fraction of this
Corn, irrigated 80 40 0 0 initial organic N content (Tab'.e 5,. A,.te -
and dryland natively, annual soil sampling for residual
Dry Beans 80 40 0 0 soil NO_-N, NH_-N and organic matter can
Sorghum 80 40 0 0 be used to estimate mineralization credit
Potatoes 240 180 120 60 in subsequent years.
Sugarbeets 100 75 50 0 Phosphorus contained in manure is
Sunflowers 80 40 0 0 usually considered to be entirely plant
Wheat 80 40 0 0 available in the first year after application.
Alfalfa, irrigated In reality, some fraction of the P is tied-up
new stand 200 150 50 0 in forms that are not immediately available
established 100 75 0 0 to plants. If soil test P is in the "low to
Alfalfa, dryland medium" range and the soil is high in lime
new stand 60 40 0 0 content, it may be appropriate to assume
established 45 30 0 0 that only 80 percent of the P will be plant
Grass and grass available in the first year.
legume mixtures Volatilization losses
new stand 80 40 0 0 Surface applied manure sr,oule oe
established 80 40 0 0 incorporated as soon as possible to reduce
Band application rates for row crops are half of the suggested broadcast rate. odor and minimize nutrient loss by volatil-
ization ano runoff. The risk of surface loss
14
is reduced by injection
application under the Table 9. Approximate percent of organic N mineralized from various manure
soil surface, but loss still sources over three years.
may occur on sloping or Manure Source Percent of Organic N Available
erosive fields. Delayed 1"year 2nd year 3'd year
incorporation may be 10
acceptable on level Beef and dairy cattle
fields if erosion control
or sunlight decomposi- solid (without bedding) 30-40 10-15 5-10
tion of pathogens is liquid (anaerobic) 25-35 5-10 • 2-7
desired. If solid manure Swine ,
is not incorporated - solid 45-55 3-8 2-7
•
within 72 hours after liquid (anaerobic) 35-45 4-9 . 2-7
application, much of the Sheep 40 ,..s 4 5
NI-14-N fraction may be solid 20-30 10-15 5-10
lost to volatilization Horse
(Table 10). The rate of solid (with bedding) 15-25 5-10 2-7
volatilization increases Poultry
under warm, dry, or solid (without lifter) 30-40 10-15 5-10
windy conditions.
Volatilization Losses Adapted from USDA Ag Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992 and other sources.
from liquid effluents can - • - ---
result in large N losses,
since much of the N in - - - - --
effluents is in the NH, Table 10. Approximate percentage of ammonia lost to volatilization within four
form, which is easily days after application.
converted to ammonia
gas. An accurate predic- Application Method Type of Waste Estimated NH3 Loss
tion or measurement of to the Atmosphere*
the amount of N volatil-
Broadcast zed from liquid manures without cultivation solid 15 - 30
s difficult to obtain Broadcast with immediate cultivation solid or liquid 1 - 5
because both the Injection liquid •
0 - 2
application method and Sprinkler irrigation** liquid 25 - 65
•
the ambient climate will * Values reflect loss under each application method. `-
determine the rate of "Losses vary widely depending upon conditions at time of application.
flux. Additionally, Source: MWPS-18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook ..
accurate measurement of
NH, content of manure is confounded by a high degree of variability in NH;
concentration in the manure stockpile. The current scientific literature reports
losses from sprinkler applied effluents from 10 percent to over 80 percent of the
ammonia fraction. For planning purposes, 20 percent to 30 percent of the
ammonia can be assumed lost to volatilization during cool season application,
while 40 percent to 60 percent may be assumed lost from the soil surface during
summer applications. The amount of loss can be reduced by prompt incorpora-
`ion. In any case, post-season son testing will provice feedback on how much N
.s in the soil system after the crop is harvested. If residual N in the rootzone
15
exceeds the suosequent crop N
Calculation 3. Estimating irrigation water N credit.
requirement, no additional
Example: N credit from 17 inches of irrigation water containing 10 ppm N0,-N effluent, manure, or commercial N
fertilizer shcad be applied.
17 inches /A x (2.7 lb. N/acre foot) x (10 ppm N03-N) = 38 lb. N/A Nutrient Credits
12 inches/acre foot Residua: soil NO:, irrigation
water, soil organic matter, and
previous legume crops all contrib-
ute N to the growing crop. The N
Table 11. Nitrogen credits for crop requirements. contribution from these sources
must be credited in order to make
N Source N Credit accurate fertilizer and manure
Soil organic matter* 30 lb. N per 0/0 OM recommendations. Use soil and
Residual soil nitrate* 3.6 lb. N per ppm N03-N (1 ft. sample) water test data and the informa-
Irrigation water 2.7 lb. N per acre foot x ppm N03-N bon in Table 11 to estimate these
Previous alfalfa crop credits. In some cases, these
>800/0 stand 100-140 lb. N/acre credits may entirely satisfy crop
60 - 80% stand 60-100 lb. N/acre needs and no additional manure
<60% stand 30-60 lb. N/acre or fertilizer is required. A starter
Other previous legume crop 30 lb. N/acre fertilizer may ce all the supple-
Previous manure or effluent Varies by source, rate and time (Table 9) mental fertilizer that is justified
*These credits are factored in N rates given in tables 7a - 7e and should not be used twice. in these cases in order t0 en-
hance seedling vigor if the crop is
seeded in cool soils.
Irrigation water containing NO, can supply N to the crop since it is applied
and taken up white the crop is actively growing. Water tests for NO_-N should be
taken periodically during the irrigation season to accurately calculate this
credit. Multiply p.m. N0.-N by 2.7 lb./acre foot times tne amount of irrigation
water consumptively used by the crop prior to tne mid-reproductive stage (in
acre feet) to determine lbs. N/acre applied in the irrigation water. Inexpensive
quick tests are available for on-farm water testing. If a water sample is taken
for laboratory analysis, it should be kept refrigerated, but not frozen, until it
gets to the lab.
Legume crops can be a very significant source of plan: available N due to
bacterial N. fixation in root nodules. Plowing down a good stand of alfalfa may
release more than 100 lbs. of N per acre in the first year after plowdown. The
amount of N credit given for legumes depends upon the crop, stand, and degree
of noculation. A minimum of 30 lbs. of N/acre should be credited in the first
year after any legume crop (Table 11).
Total all available nutrient sources from soil testing, irrigation water,
legumes and any other organic amendments to determine the total nutrient
credit. Due to the difficulty of accurately assessing these credits, be sure to
scout fields for nutrient sufficiency during the vegetative growth stages.
Recommended Nutrient Application Rate
Once you have analyzed crop needs. nutrient credits, and manure nutrient
content, you can determine manure application rates. Tota: crop nutrient need
minus total nutrient credits wilt equal the recommended nutrient application
18
rate. This can be satis-
fled by manure, fertilizer, Calculation 4. Determining agronomic rate of manure application.
or a combination of Example 4a. Beef feedlot manure broadcast applied and incorporated immediately
both. Manure application rate based upon N requirement:
In general, manure Step 1: Calculate available N in manure
and effluent application N content of manure = 23 lb. total N/ton including 7 lb. NH4-N/ton
should be avoided on (from Table 4)
frozen fields unless a Available N = 35% availability x (23 lb./total N/ton manure -
site specific analysis 7 lb. NH N/ton) + 7 lb. NH4-N/ton (from Table 8)
shows that runoff will = 12 lb. available N/ton manure
not occur. Effluent or Step 2: Determine crop N requirement
manure should not be ex. soil contains 1.5% organic matter and 6 ppm residual soil NO2-N
applied to any soil that N required for 175 bu corn crop = 185 lb. N/acre (from Table 7a)
is saturated or has a Step 3: Subtract N credits from other sources.
snow pack of greater ex. 25 lb. NO3-N (in 2-4 foot subsoil sample)
than one inch. Addition- 185 lb. N required - 25 lb. subsoil N
ally, animal. waste should = 160 Lb. N needed
not be applied to soils Step 4: Calculate agronomic manure rate.
that are frequently = (160 lb. N/acre) / (12 lb. available N/ton manure)
flooded, as defined by = 13 tons manure/acre
the National Cooperative Step 5: Calculate phosphorus supplied by manure (based on N rate)
Soil Survey, during the 13 tons manure/acre x 24 lb. P20jton manure
period when flooding is = 312 lb. P205/acre supplied by manure
expected to occur.
Manure is most Manure application rate based upon P requirement:
valuable as a nutrient Step 1: Calculate available P in manure
source if it is applied as Total P205 = 24 lb. P205/ton (from Table 4)
close to planting as Available P20 = 80% availability x 24 lb. P205/ton manure
possible. However, = 19 lb. available P205/ton manure
manure with a hioh salt Step 2: Determine crop P requirement
content may affect ex. NaHCO3 extractable P = 6 ppm (low range) and soil lime content is high
germination and seedling P required for 175 bu corn crop = 80 lb. P205 (from Table 8)
growth of sensitive Step 3: Determine agronomic manure rate
crops, such as beans. If = (80 lb. P205/acre) / (19 lb. available P205/ton
fall application is manure)
necessary in order to = 4 tons manure/acre
clean out manure storage Step 4: Calculate nitrogen supplied by manure (based on P rate)
areas, try to wait until 4 tons manure/acre x 23 lb.total N/ ton manure
after soil temperature is = 92 lb. total N/acre supplied by manure.
less than 50°F to reduce
organic N and NH_
conversion to N0_. If irrigation equipment is available to apply liquid manure,
the best practice is to apply manure in frequent, light applications during the
growing season to match crop uptake patterns and nutrient needs.
If manure is applied at the maximum rate based uoon crop N needs,
dditional fertilizer N should not be applied. Maximum rate is cased upon a one-
Lime application. If yearly application of manure or effluent is made, lower rates
11
Calculation 4. Determining agronomic rate of manure application, continued.
Example 4b. Swine effluent from a two stage anaerobic lagoon
Effluent application rate based upon N requirement:
Step 1: Calculate available N in effluent
N content of manure = 4 lb. total N/1000 gal including 3 lb. NH4- N/1000 gal (from Table 4)
Available NH N = 50% volatilization x 3 lb. NH4-N/1000 gal effluent (from Table 10)
= 1.5 lb. available NI-I4-N/1000 gal effluent
Available organic N = 1 lb. organic N x 40% mineralization (Table 9)
= 0.4 lb. available organic N
Total available N = 1.5 lb. NH4-N + 0.4 lb. organic N
= 1.9 lb. available N/1000 gal effluent
= 52 lb. available N/acre inch*
Step 2: Determine crop N requirement
ex. soil contains 1.5% organic matter and 6 ppm residual soil NO2-N
N required for 175 bu corn crop
= 185 lb. N/acre (from Table 7a)
Step 3: Subtract N credits from other sources.
ex. 25 lb. NO3-N in 2-4 foot subsoil samples
185 lb. N required - 25 lb. subsoil N
= 160 lb. N needed
Step 4: Determine agronomic effluent rate.
= (160 Lb. N/acre)/(52 lb. available N/acre inch effluent)
= 3 inches effluent/acre (to be applied in 2 or more applications)
Step 5: Calculate phosphorus supplied by effluent (based on N rate)
3 acre inches effluent x 2 lb. P205/1000 gal effluent x 27.15
= 163 lb. P205/acre supplied by effluent
*Multiply lb/1000 gal effluent by 27.15 to convert to lb./acre inch.
Effluent application rate based upon P requirement:
Step 1: Calculate available P in effluent
Total P205 = 2 lb. P205/1000 gal effluent (from Table 4)
Available P205 = 80% availability x 2 lb. P205/1000 gal effluent
= 1.6 lb. available P205/1000 gal effluent
= 43 lb. available P205/acre inch effluent*
Step 2: Calculate crop P requirement
ex. NaHCO3 extractable P = 6 ppm (low range) and soil lime content is high
P required for 175 bu corn crop = 80 lb. P205/acre (from Table 8)
Step 3: Determine agronomic effluent rate. -
_ (80 lb. P205/acre) / (43 lb. available P205/acre inch effluent)
= 2 acre inches of total effluent/acre for this crop year
(To be applied in 2 or more applications)
Step 4: Calculate nitrogen supplied by effluent manure (based on P rate)
2 acre inches effluent/acre x 52 lb. available N/acre inch
= 104 lb.available N supplied by manure
Multiply lb/1000 gal effluent by 27.15 to convert to Lb./acre inch.
•
18
Volatilization
t Livestock fr ,e
Feed it,
!\' I 1
I ?/i'r %`T"1h%,`�l Potential
Collection - _ I I I I -,�\h'4iq /0:
j �y��,Minoff
from Lot
Apply to Lando
JI e
° STORAGES- 7c, ° Nutrient ° p ov
° ° ° Use ; 0 a0 CV
O a O 0 O C ° , �o O°
0 ei
o D D 0 n , Potential 0 D ° o o D •° o •e Q'o 'Qo
o ° o °° o Leaching °o o Do ° ° °b
w
bo o o °� °�ooC V°o Q 0 4,0°p 000 - Potential :if'
o °DO ° os � i Leac, a4. �'410 a O-CP ° o Apo ) o 0 O oc0 O °o
"- �0/ Wo tig_ ov _ ° O ,o,0 °. o� p O °PAO 0O ,�,Q�D
° o O °oVCQVQDCGROUNDWATER _o'o a °r/8V°
OV/-w b v ��1 - � opq�QJ' ;RIP
9
Q�QE(}�zO� p �O°°Cc" - �D �vU0!o��,� -� Do °°OOO o QQ�pOO eD
0,9,06eris) o %D r __.R.:„.....,,020,30 a 1,..
e yk. o Oa/.��ciA, o o��. .: 0OO
are recommended and annual soit sampling is needed to track soil N and P
levels. If soil N, P or E.C. increases significantly over time, manure use should
be discontinued until nutrients in the rootzone decline below crop response
thresholds.
NMP Section 3. Nutrient Use Summary
Operation and Maintenance
Farm-wide accounting of manure and fertilizer application is the final
aspect of a nutrient management plan. This is important to help document a
balance between manure production and utilization. Worksheet 3 is provided to
help record annual application data. After tallying total nutrient application,
you can evaluate nutrient sufficiency or excess on the farm by comparing these
numbers to manure production on Worksheet 1.
A number of other items should be assessed on an annual basis as a part
of nutrient management planning. These include equipment calibration, soil
tests, and monitoring water quality near the operation.
Accurate record keeping is an essential component of any manure manage-
dent program. Keeping accurate records allows managers to make good
19
decisions regaraing manure and nutrient applications. Additionally, these
records provide cocumentation that you are complying with state and local
regulations to protect Colorado's water resources. All operators should maintain
records of nutrient management plans for at least three years.
Spreader Calibration
The value of carefully calculating manure application rates is seriously
diminished if manure spreaders are poorly calibrated. Proper calibration is
essential in order to apply manure correctly. Manure spreaders discharge at
widely varying rates, depending on travel speed, PTO speed, gear box settings,
discharge openings, and manure moisture and consistency.
Calibration requires measurement of manure applied on a given area. To
check spreader calibration, you must know the field size. Secondly, count the
number of loads of manure applied to the field. Weigh at least three of the
loads, and calculate the average weight. Finally, multiply the number of loads
by the average weight, and then divide by the field acreage. This provides you
the average application rate per acre for the field. Adjust the spreader or ground
speed as necessary to achieve the desired rate. Remember to recheck the
calibration whenever a different manure source with a new moisture content or
density is applied. Using good equipment and the proper overlap distance will
ensure better nutrient distribution and help avoid "hot spots" or areas with
nutrient deficiency. (See Colorado State University Cooperative Extension fact
sheet 0.561 for more information on spreader calibration.)
Follow Up and Monitoring
Determining agronomic rates of manure or effluent application is not an
exact science. Climactic, soil, and management factors influence crop nutrient
uptake, mineralization rate, volatilization and overall nutrient availability.
Producers must continue to monitor crop yields, as well as soils within and
below the rootzone, to determine what adjustments are needed each year in the
operating plan to continue protecting water quality.
20
Best Management Practices for
Manure Utilization
Guidance Principle: Collect, store, and apply animal manures properly to optimize
efficiency while protecting water quality.
To select manure BMPs that achieve water quality goals and the greatest net
returns for your operation, consider:
• most suitable practices for your site and management constraints
• need to protect sensitive resources and areas
General BMPs
3.1 Develop a nutrient management plan for your operation that includes:
1. Estimates of manure production on your farm
2. Farm maps which identify manure stockpiles, potential application sites
and sensitive resource areas
3. Cropping information
4. Soil, plant, ,eater, and manure analysis
5. Realistic crop yield expectations
6. Determination of crop nutrient needs
7. Determination of available nutrient credits
8. Recommended manure rates, timing, and application methods
9. Operation and maintenance plans
3.2 Base manure application rates on crop phosphorus (P) needs IF soil test P
is in the high or very high category, the field drains to any sensitive
surface water body, AND P movement is likely. In most other cases, appli-
cation rates may be based on crop N needs.
3.3 Apply commercial N and P fertilizer to manured fields only when soil
available N and P from manure application does not satisfy crop needs.
3.4 Cease effluent application if crop is destroyed during growing season. Plant
winter cover crops to scavenge excess nutrients when crop uptake is lower
than expected due to hail or other yield limitations.
3.5 Maintain nutrient management plans and actual manure and fertilizer
management records on file a minimum of three years or the duration of
your crop rotation, if longer than three years.
3.6 Scout fields for nutrient deficiencies/sufficiency throughout the season in
order to identify and correct problems that may limit economic crop yields.
21
Manure Application BMPs
3.7 Incorporate manure as soon as possible after application to minimize
volatilization Losses, reduce odor, and prevent runoff.
3.8 Apply manure uniformly with properly calibrated equipment.
3.9 Time liquid manure applications to match crop nutrient uptake patterns in
order to minimize the opportunity for NO3 leaching on coarse textured
soils. Effluent application amounts must not exceed the soil water holding
capacity of the active rootzone. Several light applications of liquid manure
during the growing season are better than a single heavy application.
3.10 Limit solid manure application on frozen or saturated ground to fields not
subject to runoff. Liquid effluent should not be applied to frozen or
saturated ground.
3.11 Create a buffer area around surface water and wells where no manure is
applied to prevent the possibility of water contamination.
3.12 Plant permanent vegetation strips around the perimeter of surface water
and erosive fields to catch and filter nutrients and sediments in surface
runoff.
3.13 Apply manure on a rotational basis to fields that will be planted to high N
use crops such as corn or forage. Long-term annual applications to the
same field are not recommended, except at low rates.
Manure Collection and Storage BMPs
3.14 Locate manure stockpiles, lagoons, and ponds a safe distance from all
water supply wells. Manure stockpiles, Lagoons, and runoff collection ponds
should be located on areas not subject to leaching and must be above the
100 year flood plain, unless adequate flood proofing structures are pro-
vided.
3.15 Inspect lagoons and liquid manure storage ponds regularly to ensure
seepage does not exceed state and local restrictions.
3.16 Divert runoff from pens and manure storage sites by construction of ditches
or terraces. Collect runoff water from the lot in a storage pond; minimize
Solid manure application runoff volume by diverting runoff water from crossing the
feedlot.
• 3.17 Clean corrals as frequently as possible to maintain a firm,
dry corral surface with the loose manure layer less than
._ • - one inch deep and pen moisture content between 25
percent to 35 percent. Avoid mechanical disturbance of the
as manure-soil seal when cleaning feedlots. Create a smooth
surface with a 3 percent to 5 percent slope when scraping
lots.
- 3.18 Scrape feedlots or manure storage areas down to bare earth
and revegetate after they are permanently abandoned.
22
Hello